Corrado Part II

so you boys have had enough time to watch it by now (and Ted a second time) :)

so is anybody going to discuss it? or maybe should there be a separate thread created in the film review section since this is a real movie with distribution?

i'm curious to know what people thought. i haven't seen it as of yet.
 
No reason to pull punches, it's a real movie now. Distribution, etc.

Adam's already made a statement about his own first feature film as well, and a very very respectable one, not to mention realistic.

I think he'd appreciate, as much as we all would, an honest and open review.

And just to recap: no matter how this one turned out, he's in a director's chair right now (or maybe they're wrapped?) on his second VERY soon after. So, in the end, it did exactly what he wanted it to do.
 
Yeah i think so too Kholi, i mean my first impressions were generally positive. I mean sure its an action/gangster b-movie but it was entertaining enough, had a few amusing lines, decent enough performances here and there etc. I think more action scenes would have played well for it, that and a bit more sex here and there! (Yeah more sex and violence how creative haha er)

Some had mentioned some inconsistencies in technical aspects with grading/sound etc, sure maybe so but in the great scheme of things fairly minor for this kinda movie i thought. The only aspect that I don't think really worked (and it kinda spoils its rewatchable quality somewhat) is the ending. I'm not sure why it decides to go from a kinda 80s action gangster mode into an attempt at serious poignant drama. Its also kind of inconsistent with the humour established - so dont know what was going on there but that didn't work so well imo.

Overall, id' say it was simply a decent enough b-movie, a teeny bit rough around the edges (but whose low budget movie isnt gonna be somewhere?) worth the watch overall :)
 
Kholi said:
I think he'd appreciate, as much as we all would, an honest and open review.
Click to expand...

What I'm struggling with is how to do that without sounding like a prick. Nuff said for now, eh?

And just to recap: no matter how this one turned out, he's in a director's chair right now (or maybe they're wrapped?) on his second VERY soon after. So, in the end, it did exactly what he wanted it to do.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've followed Adam's post-Corrado (aka "Bad Ass") experiences, and that would be a substantial element in what I'd write about it. His present situation, writing and directing "Hangar 14" can only be viewed as a success so far, and its inception can be almost entirely attributed to what he started with "Corrado". So, kudos, and profound, unequivocal respect for him on that.

But I've seen "Corrado" now, and y'all are after me to comment, which I'd like to do as honestly as possible while not coming off as the aforementioned prick. Which won't be easy. The negatives I'm going to point out will not be as mildly phrased as other have chosen to put it so far. Which worries me - I want to be fair, but I don't want to sugar-coat it. I have always detested hype, BS and ass-kissing that is rampant in artistic production circles. Much of my life's work has been in the music recording business, and it is no less rampant there. Crazy-high accolades are traded back and forth by participants in destined-to-go-absofrickin-lutely-nowhere projects like they're Babe Ruth baseball cards. I hate that. I hate being dishonest about it because I think it disserves everyone, most of all the artist who is getting his ass kissed instead of being offered honest commentary that could help him grow.

So I struggle with my "Corrado" review...

I'm partway through watching it a second time, this time paying closer attention to underlying story and writing aspects, as well as casting and other 'under the surface' stuff. Production issues were readily apparent in the first 30 seconds of the first viewing.

I'll put it up soon.

Peace
 
Last edited:
Ted I agree with you 100%. As filmmakers we all understand the hardships and obstacles of getting a movie made, not to mention distributed, but after it's done it must stand on its own. Adam has already commented that himself. So with that, I don't think you should have to sugarcoat or give any bullshit politically correct reply. I'm just curious because like others i've followed this production and appreciate all the upfront info Adam has provided. He's got a pretty popular backstory to this production that any person in the biz or trying to get in the biz can respect. I doubt he's losing sleep over what anybody thinks at this point because it sounds like he gave it his best shot and that's all you can do at the end of the day. I won't be able to get my hands on it for at least another week so interested in what you have to say as you seem to be a straight shooter.
 
Ok, here a shot at it, with apologies in advance; it's a mega-whopper:

For this review I'll refer to the film as its original title, "Corrado", not its release title "Bad Ass", which was (AFAIK) forced upon it in the distribution deal. Anyone who wants to see the film themselves should be aware that at least in the USA, the latter title is how you'll find it listed for sale/rent. My copy was rented from Netflix.

