Man On Fire.

J.R. Hudson

J.R. Hudson

Spirit Animal
I loved it.  Denzel is, as usual, commanding and the little Dakota Fanning is so damn cute it's stupid.  Walken is always a treat.

The movie spends a good deal of time developing the characters and our caring of the situation.  The visual style is great stuff and surely points in the direction I think cinematography is once again headed (cinema verite).

Lots of Velocity tricks, grainy, saturated.  I loved it and it's a film style/look I find myself gravitating towards andwanting to mimic.  Could be Tony Scotts best yet, although True Romance ranks pretty high up there with me.  

This film seems more grown up than his previous films and not as "Pop Corny".    

image3_large.jpg
 
Re: Man On Fire.

I just got home from seeing this movie. It definitely had a style that I have not seen in a long time with other movies. Looked like a lot of hand held shots. The pacing of the edits was upbeat. Yea Denzel is one of my favorite actors too.
 
Re: Man On Fire.

Denzel WAS excellent, but by far the best element of the movie was it's "flashy" style of editing and filming. The shots were all composed very nicely. My personal favorite shot was when he ejects the bullet from the gun and it lands in his hand. Is there any way to get this quality of slow motion with a camera that IS NOT film? Is there any camera that can film at these high frame rates to achieve this high quality slow motion?
 
Re: Man On Fire.

Excellent film. They did this just right. Add to it original editing, something fresh, aggresive. Saw it twice, liked it even better 2nd time. Loved how they used the subtitles as part of the show. Did anyone notice at the end when Denzel is riding in the back seat of the car, the shot of him close up looks like it's digital. Every other shot looks like film, yet the close up of him stood out looking digital. Noticed it both times at different theatres.
 
Re: Man On Fire.

Yes! Yes! I did I did! (Digital)

Those subtitles were very fresh; Id never seen em used like that and Im sure we'll see it again.
 
Re: Man On Fire.

[quote author=Ptpiz link=board=movies;num=1083567336;start=0#2 date=05/08/04 at 04:51:18]Is there any way to get this quality of slow motion with a camera that IS NOT film? Is there any camera that can film at these high frame rates to achieve this high quality slow motion?[/quote]

Haven't seen it, so I don't know just how slow you're talking about.

There is no "cheap" way to do it.

High frame rates = expense. There is some sort of video system that can shoot at like 500 frames per second, which would be extremely slow motion.

The great thing about the DVX is that you can intercut with film so much easier than any other video camera could. So you could get a high-speed film camera (heck, even an old 128fps filmo) and shoot just that slow-mo shot on the film camera, and it may intercut well with the DVX (depending on grain, etc).
 
Re: Man On Fire.

Great revenge flick. "I'm going to kill them all." that was the best line. Straight out. I especially enjoyed the torture scenes and Denzel's rampage.
 
Re: Man On Fire.

only thing I didn't really dig was the really shaky camera... takes you away from the movie a bit...other than that, I loved it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top