Ted Spencer
Veteran
(Sorry in advance for this "huge* post...)
-----------------------------------------------
Boy, I wish I could share in the positive spin that some have reported now that I've seen the fiilm (on Tuesday evening at the AMC 25 in the Times Square district in Manhattan). So I'll start with the good:
-The music: probably the best thing about the film. Some nicely written and recorded scoring, that did its job well and wasn't overly intrusive for the most part.
-The camerawork, movement-wise only: some nicely conceived dolly shots, a few very pleasant aerial/helicopter shots, some good use of steadicam, some properly restrained hand-held stuff and so on. It looked well thought out and executed by people who have some knowledge of doing such things.
-Some aspects of the plot (spoiler alert!): having the creepy/mysterious boy become the savior in the end was a nice twist, and the script showed some evidence of actual research into the paranormal (a favorite subject of mine) rather than some hack just pulling it out of his...uh...
-Noise, or the lack thereof. About halfway through the film I reminded myself to start scanning the dark areas of the shots (and there were plenty of them) for signs of video noise, and the film went along for long stretches of various dark scenes with none that I could detect. Then, about 3/4 of the way through, some scenes that didn't appear to be more challenging light-wise than some had earlier, did show considerable noise. I chalked it up to inconsistent DP-ing or color grading, but was happy to see that when done better, as it was 90% of the time, the noise was simply a non-issue.
Ahem.
Well...now onto the bad.
Just about everything else:
-Most troubling for us HVX user/advocates: the image quality. One never knows about prints, projector focus etc., but to my eye it was anywhere from soft to *really* soft about 98% of the time. Only for a few precious moments here and there was the image what I'd call adequately sharp (but never better than that, even on ECUs, many of which were very, very soft). The existence of these few sharper shots however, did tend to convince me that the problem was probably not primarily print or projector related. I could be wrong, of course, but this has been a widespread criticism, so...many prints, many projectors...
There were many, many shots that were so blurry that I was struggling to explain in my imagination what could have gone wrong. Did the DPs/ACs use an SD monitor for focus? Or the HVX's LCD without focus assist? Were the M2/lenses near-impossible to focus and/or back focus properly? Did low light force too-wide iris settings? Too slow shutter speeds? Was it too quick a shooting pace?
Then there were the edge shaprness issues, and there were some real humdingers there. I recall a few shots where everything was in one focal plane, like a white fence running straight across behind the actors, that showed stunningly severe edge focus problems, practically making a halo effect around the small, center area that was (somewhat) in focus. In the worst of the cases, the shots looked about 2/3 out of focus, with only the center third in. Brutal, but in this case it seems to point squarely at the M2 setup.
Composition choices didn't help matters either, as too many shots were much wider than was necessary, which when combined with the soft focus issues, made for some scenes that were simply breathtakingly fuzzy.
-Lighting: many interiors looked like they were shot in available light only. They may not have been, but often had a one-point look to them nonetheless, with murky faces, muddy shadows and other problems, which did not appear in most cases to be "mood motivated". This, along with the focus issues contributed to an overpowering sense of amateurishness in the cinematography.
-Acting: Not *quite* as bad as I had feared; a few of the actors did acceptably well, but the lead male (Brian Comrie) was...well...very good looking. His "acting" however, was unfortunately nothing short of atrocious. His brother (or cousin?) Dan was much better, although he probably shouldn't be clearing a spot on the mantlepiece for an Oscar just yet.
Overall there were some decent performances ("Sarah" - Rissa Walters - was ok sometimes, sometimes really wooden), but again, the cast, like the crew, practically screamed of amateurishness. There are five Comries in this film, the director/producer/scriptwriter/husband/wife duo, and three of the young actors. I believe I also recall seeing some more Comries in the end credits. 'Nuff said?
-The script: as a genre piece, I think you're asking for trouble attempting it with this kind of (evident) cast/crew inexperience, and they sure found it. Weak "shock moments" (like a yo yo!) punctuated by exaggerated music stabs were literally comical when they meant to be seriously scary. I think a more "offbeat" story/genre might have helped there, trading off genre formulas/expectations for originality, even if somwhat clumsily. Reviewers seem to take much more kindly to films like that. A genre-bender with great originality like "Blair Witch" was a good example of how to satisfy both sides of that question.
