rhcvatni wrote:Sure, it's on super8, so that's cool. It's made by "kids" for 40 bucks + film, so it's not so bad.....
Of all the tens of thousands of movies made the last decade, why is this movie worth a second of your time?
No it wasn't made by "kids for $40" And that kind of attitude but you on par with the pretentious "I'm above this because I'm an artist types"
I could tell just from the Judge clip and now the trailer too that this film is unique in the fact that it is both something different and very good at the same time.
Those of you like calodot and yourself that claim to be getting it and dismissing it at the same are definietly NOT getting it.
And just so you know I've seen thousands of movies in my lifetime and it's very hard to get me excited about one any more. I'm clearly seeing something more here that you all are. You see some sort of sci-fi action movie and try to immediately dismiss it. That just shows your true short sighted and shallow attitude when on the outside you claim to be deep "artists"
Hmm. "kids" ment people who aren't too old(I doubt they are 40), but I was mostly referring to the fact that they aren't professionals.
Well, semi-good fighting scenes. Compare it to the hundreds of professional action-fighting-stunt guys we see on tv every day and I'm not too impressed. Are you.
What's new. Haven't you seen fighting and "kids" in suits and hats in these sorts of movies before. Is it the storyline and the dialogue that's new and special? I watched the trailer. It SCREAMED "Dark City".
Did I get it? I didn't say I got anything but bored.
But hey, they have to learn. I'm not saying I could make this, I'm just saying there is very little reason for me to watch it. I just don't think they could tell me anything new. It doesn't seem that way by the clips. Maybe they just suck at making trailers.
No, I did not make this movie nor do I know the filmmakers.
I just happen to take the time to learn more about the film than just looking at the pictures real quick or just viewing the clips once and judging it at first glance like those saying "duhhh, it's guys in suits fighting, duhhh"
There is much more going on and the filmmaker shows a unique style that I personally think is brilliant. As I filmmaker I can only hope to be as good as this particular filmmaker already shows he is.
Calodot claims he " got it" and would respect the film more if it took itself serious which to me is proof he didn't get it. The film is serious thru-out. The tongue-in-cheek light hearted jabs at film noir that I pointed out are not thrown in the face of the viewer but are put in very subtle and meant to only be recognized by the observent viewer who is familiar with film noir. I made the mistake of assuming that, as filmmakers, most people here would get it and appreciate at much more deeper level. But instead judgement is being made at the superficial level. "Duhhh, it's like Dark City, duhhh." No it isn't.
Hmmm, perhaps I should not have been so impatient about everyone "getting" this film I realize now that is very easy to miss some of the subtle things going on in this film that give it it's unique style.
There are many layered things going on in this movies that take some time to notice. While I already pointed out the "tongue-in-cheek" film noir stuff, It should be mentioned that that is rather minor and that there are many serious elements of film noir within this film both in the storyline and in cinematic elements. There are also elements of Hitchcock that aren't immediately obvious but they are there.
Actually I'm not about to go into that, instead I thought I'd explain just one element of this film that was easy to miss because it is something compeletely different that I have never noticed in any other film I've ever seen
The element is those action scenes you all are comparing to every Hollywood movie or even television as if you've seen it before but there's something else going on there.
In every movie there are two main types of scenes- Exposition and Conflict. Every movie has Conflict, even a love Story(something keeping the two lovers apart) Exposition scenes are those "boring" scenes usually full of nothing but talking but nescessary to move the story along, they're used to explain plot points, introduce characters, and in general move the story to it's next conflict scene. The Conflict scenes are self explainatory. They provide the action or drama that entertains the audience.
One of the elements of 23 Hours that hard to grasp is that the scenes of action are Exposition Scenes! They are not the Conflict Scenes!! It is so easy to look at those scenes and dismiss them as " just more Hollywood style action" They are not. It's hard to grasp that the Conflict scenes are, in fact, between these action scenes and that each action scene performs some sort of Exposition- introducing characters, moving the film along to each new conflict or plot point, etc...
Actually that's a rather simplistic way of putting it because there is so much more style put into it then I can put into words here.
I just thought a group of filmmakers, especially those that care about super 8, would notice these and the other more subtle elements of this film rather than dismissing it so quickly.
les, i'm confused. have you seen the film or not? all the rest of us have seen is a rather crappy trailer for what looks like a decent low budget film. how anyone could "get" anything from just that is beyond me.
