Giray Izcan

Be prepared though. LA is very very expensive so your dreams would be short lived otherwise because you'd be too consumed just to exist and pay rent with a random job of some sort and such- let alone shooting movies etc.

I dont know if pulling on wheels is a good idea as it has gears in them. You don't even want to set the head down leaning on wheels let alone pulling on them as hard as you can. Wrong tool for the job.

I should have been more tactful nevertheless. I didn't need to be judgemental. Thanks for being understanding though.

Now I am reading what I wrote this morning and I have to admit I could have modified the tone of it. I sincerely apologize for being offensive. In other words, I was an a... and messed up big time with the tone of my messages earlier so I owe everyone here an apology.

I apologize if I offended anyone.

I just paid my union dues last week so I am not an amateur person. I guess the movie didn't do it for me aside from its photography. Funny, I guess if one has an unpopular view, that must be a sign of being an amateur. All good... I hardly write on this forum anyhow. I love the cinematography of it for sure. I find it very inspirational and refreshing.

On the contrary in a way, I can't stand 95 percent of the current movies in terms of story, style and look. There are some good ones but my heart lies with 2005 and before - the 60s and the 70s in particular.

Style over substance. I love that era movies but here I mean wow... Sorry it's my opinion of it. I didn't realize smart phones etc existed in the 60s or the 70s... how about all the modern cars? It is 2020 where if you blow on someone's heart hard enough, it will shatter to pieces but I call it as is - or at least my opinion of it. Mr. Mullen's work was wonderful but the rest was I mean... it is sort of like defending the movie The Room - calling it all intentional and a masterpiece.

The only actor that was tolerable was the British real estate agent. The director, well, no offense but i hope they have some openings in a film school of any kind. I understand Mr. Mullen goes way back to film school days with the director but.... sorry. The costumes look cheap too. The costumes and production design made me feel like I'm watching a grade school play where the "set pieces" are glued or taped together on a stage.

In my humble opinion, this should have been a quirky short film at best. Sorry for my harsh criticism of the movie - not the photography.

Hello all, I watched this movie in its entirety for the first time unfortunately. My 2 cents for what its worth... Cinematography was great which was the ONLY reason I sat through this film. Plot does not exist really or so thin that you can see right through it. Acting was wow... are these real actors or just friends and such? Delivering lines one "actor" at a time. I mean it was horrendous to say the least. I am being nice here... Production design was cheap to say the least as in cardboard box cut outs. My eyes were quite literally searching for pieces of tape or something to be holding the cardboard box pieces together. Everything is done by the director.. ugh. Maybe next time she should consider actual department heads to do the job. It is supposed to be set in the 60s or the early 70s but with modern cars and smart phones everywhere, did not work. So I really don't get the intention here. To sum the "message" very briefly: all men are bad and deserve to die or to be killed. Or maybe I am just not sharp enough to see the message. This is the problem with current movies. Every movie - more or less but not all of course - relies heavily on shot on X camera/technology or homage to whatever era but really stories really do suck terribly. I mean, even when I watch some B detective thriller movie from the 90's - straight to video kind - I don't find myself looking at the time. Today's movies mostly I keep checking the time. Either trying to hard to be PC that it really gets annoying and in the way of the story or just plain pointless. I'm sorry to be harsh here but I had to say something about this self indulgent piece... To conclude, aside from the cinematography there really is no reason to watch this "movie." P.s. the editing was like wow... they should show this film in editing classes at film schools as what not to do. Regardless, photography was amazing, so many hats goes to Mr. Mullen. The rest was garbage, if I have to put it mildly and nicely...

Funny how people speak about music videos nowadays actually. When music videos was a thing, real music videos were massive, much like a regular movie set with serious budgets. I know so because I worked on them as an AC. Nowadays, it is usually some backyard production shot amongst friends etc. Times have changed indeed....

That is certainly an issue. I mean how do you even get matching stocks with recans? For music videos, it may not be an issue but for a feature - mismatched blacks and grain levels in particular, which it may occur from batch to batch, would not work. Maybe I am being harsh, but those are some considerations when it comes professional film production.

Oh ok... The reason I mentioned tis is because most people on this forum ever talks about is recans. Recans are great maybe for shorts or music videos, but for a feature? I don't think so. My numbers are based on 4 perf, which is what I shoot.

Short ends and recans are great but you can't rely on that on a feature film. 90min film - 8-9000ft film x 10 (the shooting ratio) = 90-100k ft film. Good luck finding 100k ft of lets say a matching 5219 recans - don't even bother with the short ends.