View Full Version : What do you think?

05-24-2006, 09:09 PM
This is some promotional material that we are making during pre-pro for a short film.


If you are in the mood check out....


05-24-2006, 09:32 PM
To be honest, I don't like it. I think your type choice is wrong, and the rest of it is just a series of standard Photoshop filters. I do like the Constructivist layout approach you've got going on, I just don't really like the execution on the individual elements.

05-27-2006, 07:27 AM
jeezzz.... thats a bit harsh

i like it 'wmiller' :)

like the movie 2!

05-27-2006, 11:11 AM
Well, I stand by the comments about the poster image. But I did just watch the other movie, and I think it's very good. A nice handling of the topic. It does feel like you've cut out several minutes somewhere in the middle... I don't understand at what point she O.D'd exactly, or what compelled her friend to follow her to work. That whole scene feels rushed. But I still liked it.

05-29-2006, 03:50 AM
Looked at the photoshop thing, then the movie... This is a good example of the dangers of the digital age. Just because we can do something (like put on filters, or speed up motion on a video) doesn't mean we should. Your attempts are dull and a little embarrassing.

How does the promotional material capture the film whatsoever? The PS image is like some retarded ultrahip David Carson ripoff, while the film is... I dunno, I imagine it's supposed to be serious. Isn't it?

And thanks to dougspice for being one of the first people on this site to offer an actual critique and not some patronizing bull s-h i-- t-t like wmiller.
What are we, in third grade? "That's a bit harsh. I like it." Wow, what an in depth review.

And one more thing, hows about people attempt to stay away from cuaways of clocks. This is the most cliche'd metaphor for tension/time passing/whatever there is, and by opening a film with it it shows that the rest of the video will be equally vapid. Can't people think of something original?

Other than that though, good actual hand-held, or is it some sort of glide-cam thing. Good framing.

Andrew Brinkhaus
05-29-2006, 11:46 AM
ngraha3, you are one of the people most of us really dislike, so maybe take your less than useful comments somewhere else!

06-04-2006, 01:27 PM
actually ngrana3, The PS image has nothing to do with the movie you watched.

06-04-2006, 04:43 PM
I just looked at your poster. I feel it doesn't get your attention when you look at it. The colours are washed out and the images don't seem to connect in terms of layout.Maybe there is too much going on in it. Try again.

06-07-2006, 07:03 AM
That poster reminds me of the Battle for Algiers Criterion DVD cover. The construction paper collage has been used several times before. It also makes me groan because the first thing I think of is, "Oh Great. Kids being gangsters again." There are other ways to solve problems, other than with violence. I blame the success of icons like Tarantino and Rodriguez for this. At least with The Sopranos and even Sergio Leone's The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly there is a path to redemption and escape from violence.

On the movie, what hurts it most is the story you're working from. Young people, myself included, pretend to know about life and they think they are making profound statements when there's nothing to actually say. I try to correct this problem by writing comedies; elements of comedy will usually appear in the other work you do.

I agree that the opening shot of the clock is a big put-off, as we've seen it before. I'll also agree that the video effects were more distracting than beneficial. As far as camera movement goes, I was fine with it until the scene in the ambulance. This is no City of God (hehehe)

I liked the scene between the two girls in the beginning, but on that note, the scene between the fellas in the restaurant was contrived.

Overall, the short suffers from the "so what?" disease. No, mountains don't need to be moved in the confines of seven minutes, but there has to be some release from the material you're dealing with. No humor. Nothing and I can relate to. The director says, "The film is seven minutes, I have no time for a release."

There needs to be a release. Just because it's a short film doesn't mean we can change the rules of storytelling. Take the Sci-Fi Fest winner CPU, I laughed at some things in that film.

"We talked about the morality of boning metal chicks. I said yes. He said no. I said yes. He said no."

06-09-2006, 02:37 PM
Alright then, I apologize. I just thought that he wanted opinions. So that is what I gave, if I offended some I am sorry. While I hold to my opinion, I thought the humor was obvious in my comment. I'm not here to talk shit.

If anyone was offended I apologize. I just don't like being placated to, and I feel that, especially in the world of filmmaking, there is way too much of it, and it's insulting. I don't like it when people insult my intelligence and I would never do that to someone who works hard at anything.

Again, while I feel the thrust of my comment was accurate, clearly sarcasm does not translate well in writing. I was merely taking my opinion to the logical, and absurd extreme.

06-09-2006, 02:43 PM
But I must say that my opinions were useful, even if the language was 'a bit harsh' (logical and absurd extreme). I did afterall, compliment the camera movement and and framing. What exactly did I say that was less than useful? I don't mean to be confrontational. I'm just curious.

06-09-2006, 03:31 PM
jeezzz.... thats a bit harsh

more like honest. brutal honesty sometimes hurts but ultimately makes our work improve.....