Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by witherflower
That was pretty darn good. I was on the edge of my seat all the way through, actually. And the comedy relief was well executed too. Well directed and performed by the actors, especially the lead girl. With better lighting it would truly shine imo. Good work! Would see it again, absolutly.Ahh you're too kind. It suffers from the same problem as the Phantom Menace actually; all the bits tie together in such a way that it all needs to be there, so when some of it doesn't work very well you're stuck with it. And then you're shooting for continuity.... If everything isn't blocked and timed to perfection things start to get slack. And it's a comedy of sorts too.
I'd be curious to know where the lighting was bad. I mean, I know it's bad in several places it just varies as to where people find it.
The actors are very good generally. Any fault with their performance can be aimed squarely at me really. Although Rachel doesn't do phone acting very well (which isn't easy) and she's incapable of getting enough rage to yell at Dave/Jeremy properly. She's just too damn nice to the core really. It's a bummer as they're the things that you really see first and it takes the shine off everything else, which was generally great. She actually 'got' the film better than most of the crew.
Anyway I could tell interminable tales about this one (that house was going to be demolished. It was completely empty. It also had more walls, fewer doorways and a smaller bathroom before we got to it. I wonder if you can spot the scenes where it cuts between day and night shoots...
Ha! No, I hadn't heard that, but I know that I should have. I hate my drum machine. Don't get me wrong--it's a good machine, but we just don't get along. You never know how hard good purcussion is to product until you have to make your own.
). Flaming otters! Heh.
