SHORT: SHORT: Tick Tock

Caught it, it seemed a little repetative, not enough varrying of shots, and a bit long.

I think it would flow better if you cut several minutes off. I had a hard time staying tuned it.

Good concept, and the shots you had seemed nicely done, but i think for material a shorter run time would help you a lot.
 
:huh:Oh man, was this serious, acting and everything? You dont see that ?
I dont want to start, dont want to be a bad guy in this thread but start from framing,dont frame talking heads on super wide end leaving so much space on side.
 
I understand what your doing here, My issue is with the acting, it's not very convincing. I woulod have recast with someone else that cwould sale the part. This is something that would cause extreme anxiety, panic, and confusion. I didn't get that from the actor even a little. the concept is cool, clever how you used one location to shoot, just needs work, thats all. I think now that you have a cool idea, you can do it over, and better.
 
Now the idea was interesting, but the execution was for me, a little lacking. I don't mean to cause offence here. Now let's get started: I had issues with the framing, it seems like at times you were deliberately trying to frame it in a bold non-conventional way, but for me, I needed something more to explain the framing. You could argue it was to show the space around him, but realistically, all I got from it was a corridor, a pretty uninteresting one at that.

Please don't take offense. I'd second the suggestions above. This needs work. I can see you like your bold framings, and THEY CAN WORK. I am all for it.. But it has to be motivated. Let the location dictate the framings and not the character if you want the audience to feel his confusion. There were too many close-up shots in this that caused me to find meaning in the actor's performance; where as I think the meaning comes from the location and his action; not his reaction.

You're probably confused by the comments about the acting, and rightly so.. There's hardly any dialogue, what could he have done wrong? The problem lies with the implied direction you want the audience to take. If it's not about his performance, don't have a close-up.
 
"If it's not about his performance, don't have a close-up" I know that. If I had a close up it was about his performance. I don't operate in a conventual manner. "I needed something more to explain the framing." Like what? "but realistically, all I got from it was a corridor" look at the texture and the blandness of it all... Feel the repetitive emotion. " and THEY CAN WORK." so I see no problem then.. "Let the location dictate the framings and not the character" As I want the character to be the center of that atention I'll desagree.

Overal some interesting points but more explanation is needed.
 
Ok let me elaborate, up until 49 seconds, it's a performance peice. Between 49 seconds and 01:25, it's a character walking which = not performance. These would be much stronger if you had composed the shot for the corridor instead of him walking because nobodies interested in watching someone walking for 20 seconds (even though you're trying to make a point). There's one interesting composition that succeeded during this time and the rest of the shots (of which are flat on the character) - really don't. You're trying to show that he's walking in a loop, but, when we see the same footage over and over, we're taken away from the SPACE he's in, and instead reminded that we're actually watching a loop. I think this could have been far better explained by using the corridor, and tricking the audience that there isn't a loop UNTIL the character realises he IS in a loop. In your video, by the time the character actually says, "have i been here before", the audience already knows it's a loop.. and thus the impact is lost. The actor also looks off scene which makes me think where is he looking? (Look up POV shots.) When he says this.
 
Then there's nothing new to keep our attention until 02:31, that's a nearly a minute and a half extra of something we figured out in the first minute? It's about delivery of the key points of the story. And personally, i feel that if you had more BOLD compositions of the corridor, all of which explain something new or to show the audience something new about this space he's trapped in, the delivery would hold our attention.
 
The last part was intentional. However could you give an exaple of "I think this could have been far better explained by using the corridor, and tricking the audience that there isn't a loop UNTIL the character realises he IS in a loop"
 
From 02:31 to 02:55 is great. The one close-up profile shot of him on the phone doesn't work and jump cuts (which i think has been mentioned before). But i'd say this was the most interesting part of the whole film so far! From 02:55 to 03:28 is really weak, the music is great, but why wouldn't he be calling out to someone? looking for a door to open? Again, the composition is just of him, looking off screen, so the audience will be wondering what he's looking for? Why would a person be looking up and down a corridor when he's already conceded defeat? It's a mixed message. from 03:28 to 04:14 is great, very stylised, and makes me think of an old montage film. from 04:14 to 05:08, is boring as **** man. seriously? Then the scene after is a mixmatch of compositions that don't tell you anything. No impact at all from any of that..


I'm sorry if any of this has offended you dude. I'm a harsh critic, but you gotta get used to it, and learn from it. Nobodies perfect, and i'm only telling you what you could do to make it better.
 
Lol man. 04:14 to 05:08 is great... But I'll keep all of this in mind.

Could you give some tips for "I think this could have been far better explained by using the corridor, and tricking the audience that there isn't a loop UNTIL the character realises he IS in a loop"
 
Yeah sure, i mean, just some interesting compositions that take the viewers away from the character's face. Like say, a low shot of his feet, or CCTV footage, or a shot of an interesting bit of the wall, and the character is blurred out in the background. Just compositions that show off the location rather than just focus solely on the character. Maybe a shot above him looking down? or you could play the girl in before the scene, and have a shot behind the door of her looking thru the keyhole? or a shot that implies someone is looking thru a keyhole (doesn't even need her in it).
 
No real criticism here.. Although I need to work on better sound and I might actually re-shoot the females parts. Thanks for that interesting show of understanding. You know there is a thing as over analyzing something. It's never a good thing to do.

Just a tip. That time frame is about passing of time and intreating frustration. And a hint of submission.

Later
 
You need to learn how to take criticism better. I know you're proud, but stand back and learn from it. This isn't the last film you're going to make, so now it's all done, sit back and listen to what people say, and appreciate it.. Next time around, you'll be that much wiser.
 
Not when everyone still does not get it. But I get the point. I am listening. But at the same time it's one thing to talk and another to do.
 
Yeah, great effort, but I didn't get it. I don't have any experimental film cred, and I don't claim to be an intellectual giant, but-- "WHA...?"

Bergman = Yes

Understandable Plot or Point = No

And it was pretty long for the relatively undeveloped concept.

GJ
 
And now the correct answer.

Bergman = Yes

Understandable Plot or Point = Yes

And is was developed... disgusting.

I never tell you everything and sometimes you need to put some thought into the film you see. If you know anything of my work you know not everything is in black and wight. Besides some people got it. So you are not the great critic you think. Every problem presented has not been given a solution. You probably only know of Ingmar Bergman and so know how to attempt an insult.

Stop making a fool of yourself on the internet. You are not a critic. "But what am I?" I'll tell you "Gregg Juke" someone you talks big and knows nothing of what to do next.

This is the last time I respond on this post or go on this website. I have films to make and have no more time to check up what the next idiotic thing you say is.

Gregg Juke said:
Yeah, great effort, but I didn't get it. I don't have any experimental film cred, and I don't claim to be an intellectual giant, but-- "WHA...?"

Bergman = Yes

Understandable Plot or Point = No

And it was pretty long for the relatively undeveloped concept.

GJ
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top