Unsane - Soderbergh's iPhone 7 Plus movie

O

OldCorpse

Rockin the Boat
I watched this as much for the content as for what he did with the iPhone 7 Plus. The film itself was not terrible, but still a disappointment - the script was not tight, and the main villain was of the "implausibly omnipotent and omnipresent" variety, which took away from the realizm; as a result, it was far less involving than could have been given the premise. We've seen this premise before of course, countless times, and done much better than here. It was tolerable, but no more than that. Claire Foy was good, but pretty much everyone else was just barely passable.

The look was frankly - to me - very poor. Actually, I thought the much older iPhone 5 shot movie Tangerine was vastly superior visually. I don't think Soderbergh brings anything to the table with the iPhone 7 Plus. It was predictably bad in low light, colors (despite apparently extensive CC in post) were muddy, and the dynamic range was terrible. Skin tones uniformely awful, on everyone. Would it make much of a difference to the average audience out there? Probably not - and to be fair, the subject matter and locations were reasonably well suited for the iPhone, so I doubt anyone walked out of the theater complaining about the look. But on the other hand, it is also true that nobody is going to walk out of the movie and say "it was beautifully shot". It was a visual failure (IMHO). I guess Soderbergh would claim that the iPhone's small size allowed some pretty good maneuverability, but that's not much compensation in a movie that's visually quite anemic.

While I'm all for using cheap tools empowering everyone no matter their budget, I cannot say this film is a good example of the iPhone success as a movie making camera. It'll get you the footage, that's about the best that can be said. But if you go to movies at least in part because you love the visual aspect of the filmmaking art, Unsane brings you nothing (IMHO).

3 stars out of 5 (for me).

EDIT: Oops, I only just noticed that a thread on Unsane had already been started - I swear I looked, just didn't see it. My apologies. The old thread is here (it's just the initial post):

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?359747-Unsane
 
Last edited:
I said it before when it was announced that he shot it on an iPhone, it was 100% a publicity stunt. If he needed some scenes to look like they were shot on a phone and it added to the storytelling, then by all means, but at that level, there is no need to shoot an entire feature on a cell phone, other than "just because we want to"(publicity stunt).
 
Hmm. I'm not sure about that. Honestly, I don't see how he could think this was a draw "shot on an iPhone". I mean, maybe there'd be some lukewarm curiosity from DP's, but that's not a market you need to address yourself to. The big public out there? They don't care. I have not heard from one person, or overheard any conversation that mentioned "oh, it was shot on an iPhone". So whom would Soderbergh pitch that "publicity stunt" to? I can't imagine. Maybe at the time of Tangerine, a movie that came out in 2015 it was news that you could shoot on an iPhone - but today? I don't buy it.

Honestly, I just think Soderbergh is interested in trying new things. Early on, watching his movies, I got the sense that he was influenced by Scorcese big time. But he tries different things. Look how differently Traffic was shot compared to Kafka, compared to The Limey and so on. He experiments - employ a porn star (The Girlfriend Experience), employ a professional fighter (Haywire), why not. And he's *very* hit or miss in my view (mostly miss, IMHO). I liked Sex Lies & Videotape and Traffic, that's about it. A lot of his stuff I hated (Out of Sight, The Limey, Haywire, The Girlfriend Experience, Kafka), but then again, I haven't seen all of his stuff. But I respect that he's willing to experiment... only problem as far as I can see is that he doesn't have a good instinct about what is a likely to have a good outcome and what not, so his experiments are kinda random... like this "shooting on a cellphone" thing, which you just know is only likely to succeed under very limited circumstances (see: Tangerine, which I loved), and for *sure* you shouldn't be fronting that "I'll make all my movies on a phone", because that's just likely to lead to failure and disappointment - it's far more limited than something principled like Dogma 95... this is just a tool, a camera, and it's silly to get married to the idea "only a phone from now on", that's just silly. But for all that, I think he's sincere, and it's not a stunt, at least as far as I see. All IMHO.
 
