dodge4life
Freshman
@dodge4life
Posts: 78
Likes: 21
|
Post by dodge4life on Aug 5, 2018 7:52:57 GMT
It's hard to critique this one. It's both good and bad at the same time.
Visually, it stands out. It's a film to see if you're into filmmaking. Steven Soderbergh uses still, angled shots for every frame meticulously placed for symmetry. If someone isn't into filmmaking, this would go unnoticed. A lot of it pretentious, though. I think if any other director made this, it'd be terrible. But it passes by as decent as it's a Steven Soderbergh film. The acting is, eh. Joshua Leonard is creepy to a different level, and it's weird to see the "heroin" of the movie validating his creepiness at times. Some of the shots, particularly one shot of blood squirting up to her face, had me thinking it was gratuitous, but if that's a strong word, then at least pretentious. It was decent, but odd.
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Aug 5, 2018 8:04:48 GMT
A scene where someone stabs someone and blood squirts on their face is neither gratuitous nor pretentious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 13:03:48 GMT
I don't get on well with this director's work.
|
|
dodge4life
Freshman
@dodge4life
Posts: 78
Likes: 21
|
Post by dodge4life on Aug 18, 2018 1:28:25 GMT
A scene where someone stabs someone and blood squirts on their face is neither gratuitous nor pretentious. It was how it was edited. She cuts him, then there's a reverse shot where we see her face, and the blood spurts up from the bottom. I can just imagine the director was like, "we gotta get this shot just right of the blood hitting her face! Zoom in, reverse close-up up, cut back!"
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Dec 28, 2018 0:11:44 GMT
I enjoyed this, and didn't realize it was all filmed on iPhones until afterwards. Guess I got sucked in by the story, which is a good thing, really.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 28, 2018 4:04:34 GMT
I thought it was good, particularly the acting. Had no idea that guy was "JOOOOOOOOOSH!!!" from Blair Witch. With the cinemtography talk, surprised that you didn't mention it was shot on a phone.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 28, 2018 9:22:43 GMT
I loved Pharoah, he manages to make a rather thin character very empathetic and memorable as well. Also more need to study Soderbergh as well.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Mar 26, 2019 18:54:11 GMT
The logic holes are wide, while the mental health sectors have every right to be angry beyond compare.
But I liked it - ok, I was expecting a right dud given all the 1/10 hostility I have seen, but watched it last night and had an edgy time with it. Job done.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 29, 2019 15:31:47 GMT
I found this movie to be pretty entertaining and engaging in general. It's a compelling premise and the cast is quite good. Soderbergh does a pretty proficient and efficient job here. It's a pretty tight and lean movie.
Plus, apparently most of this movie was shot around my neighborhood. I didn't even realize this until I saw some of the local landmarks on screen.
Matt Damon was even rooting around right across from my building, and I had no idea.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 29, 2019 15:42:29 GMT
A scene where someone stabs someone and blood squirts on their face is neither gratuitous nor pretentious. It was how it was edited. She cuts him, then there's a reverse shot where we see her face, and the blood spurts up from the bottom. I can just imagine the director was like, "we gotta get this shot just right of the blood hitting her face! Zoom in, reverse close-up up, cut back!" Yeah, none of this really makes any sense. There's nothing pretentious about that, and the gratuitous, in this context, would be essentially the opposite of pretentious. ---- "Visually, it stands out. It's a film to see if you're into filmmaking. Steven Soderbergh uses still, angled shots for every frame meticulously placed for symmetry. If someone isn't into filmmaking, this would go unnoticed. A lot of it pretentious, though. I think if any other director made this, it'd be terrible. But it passes by as decent as it's a Steven Soderbergh film." ---- What's notable about the way this was shot was mostly the choice of lenses. So much was made of this movie being shot entirely on an iPhone, but that idea misleads one into thinking they could shoot a movie that looks like this with just the phone in his or her pocket. Clearly pro-level, adaptive mount, or anamorphic lenses were attached to the cheap camera and there must have been a good deal of software involved in improving the look as well. It's experimental in a way, but I doubt this movie was nearly as cheap as iPhone trivia would lead some to believe. But those shots are nice. He gets a great depth of filed and expands the visual scope of very small spaces to make them look wider and more imposing. This sort of runs counter to what traditional wisdom may suggest to do. Generally in a film like this, with this sort of theme and story, you look to shrink your space and make everything feel a bit more claustrophobic. You'd use shallower lenses, with tighter frames and less deep focus. Soderbergh subverts that idea of the traditional way of shooting the feeling of things closing in on the character. It's odd, but I think it kind of works. Other than that, the movie does have a definite dirty, and digital look. I'm sure it didn't need to, the phone cameras can produce some pretty crisp and filmic images. I guess he wanted to highlight the look of the camera he was using rather than replicate the look of 35mm or higher end digital cinema cameras. It's sort of an odd choice, but Soderbergh has liked that kind of thing even when he was making really big, glossy studio movies.
|
|