OTHER: Cinematic Problem

[uniqueami]

http://youtu.be/XmiTy4qAvcQ

I made a demo movie (It's a long story). All I'm getting from everyone who sees it is praise. Which is great. But, I know there's a problem.

A microcosm of that problem is prevalent in the opening.

This is micro-budget, so it's not going to look like a Hollywood blockbuster.

What is the problem? It's not the look - the camera audio - the blurred nudity or the missing scene. It's a technique or something. What do you see wrong with it?

 

[charliemcdanger]

You're doing the right thing by asking for objective opinions, but just to warn you it might not be easy to hear. Your friends are blowing smoke up your ass.

"It's not the look." (?) It definitely is the look, for starters. The sensibility seems to come from 1980s television. The use of zoom is bush-league in film, with some exceptions for POV or irony. The shaky establishing shots look like a tourist's vacation video. The tilt down from the street sign to the girl looking at the map looks cheesy even by 1980s standards.

Lighting. The scene in the cafe is one entirely blown-out background. Rancid. The bar scene looks like you blasted it with one key light that makes the scene look nothing like a bar. The daylight in the final scene actually looks nice, but then you mix it with a tungsten light from the room offscreen and it looks terrible again.

The acting looks forced. And yes, camera audio is a problem. Voiceover, too, generally screams bush-league.

This probably all sounds very rude, but there are a thousand free resources online to explain the cinematic look. You should read this stuff voraciously, and also watch other low-budget films to see what people are doing and how they're doing it. Good luck!

 

[OldCorpse]

I'd just add one thing. Even before the first picture appears on the screen we hear the voiceover. Immediate problem: quality of sound is poor - sounds like it was recorded in someone's bedroom. You need to do it in a sound booth, or at least make it sound like that. And then the sound goes from bad to worse. When we see the two guys at 1:29 and on, the sound quality is just awful, as if recorded through the camera mic. It's a cliche, but it's a cliche for a reason: nothing screams amateur hour as much as bad sound, remember, the audience will forgive almost any level of picture, but even in intentionally 'amateur' films ("found footage" films etc.), they make sure to get fully pro sound (in fact, in those cases, the post production can cost many times as much as the shooting budget - and a ton of that post is for sound). So right off the bat, even before we see the first frame, the moment we hear the voice, the sound quality tells us "z-grade". Do what you need to do, but get the sound right.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

http://youtu.be/XmiTy4qAvcQ

I made a demo movie (It's a long story). All I'm getting from everyone who sees it is praise. Which is great. But, I know there's a problem.

A microcosm of that problem is prevalent in the opening.

This is micro-budget, so it's not going to look like a Hollywood blockbuster.

What is the problem? It's not the look - the camera audio - the blurred nudity or the missing scene. It's a technique or something. What do you see wrong with it?

What's the difference between this 'cut' and one that was uploaded in 2012...

I think after a couple of years it is time to move on, and do something with improved technical capability.

Also, put things on Vimeo and not blur out 'nudity'.

I watched the referenced clip 'with no sound'. If there is a story there, it is not visual, doesn't 'show me' the setup, or what to expect out of the story.

I'll be blunt... I watch films for the visuals (and no blurring...), the visual story, and 'audio' while it needs to be good, as high a quality as one can manage... it is the visuals that are paramount.

More specifics:

1) the initial shot is a cityscape in 'overcast day', then a 'nighttime' shot, then a broad daylight no clouds of a street sign, then angling down to a young woman fumbling with a map.

The changing 'cloudy', 'night', 'clear', is confusing. The cityscape should match the time of day, weather conditions of the shot with the young woman, if we are to place the young woman in the city of the initial shots.

2) Cut to Bar. Don't know why... perhaps due to information in the 'voice over', missed the connection. Oh, wait is that the same girl... ok... low angle on camera detracts. Should have paid the owner $10 got a towel and made the shot by standing on the bar... or at least stepping up the bar, perhaps with a small ladder and looking down the bar.

