The Big Short

J

jimi90501

New member
Hi,
Just saw the movie at a Regal theater in Sony 4K.
Stuck in 2nd row but I don't think that was the problem.

Given the IMDB tech sheet says:
Arricam LT, Angenieux Optimo Lenses
Canon EOS C500, Panavision Primo Lenses

Did they just add all that grain in post to make it look like a documentary?
The in/out of the grain was annoying to me and distracted from the story for me.

thanks
jim c
 
There was a lot in this movie that was visually distracting like that.
I didn't really like the camera work nor the editing, I found them both to be a bit "bumpy". But I suppose it all did come together to give that "documentary feel" that they were obviously after.

It's an unusually put together film in many ways, but I did quite like it. Great performances too.
 
I saw the movie in the middle of the a theater. I noticed the grain for the first few minutes but not after that. I also didn't like the camera work. The shakycam footage of Christian Bale at beginning of the movie was very distracting. For me the worst part of the movie was being intentionally taken out of the story by the actors talking to the camera and the celebrity cameos. I almost walked out of the theater when Margo Robbie showed up in a bathtub (never thought I'd say that). Those stunts took me out of the movie and never let me back in.
 
sk85 said:
I saw the movie in the middle of the a theater. I noticed the grain for the first few minutes but not after that. I also didn't like the camera work. The shakycam footage of Christian Bale at beginning of the movie was very distracting. For me the worst part of the movie was being intentionally taken out of the story by the actors talking to the camera and the celebrity cameos. I almost walked out of the theater when Margo Robbie showed up in a bathtub (never thought I'd say that). Those stunts took me out of the movie and never let me back in.
Click to expand...

Shakey-cam...kiss my arse.

The asides were bizarre at first, but then I realized that this is NOT a narrative film. It's really not.

This is simply an unusual documentary.
I think they had to do it this way because the subject matter really is very dry and difficult for most people to understand.
It was a message that really needed to get out - and I can't see any other way that would have worked for reaching a really large audience.
 
DPStewart said:
Shakey-cam...kiss my arse.

The asides were bizarre at first, but then I realized that this is NOT a narrative film. It's really not.

This is simply an unusual documentary.
I think they had to do it this way because the subject matter really is very dry and difficult for most people to understand.
It was a message that really needed to get out - and I can't see any other way that would have worked for reaching a really large audience.
Click to expand...

I agree with most all of the comments above; some of the editing and camerawork really tried my patience at times -- but the performances and intention of the movie more than made up for it. People I have talked to who are apolitical and/or uninterested in the subject matter said 'it was better than I expected'. I feel like Steve Carrell's performance really was the best of them all; Christian Bale was a little less convincing for me.

What an ambitious goal to make an entertaining, mainstream movie about an incredibly opaque subject like the financial industry! They pulled it off.
 
sk85 said:
I almost walked out of the theater when Margo Robbie showed up in a bathtub (never thought I'd say that). Those stunts took me out of the movie and never let me back in.
Click to expand...
I had a very different reaction to that scene... I actually really liked those jump away explanations but twice was enough.

I didn't notice the grain one bit but I did see it on a fairly small screen.

Overall I really liked it.
 
I think a lot of the backlash is simply a matter of what you expected vs. what you got. Saw it in a packed theater and the audience roared with laughter when the bubble bath scene came up. Everyone was into what the movie was doing.
 
I have to say I was a bit perplexed at the end, unsure of what I saw. The only thing I knew was that I liked it. And I was emotionally moved, as well.

I think the incredible star-studded cast really helped to sell the intentional precariousness of the camera. When I first saw Ryan Gozling I was really surprised at how different he looked. It is always refreshing when actors allow themselves to not look their best in order to serve a role.

I definitely was aware of the artifice of the story and the film, so suspension of disbelief was not a priority for me. I was still able to engage with the events as they unfolded.
 
Ugh. Not a fan of this movie. First things first - absolutely outstanding performances from almost everyone - super impressed by Carey, Christian Bale (just wow!), Brad Pitt (amazing makeup too!), Gosling and almost everyone all along the line. Fantastic acting. And that's it, folks. The rest is dreck. The script, such as it is - whatever emotional charge and drama they managed to get is completely based in the actual real life story, with no real contribution from the filmmakers (of course, the fabulous acting made it too)... it's as if you are making a film about the atomic bomb in Hiroshima - the drama is already there, all you can do is find a particularly poignant and meaningful take on it. That was lacking in The Big Short - it was basically a rough hewn and superficial analysis, that contributed nothing (unless you were completely unaware of what happened with the whole real estate and wall street bubble). I mean, educating the audience can't be the criterion here, as any number of documentaries, including ones on PBS did a far superior job. So what was left? Did they show something that truly captured the meaning of what happened? I saw no such artistic triumph. And don't get me started on the camera work and the ADHD editing. The bubble bath was insulting, getting Selena Gomez to be the "airhead" to explain stuff to us... just offensive. Bottom line: the actors were fantastic and it's a shame they were not allowed to be in a better movie. I realize that it's a very hyped and critically acclaimed film, but I wonder just how much of this is people conflating the political appeal with artistic merit - just because the filmmakers are championing the "right" cause doesn't mean we should all fall in line behind this on artistic grounds.
 
I saw it the other night, and thought it was fantastic. I think that 'educational' aspect that OldCorpse wasn't a fan of, was precisely the thing that made it stand out to me. I found it an incredibly engaging (and at times downright terrifying) history lesson.

I found the style of the film refreshingly different personally.
 
Grug said:
I saw it the other night, and thought it was fantastic. I think that 'educational' aspect that OldCorpse wasn't a fan of, was precisely the thing that made it stand out to me. I found it an incredibly engaging (and at times downright terrifying) history lesson.

I found the style of the film refreshingly different personally.
Click to expand...

My thoughts also. Although I still didn't get what they were shorting.
 
Enjoyed the look and movie itself, save for the apparent way out of whack back focus on the zoom lens! Seemed like 80% of the shots had a zoom that would go unacceptably soft on the second position!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top