Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2005, 11:02am
Post 1 of 22
|This was thought up and filmed in about an hour, so don't expect a masterpiece. It's directly inspired by John Carpenter's "Ghosts of Mars", and is pretty much a spin-off of it.|
Hope you like it.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2005, 1:12pm
Post 2 of 22
That was random from start to finish. It felt really disjointed, with the editing of the ghost bits stuck randomly in (not very well) & the music needed panning in & out. You didn't do anything the story required, such as building tension or explaining things like why they started randomly shooting. Random is a good word to describe this
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2005, 2:13pm
Post 3 of 22
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, random. That's the result of not working very long on a project...
What did you think of the music selection, the cinematography and the action? That's what we spent the most time on. We're mainly just practicing the different aspects of film-making(until we get good), and this was to practice those three. See our other shorts Timeline and A Stranger in the House for our practice of storytelling and building suspense, respectively.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2005, 3:01pm
Post 4 of 22
This movie... sucks, sorry to say that, I try not to say that about anything, Serious improvement needed.
Firstly, the start was ok I suppose, I hav watched ghost of mars or watever it's called and that was pretty much nothing to do with it except where the ghost runs up to people and infects them.
Secondly, did you even think about dialogue, i mean come on, my brothers not here, I have a bad feeling about this... so on. There was no suspense at all.
I could carry on but i wont.
The acting was quite reasonable but not that great, it was really random altogether.
Sorry I really don't want to say any movie is bad but come on. Sorry
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2005, 3:07pm
Post 5 of 22
I think to do yourself justice you need to put more thought & energy into a film. I can't really say much about your shots except take more time.
Music good, music editing bad. Cinematography poor, action bad.
Posted: Wed, 16th Feb 2005, 2:50am
Post 6 of 22
Okay admit it... you aren't some kid posting on a movie site... you are Uwe Boll aren't you? its okay you can admit it.
Okay seriously now. the movie didn't make sense, although, I think that if you get your act together and work a little harder in the future you can create some nice creepy atmospheres.
Posted: Wed, 16th Feb 2005, 3:08am
Post 7 of 22
Ok It wasnt that bad, due to some fast shots and I was scratching my head trying to figure out what was going on. Subtitles dammit what ever, Uwe Boll is the wrost directer ever, damn Alone in the dark. Uwe has to touch "Bloodrayne" dosn't he dammit it's going to suck. Anyways, okay but way too fast, good luck on your next piece. I liked the music, you used it right but seriously the editing sucked. Music awesome, Editing need to work on it. Shot this in one hour I could shot a longer film in One Hour if I was given the chance. Better luck next time.
Posted: Wed, 16th Feb 2005, 3:26am
Post 8 of 22
I have a question. I am not watching this movie (yet) for a number of reasons. Why should I not expect a masterpiece? Or at least a good film to your level of capabilities. If it is a test (which it isn't) then I may understand. But any movie that you are willing to show to an audience should be your best. You should give the film your all. This is just me but I think some folks in these parts have much more potential than they display due to their laziness or lack of passion. If a shot sucks, reshoot it. If you thought the film stunk but you couldnt improve, ask for criticism or maybe it wasn't your kind of film. But always give a film your all if you are going to call it a film and put your name as director etc. Have some pride. But, I am a nice guy, so i will watch this film and give my "2 cents." I will edit shortly.
Well well well, it was not that bad at the beginning, but everything after and including the first gun fight reall asn't good. The diting, the lighting, etc. The lighting in general really was bad. The acting was great up to the gun point. I really didnt get what happened there at the end. Bad sound editing throughout especially a weird volume change at the beginning, and no one should notice transitions between music and silnce etc, it should all flow. But then again I was kind of looking out for that. Not much of a plot, and a little weird camera work (not the ones that were supposed to be like that.) Not bad though. But I may have to give this a 2. If you were 12 or so I would have given you a 3, but due to your age (16-17 I presume) it will have to go as stands. But I believe the previous review(s) were/was exaggerated.
Posted: Wed, 16th Feb 2005, 6:34pm
Post 9 of 22
To be perfectly honest, I didn't really understand anything about this film. I guess if it's a test then it's not that bad. But do put more effort into your films. I know it must be hard if you have a two man crew, but come on, it seems like this film was made in a total of on hour maximum.
And as far as copywrite laws, I don't think you are violating any as long as you don't sell the film ever. If you are ever planning to, or think you might ever use a film for profit, then you need to clear things up with the people who own the rights to each song. Other then that, you don't have to worry about being sued or anything.