I'm going to go over it in categories, and be forewarned:

THERE WILL BE SPOILERS WHICH WILL BE WRITTEN IN:

italicized text

PLEASE SKIP ALL ITALICIZED TEXT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ ANY SPOILERS!!

There will, like most reviews, be some discussion of the plot that is not going to get 'warned' about spoiler-wise, but I'll aim to italicize the more pivotal bits of it.

OK...off we go:

STORY:

The story, which IMHO is the heart and soul of any film - that which basically makes it or breaks it - is a very run-of-the-mill gangster/action shoot-em up at best. In fairness to Adam, there are many such B-gangster genre-films, and while I'd hoped he'd gone for a more original take on it, IMO he didn't - whether by choice or otherwise.

Corrado (Johnny Messner) is a small-time hit man who opens the film with a monolog about his POV and hit-man philosophy, then proceeds to do his thing on some unfortunate fellow using an electric guitar as a weapon, a script device that I think is fairly clever.

His next assignment is a bigger one, which launches the film proper into its larger story and character arcs. His target is Vittorio Spinello, the gangster patriarch and father of Paolo Spinello (Tom Sizemore).

Here comes the first italicized SPOILER, so look out:

In the course of the hit, Vittorio's nurse Julia (Candace Elaine, Director Adam Cultraro's wife), who's in the old man's room at the time, gets mistaken for the murderer by Paolo after Corrado escapes unseen. Julia simply sits still on the floor by the bed afterwards, oddly emotionless. Paolo walks in, and with no gun found or looked for, no evidence otherwise (other than the dead papa), and no motivation on her part expressed or implied, instantly accuses her of the crime, calling her every foul name imaginable, and of course, threatens to kill her.

Corrado, still hanging around outside (like all hit-men do, right? Um...no...) hears poor Julia inside being falsely accused, and goes back in to rescue her (huh?). By this time Paolo has conveniently left a goon in charge of her, who Corrado promptly blows away, then escapes with Julia in tow.

This is the 'inciting incident' as they say, and sets up the entire A-story for the rest of the film. Unfortunately, IMHO, it's deeply flawed.

Julia never makes any effort to escape from Corrado - they go to public places, driving around in the car (from which she could apparently bolt at any time) etc., and in spite of Corrado making no apparent effort to keep her from getting away, and no real evidence of any romantic involvement between them to keep a hold on her otherwise, she just hangs with ol' hit-boy for the entire remainder of the film.

This is easily the biggest problem in the story. Why does she do that? She says she has "nowhere to go", but what...she has no friends, anywhere? It's never mentioned. Family? Ditto. Wouldn't you bolt the first time you saw a cop anyway? I know I would. But no, she sticks with Corrado.

The above could have worked if an adequate story structure existed to support her decision. Maybe she had lost her family in a tragedy; maybe she just moved to LA from South Africa a week earlier and didn't know anybody. Something...anything to explain her choice might have helped stitch this gigantic plot hole together, but no such luck. We press on with the crippled story regardless.

The rest, aside from the ongoing inexplicability of the above, goes more conventionally, with some useful back-story explaining why Corrado became a hit-man, and why that is ultimately his undoing. No need for spoilers here, but suffice it to say that how this is played out dramatically is also pretty clumsy and amateurish storytelling-wise.

There are crooked cops, hapless goons galore...

...and some highly unclear stuff where Paolo is told unequivocally (by his goons, who claim to have witnessed the hit, which they didn't) that Corrado did it, yet Paolo is still apparently in pursuit of Julia for it. Oy...

Then there's Vegas hit-man Salvatore (Edoardo Ballerini), discussed below in the ending section, who's hired by Paolo to whack Corrado. His role in the backstory emerges later in the movie.

I took pains (ahem) to watch the film twice to make sure I had all these plot elements straight, but unfortunately, either A) I'm an idiot, or B) two viewings isn't enough, or C) the story is so clarity-deprived that it's near hopeless. I'm going to go out on a limb and proclaim it's "C". Sorry Adam...

And in the end:

Corrado just gets shot, standing face-to-face with his (unknown to him) childhood nemesis Salvatore, grown son of the gangsters who shot Johnny's (presumed gangster father) and mother right in front of him, which lead him to shoot them (while still a kid) in front of also-still-kid-Salvatore, thus making each of them into future hit-men. Got all of that? Ok...

Then, in one of the biggest let-down endings I can recall seeing in quite a while, in an awkwardly acted, awkwardly shot scene, Salvatore, almost completely inexplicably, simply shoots himself in the head. A quick flashback to his parents' murder (by young Corrado), and boom. Movie over.