Was it shot in anamorphic? That was one of the things that brought Tangerine to a more interesting level with the Moondog lens.

But do you think this was shot on an iphone for HIS personal experiment, or was Apple footing the bill on this production?

Did he use extra lenses, or just what the phone has built in, the Zeiss add on lenses are supposed to be pretty good, the BeastGrip only OK (in my not so humble opinion after trying the BeastGrip lenses on my Android phones)
 
Have not seen the movie, though perhaps Soderbergh is just suffering creative fatigue....did'nt he "retire" a few years ago? Though I probably liked a lot of his earlier stuff more than the OP. Reminds me of Spielberg....we watched the Post on vodeo....so uniformly awful, in spite of a stellar cast!...hard to believe it's the same person who directed "Dual"...what both these directors have in common though, is they've both made a lot of films...so perhaps Soderbergh is just burnt out...
 
For me I don't understand the appeal of something that small. For me I'd rather shoot on like a GH5 or something, easier to handle. A sony A7III or something.

I mean if they lit it properly it could have looked like any other Hollywood film. I guess he just wanted it to be different.
 
OldCorpse said:
Hmm. I'm not sure about that. Honestly, I don't see how he could think this was a draw "shot on an iPhone". I mean, maybe there'd be some lukewarm curiosity from DP's, but that's not a market you need to address yourself to. The big public out there? They don't care. I have not heard from one person, or overheard any conversation that mentioned "oh, it was shot on an iPhone". .
Click to expand...

It was most definitely part of the film's buzz. In fact, it was probably the film's entire buzz.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/movies/unsane-trailer-steven-soderbergh-claire-foy.html

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/22/5951...ne-is-soderbergh-s-shot-on-an-iphone-thriller

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/r...erberghs-inspired-iphone-experiment-in-unsane

https://www.cnet.com/news/steven-soderberghs-iphone-shot-film-unsane-looks-insane/

http://www.slashfilm.com/unsane-trailer/

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/st...t-movie-iphone-claire-foy-unsane-1201856840/#!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-on-iphone-premieres-in-berlin-idUSKCN1G52PR
 
I've read some of these reviews before, but I guess I took Run&Gun's statement "100% publicity stunt" to mean that it was a way of gaining attention with a view of boosting audience size (box office). That's the part I can't quite believe was calculated by S.S. - I mean, it's hard to imagine that significant numbers of people would be lured into the cinema based on "shot on an iPhone 7 Plus" - how many such conversations would there likely to be "honey, this was shot on an iPhone 7 - gotta see that!"; "Dude, this was shot on an iPhone 7, let's go - HI FIVE!" etc. I mean, maybe a handful, but it's hard to imagine that this would move the needle enough to be actually felt - say, boosted the boxoffice by 20%. Personally, I highly doubt it. It strikes me that the only time the visuals are even a factor as an audience draw, is if there are spectacular special effects in a movie, or 3D, cinerama, or something along those lines. The rest of the time, you move the marketing needle based on content, actors etc.

The press, especially the industry press (film publications), are a different matter - I can fully see how reviewers would definitely note something like "shot on an iPhone BY A MAJOR DIRECTOR" (because just shot on iPhone alone is not novel, it was done before by indies). So you might get press buzz, and industry buzz, but would that translate into a boost at the box office? I kinda doubt it, and more importantly I find it hard to believe that S.S. calculated that as a "publicity stunt", I suspect he was sincere when giving his reasons, rather than it being simply a tool for publicity, but hey, I'm not in his head, and I could be completely wrong 🤷
 
David Jimerson said:
It was most definitely part of the film's buzz. In fact, it was probably the film's entire buzz.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/movies/unsane-trailer-steven-soderbergh-claire-foy.html

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/22/5951...ne-is-soderbergh-s-shot-on-an-iphone-thriller

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/r...erberghs-inspired-iphone-experiment-in-unsane

https://www.cnet.com/news/steven-soderberghs-iphone-shot-film-unsane-looks-insane/

http://www.slashfilm.com/unsane-trailer/

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/st...t-movie-iphone-claire-foy-unsane-1201856840/#!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-on-iphone-premieres-in-berlin-idUSKCN1G52PR
Click to expand...

