Open Water

Marty Hamrick · August 23, 2004

Just ran this film at the drive in.Not sure what to think because I'm not sure what I just saw.Was it a low budget experiement or an attempt to make a statement by looking intentionally amateurish.

The story itself isn't bad,based on a real life event I think.A couple takes a diving vacation and the dive boat leaves them by mistake and they're left in the open sea to fend for themselves.

First of all it looks like one of those films shot on a standard definition prosumer video format,which it probably was.The audio in the first part of the film is so bad it's as if it were shot using a prosumer camera's on cam mic and nothing else.You have to strain to hear it.There are numerous jump cut edits and there was no attempt made at proper lighting.Cutaway shots are shaky,many are out of focus with zoom ins and an attempt at compensating composition to get a shot before it cuts back to main action.

Anyone got the skinny on this movie?If they were making a statement,I didn't get it and if it was an experiment,it failed.This was a shame as the actors did a decent job and like I said the story line was good.Don't worry I won't spoil the ending because I'm not sure what the ending was,it left you hanging.

Marty

Alvin Pingol · August 23, 2004

It's a hydrated version of The Blair Witch Project.

John Pytlak RIP · August 23, 2004

Some very unfavorable comments about the image quality from projectionists over on the http://www.film-tech.com Film Handlers Forum and reviews.

Carlos M. Icaza · August 23, 2004

Alvin,

You took the words out of my keyboard ! Will see it this week....

C.-

Patrick Neary · August 23, 2004

Just saw this as well- It looks like dv-35 filmouts are improving, in that you could actually see some color (besides the usual gray-brown mush of most dv movies) and the picture appeared somewhat "smooth" instead of all jaggy.

But pretty much it still looked horrible, and nobody in the theatre seemed to notice or care.

Marty Hamrick · August 23, 2004

Thanks John,I actually learned what the ending was supposed to be.They ripped the acting,but I thought given the script,it wasn't too bad of a job.

The only thing really worth looking at is the nude scene of the leading lady in the beginning.After that,it's time to go to another screen or play the video games in the lobby.

I don't mind a DV originated film,I don't mind low budget indies,but do they have to be completely incompetant?

Marty

Marty Hamrick · August 23, 2004

But pretty much it still looked horrible, and nobody in the theatre seemed to notice or care.

This is what I find most disturbing that the public is accepting inferior quality.

Marty

Rachel Oliver · August 23, 2004

But pretty much it still looked horrible, and nobody in the theatre seemed to notice or care.

This is what I find most disturbing that the public is accepting inferior quality.

Marty

How do you know they diddn't care? I've often talked to people "Out of the know" about how they feel about dodgy looking films and quality looking films and they ususally do notice and care, they just dont know how to describe it technicaly. Someone once said to me that video was like looking out of a window at the "real" world and film was like a dream..... nice.

olly

Rachel Oliver · August 23, 2004

But pretty much it still looked horrible, and nobody in the theatre seemed to notice or care.

This is what I find most disturbing that the public is accepting inferior quality.

Marty

How do you know they diddn't care? I've often talked to people "Out of the know" about how they feel about dodgy looking films and quality looking films and they ususally do notice and care, they just dont know how to describe it technicaly. Someone once said to me that video was like looking out of a window at the "real" world and film was like a dream..... nice.

olly

Marty Hamrick · August 23, 2004

How do you know they diddn't care? I've often talked to people "Out of the know" about how they feel about dodgy looking films and quality looking films and they ususally do notice and care, they just dont know how to describe it technicaly. Someone once said to me that video was like looking out of a window at the "real" world and film was like a dream..... nice.
olly

Good point,but I would be curious to know what the ratio of those who notice or care to those who just watch is.It would seem to me that poorly shot and put together films would cause an uproar in the audience and they wouldn't be accepted by the ditributor,if as you say the majority of the paying audience cared about such.

I've worked on a few low budget grade "B" movies and even at that level there is a standard,or threshold of acceptibility.

I have a cousin who unfotunately has a camcorder and fancies herself a videographer of sorts.I cringe whenever she collars me to suffer through her tapes in hopes of getting a good critique about her shooting.There really is nothing to critique.All of it sucks.I told her once when she asked me about her shooting skills and I told her not to give up her day job.After watching Open Water I can say there is now hope for my cousin's new career.

Marty

Greg Gross · August 23, 2004

Basically feature film has three acts. Open Water: Divers go out on ocean

to go diving-ACT1,Divers go diving but when they surface boat is gone,oops!

how are we going to survive-Act2,Divers manage to survive in open water

and are rescued-Act3. Nude girl makes film more interesting,public expects

it for $7.00(Camp Hill prices),gets your mind off bad story telling for a while.