The kid-backstory element above is the closest "Corrado" ever gets to being slick, clever or smart story-wise. It's not bad exactly, but again, it's clumsily executed (editing might have helped), and at best it brings a whiff of clarity to what is otherwise, frankly, a mess of a story.

It's hits the credit roll in under 74 minutes. Which is a real shame - another 15 or so might easily have been spent adding scenes that fixed all or most of the story holes without by any means making the film overlong.

SCRIPT

I often found myself thinking either:

A) "Hmm...the writing in this scene is better than the acting"

Or:

B) "Hmm...the acting in this scene is better than the writing"

In the case of (A), I kept thinking that the director should have made the intention of the scene clearer to the actors. Maybe it was time pressure, maybe it was the actors, maybe it was Adam's beginner chops. Who knows...

In the case of (B), it was mainly with Sizemore. More on that in the next section.

It also felt like much of the dialog, especially in Sizmeore's scenes, was improvised. It's a pet peeve with me, so take that with a grain of salt - I almost never like what I sense as improv in dramatic films. Clever comic actors can be brilliant at improv-ing in freewheeling comedies, but rarely elsewhere, IMHO. So these (apparent) 'off the reservation' dialog-moments took me further out of the story.

Otherwise the writing was decent at times, and pretty darn weak at others (see "B" above). It had a lot of problems with advancing the story through dialog in an inelegant way. Like (I'm making up an example here) if the story needed the characters to quickly get to 'place x', having someone say "let's go to 'place x'!" instead of...well...just *going* maybe, or perhaps mentioning the *really urgent* underlying reason why they *must go now*. I hope the distinction's clear enough...

I also feel that between the writing and editing, the precise order in which things, including small details, played out needed a lot more attention. More on that later.

ACTING:

Tom Sizemore (Paolo), say what you will about his off-screen antics, is a great actor, period (ok...IMHO). While he's far from his best in this film, even with a wheel in the ditch he's still great. IMO, casting him is the single smartest thing Adam did in "Corrado", and may well explain much of his success in gaining credibility with his subsequent efforts. I know from my own experience that people often have surprisingly selective memories where performances (and for that matter, entire films) are concerned. I believe that best actor Oscars, for example, are often awarded because of *one phenomenal scene*. That scene burns into the mind like a laser, and outweighs everything else. I can imagine a potential investor in a then-future project of Adam's (Hangar 14, to be precise) looking at Corrado and 'forgiving' all the weaknesses while noting that Adam *did* get some poppin' moments out of Sizemore. Which stuck in their minds, creating the calculus: 'Adam's a real director'. Key, key decision on Adam's part, and I can't overestimate its possible role in his present situation, which is of course a long, long way up and beyond his "Corrado" days...

Johnny Messener (Corrado), on the other hand, is another matter IMO. Much less visceral and 'in the moment', and more into drawing from his 'bag of tricks' as acting coaches like to say. So...a TV actor to put it oversimply. But...Adam most assuredly did not have an unlimited budget (far from it - only about $400K or so, and over $50K of that went to the well-worth-it Sizemore). So "Corrado" (Johnny)'s ok...no better. But looks the part big-time, is a pro, was reportedly great to work with etc., which matters a lot. But Sizemore totally eats his lunch, as he did compared to almost everyone else in the cast.

Candace Elaine (Julia) is Adam's wife, so I'll try to be nice here. But it's tough. She's really miscast - this role practically screamed for a young hottie, who by her mere hottie-ness alone could have gone a long way toward (at least implicitly) explaining the plot hole about...

...why Corrado went back to save her...

Not that Ms. Elaine isn't attractive - she is (although she would have been much more so if the cc-ing wasn't so awful - more later). But she's just not right in this role IMO. We could chalk it up to nepotism; it wouldn't be the first time, and it often happens for very complicated reasons. But this was a key error IMO.

Salvatore (Edoardo Ballerini), like Messener - serviceable, but not great.

Frankie D'Onofrio (Joseph Gannascoli), easily the best actor aside from Sizemore IMO. A very convincing, consistent grasp of the character in every scene. Fine job, and another subliminal message to feature-development executive types that 'Adam can do this'.

Miscellaneous other cast - variable. Some good, some not so good. But nobody really terrible or obviously miscast.

TECHNICAL

Hoo boy...here we go...