I bet Unsane wouldn't have got even half those links if it had been shot on anything but a cellphone.


OldCorpse said:
I've read some of these reviews before, but I guess I took Run&Gun's statement "100% publicity stunt" to mean that it was a way of gaining attention with a view of boosting audience size (box office). That's the part I can't quite believe was calculated by S.S. - I mean, it's hard to imagine that significant numbers of people would be lured into the cinema based on "shot on an iPhone 7 Plus" - how many such conversations would there likely to be "honey, this was shot on an iPhone 7 - gotta see that!"; "Dude, this was shot on an iPhone 7, let's go - HI FIVE!" etc. I mean, maybe a handful, but it's hard to imagine that this would move the needle enough to be actually felt - say, boosted the boxoffice by 20%. Personally, I highly doubt it. It strikes me that the only time the visuals are even a factor as an audience draw, is if there are spectacular special effects in a movie, or 3D, cinerama, or something along those lines. The rest of the time, you move the marketing needle based on content, actors etc.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but would people even have heard of this film if not for it being shot on an iPhone?

You can't go out to see a film you don't even know about.

So while "shot on iphone" wasn't the reason many people saw the film, it did help get this film's "food in the door" in many people's awareness. Which is the first step for marketing
 
IronFilm said:
I bet Unsane wouldn't have got even half those links if it had been shot on anything but a cellphone.




Perhaps not, but would people even have heard of this film if not for it being shot on an iPhone?

You can't go out to see a film you don't even know about.

So while "shot on iphone" wasn't the reason many people saw the film, it did help get this film's "food in the door" in many people's awareness. Which is the first step for marketing
Click to expand...

That's a good way to put it. People may not have seen it because it was shot on an iPhone, but they heard about it because it was shot on an iPhone.
 
I suppose this really is a question about marketing. I mean, usually when you try to create buzz, you do it so that the ostensible reason for the buzz is attractive in itself - so for example, there can be buzz about an amazing performance, so people will go "yeah, I want to see that", or amazing special effect, so people will go "yeah, I want to see that". That's buzz that does more work than simply raise people's awareness of the film. If the tools the film is made with don't excite, and "People may not have *seen it* because it was shot on an iPhone", it's an odd way of generating awareness of the film - like if for example instead of S.S. saying to himself "I'll generate buzz for this film with a really gross/amazing/controversial scene - it'll generate a ton of buzz (awareness) and also make people want to see that amazing scene", S.S. would instead say "I'll just use the world's smallest microphone made with spider webs, that'll get the press buzz and create awareness of the film - then people will go to the film because now they know it exists, even if they don't care one bit about the smallest spider microphone". I don't know. It just seems more efficient and stronger if you create buzz over something the audience actually *cares* about and is stimulated to want to see, rather than something they dont' care about at all, like a camera or microphone. But hey, I'm not a marketing guy, so maybe I'm all wrong.
 
I had a theory, several years ago, that the reason one of the local stations here was airing promos all the time promoting the fact that their reporters were shooting on iPads and iPhones was that they were trying to draw in the viewers and make a connection with them because these professional journalists were doing this with the same thing that all the viewers carry in their pockets and backpacks everyday, and maybe also giving them the idea that THEY can do it, too, because they have an iPhone. Eventually they figured out that the quality was crap and the huge limitations that iPads and iPhones had versus even the little prosumer handicams, because they got rid of them.
 
IronFilm said:
Yes, people have a bigger connection with "shot on iPhone" than "shot with a spiderweb microphone"
Click to expand...

Certainly true. But the salient question is whether significant numbers of people are drawn to see a movie *because* it was shot in an iPhone. I argue "no". Maybe a handful. And yes, probably an even smaller handful in the case of spiderweb microphones, but in either case not moving the needle at all on the box office - and that's what matters. In and of itself, neither is a draw for the mass audience. Seems to me \/shrug\/.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top