3) Coffee shop. Already been mentioned, but it seems that the plane of sharp focus is on the guy's T-shirt banner... and not on the young woman. I would have looked for a better placement to avoid the window blowout, since it seems obvious that you didn't have the means to put ND material on the window to cut the light.

3) Cut to bedroom and humping. Not that I object to humping... but I like more light on my humping scenes... Don't know what the tilt up to a kitschie wallpainting was for...

4) Cut to lesbian fuzzy vision scene... again not that I object to lesbian sex scenes... but A) what does that have to do with the story... B) fuzz as mentioned...

Philosophical point... if you can get women to engaging 'sexual scenes naked', give them the full value of the visuals.

5) Cut to bedsidetable with lamp on and some sort of picture that has some 'emotional value'... again perhaps lost due to not hearing the voice over...

6) Two guys 'talking'. Not much going on with the scene. Stylistically I don't care for the 'master shot' framing. I probably would have backed off to give the standing man full value. Again the camera placement seems 'low' to me... would have done that master shot at the chest high level of the guy standing.

You also seem to break the 180 rule. The eyelines between the actors sets up the axis, and for some of the closeups you seem to be setting the camera on the far side of that axis. The when you cut between the master and closeup the fellow pops from one side of the frame to the other, even if he is more 'central' in some of the shots, the 'eyeline' still is moving back and forth across the screen.

 

[Stab]

I agree with former comments, but will just summarise it briefly. You miss the basic knowledge of film making.
But, luckily for you, there are tons of forums and articles for you to read freely and improve. But it is also talent and you should have an 'eye' for what makes something look cinematic and what doesn't.

Often I can't explain why one of my shots of 1 particular scene looks great and cinematic, and another shot with a slightly different angle screams 'amateur' in my face. Same camera, same light, same mis-en-scene... What makes the difference? I don't know always. It's the cinematic 'feel'. And you either see that a shot has it, or not. It will come with experience.

But first, get to learn the techniques and basic knowledge so you can set up professional shots in the first place. Then play around with the camera between those guidelines.

 

[uniqueami]

Thank you all for the replies. It's appreciated. Unfortunately, not helpful. i already know the shortcomings of the shots. Those shortcomings do not stop the viewer from understanding what's going on story wise.

I should have given a little more detail in my original post. But, this site messes up my keyboard. I can't cut and paste. I'm using a different computer to write this.

This is a demo utilizing 3 casts, so I could give the good actors something for their trouble, since none were paid for their service. All the music is stolen, the audio is basic, there's no ADR, and I did very little color correction. With actors changing mid-scene it could never be released, and so it's just something for the actors to have. However, it could be used to see if the script was good. No matter how good you think your script is, until it's on the screen it's a crap shoot.

The flaws are blaring in my first film Us Sinners which has many fans and just as many haters. The lead actors were excellent, and the kills were original. But, overall the look is terrible. it was shot on a Canon XL-1 and looks it. However, the story and acting were so good that many didn't mind. I set out for Leading Lady to have a better look and succeeded. But, it's still not perfect. I've yet to see a well-acted/great looking full length digital feature made for under $5000. They usually look pretty and the acting is so atrocious I can't sit through the full thing. Which also has a lot to do with the story. I know at the absolute least I can write a competent screenplay.

In the end, the problem I know that's there is only my problem. But, I see it in a lot of well made indie movies since the digital age came in. I just don't know what it is. It seems no one else does either. But, by not being able to see it, you're probably doomed to do it yourself.

This problem goes beyond what you're seeing and hearing.

The person who mentioned 2012. Huh? I just became a member here a week or two ago. I did put up the beginning to show the difference between my version and the people who took over's version years ago. But, the demo wasn't finished till a few months ago. So, I'm not quite sure of what you're talking about. Whatever it is, it wasn't from this site. The other site is somewhere I thankfully was banned from. But, this might have been what you saw -

The demo version is much tighter in the edit.

 

[Alex H.]

This is micro-budget, so it's not going to look like a Hollywood blockbuster.

This seems a bit like giving up. You get out of it what you put into it, and that doesn't exclusively refer to budget.