Les, I'm glad you liked it. People should be happy.
I'm just one of those people who don't care much for subtle referenses to other styles/genres/directors/whatever. I don't think it adds anything to the act of just experiencing a movie. Referring to other themes on a intellectual and more subconscious level requires some background knowledge and prior reflection on the subject(both by the viewer and the director of course). And that's great if the director has some brains, but I think it puts you outside the movie the moment it's advertised, the fact that I'm watching a movie amongst many other movies.
And I can't help it. If you make a low budget movie set in todays society, with guys in their twenties wearing suits and hats and put alot of semi-good fight scenes in the mix, it's not very credible and realistic and it reminds me of too many bad no-budget movies. That fact alone would make me steer clear of any such elements if I were making a movie. Unless I could back it all up and make it seem credible, like in Dark City. But it has a really special and clever storyline you say. Well, as I said, I've only watched the trailer and it doesn't really promise a hell of lot of exiting stuff. So until I've watched the entire movie, I'm not going to talk crap about it anymore. Where did you watch it by the way?
Last edited by rhcvatni on Thu Aug 07, 2003 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Those of you like calodot...that claim to be getting it and dismissing it at the same are definietly NOT getting it.
I find your attitude of "the only reason you dismiss it, is because you don't understand it" rather strange. It's kinda like saying "the only reason you disagree with me is because you don't understand what i mean", no, we just don't agree ;)
You know, some people do have different taste in films. This film appeals to you, to some others it does not. Has nothing to do with "getting it" or not.
Les, either you've seen the movie, or you're giving the filmmakers a lot of credit based on the very brief clips. (And you should decide: are they serious, joking, tongue-in-cheek, seriously tongue-in-cheek, jokingly serious? Do you think the filmmakers themselves even know?)
I haven't made any judgment calls about this movie, because I haven't seen this movie. The trailer and clips demonstrate the filmmaker's technical competence, which as I said is not minimal. He knows where to put his camera.
What I wonder(ed) is why this filmmaker or any struggling filmmaker would choose to expend time, money, energy, etc. on a film that in no way distinguishes itself or even atempts to distinguish itself from numerous Hollywood productions - in fact makes every effort to copy those productions, to the effect that the only distinguishing mark of the film is how it doesn't measure up to Hollywood standards. You're spending all this money on a movie, why not make a movie about something you care about, something that moves you? (I suppose it's possible that a story of an amnesiac in a cheap suit might move someone. If so, I would suggest that they immediately turn off the TV and set about having some experiences, i.e. getting a life.)
I'm not saying he should have made a film about this or that: I'm just wondering - do guys like this have no personal story to tell? Do they have no insight on the world around them that they'd like to share? No funny stories about their friends or family?
I understand why a Scott, Bay, Spielburg or Wachowski Bro makes movies like this: it's about the bucks, baby. And they do mostly fine, certainly technically masterful, action thrillers. But their movies rake in 2-3 or more times what they cost to make. If that were the formula for indie films like this, I'd see the business opportunity. But that's not the formula: nobody who makes a movie like this ever makes 2-3 times what he put into it.
So I'm left to believe that people who make movies like this are essentially applying for a job in Hollywood. Though I live in Hollywood and work (or attempt to work) in the industry, I have no desire to expend my energies making movies like 23 HOURS, movies that are copies of Hollywood fare. I sometimes have to write stories like that, and I do my best to inject something unique, sometime personal, into it.
I consider myself an artist, Les, not because I am "pretentious" - that would mean I am pretending to be an artist, and I am not pretending: I am being one, or trying to be one, and have been for more than 20 years. It helps that I have a degree in art, so I can wave that in the face of dipshits who are too weak-minded to consider themselves anything, and so take affront that I would dare call myself an "ARTIST." (Oh, you're one of those!) I consider myself an artist because that is the term used to describe someone who attempts, as the American Heritage Dicitonary puts it:
"conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."
In short, I can't call myself a mechanic because I don't work on cars; I call myself an artist because I make, or try to make, art. If it helps you with your obvious inferiority complex, I also call myself a "writer," "filmmaker," "photographer," and "editor." What do you call yourself, Les? Less?
"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."â€â€George W. Bush, June 4, 2003