PD-150 was used and also another mini-dv camera. My guess is camera was

handheld with direction while shooting. Shots were made with cameraman in

the water. Not a bad job for zero to low budget and you are looking at imer-

ging film makers. My problem is the weak script which no dp,director,actor

can fix, they needed more to work with. They were probably limited by their

budget,time to shoot production. Rachel I think you probably could of done

better shooting it in 16mm with your camera. Good directer could have done

rewrites on script to tell the story better. With 16mm or 35mm camera the

camera could have been used to make you squirm in your seat more,Oh!

my God! Look At That Shark Stephanie(my girl friend,while choking on my

popcorn). Improved lighting,filtering,camera angles,super post production.

Not the worst production for the budget,camera,time constraints. But its not

what anyone of us expects as a final result. Lets find $350,000.00 some-

where and re-make it! 16mm,good director, re-write script ,add more action

to each act! Use the camera to make the audience squirm,give'em headaches.

Patrick Neary · August 23, 2004

How do you know they diddn't care? I've often talked to people "Out of the know" about how they feel about dodgy looking films and quality looking films and they ususally do notice and care, they just dont know how to describe it technicaly. Someone once said to me that video was like looking out of a window at the "real" world and film was like a dream..... nice.
olly

It's a completely non-scientific observation :)

I've been to a number of DV-shot movies, and usually one or two people will turn around and look at the projection booth early on, because everything looks SO out of focus! Or nearby grumbling...

If you read reviews of this film before going to see it, you can't help but run across comments about it's rough technical quality, maybe people go in expecting it in this case.

Or maybe they're just so entranced by the story that the sub-par tech doesn't get in the way...

Eric Steelberg ASC · August 23, 2004

Well it did very vell it's opening weekend of wide release so we'll see what the word of mouth about it is like. If it drops off significantly next weekend, I think we can assume that the qulaity, or lack of, must be a culprit.

Marty Hamrick · August 23, 2004

. They were probably limited by their
budget,time to shoot production. Rachel I think you probably could of done

better shooting it in 16mm with your camera. Good directer could have done

rewrites on script to tell the story better. With 16mm or 35mm camera the

camera could have been used to make you squirm in your seat more,Oh!

my God! Look At That Shark Stephanie(my girl friend,while choking on my

popcorn). Improved lighting,filtering,camera angles,super post production.

Not the worst production for the budget,camera,time constraints. But its not

what anyone of us expects as a final result. Lets find $350,000.00 some-

where and re-make it! 16mm,good director, re-write script ,add more action

to each act! Use the camera to make the audience squirm,give'em headaches.

Actually I thought the premise of the story was a good solid foundation which fell through with bad writing,acting and a zero budget.

Given those factors I could forgive the schlockiness of the movie but I cannot overlook jump cut edits,lousy audio and poor composition.These things wouldn't be acceptible at the TV station I work for on a news package or VO.I should accept that in the thater?I don't think so.

Night of the Living Dead and Mark Pirro's Polish Vampire in Burbank were not as bad from a technical standpoint.At least Pirro can hold a camera steady and knows what the 180 rule is.

Marty

Dan Salzmann · August 26, 2004

This film will not change cinema history very much.

That being said the acting wasn't that bad.

The screenplay was a bit lightweight.

Image quality looked like small format video but that sort of fit the voyeuristic and vacation-esque setting of the film so an "amateur" look was somewhat justified, IMHO.

From a production standpoint they used what they had and it was more effective than lots of the really in your face blockbuster wannabee films that are chock full of really cheesy overdone sfx. I'd rather see this than something that looks like Playstation on the big screen.

For better or for worse I think this might be an equivalent to "nouvelle vague" as the Eclair cameras were pretty much the miniDV cams of their day.

These days, "Jaws" is considered tappable retro.

Marty Hamrick · August 27, 2004

I'd rather see this than something that looks like Playstation on the big screen.

I could agree there,but would using a tripod in some of the shots and a homemade reflector have been too much to ask?Bad audio is never acceptable IMO.They improved it after the couple got lost from the boat,so if they could post dub part,couldn't they have done the begining as well?It was hard to discern the dialogue.This is basic stuff.

Marty

Lionel Pina · August 27, 2004

I saw Open Water yesterday, at a 5:50 P.M. showing.

The theater that it played in had a total of 4 people in it, including myself and the person that I went with.

My opinion: the acting was fine.

The jump cuts appeared to be done on purpose and worked.

The sound appeared to me to be fine and worked in most places if not everywhere, I did not notice poor quality sound at all.

I've seen distributed films that had much worse scripts.

It appears that conceptually they chose a minimalist/ simple (artist's) stroke approach, almost a quasi- documentary look to it.

I normally need an adjustment period for my eyes to "get used' to video transferred to film and projected on the screen. I "appreciate" the surreal look of film much more than the flat look of consumer/prosumer grade video transferred to film.

But overall my opinion is that Open Water works as a "Movie". Is it great? No. But as a first feature it works.

My guest is not involved in the"industry" at all and responded to my numerous queries about the "look" of the film by saying that: it looked "real" unlike most films which look "dreamlike".