What is the problem? It's not the look - the camera audio - the blurred nudity or the missing scene. It's a technique or something. What do you see wrong with it?

That's just it, and what you aren't allowing yourself to hear on this forum. It IS the look, which is the result of technique. The framing is off, as is camera angle in several shots. There are shaky, handheld shots where there should be tripod-based camera moves. Some shots linger far too long when they could be broken up with cutaways. The lighting is generally poor. The audio is a big distraction.

Semi-related, it's hard to make a full and critical assesment of something on YouTube when the highest resolution available to the viewer is 360p. At that rez, the picture looks soft and the sound has been compressed to a point that it greatly affects the frequency spectrum.

Those shortcomings do not stop the viewer from understanding what's going on story wise.

But they do. If it's hard to be pulled into the piece visually and with strong sound design, it's hard to invest in story. And, honestly, I'm not entirely sure I have any idea of the plot from watching this piece.

All the music is stolen, the audio is basic, there's no ADR, and I did very little color correction.

In other words, you essentially phoned in the post-production process. When you see a finished film, one that looks good, it has gone through several meticulous layers of the post-production process (editing, compositing, color correction, sound design and editing, ADR if necessary, scoring) to be put together in the final product.

Side note: Admitting that the music is stolen is admitting to theft of someone else's creative work. Piracy (using stolen material) is never acceptable, and discussion or facilitation of it is prohibited on this forum. There are plenty of cheap and free music resources out there, so really there is no excuse for using something without licensing/permission.

This problem goes beyond what you're seeing and hearing.

But it doesn't. Everything the viewer gets out of a film, even emotionally, is derived from what we hear and see. Good cinematography, sound, and editing cannot save bad acting. Poor cinematography, sound, and editing render good acting (and even a decent script) almost a wasted effort.

 

[charliemcdanger]

I set out for Leading Lady to have a better look and succeeded. But, it's still not perfect.

Dudley Heinsbergen: That cab has a dent in it.

 

[abreu-canedo]

Unqueami,

From my read of your initial post, it seems as if you're asking the forum to critique this work as a work in progress, focusing on the "cinematic" standard. I'm not going to attempt to define what that is here, but I think it's fair that folks are then speaking to the visual and audio techniques utilized (or not utilized) in your piece.

However, based on your response, it seems that what you presented here is merely a reference document akin to a storyboard...reference track in music industry terms. With that said, are you mostly wanting feedback on your written treatment or story? If so, then your initial request may have been more accurately been received by asking us if, even with the A/V setbacks, if we're engaged with the story.

With that said, the cinematic feel, even in low budget indie films is largely a product of technique: well written script, natural acting, lighting that complements the narrative, good blocking and framing, proper exposure and camera settings, clean audio(!!), and lots of good, succinct and elegant post (color, grade, edit).

Of course, you already know all of this. Which is also part of why you may not have been able to get the feedback you want. So before I comment on your piece, what aspect of it would like us I focus on?

Also, I've got to say, as someone who's shot with 35mm film, currently also uses a Bolex Rex 5 on a regular basis, I've seen some wonderful (digital) shorts that have been produced for under $5K. While a feature length piece sounds too ambitious for such a small budget, I suppose it could be possible if talented people were willing to work for free. Usually a complete package for most people will comprise an awesome, non-cliche script, some natural actors, interesting locations with lighting that complement the narrative and the capability of your camera, which should be shooting 10bits of color or above, with no less than 10 stops of dynamic range (12-14 preferred). After that, the coloring and grading is super important. Get to know the color palettes of certain film stocks. Use certain films you like as reference and color acordingly. Lastly, edit and re-edit. The filmic look for me is mostly a color palette and dynamic range issue of me. Shallow DoF is only a thing if the shot requires it (which it often does). Also, smooth tripod, slider, steadycam work add to the cinematic feel. Handheld work should be used very purposely, mostly to build some sort of tension or PoV feeling if the narrative calls to it.