Posted: Wed, 16th Feb 2005, 11:26pm
Post 10 of 22
This was just made for fun. That estimation sounds about right... I doubt we spent much more than an hour at most on the whole thing. We're currently working on a larger-scale film, and this was just a quick little fun film we got done before starting the bigger project.
Posted: Thu, 17th Feb 2005, 1:49am
Post 11 of 22
I completely understand, but if you do not have pride, don't post it. But your first sentence was my main concern in your last post. ALL films should be for fun. :-\ That's just me, even boring school projects can be made awesome.
Posted: Thu, 17th Feb 2005, 4:25am
Post 12 of 22
Serpent, Ive seen you post that you arnt that proud of Charlie, isnt that contradictory?
Posted: Thu, 17th Feb 2005, 12:18pm
Post 13 of 22
I am proud of it. It wouldn't be here if I wasn't.
Most of our films are made to practice, rather than just to have fun with the camera(not to say that we don't have fun on every movie we make, though).
Posted: Thu, 17th Feb 2005, 2:08pm
Post 14 of 22
Frozenpede wrote:Serpent, Ive seen you post that you arnt that proud of Charlie, isnt that contradictory?
I am not proud of it NOW. Because it is an old film. And It seemed like skynet wasn't when he was dissing his own film. And I am glad to hear you have fun, and making films foor practice is good as well. Just trying to help.
Posted: Thu, 17th Feb 2005, 8:35pm
Post 15 of 22
"We're currently working on a larger-scale film"
Ok. That sounds about right.
It just seems like you have been releasing pointless tests and then covering yourself by saying things like "This wasn't a real movie, we made this in like an hour." when infact you wanted to have made an effort but decided you could get away with calling it a test.
Posted: Fri, 18th Feb 2005, 11:27am
Post 16 of 22
I have yet to ever 'decide that I could get away' with calling anything I've made a test... I'm just having a bit of trouble convincing the other half of my film-crew that we should make anything better than what you've seen so far... for crying out loud, it wasn't until after making Timeline that I convinced him that multiple angles for the same action was effective in a movie.
In essence, please stop giving me a hard time for my movies being crap, ok? It's not all my fault.
Posted: Mon, 21st Feb 2005, 10:11pm
Post 17 of 22
I just downloaded and watched this and I can say its a little bit better than the other film I've watched from you, a stranger in the house. Something I've come to notice is that you seemed to enjoy the scary/suspenseful alone in your house genre, but you also enjoy gun shootouts as well. Well thats great, i love those 2 genres to, but the problem is that they don't go together to well. You could of made this movie a lot more believable and better if they didn't use guns. The fact that 2 guys walk into a house and easily come across 2 loaded pistols is a little stupid. When I use to make movies in 5th grade that was the #1 way the characters in my movies got guns...Another thing that bothered me with this movie was the fact that both characters fired at eachother, as well as the twin brother like it was nothing. When the kid with the glasses walked towards the other one, the tall one with the blonde hair didnt even say ..."Hold it!" or "Stop!" He just gave him a look and shot him dead...kind of unrealistic considering there going in the house for the sole purpose of trying to find and help him...
Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2005, 11:50am
Post 18 of 22
I guess you're right about the guns... but we couldn't really think of a good way in the few minutes we planned the movie, so we just tried to explain it through the dialog.
The closeups of the faces just before the first shooting were to insinuate that he looked into his eyes, trying to find recognition but only seeing hatred and hostility. It wasn't specifically mentioned in the film, but the idea of the film was that they were very good friends(all three of them) before this happened, so he knew something was wrong. Think of it as something of an attempt to release him from whatever it was(a la One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) that was holding him. And the end was pretty much the same thing... this guy walked into the room, finding his best friend standing with the gun at his feet, doing some weird stuff with his hands whilst his twin lay on the floor, dead. He put two and two together.
While it may not look like it at first, I always try my best to make my films make sense. Sometimes you have to compare it to something else, or understand my mindstate when I thought it up. Alone in a desolate area, friends turned against each other, survival and mindless evil... this was a homage to John Carpenter, so we put those themes in and did our best to just keep it short and sweet. We knew we couldn't think up a solid story in such short time, so we just threw the ideas we had that were sufficiently 'Carpenter-ish' together and filmed it.