The (spoiler alert again) final showdown scene with the guy in the halloween mask inside a ring of flaming turnips (you read that right) and the Aunt (possessed by the bad guy), was just embarrassingly inept.
[Editorial note here: I feel pretty terrible saying all this, I must admit, but it's my honest opinion - I wish I could be less harsh, but it really was that bad, IMHO].
----------
To summarize: like the cynical old joke says, "don't quit your day jobs, guys".
I feel that had this film, rather than being put into wide release (over 1100 theatres nationwide), been quietly entered in some film festivals (which of course it may have been - I don't know), the filmmakers might have caught on earlier to what they (didn't) have. Then, armed with the knowledge learned from that experience, they might have been able to make a really good film the second time.
As it stands, and as the scathing reviews (so far) attest, it's such a massive "not ready for prime time moment" that they may have severely hurt their chances at being taken seriously should they manage to make another film (and "Sarah Landon" is supposed to be a series). I think it's really unfortunate that they put it into wide distribution as it is.
Perhaps a budget expansion could have financed some key reshoots and rewrites, but in honesty I think the film should have stayed a festival entry until - and unless - enough critical and audience acclaim launched it into the mainstream. I have to say that I honestly can't imagine that would have happened under those circumstances though. Festivals (if they accepted the film in the first place) would most likely have provided the kind of negative reviews that the release ultimately garnered, and the filmmakers would (should) have known then to take it back to the drawing board.
The fact that it did receive wide distribution will always remain a mystery to me, although how that came about would be an interesting story to hear. I'm afraid that the consequence is that it will find a very high spot on a few too many "worst films of 2007" lists.
Again - I want to express my sincere regret at feeling motivated to write such a tough review. I've yet to make my first film as a writer/director (though I've made several as an actor and several dozen as a scoring mixer), and who knows - it might be a lot worse than "Sarah Landon" when it's done. I want to give the greatest of props to everyone involved in "Sarah Landon" for just *doing it*. I'm sure it was a massive effort with all the blood sweat, tears - and love - that one needs to get it done.
The fact that it was picked up for major distribution is a huge coup. I wish everyone involved the best of luck in the future, and I hope they have a chance to apply what they learned to make a great film next time.
-----------------------------------------------
Boy, I wish I could share in the positive spin that some have reported now that I've seen the fiilm (on Tuesday evening at the AMC 25 in the Times Square district in Manhattan). So I'll start with the good:
-The music: probably the best thing about the film. Some nicely written and recorded scoring, that did its job well and wasn't overly intrusive for the most part.
-The camerawork, movement-wise only: some nicely conceived dolly shots, a few very pleasant aerial/helicopter shots, some good use of steadicam, some properly restrained hand-held stuff and so on. It looked well thought out and executed by people who have some knowledge of doing such things.
-Some aspects of the plot (spoiler alert!): having the creepy/mysterious boy become the savior in the end was a nice twist, and the script showed some evidence of actual research into the paranormal (a favorite subject of mine) rather than some hack just pulling it out of his...uh...
-Noise, or the lack thereof. About halfway through the film I reminded myself to start scanning the dark areas of the shots (and there were plenty of them) for signs of video noise, and the film went along for long stretches of various dark scenes with none that I could detect. Then, about 3/4 of the way through, some scenes that didn't appear to be more challenging light-wise than some had earlier, did show considerable noise. I chalked it up to inconsistent DP-ing or color grading, but was happy to see that when done better, as it was 90% of the time, the noise was simply a non-issue.
Ahem.
Well...now onto the bad.
Just about everything else:
-Most troubling for us HVX user/advocates: the image quality. One never knows about prints, projector focus etc., but to my eye it was anywhere from soft to *really* soft about 98% of the time. Only for a few precious moments here and there was the image what I'd call adequately sharp (but never better than that, even on ECUs, many of which were very, very soft). The existence of these few sharper shots however, did tend to convince me that the problem was probably not primarily print or projector related. I could be wrong, of course, but this has been a widespread criticism, so...many prints, many projectors...
There were many, many shots that were so blurry that I was struggling to explain in my imagination what could have gone wrong. Did the DPs/ACs use an SD monitor for focus? Or the HVX's LCD without focus assist? Were the M2/lenses near-impossible to focus and/or back focus properly? Did low light force too-wide iris settings? Too slow shutter speeds? Was it too quick a shooting pace?