Again, as per your last comment, you probably already know all this. Don't let the criticism get you down. If you believe in your story, find some talented folks who also believe in it and get at it. You're off to a good start (any start is good, IMO).
-All the best, Rafael

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Thank you all for the replies. It's appreciated. Unfortunately, not helpful. i already know the shortcomings of the shots. Those shortcomings do not stop the viewer from understanding what's going on story wise.

For a visual medium, 'the look' does stop me, often dead in my 'willing suspension of disbelief' tracks.

The reason why some of these 'visual' defects detract from even understanding the 'story', is they give the viewer pause, which breaks focus on The Story.

Like... why the hell is this shot 'blurred' out... or why is that actor's face jumping from one side of the frame to the other. Or why is the camera position so 'low' and not really a 'POV' of the person sitting, or the like.

There's a difference between 'just setting the camera up', and composing the shot.

Even Dziga Vertov 'set up shots', despite his claim that he was 'just shooting what was there'...

Since Eisenstein, 'Film Language' has been studied and developed, and viewers, have been 'conditioned' to certain types of effects.

If one does implement a 'new visual language', given the current state of 'film', one does need to do more ground work to setup the new language.

 

[uniqueami]

This seems a bit like giving up. You get out of it what you put into it, and that doesn't exclusively refer to budget.

I'd like to say I've seen a full length micro-budget movie made for under $10,000 that's both well-acted and shot beautifully. I believe the reason I can't is because it hasn't been accomplished yet. There are plenty of shorts made for that. But, not features. If you can point to at least ten then I'll admit to being wrong on this point. I think ten would be a fair number given how many people set out with little to no cash to create a movie. Everything I shot for Leading Lady came to under $2000. The people who took over and reshot the female leads spent $4000. Look at the clip above and tell me who did more for less. You can not point to movies made with stars. Obviously, most everyone would be a pro, and working for free till distribution.

That's just it, and what you aren't allowing yourself to hear on this forum. It IS the look, which is the result of technique. The framing is off, as is camera angle in several shots. There are shaky, handheld shots where there should be tripod-based camera moves. Some shots linger far too long when they could be broken up with cutaways. The lighting is generally poor. The audio is a big distraction.

I hear and understand what everyone has said. I already know where the shots lack. What I'm saying it's not the look. I KNOW about the look. It's something completely different. This problem is prevalent through many indie films since the digital age took rise. There isn't a movie I've watched before 2000 that has this problem. There are plenty of crappy movies made before 2000. But, none have this noticeable problem.

I am not your average movie goer. I watch movies. All kinds of movies, and I don't judge on look, sound or anything except acting and story. My tastes start at the silents and go through every genre. It's only new movies that have this peculiar problem.

Semi-related, it's hard to make a full and critical assesment of something on YouTube when the highest resolution available to the viewer is 360p. At that rez, the picture looks soft and the sound has been compressed to a point that it greatly affects the frequency spectrum.

But they do. If it's hard to be pulled into the piece visually and with strong sound design, it's hard to invest in story. And, honestly, I'm not entirely sure I have any idea of the plot from watching this piece.

You can if you look at it in the most general sense of storytelling. What's going on? if you say "I have no idea" that's not a bad thing. You shouldn't know exactly what's going on in the opening of a film. The beginning should have you asking questions. If you don't ask anything, then the storyteller did a really lousy job.

If you say I wasn't interested because the look was so lousy. Then you really shouldn't have answered this post. Because at best it's a half hearted attempt at explaining what you didn't really watch.

In other words, you essentially phoned in the post-production process. When you see a finished film, one that looks good, it has gone through several meticulous layers of the post-production process (editing, compositing, color correction, sound design and editing, ADR if necessary, scoring) to be put together in the final product.

I'm sorry, it's a DEMO movie that has cast changes mid scene. The actors that screwed the production (though I accept full responsibility) we won't even talk to each other. So, getting ADR out of them is impossible. There isn't enough footage to create a film with one cast. Because for some inexplicable reason the Exec Producer and New director thought it best to rewrite the script. But, lets just say they DID shoot my script and I had enough footage to create a movie. They didn't bother changing the seasons. The bulk of the action takes place in a span of 12 hours. My footage has everyone outside in coats because it's winter. They shot the EXTs in the summer in summer attire.