Straight up: the color correction was simply god-awful. I am hard-pressed to think of any film I have ever seen that was this bad, let alone worse. I can only imagine that it was done on a completely uncalibrated monitor. Or by someone on drugs (and I'm almost not kidding here). Right from the git-go, it's dark, dark, dark. Ever heard of "crushing the blacks"? In "Corrado", "steamrolling" or even "nuking" is more like it. There are many, many scenes where massive amounts of detail in faces and backgrounds is lost in pure black mud. And interior scenes (notably in cars) where poor Ms. Elaine looked like she'd just spent about 3 days in a tanning bed. Her skin was the color of a beet. Literally. And speaking of that, what color there was that somehow survived the CC steamroller was almost always *way* oversaturated. There are some scenes that look relatively ok, but almost none that I'd call "great" or even "very good". And there were lots that...well...see the first sentence of this paragraph...

Big sound problems too (although these were dwarfed by the CC-ing issues). Lots of garbled dialog (much of which was also just read too fast IMO), sudden changes in room tone from cut to cut, music level jumps on edits, etc. Pretty much the whole gamut of 'sound issues'. There were also a number of cases of what might, for lack of a better term, be called "phantom dialog" - instances where an actor's mouth moved in a way clearly indicating he was speaking, but there was no sound. Apparently, it was either edited out of the script, or perhaps deleted for technical reasons. I'm sure ADR-ing and better post-sound was restricted by budget limitations, but these sorts of things are too important (as folks like Barry Green like to remind us) to have let it go down so poorly.

Editing was far from expert, but Adam did it himself, and it's his first feature, so I guess we have to cut him some slack. But I felt that a better edit could have done great things for the film, and it's always a shame to end up feeling that way. All in all editing-wise, I'd just call it a missed opportunity.

The music was reasonably effective at times, particularly some of the hard rock tracks that gave it that gangster-action movie feel we all know and love, but otherwise pretty undistinguished. Ironically, I have to say that in spite of my long professional involvement in movie music I often fail to take much note of it in films I just watch for enjoyment. And they say that's pretty much what's supposed to happen - so I probably shouldn't come down too hard on "Corrado's" score, even if only for for that reason.

Otherwise, quite oddly, there was a great deal of 'strobing' effect evident throughout the movie on every player I tried it on including a MacPro computer, a Pioneer Elite DVD player and a Toshiba HD-DVD player (it would not play at all on my PS3). Even in simple dialog scenes it was noticeable - a movement as small as a head turn or nod would show it. I can only wonder if the frame rate, interlacing, or pulldown settings got messed up somewhere. I have an HVX200 setup much like Adam used for this film, and haven't experienced anything of this magnitude (while admitting that its 24p setting will strobe on pans within a certain speed range).

There were also quite a few cases of apparent 35mm adapter misadjustment and/or mishandling. Blurry frame edges, sloppy DOF handling etc. I know it's difficult with these devices so I sympathize - they eat light like crazy, which can sometimes reduce the practicable DOF to a whisker.

CONCLUSION:

Well...like I said before I ever posted this...major strengths and weaknesses here.

Strengths? Sizemore and Gannascoli, and to a much lesser extent Messener and Ballerini...and Adam's bold choice to spend serious money to hire them.

Weaknesses? Well...see above.

Would I recommend this film? No.

Did it do what it needed to do - to get Adam launched as a filmmaker? Yes.

For that reason, could it actually be called "a huge success" in spite of itself?

Most definitely.
 
Last edited:
*********************************SPOILER ALERT***************************************************

i saw the film over the weekend and i agree pretty much with everything you said Ted, except on the acting part. i actually thought Johnny (Corrado) did a better job than Siezmore....BUT it felt as if Siezmore had more of a presence for some reason, not sure why. maybe i didn't like the adlibbing either that Seizmore did, at times it seemed as if he was rambling about nothing. i know it was supposed to make him come off as being a bit of a colorful bad guy or to give him some style, but having seen all his other films, it seemed like he wasnt at his best thats for sure.

i won't repeat everything Ted said, but my biggest problem with this was not the techincal issues, the color correcting or the sound...it was the story, the acting and the ENDING. why in the world would this guy, who i think mentioned he had been tracking Corrado since a child, finally kill Corrado and five minutes later just shoot himself in the head?? it reminded me of a saying i heard a long time ago on how a lot of college students and first time filmmakers always include a suicide in their first project for some reason and having seen a ton of first time shorts and features i found that to be true a lot of times. weird. the film seemed to take itself too seriously toward the end for the sake of trying to be "deep".

