View Full Version : Frozen River
dcho787
08-29-2008, 09:16 PM
I don't have anything to say about the film, but just finished watching the trailer...
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/frozenriver/
and it seemed to be well shot but had the definite look of video. This was probably due to them having to use a 1/24 shutter speed on the low light scenes. If the motion blur was fixed, and with the addition of a bit more shallow dof, I might even have been convinced that it was shot on film.
Does anyone know which camera it was shot with?
Someone on imdb forums says that it was shot with a Panasonic Varicam but the technical specs on imdb say that it is HDV.
They are playing this at my local arthouse theater and I am curious to see how it would be projected on the big screen.
Tom Marshall
08-29-2008, 11:38 PM
Where are they playing it?
J.R. Hudson
08-30-2008, 02:07 PM
Sony HD it says ...
http://www.frozenriverthemovie.com/Images/New/ReedBig.jpg
http://www.frozenriverthemovie.com/Images/Courtney-5.jpg
J.R. Hudson
08-30-2008, 02:13 PM
I don't have anything to say about the film, but just finished watching the trailer...
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/frozenriver/
and it seemed to be well shot but had the definite look of video. This was probably due to them having to use a 1/24 shutter speed on the low light scenes. If the motion blur was fixed, and with the addition of a bit more shallow dof, I might even have been convinced that it was shot on film.
Does anyone know which camera it was shot with?
Someone on imdb forums says that it was shot with a Panasonic Varicam but the technical specs on imdb say that it is HDV.
They are playing this at my local arthouse theater and I am curious to see how it would be projected on the big screen.
From the trailer, the cinematography looks like shit. Above average, but nothing to write home about. Basic and uninspiring.
Jared Meyer
08-30-2008, 03:31 PM
It seems obvious (to me) from the trailer that the look is intentional. Drab, washed out, naturalistic. I know it's hard for us to comprehend on this forum but it's not always about the camera or the camerawork. There are other little things like story and character and performance. :)
Movie looks pretty interesting, I'll definitely keep an eye out for it.
dcho787
08-31-2008, 05:02 PM
Where are they playing it?
They're playing it at Laemmle Playhouse 7, near my house.
TheMacB
09-02-2008, 07:18 AM
DVXUser Nathan Beaman was Best Boy Grip.
dvxdoug
10-03-2008, 09:41 PM
I just got around to seeing it at an Art House in Seattle. It did only 2 million in box office and deserved much more. The female lead, who was on camera virtually the entire time, was awesome. Whatever deficiencies the film had in camera work, if it had any, were more than made up for in an enlightening, believable story. You would think that with illegal immigration being such an issue, that more people would be interested. Another fine film on the issue is "The Visitor," which did get more attention. Perhaps the worst thing about making films, other than wasting too much time on mechanics rather than the art, is not being able to enjoy other people's work because you are sitting there in the dark analyzing their camera angles.
[quote=J.R. Hudson;1387568]Sony HD it says ...
Where? Viz., the “Panasonic” and “DVCPRO HD” labels on the photos you posted. . . .
Bryan
12-13-2008, 12:42 AM
Saw this tonight, projected in 35mm. Def had the look of video.
Was a great film though.
Nathan Beaman
12-17-2008, 03:43 PM
Yeah. I worked on this. It was shot on a Varicam by Reed Morano.
LuckyStudio 13
01-05-2009, 12:40 PM
Its an alright film. A 6.5 out of 10.
I saw it last night at the Roger Ebert film fest. I thought it was a good film. For $500,000 film done in HD it was good. A great story and the acting I thought was really well done.