So, yeah, I phoned it all in. It still doesn't make it unwatchable or non understandable. I've actually gotten compliments on how flawless the cast changes are. It doesn't disrupt the flow of the story. It doesn't even take you out of the moment. There's one very short scene where 3 actresses are used in succession. it really is flawless. So, no storytelling beat is missed.

I watched as an actor and his girlfriend who knew nothing about this debacle watched. She responded exactly one should while watching this. I mean literally she laughed, ooh'd and ahh'd at the exact moment they should. So, judging by her responses I did a great job. I know I didn't. But, it has nothing to do with anything any of you have mentioned, and I wrote in my original post.

Side note: Admitting that the music is stolen is admitting to theft of someone else's creative work. Piracy (using stolen material) is never acceptable, and discussion or facilitation of it is prohibited on this forum. There are plenty of cheap and free music resources out there, so really there is no excuse for using something without licensing/permission. But they do. If it's hard to be pulled into the piece visually and with strong sound design, it's hard to invest in story. And, honestly, I'm not entirely sure I have any idea of the plot from watching this piece.

I call it stolen because I used it without permission and have no intentions of removing for what it's being used for. Essentially it's for about 10 people who worked on the project to watch and show their friends. There's no money being made. There's no mass duplication, there's nothing. Why would I possibly for what I'm using it for, go through the trouble of finding, downloading, and using songs I don't know? When I can just drop in from my vast CD collection songs I know work for each scene. Which by the way is done by film makers on a consistent basis. They edit with certain songs in mind, use those songs with no permission at all, and then replace once a song has been found that meets that feeling or criteria. Leading Lady will never get past the demo phase. So, while stolen is a legitimate word, it doesn't rightfully describe what I'm doing. I've had two people tell me they didn't like my choice of songs. I have eclectic taste in music. I think they fit, and they didn't overshadow the storytelling.

Poor cinematography, sound, and editing render good acting (and even a decent script) almost a wasted effort.

Nobody Loves Alice and Us Sinners prove this statement wrong. Yes, it's a very very short list. But, that's because so few worry about acting and concentrate more on shots.

In the end, movies are storytelling. If the acting and story are good the vast majority of viewers will not notice anything else.

While it may seem like I'm arguing and discounting the opinions, I'm not. They're just not applicable to this. I already know what everyone has said.

Again, this is my problem. But, it's also all you film makers. Because if you can't see it, you can't fix it and you will do the same thing. That's just common sense.

 

[charliemcdanger]

This thread has me thinking of Rorschach and Kafka and American Movie.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

While it may seem like I'm arguing and discounting the opinions, I'm not. They're just not applicable to this. I already know what everyone has said.

Again, this is my problem. But, it's also all you film makers. Because if you can't see it, you can't fix it and you will do the same thing. That's just common sense.

Good thing that you presented a pile of crap, then claim 'it's something else' as to why the 'story' is incomprehensible, if existent at all'. If a sequence doesn't 'grab' the viewer, one can perhaps claim the viewer is to stupid to 'get it'... but in this case it is more the case that were there a story in the posted clips, the story was stupidly presented.

Perhaps in the 60's mindless 'non-stories' could be presented as 'art', because at the very least, the viewer could drop acid, smoke a few joints, do some mushrooms or peyote, and watch the non-story and be entertained for a while... how else can one watch 8 hours of Raggedy Andy Warhola's 'Empire'(1964), in glorious B&W.

 

[uniqueami]

Good thing that you presented a pile of crap, then claim 'it's something else' as to why the 'story' is incomprehensible, if existent at all'. If a sequence doesn't 'grab' the viewer, one can perhaps claim the viewer is to stupid to 'get it

I seriously hope you understand scripts better than you do posts on this board. Because you're not just spouting off in anger, you've gotten everything I've asked wrong.