on corrado's main assassination contract, the big boss, i was under the impression that this guy was impossible to get to and surrounded....it seemed anything but....and after he made the kill he was outside just kind of hanging around for what seemed like forever. not even hiding. just standing there. debating. minutes after killing a major crime figure.

i didn't remember hardly any of the characters names, so forgive my descriptions, but the nurse was really really miscast in her role. i could not help but think the entire time i was watching her "man she is so out of place for this role" not that she's bad, but that she just didn't "fit" and i didn't buy her as being helpless. she kinda had an attitude of "i can't believe you shot that guy...oh well, i guess i'll just roll with you...where we going next?". unless this woman has seen people get their heads blown off in front of her a few times before, i'm not sure why she wasnt shook up more than 5 or 10 minutes. a woman either a bit younger and more naive would have worked better or if the nurse character was written to be a little more frightened/panicked/helpless would have also been better. or maybe if the acting was a bit more developed.

i loved the scene and location where tom seizmore had on that red suit and i thought he looked pretty slick in that, he had on all red like the devil. sweet. kind of depicted his role in the film.

i liked the airport scene, although i'm not really buying all that action going down in a major airport without tons of security and police being alerted. i guess i'm moreso thinking about he scene where Corrado had the guys at gun point outside the airport while there were cars driving by in the background in broad daylight. not like that was a quick "ok get in the trunk or i'll shoot" type of scene...they had a bit of back and forth dialogue. that one was iffy to me.

i liked the guy from Sopranos, the fat guy who played Vito in Sopranos....although he was dressed pretty sterotypical (and Corrado commented on that in the movei) things like that made me not really take the movie too seriously, and then other parts of the movie wanted me to take it seriously (like the ending) which i guess frustrated me a bit. not that a movie can't do that, but this wasnt done that well...again, the issue revolved around the flawed story.

i didn't like the guitar scene all that much, as soon as he started playing it i figured he'd use it to either pull out a gun like in el marichi or use it to beat the guy to a pulp.

i liked the big dude with the BIG machine gun and thought he was a cool addition...although it was pretty weak how Corrado just took him out with one hook. please. Johnny looks ok in terms of shape, but that guy looked twice his size and he lays him out cold with one blow. pretty unbelievable.

the editing was pretty bad. ted already covered that.

the sound was pretty spotty in a lot of parts where for whatever reason you'd just miss a few lines the actor said then it'd come back in.

the gunfire in the shootout scenes looked liked muzzle flashes dropped in from videocopilot or something, which is weird because i thought i remembered reading they used real blanks? either way, the muzzle flashes could've used some editing to look a bit more realistic. with a bit of color correcting and tweaking it woulda looked pretty dope.

the childhood nemisis that was on the hunt for corrado.....i couldnt get a handle on his position. he was introduced like some badass, but he didn't really sell that during his role. i was expecting him to be corrado's equal, but he eventually came off like another one of the flunky's that had been chasing him the whole movie.

speaking of flunky's, there was one bad guy who was chubby and was always saying something dumb or was nervous (he was written that way, probably as a comic relief) and he just seemed out of place, stereotypical, like havent we seen the "dumb as a box of hair" embessel bad guy a hundred times already? i can't see how this was a made guy or even on the killing squad who was trying to get corrado. it was laughable and not in a good way.

it was already mentioned how the CC was pretty bad, but some of the camera work seemed a little amateruish. when the nurse was speaking to tom seizmore's character, the camera kept moving down at her breasts and then popping back up....this to me seemed out of place, i'd expect that in a comedy, but i guess this was the point in the film where i thought i was supposed to be taking it serious and made me think "ok...so maybe there's going to be a bit of comedy involved or something"...i don't know, just felt out of place.

i thought the music was pretty good.

having all those locations definitely gave the film some more production value.

i wouldn't recommend the movie to any of my friends, but i think it was a good effort for a first film.

overall i think the film did what Adam needed it to do for him and that's to allow him to make another film so it did it's job.
 
Last edited:
As people rightly critique this movie in great detail, I'd like to stress something that might get lost in all this. And that is that the guy completed a feature film. That alone puts him head and shoulders above the dreamers and talkers who never manage to do that. There's the old saying, "it's a miracle any time a movie actually gets made" - because just completing a movie is incredibly difficult. And of all movies that get made only a small fraction get distributed - again, kudos. He actually got a name actor - how many total outsiders manage that?

