Yeah, I also had considered watching this before based upon the positive reviews I'd read etc. But then I looked the trailer up and, uh ah, didn't like the look of it based upon that. But this was an excuse to give it a try anyway.
So I started watching it and maybe a quarter of the way in I almost stopped, thinking I might not give any more of my life-time to it, or perhaps I'd watch it in smaller chunks. I stuck it out though.
So, the cinematography first, since Ray went into it so deeply. I don't know if I had much problem with it, minus the "Color grading and goofy effects." If there is something, and I was looking for something at Ray's suggestion, I'd say maybe it could be a general tightness in the framing. Maybe, I did sort of feel that much of the framing is too tight in on its subjects. Not sure about that. I'm really feeling that the cinematography is okay-ish. But I wouldn't put the color grading and goofy effects aside.
--> The second biggest problem with the look of the film for me is that most of the time it looks videoy.
IMDb says that they shot it with the Sony HDV-V1U
Is
this it?
I don't know, that says it's capable of 1080/p24.
Comparing the video in
Ink to that of
Guidlines gives testament, I think, to the 7D's capability to deliver film-like or filmic video. That trailer does look very good.
--> Those blown-out highlights or whatever they are the
biggest problem with the look of the film for me.
I very much do not like it. If I were to choose to use that
effect, and that's a big if, I'd use it very sparingly. And by very sparingly I mean very, very, very, very, very...and very sparingly, and briefly. But for
Ink it's the entire film.
Ouch.
And Vignetting. Do filmmakers use vignetting to indicate a dream state or a flashback into the past? Or is it to simulate vision hindered by cataracts or macular degeneration? I think that usually the latter effect achieved by vignetting outweighs the story benefit for indicating altered states or flashbacks. It tends to repel me.
Again, maybe it's only my own quarky experience or my limited sound set-up, but the audio mix did not seem quite right. I wasn't familiar with the
uncanny valley concept until I
heard it mentioned by Escher and others in another thread, but I feel like it's akin to that, an uncanny valley, only aural instead of visual. The mix is almost there, almost right, but just not
quite right...not quite natural, and so a turn-off. For me, this seems like another case in which a shortcoming with the audio bleeds into the visual experience and detracts from it and from the whole experience. Really, I was wondering as I watched and listened to the movie, if that not-quite-right audio mix might be coloring how I responded to the visuals and to the cinematography, positively or negatively.
Thanks to Cracker, I was prepared for some possibly fast and annoying editing. The rapid fire editing of the fight scenes really didn't bother me. They may have used it in an attempt to ameliorate low-budget issues. What do if you can't afford a Yuen Wo-ping? You might resort to fast cutting like that. Or maybe it was a purely aesthetic choice. All the same, I'm impressed with what they did do. I have to guess that they
did have a fight choreographer to pull off what they did do. Probably most importantly, the fighting seemed believable enough to me. And their stunt people or their actors or whoever they are...geesh, some pretty athletic people. All in all, pretty impressive on their budget.
I remember seeing
Quantum of Solace and the rapid fire editing of its opening. I hated it. And they had a budget of c.200 million. What's their excuse? Don't worry, I'm not ripping on the movie overall. I thought it was okay overall. I'm a 007 fanboy and hope to see it again and to add it to my library someday.
Yeah, storywise, "there's too much dreamland mystical goobledy-gok" for me too.
Some positive stand outs for me include the scene where the warrior woman meets the tracker person. Some pretty cheeky and amusing dialogue and interplay there.
I did not have a problem with the profanity. It felt natural enough to me. That yelling and dropping of f-bombs in the car scene...am I the only one here who's also done that very thing? Heheh.
Er.
I also like the sequence in which the tracker is orchestrating the collision for the father to have in order to "break the flow," or whatever. Nice and moving dramatically, as well as being well shot.
The screen-mask-thingies of the incubi and their goofy, weird grinning faces are pretty cool looking and well done.
And I like Chris Kelly as the father. He seems like a good actor and has a nice screen presence. I'd cast him if I could and had a role that was right for him.
I hate to have had anything negative to say about the film. But I respect and appreciate their ambition and what they did do well on the budget they had. I was impressed by the quality of their locations and sets too. Did you notice those?