A) Not one NON movie making viewer has had a problem understanding the opening or the rest of the movie. For that matter I never said it was incomprehensible, it's perfectly comprehensible. it's a two minute opening. Within the next 3 or 4 scenes you know exactly who these people are and exactly what they're doing. That's the way a good movie is written and shown. To think that in a two minute opening you should have an insight into the rest of the movie is beyond moronic. Though in reality, this opening shows and explains A LOT. Once you get into understanding (the female) it doesn't just make perfect sense, it can almost give the movie away (though not really).

B) If no one understood it I'd say "I was stupid" and told the story poorly. But, no one has. Everyone perfectly understands it. At a film buff site I asked for some opinions (they're less judgmental than film maker sites) and one person explained what he thought and he wasn't quite sure what it all meant. He explained it perfectly. What he got from it was exactly what it was. It's that simple. And seriously if something doesn't grab you for whatever reason you can blame the film maker for making a crap movie. But, you can only blame yourself for not watching. If you didn't watch, then you can't respond with any kind of useful solution. That does make the response fairly stupid.

I could pretty much tell you exactly how you'd explain the clip "Some narrator that can barely be heard the audio is so bad is talking about nothing while we see terribly shot clips that have nothing to do with what he's talking about. Then we finally see this awful actor who is drinking with another awful actor". Then you'd expect me to take anything you had to say seriously. Especially when in the first post I wrote it's not the look. Then after I explained again that I know the shots are not perfect and that it's not the look. Then again it's not the look. Yes, it is "something else" that is prevalent in many movies since the digital age began. I know, I see it all the time. I didn't see it in my first terribly shot movie. But, it is in this terribly shot movie. As it is in many modern movies that are not terribly shot.

 

[charliemcdanger]

There's some opaque, ill-defined question that you already know the answer to. Nobody here is trying to antagonize you.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

To the original question: What do you see wrong with it?

If a film maker doesn't put his best effort to present a story then why would I as a viewer pay attention?

There's your answer to what's wrong with it.

 

[uniqueami]

There's some opaque, ill-defined question that you already know the answer to. Nobody here is trying to antagonize you.

If I had the answer I wouldn't be asking. it's not antagonizing, it's understanding. Which obviously they don't.

To the original question: What do you see wrong with it?

If a film maker doesn't put his best effort to present a story then why would I as a viewer pay attention?

There's your answer to what's wrong with it.

If every non film making person can understand and appreciates it for what it is, I would figure that people within the film making community would be able to see the problem I do. I was obviously wrong.

You're all too GOOD for my simple film making. The only saving grace which I've said quite a few times, by not recognizing the problem you're doomed to make it. I've already made it, and thankfully it came in this demo. I will find an intelligent film maker who will point out the exact problem. I'll be sure not to post it here. Because you already know it all. Well, not really. But, you talk a bad game.

 

[abreu-canedo]

Hey Y'all,

Seems as if this thread has run it's course. Perhaps it should come to a close.

Unqueami, I'm sorry you weren't able to get what you hoped to get out of this thread. I wish you best of luck on your current and future projects. If at some point you find words to describe your dilemma, please come back and share. I know that now we're all curious.

The feedback you received in this forum came from a place of criticality, rigor, and an attempt to help. But if you spend any time in forums you'll figure out that it's easy to get carried away in typing and the lack of face-to-face dialogue.
-Best of luck and keep on telling stories!

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Then again it's not the look. Yes, it is "something else" that is prevalent in many movies since the digital age began. I know, I see it all the time. I didn't see it in my first terribly shot movie. But, it is in this terribly shot movie. As it is in many modern movies that are not terribly shot.

When reviewing 'film' I review the Visuals that are presented. If you want some sort of 'depth psychology' discussion, I don't think a technical film making forum, especially one that is predominantly 'camera work', is all that appropriate.

Your sample stands in no significant difference to me, than some large set of montages that 'students' have made for years, regardless of 'digital' or celluloid based Film. In such classes often students would pat each other on the back and praise basically 'crap', that is low technical achievement combine with incomprehensible 'stories', all spattered with a few titillating 'shots' of one sort or another. Outside of academic circles often autodidacts will choose a genre such as 'horror' or 'crime', which has been done so many times and their efforts again underachieve.

