Justin Hayward

Manure The Astronaut Farmer week 1 One of a bunch... A search result with plenty more... It is really cool.

Jennifer's Body thread

Well, they also played in many, many, "credible festivals" including winning the Audience Award at the Sundance Film Festival, so I think this goes back to your earlier point. A friend of mine shot a doc that's been playing festivals and winning awards for a little over a year now, but still hasn't officially sold (they've had some small deals where they've made a little money for screenings and such, but nothing permanent). Just recently, the movie showed up on Netflix as a "save"... with the poster and all. The filmmakers had nothing to do with it. Do you think they're sort of testing the waters to see how many people "save", thus possibly contacting them for a distribution deal? Have you ever heard of Netflix doing that?

Well, I don't think you have to understand nuance to understand that. :P

Hi Richard, Congrats on all this stuff... very impressive. Especially for some of us who've somewhat followed your career on this board. What's the post plan? Is there some sort of scheduled release?

Just got finished reading it. They don't say why he chose to go through a DI, but there's some very interesting commentary from Yvan Lucas at Efilm who did it. I also really like Robert Richardson's explanation for his affinity to muslin... no highlights coming back whereas plastic materials give a shine off the makeup or skin.

IMDB tech specs

Considering where the film took place and the characters involved, would you have preferred he had them talk in English with accents?

It was really good. I was pleasantly surprised the movie was not at all what it was marketed to be (at least in this country). The trailers made it out to be a sort of over-the-top comedy set in WW2, but it turned out to be a pretty compelling drama with some good action and a hefty dose of dark humor. I love the way it was all set up. One of Quentin Tarantino's tremendous strengths is to set us up to believe a character will react "X" because of their reaction in some long drawn out previous scene, then totally flip it around later making everything a total surprise, all without breaking the character's original traits. And, of course, it looked great.

Why?

It's true. It looks like a very realistic cartoon. In a few years it'll look as dated as everything else. What's really impressive how well a movie like "Blade Runner" holds up in comparison.

Well Annie, you’ve wandered into a horrible business. Truth is, if you don’t have the creative drive to create something in film (meaning directing or photography or writing) you’ve got nothing, but hard, really hard, (non-creative) work in front of you. I’ve come across so many people who thought filmmaking, in any sense, was their calling, but soon realized working as a worker (as in non-creative) in film is the worst freak’n job on the planet,... and quit. It's very common. Don't feel bad about it. Mostly film is a drag, unless you can't get enough of it.

I understand the shaky-cam tends bother people, but in this case the filmmakers would have made a different movie without it. I mean, a huge part of the pitch (somewhat like Clover Field) is the documentary POV. Obviously they could have shot it more traditionally, but good, bad, or the other, it wouldn’t have been the movie it is and the movie this director chose to make. It’s not like they were just too lazy to stick the camera on a tri-pod. These kinds of criticisms don’t sit well with me, because it feels like we’re telling someone their favorite color is the wrong favorite color to have. Too subjective.

Wow, you all are real critics! When the credits rolled, all I could think is this was a weird freak'n movie. I checked my watch at about an hour in and was shocked that the main character was the main character, which is a testament to how subtly they lured us into the film. For that, I liked it. Not to mention the flawless special FX and complete originality.

Well, you've just summed up the most boring movie anyone could possibly imagine. I don't think I've come across anyone with such a lack of motivation, drive, or interest. You're the first and I've been around some seriously unmotivated students./

Fantastic. I can't wait to see it.

I liked the movie alot. Yes, the sound was really strange (as if it was an unmixed rough cut with little to zero foley, but mostly student-film-like) and I understand there were some very creative choices made surely by Mann, but the bizarre fade ups and downs? On lines of dialogue? The sound guy must of thought he was nuts. The opening where Dillinger breaks out of whatever jail and drags his friend along the car as he dies? That sounded like the sound guys shook some gravel together in the sound stage and left it at that. I mean, it was a car, not only driving like forty miles an hour, but a guy dragging on the side. The sound for that should have been insane, but instead it was just... quiet. The only thing I can think is that Michael Mann wanted to diminish all the sound of the movie except for the "tommy gun" blasts as to make the killings more effective or that he thought the guys death would be more personal if quiet, but he did that stuff throughout the whole movie, not just on specific moments. It was very distracting. The picture for the most part was... weird? Underexposed video with tons of noise and muddy colors is not exactly something the novice wishes to accomplish. But truth be told, many complaints about the picture are directly related to the sound. People may not notice, but it's the freak'n sound that made this movie look cheap. It was weird and weirdly directed by Michael Mann. It looked worst when we couldn't hear foley, or dialogue was weirdly quietly, or we simply couldn't hear anything cause they faded it out to the point I could hear the guy behind me breathing. Okay, all of that said... the focus on death and the fast lives these people lived was captivating and terrifying. After an hour into the movie I completely forgot the tech stuff and was totally enthralled with the... not so much a story... but a portrait. It seemed Michael Mann didn't try to do some historic epic biography, but more a "in the moment" of this guys life... a comment on life and death and how fragile we are. And, I felt the HD photography really lent itself to that feeling. This was not "Road to Perdition" and the movie told us with every weird handheld, gainy, open shutter, shot that it didn't want to be. There were moments I was actually reminded this was a "period" piece by the wardrobe or set design.

How could something so trivial make someone unhappy? I mean, unhappy? And, what's silly about it? You have the opportunity to reconnect with past friends (or possibly make amends with past foes) you would never have kept in touch without. This life only happens once and we all die really young, so why not enjoy the company of past friends (and possible foes) if you have the direct contact?

Well, the same goes for the critics that praise it. People seem really excited that they can tell it's HD at all, whether they rip it or not. It's just they're normally shocked when they hear something like Final Destination 4 was shot on HD, especially after they've seen it four times. So, something like this is fantastic, because it's a chance to spit like one of the pro's and finally not be faking they can see something they can't. This movie is obviously shot on video and made by some of the best artists working in Hollywood today, so it's an easy target. And I'm not playing the "holier than thou" card. I've been there and done that. :rolleyes:

That was supposed to say PRETTY funny. Don't know how to change it. So I got this from a buddy... "Finally! Edward Zwicks five-time Oscar-nominated, social commentary, political thriller BLOOD DIAMOND has been distilled down to its four-minute essence, bringing you its powerful message that violence and greed are bad; a message so powerful, so moving, that the global diamond business was brought to its knees and no one ever bought diamonds again. PLEASE WATCH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4OL-ixxi6I and if you value this message, if you have a heart and a soul, please forward this on to everyone you know to help raise even more awareness, that violence and greed are bad. Thank you" I like the grunting bit at the end. Good stuff.

It's funny how many critics specifically noticed the HD photography AND pointed out how pretty it was... I mean, reviewers certainly didn't notice Benjamin Button's Hi Def photography,... or Superman's or anything else. They say it's pretty because they see it, but certainly not because they know what they like in terms of photography.

This "film clip" looks purposely muddy, like they're un-crushing the blacks trying to make it look as video-ish as possible. Maybe this is the first anti-film-look, look? http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/publicenemies/

Well, what we've seen from footage shot during one, the iris pull that David said would certainly match it the closest.

Pretty freak'n sick. Nice job.

I thought Martin Scorsese summing up what makes compositions work and why John Ford’s are particularly good was fantastic. He said it’s not just pleasing aesthetic that makes a good composition, but also authenticity of the blocking and/or behavior of the actors. If the actors don’t look natural in whatever they’re doing, it doesn’t matter how well arranged the shot, the composition still looks bad. He used the opening of “The Searchers” as his example. It’s a fantastic biography that I’ll watch over and over on my DVR.