So let us give credit where credit's due.

Yeah, I'm sure it had all sorts of flaws. But you know what? Different directors have different paths to their careers. There are those who make a masterpiece on their first try, like Orson Wells, but never again come even close to matching it. Some are successful from the start and keep going strong. But many, if not most, make horrible first movies, including geniuses like Coppola or Kubrick.

I tell you what the key is: do they learn from their mistakes, or do they stubbornly claim to make no mistakes. I don't know Adam, but it sounded like he was aware of the flaws in this effort, and he seemed pretty humble about it. I know one thing: I've given feedback to many folks in the "Users" section, and often the respose was extremely rude and defensive - these are the people who will never make it.
 
i don't think at any point in the 76 page thread that anyone has said anything negative and NOT given Adam credit where credit is due, however, the film is done and it must stand on it's own, as Adam himself has mentioned several times over already. i'm sure Adam has learned a ton along the way and I for one am grateful for him being so open about his experience where other indie directors are always tight lipped about their details.

the film is on netflix, so everyone should go rent it and check it out, support it and form your own opinions.
 
Dont think anyones done less than give him his due, which is to treat it like you treat a real movie after you sit down and spend your hard earned time watching it.

That is a high honor, the low side being "well you did good with what you had."
 
Kholi said:
Dont think anyones done less than give him his due, which is to treat it like you treat a real movie after you sit down and spend your hard earned time watching it.

That is a high honor, the low side being "well you did good with what you had."
Click to expand...

exactly...so you can't censor everyone's opinion or expect them to write a disclaimer giving additional praise before every comment either.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Big sound problems too (although these were dwarfed by the CC-ing issues). Lots of garbled dialog (much of which was also just read too fast IMO), sudden changes in room tone from cut to cut,
Click to expand...

Just to jump into the middle of something... I just wanted to see what induced people write collectively a couple of hundred pages on a movie... but as for strange room tone changes...

The Wife is hard of hearing so we listen to almost all films at much louder than normal... and recently we watched the first 3 seasons of 'Mad Men', and many shots have varying room tone... Since you are commenting on this particular movie's qualities, it must have been 'bad' to be noticeable at normal hearing people's volume level... but I was surprised at the level changes in a 'pro' production. I don't think I've ever heard it so obvious... definitely no movie comes to mind, but we don't watch too many TV shows (or shot for cable shows).
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Just to jump into the middle of something... I just wanted to see what induced people write collectively a couple of hundred pages on a movie... but as for strange room tone changes...

The Wife is hard of hearing so we listen to almost all films at much louder than normal... and recently we watched the first 3 seasons of 'Mad Men', and many shots have varying room tone... Since you are commenting on this particular movie's qualities, it must have been 'bad' to be noticeable at normal hearing people's volume level... but I was surprised at the level changes in a 'pro' production. I don't think I've ever heard it so obvious... definitely no movie comes to mind, but we don't watch too many TV shows (or shot for cable shows).
Click to expand...

somewhat related... ever since getting an HD set a couple years ago, I've been surprised how often focus and focus pulls were blown on everything from Law & Order to Lost.
 
Re: audio level jumps on pix cuts in "Corrado":

j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Since you are commenting on this particular movie's qualities, it must have been 'bad' to be noticeable at normal hearing people's volume level...
Click to expand...

Yeah it was noticeable at normal levels. I commented on it in spite of "Corrado" being an ultra-low budget film because it's fairly easy to fix this. Just run an appropriate room tone loop throughout the scene and cut the rest of it out of the dialog tracks, and/or add ambience, music, SFX etc. to cover the obvious bumps and you should be good to go. What I heard didn't seem to have employed any of these techniques. In fairness, I only noticed it in certain places, but I bet if I went through the whole film listening specifically for it I'd have found many more.

On the other hand, where this specific question is concerned (and it wasn't one of what I'd call my 'major issues' with the film) it should probably be noted (again, sorry) that I do sound for a living (music mainly, but also post-sound for pix), so I would likely be more sensitive to this than some might...
 
Last edited:
Zak Forsman said:
somewhat related... ever since getting an HD set a couple years ago, I've been surprised how often focus and focus pulls were blown on everything from Law & Order to Lost.
Click to expand...

...and how wildly overused hyper-shallow DOF (and consequent wild-ass rack-focusing) was on some earlier seasons of "24". IMO, at least...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top