Posted: Sun, 6th Mar 2005, 4:24am
Post 19 of 22
Ok, this short film has meanings involved, i have watched it around 11 times and im not yet sure of what meanings there are, but i know what your trying to do. ok you said this is a test, im not going to criticise you over if its a test or no, i don't care to be honest. anything a person (who is a filmmaker) makes has to be from what they are feeling. you said you done this in an hour, it doesn't matter about time, 10 minutes can create a short film that can blow away alot of things. ok first off you need more messages in the movie, all i saw was a guy that came in, chat some stuff about his twin bro, ok made me cry a little, then went up and suddenly pulled 2 guns out of a draw expecting to go around the house and shout for the guy to come out so they could shot him/her. seriously, i really dont dig that, i mean you should have at least involved some more dialogue, like where you think your bro has gone, yea ok he said he didnt know where he was, but by saying that you limit your self to the amount of individual outcomes that can be produced by that scene or the next one. you should ave been more specific, mayb he went to the shop down the road, thas where he was last scene, maybe he went to get waxed and hasn't returned, then these simgle issues wuld create a whole diverse meaning as to what you can do with the est of the scene because your telling the audience something that will MAKE THEM also think of the outcomes, which will create more suspense because they are thinking whats ACTUALLY going to happen next. The Music i think was good, people say not mixed well... ok it wasn;t mixed to a very very good standard, but you got the high notes, etc in the right place.
There was one camera angle i really liked and that was when some guy was approaching another guy at the door just when he was turning round , the lighting was brillant and the camera movement was good, i was just mad you didn't start the following a bit before from different angles.
All in all, lack of messages in the film, lack of good camera angles to create suspense, lack of movement within the talkng between them both. i know it was an hour blah blah , but come on, what did you have to do after the hour, dentist appointment? you could have spent just another half an hour perfecting the bad parts so that they could have been said to be "Orite"
i aint dissin or nethin, im actually in the beginning of making my third short film, this one wil be posted here, i havnt made manyshort films, but my theoritical knowledge is very good, so im just waiting for the right story, right locations available, maybe you should take this amount of time aswell.
kool tho, i look forward to seeing more of you movies
Posted: Sun, 6th Mar 2005, 10:48am
Post 20 of 22
Well, the very fact that you've watched it so many times tells me that I'm at least beginning to do something right(otherwise you wouldn't have watched it more than once, regardless of whether or not you understood it).
I think you misunderstood the whole 'twin brother' thing. Maybe I made it too vague... the first scene we see, the prologue, the pre-credits sequence, that's the twin brother. That's how he 'disappears'. And we were basing the idea on the fact that he was a paranoid freak... he never left the house. He wouldn't have 'been seen' somewhere. They went looking because he stopped calling, they looked in the house because that was the logical place to start, and they grabbed the guns because when someone you know to be paranoid goes missing, you have to consider that whatever he was afraid of might have proven to be a true threat to him.
The time it took is why the angles are so limited, the lighting so nearly non-existant and why the plot is so anorexically thin... we didn't have a lot of time to make this, and it shows, and I'm not going to deny that. After the hour? Well, we had to go to sleep, you know, get some rest. We were already late, and we didn't want to sleep way too long the next day. Also, I'm not entirely sure which parts you think are particularly bad... I personally think it's fairly consistently crappy.
kool tho, i look forward to seeing more of you movies
Thanks, that makes it all worthwhile.
Posted: Sun, 6th Mar 2005, 7:14pm
Post 21 of 22
i watched it so many times because i frankly liked it. i liked what you were doing with the characters, i close face ups, just some parts were fucked. but your doing better than me physically filming, i spent 3 days on a short film, many things went wrong, small things, but because it was my third film, i rushing into the thinking process and messed up parts. also i had views in my head of what i wanted to do, i knew lightin would be a problem, but didn't actually think of how bad it was. i actually thought i would edit the lighting and make it dimmer, etc... i don't know if you can, i tried, and wasn't successful. the short film wil be posted here shortly, i just have to gather enough condifence to extract it and post it. what i would like to know is what equipment you use? what camcorder?
Posted: Mon, 7th Mar 2005, 12:04am
Post 22 of 22
I'm glad you liked it. Yes, the first few times you film, you're going to make mistakes... Lots of them. No matter how much theory you know beforehand. That's why I jump right into filming, and consider planning second... we can(and will, anyway) always figure out angles and lighting when we get to shooting. The creative process mostly begins for us when we press 'record' on the camera. I am looking forward to seeing your film. We use a JVC 70C camera. Very basic camera.