Marcus Joseph Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) I really dug this flick, didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did. Very hilarious, grips you in and it had a pretty surprising twist. It had some really smooth helicopter shots and shows some well done shots for a comedy. Anyone else catch it? Edited June 11, 2009 by Marcus Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I don't normally watch films about topics I don't enjoy ;-) But, in all seriousness, you said there were some well-done shots. Like what? As for helicopter shots being smooth, don't credit the main production. Those are normally done by specialist cameramen with gyroscopically stabilized rigs. It is refreshing to hear that the main unit cinematography team did a good job. The punchlines usually take priority over the pulls on a shoot like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Vogt Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 For a comedy which I'm used to associating with seeing a fairly deep DOF this one kept pretty filmic and went with a more shallow one. They had a couple rack focus shots, and some decent blocking, but nothing stood out as far as camera work as amazing or disappointing. The story was much better than expected. It was pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Joseph Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 I don't normally watch films about topics I don't enjoy ;-) But, in all seriousness, you said there were some well-done shots. Like what? As for helicopter shots being smooth, don't credit the main production. Those are normally done by specialist cameramen with gyroscopically stabilized rigs. It is refreshing to hear that the main unit cinematography team did a good job. The punchlines usually take priority over the pulls on a shoot like this. Ah right, I'm still just a learner, yet to be even a student, so I'm not all too knowledgeable on how the production systems work. But I have seen some unbalanced helicopter shots before, maybe they just couldn't afford to have stabilisation. None of the shots particularly stand out from a typical Hollywood budgeted flick, but I was expecting a comedy like this (at least from the trailer) to have a lot of flaws in the photography, just the usual poorly photographed comedic stuff that gets dished out, bad lighting, poor focus and just blatant disregard for the imagery in general. But keeping up with the jokes and punchlines, it had a good overall feel to it and the colour graders definitely put a consistent feel to everything and they definitely got that Vegas atmosphere down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 The movie was funny. But the timelapse shots in the opening were really bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 The movie was funny. But the timelapse shots in the opening were really bad. A lot of movies I've seen lately have had terrible openings. "Star Trek" was pretty horrendous for the first five minutes. Ditto to "Terminator"; kind of a cliche opening. Far more worrisome to me though, is the continuing "IQ Slide" that theatrical motion pictures seem to be taking. Sci-fi in 1968 was "2001". Compare that with the level of conscious thought required in "Star Trek" and there is cause for worry. "Hangover" "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" Symptoms of a sick, albeit HILLARIOUS, society? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Joseph Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) A lot of movies I've seen lately have had terrible openings. "Star Trek" was pretty horrendous for the first five minutes. Ditto to "Terminator"; kind of a cliche opening. Far more worrisome to me though, is the continuing "IQ Slide" that theatrical motion pictures seem to be taking. Sci-fi in 1968 was "2001". Compare that with the level of conscious thought required in "Star Trek" and there is cause for worry. "Hangover" "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" Symptoms of a sick, albeit HILLARIOUS, society? ;) It's all about the filmmakers and studios tailoring for certain audiences and having new ways of setting the standards of genres. You could compare a film like 2001 to Star Trek because they're both sci-fi, but the subject matters are extremely different, as well as the response they want from the audience. 2001 wanted to the challenge thought, I think with Star Trek, it was just about giving the audience an entertaining two hours. Moon is something that looks like it took a lot of fundamentals in its origins and storyline from 2001 (besides the obvious Hal/Robot sub-plots), but according to the critics that have seen it, it's something that manages to stay original. It looks like something that'll certainly be an interesting watch. I'm expecting either Avatar, Inception or Interstellar to be 'the next 2001', a film that completely reinvents sci-fi and gives filmmakers and the audience a real mind boggling experience. If any, I'd probably say Avatar, but if it's about the story, I'd have to go with Inception. I'm not really confident about my instinct putting Interstellar up there, I mean Spielberg's been a bit rusty for years and if Terminator 4 has anything to tell us about Jonathan Nolan... maybe he isn't all that great at writing independently. Edited June 13, 2009 by Marcus Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now