Eric Boellner
Well-known member
How is no-one on this board talking about this movie? Or is that conversation hidden away from the obvious searches I did prior to posting this? Haha
This film, obviously, isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. But neither was BURIED, and that movie proved to be worth its runtime. LOCKE does just the same, thanks in part to every single department of the production performing at the top of their game. Some will be annoyed by the shake in the camera, but the cinematography is a feat.
For the lead (and only visible) role of Ivan Locke, a quiet construction director whose life unravels over the course of an 85-minute car ride, Tom Hardy packs his BRONSON character into a much more reserved performance. The tension here lies underneath, and Locke rarely looses his cool. Hardy echoes Anthony Hopkins' best work, with a threat and a malice that seems to creep in the lower vocal chords of his unwavering monotone.
For the production side of things, Hardy's role was shot over the course of just 5 days, with an additional 3 days spent getting B-roll of the car, motorway, etc. Director Steven Knight said they would film the entire script, start to finish, 30 minutes at a time (due to the RED's memory cards). Knight said they did this over and over, like a play, for 5 nights straight, so that in the end they wound up with 16 complete versions of the film. They used a 3-cam setup on a low-loader, and would never repeat the angles. He said they specifically went for three different angles: "A normal, a less normal, and a strange." (He didn't use the word normal, but I can't remember what word he did use). He said the third camera would always be focused on something weird, like a mirror. Interestingly enough, the one feature film I've worked on (shot almost entirely in a car), utilized a similar set-up. Whenever we had a C-cam, we'd use it for the "artsy" shots.
Hardy's performance alone is worth the price of admission, as is the experimental production style. Put them both together and this film is definitely worth checking out.
-EMB
This film, obviously, isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. But neither was BURIED, and that movie proved to be worth its runtime. LOCKE does just the same, thanks in part to every single department of the production performing at the top of their game. Some will be annoyed by the shake in the camera, but the cinematography is a feat.
For the lead (and only visible) role of Ivan Locke, a quiet construction director whose life unravels over the course of an 85-minute car ride, Tom Hardy packs his BRONSON character into a much more reserved performance. The tension here lies underneath, and Locke rarely looses his cool. Hardy echoes Anthony Hopkins' best work, with a threat and a malice that seems to creep in the lower vocal chords of his unwavering monotone.
For the production side of things, Hardy's role was shot over the course of just 5 days, with an additional 3 days spent getting B-roll of the car, motorway, etc. Director Steven Knight said they would film the entire script, start to finish, 30 minutes at a time (due to the RED's memory cards). Knight said they did this over and over, like a play, for 5 nights straight, so that in the end they wound up with 16 complete versions of the film. They used a 3-cam setup on a low-loader, and would never repeat the angles. He said they specifically went for three different angles: "A normal, a less normal, and a strange." (He didn't use the word normal, but I can't remember what word he did use). He said the third camera would always be focused on something weird, like a mirror. Interestingly enough, the one feature film I've worked on (shot almost entirely in a car), utilized a similar set-up. Whenever we had a C-cam, we'd use it for the "artsy" shots.
Hardy's performance alone is worth the price of admission, as is the experimental production style. Put them both together and this film is definitely worth checking out.
-EMB
