Deceivers

Good film with good acting...although it felt a little bit soapy to me. (might just be me)
It was well shoot and I liked the edit. Sound design and score worked well.
All in all a very solid film...congratulations!

Oh...and you did a get job of getting a bucket-load of betrayal in there!
 
Tim Joy said:
You're right that it's totally plausible, I'm just saying it took me out of the movie. I think it's more to do with the location, and not the way he looked. If I'm ever rich I will still look like a bum for sure. :)

last time I tried to wire 2.7 mil though, it wasn't that easy.

I know about suspension of disbelief too. Heck, I got two talking road cones!
Click to expand...

It wasn't Kevin's house. It was Brandon and Julie's. That's how Julie knows who Michelle is and says her name when she opens the door. Brandon and Julie are wearing rings and there are shots of their hands with the rings, as well as Brandon referring to Julie as his wife. Also, Michelle knows Brandon's name and expects that Brandon is there and that's why she worriedly asks if he (they) are okay. If it was Kevin's house she wouldn't have expected Brandon to be there, and Julie and Michelle probably wouldn't really know each other since Kevin and Julie are having an affair. If they did know each other, Julie most likely wouldn't be wearing her wedding ring when she was around other people with Kevin. I'm just thinking about it logically.

There's a lot that happens in this film in 6 minutes, and that could contribute to any confusion because there are so many details. It might require multiple viewings to get everything.

Millions of dollars, even billions, get transferred in movies all the time. So I honestly don't see what the issue is. I even considered making the amount of money considerably bigger when members of the cast suggested it. $2.3 million almost doesn't seem like enough money for someone to kill another person over these days. It had a nice ring to it for me so I left it. Oh well.

Yeah, your 2 talking cones... they're hilarious. Your film was good and funny.
 
Last edited:
I thought the shooting motions were a little hinky at first but then remember silencers and suppressors actually muffle recoil to a degree.

I wanted to smack the one lady for being annoying like SpongeBob when she comes to the door, until I see later why she was doing that.. made for something to think about after the film and I like that in a good short film or short story.
 
abdeziel said:
I thought the shooting motions were a little hinky at first but then remember silencers and suppressors actually muffle recoil to a degree.

I wanted to smack the one lady for being annoying like SpongeBob when she comes to the door, until I see later why she was doing that.. made for something to think about after the film and I like that in a good short film or short story.
Click to expand...

Haha, that's a funny analogy. Glad you understood by the end of the film. I wasn't actually aware that silencers do that. Thanks for the insight.

Thanks for watching the film and I'm glad you liked it and thought it was good.
 
Deceivers

Review: I watched this one three times before I wrote this review and just like the first time, I'm having trouble liking it. It's got a few technical/technique/style issues and it got a little bogged down with it's own cleverness.

Story: Pretty straightforward until it then becomes a double-double cross.. when the husbands puts a quick end to. And then the "ex-girlfriend" at the end who happened to be the neighbour and was banging the husband.... huh?? That convolution threw me off in a major way and it really wasn;t needed. The movie should have ended when he shot both of them. Period. That's a tight story right there, and a good comeuppance.

Technical: No wide shots or even OTS on the shot dude in the bathroom. At no point do we ever see anyone in the scene with him or see him in relation to anything else. There is no sense of the space and it feels completely claustrophobic. Your shot chices here were close up, close up and a slight medium. Your actress never even moved into his space, giving us a better sense of what's really happening. Your choice of lighting scheme also left a major hole wide open. This movie was so well lit it felt more like a commercial than a movie and it's the thing that's mainly off putting for me. It was simply the bad choice of lighting, best left to comedies and like I said, commercials. You did have some great composition and I particularly dug the angled shots and your inserts. Great use of inserts there. Coverage is somethign that a lot of us often forget all about until we're editing and it's much too late.

Acting: Your actors were competent actors. They displayed the right range of emotions and worked their asses off. But something wasn;t working for me. It may have been how it was edited that affected their performances, or how it was directed, but I can see their talent out there. I dunno what it is, so sorry Mike: I'm laying this one at your feet.

WrapUp: This was an ambitious film and you tried to create something stylistic here. It just didn't work for me. My dislikes over-ruled all of the cool stuff that I did like and that's a shame because I can see the talent behind this. Good luck in the fest.
 
No problem Rodney. I understand not everyone is going to like it. Thanks for watching it and giving your feedback.
 
Rodney, just so you know, I hear you loud and clear. It's not my best cinematography. I chose to shoot it this way for a few reasons. Even color grading it proved to be a challenge. With some different lights, lenses, and a better location at my disposal... well you know. Now I know for next time. And a new lens is already on the way.
 
Ahh I was wondering if location was an issue and you were trying to shoot around it. Must have been a tight space.

What lens you getting?
 
Yes, it's my apartment. The walls are white, I have things that I didn't want in the shots that I couldn't move (too big and heavy), and the kitchen (where the bulk of the film takes place) is like 5ft x 3ft. I even had to borrow wall decorations from one of the actresses just so there was some kind of set design to break up the white walls (or have huge movie posters all over the film). And because of the size of the kitchen I couldn't really get lights into it without burning myself or the actors, so I went with all practical lighting. When I thought of using all practicals I did some lighting tests, and it actually looked better than I thought it would. It wasn't perfect, but it was acceptable to me. So overall I'm pleased with the film and like any film I learned from making it, so there's a plus!

I have a Zeiss ZF set consisting of a 35, 50, and 85. The 28 is on the way and I'm still hunting down a 21 and 100 to complete the set I want to put together. I think the 21 is the one that would have really been needed, but it's difficult to find a good deal on it.
 
Last edited:
I guess I spoke too soon. The rest of the lenses are on their way and will be here in a couple days. Finally found some really good deals. Makes me wish BetrayalFest came along a couple months later. Oh well. I have them for the next time.
 
"Deceivers" is an Official Selection of the Valley Film Festival and will screen at the CAP Theatre in Sherman Oaks, CA on Friday, November 12th at 5:00pm. More info can be found at http://www.valleyfilmfest.com/valleyfilmfest/app/films/1307/. Tickets are supposed to go on sale very soon.

I forgot to post about it here before, but "Deceivers" was also an Official Selection of the LA Shorts Film Festival in July. LA Shorts is an Academy Awards qualifying film festival, and although we didn't win, it was an honor to be recognized and screen with that group of films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top