Your question of 'what's wrong'... can only be answered when the technical 'problems' are eliminated or at least minimized, so one can concentrate on what the 'art/story/meisenscene' is.

Presenting a clip that you consider to be faulty, then asking 'meta questions' is in my opinion fruitless. It's sort of like someone playing the violin badly, then asking why their music missing something that Yahudi Menuhin playing a duet with Ravi Shankar has.

 

[uniqueami]

If you want some sort of 'depth psychology' discussion, I don't think a technical film making forum, especially one that is predominantly 'camera work', is all that appropriate.

Your question of 'what's wrong'... can only be answered when the technical 'problems' are eliminated or at least minimized, so one can concentrate on what the 'art/story/meisenscene' is.

Presenting a clip that you consider to be faulty, then asking 'meta questions' is in my opinion fruitless. It's sort of like someone playing the violin badly, then asking why their music missing something that Yahudi Menuhin playing a duet with Ravi Shankar has.

While this forum has dozens of sections on specific cameras. It also has a section on film making, and other things. It's also titled the Online Community for filmmaking. Sorry if I thought there were actual filmmakers here on a film making forum. It doesn't say "technical film making forum" maybe it should.

Deep Psychology aside, there is a problem which is prevalent in films today. Perhaps as filmmakers (i believe there are film makers here) they should be interested in this problem. Because they will make it.

What's wrong can be answered if you knew what was wrong, or perhaps had a deep psychology into the process. Or at least followed the original post since I said what it wasn't. Then i reiterated it, and reiterated it again. But, it all boils down to accepting that the original poster has presented what they wanted to present, how they wanted to present it. If any of you had just accepted that, you wouldn't have responded. While there are a million different ways to present a story cinematically, in your eyes there's only one. You leave no room for anything. You are literally like the person who hated Us Sinners and kept comparing it to Hitchcock's Psycho. The thought that Hitchcock probably spent more on coffee than I did creating Us Sinners meant nothing. The fact that Hitchcock directed it and had a hundred people working with him where I did everything myself pre/post with the exception of Camera Operator/Actor and Sound mixer. To even utter the name of any big budgeted film while reviewing a micro/no budget feature shows such ignorance on the part of the reviewer. You compare it to it's equal.

Seriously, you can't tell that a bartender is serving a drink? You can't tell that the same girl is talking to some guy? Then she's getting banged by that guy? Seriously you can't tell that?

Are all these shots done perfectly? No of course not. We walked into shops and asked if we could get a shot. NYC won't let you interfere with business unless they're getting paid. No one got paid.

It's fruitless because you don't understand. You only understand one way, that's your way. If it's not your way then it's garbage. You make a full length feature for under $5000 and I'll pit my piece of crap Us Sinners against it. Hell, I'll pit my demo version of Leading Lady against it and I'll whip your butt against the average movie goer. My DPs might suck but I can tell a story. Story has always been #1 in film making. That's why the Leading Lady viewers haven't complained.

BTW: You folks would never be able to get through the entire movie. You wouldn't even make it past the credits (which really are the worst part) But Us Sinners is showing at - 3:15am and 3:15pm today Wednesday on the American Horrors channel at Film on. You can watch a few minutes and then rant about how bad it sucks.

For a sucky movie it was offered 5 crappy distribution deals. I was told by a fairly good distribution company "Us Sinners is the best grindhouse movie that's passed over my desk this year. But, due to it being shot 29.97 fps and the lack of T&A we have to pass".

It's available to rent via Netflix DVD.

For a moment it was #1 on Amazon's instant video. I still get little royalty checks for it.

It's received numerous great reviews and just as many "this is the worst piece of s*%t ever made". But, the one thing most agree on, it has an amazing climax. Oh and it has been in discussions on forums without my knowledge.

Of course it's all shot like s*%t. So, you'd all hate it. It's just not up to any of your standards.

http://www.filmon.com/tv/american-horrors

As a poster above mentioned, this thread has run it's course. I learned nothing and neither did any of you. But, at least I realize there's a problem. Which I was hoping to discuss... Boy was I wrong.