Rick Horton
Carbonite Member
Please check out my film and tell me how you like it!!!
http://www.vimeo.com/1857886
http://www.vimeo.com/1857886
Highway 27
- Thread starter Rick Horton
- Start date
Rick Horton
Carbonite Member
No opinions?
Jon Starr
Veteran
Should have warned me it was half an hour. Have to get to bed and wanted to critique it.
Watched about 5 minutes and it's looking good so far. Maybe a bit of slow pacing, but then again I expected it to be shorter. Feels like the beginning could have been tightened a bit.
The acting is okay. A bit too many sudden bursts of yelling. They're sitting there then they blurt something out. I'm no expert in drugs, but from seeing shows like "intervention" they didn't seem all too convincing as being high on meth.
Also, although it has some nice shots (especially with the wide angle), some shots felt a bit pointless. Let's take the last scene I saw, where they beat the guy and steal the car. They enter the car and it goes from a master long shot and then to a sudden close-up of a car door closing, then another car door closing, then back to master. Not only is it jarring to go from a long shot like that to a close-up, but why did you show us the close-up? When filming a shot you have to think "why am I filming this, and why like this?" Usually a close-up is to show the audience something, like an expression, or something on a note, etc... We can easily tell from a master shot that they're getting into the car. It just felt like pointless coverage.
It reminds me of a student film I once saw where my class and teacher ripped it apart. A guy gets into a car, we see a closeup of the door closing, a closeup of the button he presses to turn on the radio, a close up of the handbreak he takes off, then a closeup of him putting on his glasses, then a close-up of the liscence plate as the car pulls away. We all thought "wow that was really pointless," that it was all shot just to look nice or "cool". It's just something to think about.
Another thing to think about is pacing. It's something I'm learning to do as well, but it's essential. The car scene felt like it could have been cut down by a lot. We follow the guys running away for a while, then we follow the man in the car for a while before he's stopped. Just felt too long. Same goes for the previous scene.
Lastly there are a few wierd editing choices. We have the shot in the car where he's stopped by the girl, then we fade to black, then we fade in... and it's just outside of the car? Usually a fadeout and in signifies a change in time, location, etc... I was surprised to see the scene continue. It was strange for me.
Aside from that it's looking very interesting. I'll want to see the rest. Hopefully I can remember to watch it tomorrow when I get back from work.
Watched about 5 minutes and it's looking good so far. Maybe a bit of slow pacing, but then again I expected it to be shorter. Feels like the beginning could have been tightened a bit.
The acting is okay. A bit too many sudden bursts of yelling. They're sitting there then they blurt something out. I'm no expert in drugs, but from seeing shows like "intervention" they didn't seem all too convincing as being high on meth.
Also, although it has some nice shots (especially with the wide angle), some shots felt a bit pointless. Let's take the last scene I saw, where they beat the guy and steal the car. They enter the car and it goes from a master long shot and then to a sudden close-up of a car door closing, then another car door closing, then back to master. Not only is it jarring to go from a long shot like that to a close-up, but why did you show us the close-up? When filming a shot you have to think "why am I filming this, and why like this?" Usually a close-up is to show the audience something, like an expression, or something on a note, etc... We can easily tell from a master shot that they're getting into the car. It just felt like pointless coverage.
It reminds me of a student film I once saw where my class and teacher ripped it apart. A guy gets into a car, we see a closeup of the door closing, a closeup of the button he presses to turn on the radio, a close up of the handbreak he takes off, then a closeup of him putting on his glasses, then a close-up of the liscence plate as the car pulls away. We all thought "wow that was really pointless," that it was all shot just to look nice or "cool". It's just something to think about.
Another thing to think about is pacing. It's something I'm learning to do as well, but it's essential. The car scene felt like it could have been cut down by a lot. We follow the guys running away for a while, then we follow the man in the car for a while before he's stopped. Just felt too long. Same goes for the previous scene.
Lastly there are a few wierd editing choices. We have the shot in the car where he's stopped by the girl, then we fade to black, then we fade in... and it's just outside of the car? Usually a fadeout and in signifies a change in time, location, etc... I was surprised to see the scene continue. It was strange for me.
Aside from that it's looking very interesting. I'll want to see the rest. Hopefully I can remember to watch it tomorrow when I get back from work.