Then there were the edge shaprness issues, and there were some real humdingers there. I recall a few shots where everything was in one focal plane, like a white fence running straight across behind the actors, that showed stunningly severe edge focus problems, practically making a halo effect around the small, center area that was (somewhat) in focus. In the worst of the cases, the shots looked about 2/3 out of focus, with only the center third in. Brutal, but in this case it seems to point squarely at the M2 setup.
Composition choices didn't help matters either, as too many shots were much wider than was necessary, which when combined with the soft focus issues, made for some scenes that were simply breathtakingly fuzzy.
-Lighting: many interiors looked like they were shot in available light only. They may not have been, but often had a one-point look to them nonetheless, with murky faces, muddy shadows and other problems, which did not appear in most cases to be "mood motivated". This, along with the focus issues contributed to an overpowering sense of amateurishness in the cinematography.
-Acting: Not *quite* as bad as I had feared; a few of the actors did acceptably well, but the lead male (Brian Comrie) was...well...very good looking. His "acting" however, was unfortunately nothing short of atrocious. His brother (or cousin?) Dan was much better, although he probably shouldn't be clearing a spot on the mantlepiece for an Oscar just yet.
Overall there were some decent performances ("Sarah" - Rissa Walters - was ok sometimes, sometimes really wooden), but again, the cast, like the crew, practically screamed of amateurishness. There are five Comries in this film, the director/producer/scriptwriter/husband/wife duo, and three of the young actors. I believe I also recall seeing some more Comries in the end credits. 'Nuff said?
-The script: as a genre piece, I think you're asking for trouble attempting it with this kind of (evident) cast/crew inexperience, and they sure found it. Weak "shock moments" (like a yo yo!) punctuated by exaggerated music stabs were literally comical when they meant to be seriously scary. I think a more "offbeat" story/genre might have helped there, trading off genre formulas/expectations for originality, even if somwhat clumsily. Reviewers seem to take much more kindly to films like that. A genre-bender with great originality like "Blair Witch" was a good example of how to satisfy both sides of that question.
The (spoiler alert again) final showdown scene with the guy in the halloween mask inside a ring of flaming turnips (you read that right) and the Aunt (possessed by the bad guy), was just embarrassingly inept.
[Editorial note here: I feel pretty terrible saying all this, I must admit, but it's my honest opinion - I wish I could be less harsh, but it really was that bad, IMHO].
----------
To summarize: like the cynical old joke says, "don't quit your day jobs, guys".
I feel that had this film, rather than being put into wide release (over 1100 theatres nationwide), been quietly entered in some film festivals (which of course it may have been - I don't know), the filmmakers might have caught on earlier to what they (didn't) have. Then, armed with the knowledge learned from that experience, they might have been able to make a really good film the second time.
As it stands, and as the scathing reviews (so far) attest, it's such a massive "not ready for prime time moment" that they may have severely hurt their chances at being taken seriously should they manage to make another film (and "Sarah Landon" is supposed to be a series). I think it's really unfortunate that they put it into wide distribution as it is.
Perhaps a budget expansion could have financed some key reshoots and rewrites, but in honesty I think the film should have stayed a festival entry until - and unless - enough critical and audience acclaim launched it into the mainstream. I have to say that I honestly can't imagine that would have happened under those circumstances though. Festivals (if they accepted the film in the first place) would most likely have provided the kind of negative reviews that the release ultimately garnered, and the filmmakers would (should) have known then to take it back to the drawing board.
The fact that it did receive wide distribution will always remain a mystery to me, although how that came about would be an interesting story to hear. I'm afraid that the consequence is that it will find a very high spot on a few too many "worst films of 2007" lists.
Again - I want to express my sincere regret at feeling motivated to write such a tough review. I've yet to make my first film as a writer/director (though I've made several as an actor and several dozen as a scoring mixer), and who knows - it might be a lot worse than "Sarah Landon" when it's done. I want to give the greatest of props to everyone involved in "Sarah Landon" for just *doing it*. I'm sure it was a massive effort with all the blood sweat, tears - and love - that one needs to get it done.
The fact that it was picked up for major distribution is a huge coup. I wish everyone involved the best of luck in the future, and I hope they have a chance to apply what they learned to make a great film next time.
Last edited:
