|
|
 |
The scene inside a bar toward the end of the film was also very dark. While it was dark outside and the filmmakers were trying to set a mood, it was just too dark to really see what exactly was going on. WIth a little experimentiation, the set could still have been kept fairly dark, with added light and mood setting coming from dimmed and colored lights to imitate bar signs.
There were a few shaky shots as well. Most were inside the car as the group was driving - which is a hard thing to avoid when shooting inside a car - but there were a few others inside the cabin. Some shots even appeared to jerk like a webcam. This could have been due to a different frame rate being used in these shots than in other ones. If this was the case, always be sure to choose one frame rate and stick with it to get footage that looks correct.
I also noticed quite a few interior shots that had a very shallow depth of field. While this did look very good in several shots, there were a couple where it looked odd - namely two-shots where one of the characters was in focus and the other was out. It would have been appropriate if there had been a rack focus, but since that wasn't used it may have been better to widen the depth of field a bit more. I'm wondering if the camera's f-stop hadn't been adjusted incorrectly in these instances, as it didn't seem like an intentional effect--such as you might achieve with a 35mm lens adapter. If it was intentional, then its good to see filmmakers experimenting with photographic techniques, but a little more study of drawing the eye of the viewer with focus needs to be utilized in the future.
I didn't really notice too many audio issues in this film. There was some nice music used - especially at some of the more suspenseful moments. With that said, there was one bit of music that seemed a bit out of place: when the group arrived at the cabin, there was a piece of oddly suspenseful-sounding music. It's not a major thing, but it did seem a bit out of place at this part in the story.
Most of the dialogue was clear and easy to understand, although during a scene at a photography studio the audio sounded a bit too reflective (or echo-y). This could be fixed by re-looping the audio in a studio (It's a little time-consuming and can be expensive, but it sounds great if it's done right. Read our article on setting up an ADR Studio here.) In the future, more people/furniture/soft things on walls make a room have less reverb, so it might be a good idea to cover up as many reflective surfaces as possible with blankets, or at least stuff the room with extra people.
This film's $5,000 budget was spent mostly on lighting equipment. I don't know what kinds of equipment was purchased, but seeing as how there were quite a few issues in the way of lighting, I would encourage the filmmakers to check out some lighting training for future films. (We've reviewed a pretty impressive set called the Power of Lighting, which is pretty inexpensive.)
The filmmakers did make use of free locations, which was a big plus. The cabin they used was set in a really nice area, and the interior was beautiful.
This film has some good elements to it. The story itself is quite creepy and the ending is very unexpected - almost an O'Henry sort of twist. The suggestion of being trapped in a camera - as absurd as it may sound - is still enough to creep out a good portion of the audience.
However, the many washed-out exteriors and other visual issues are still rather glaringly obvious, and they do detract a lot from the movie. If these issues could be addressed, it would significantly improve the quality of this movie.
This film almost reminds me of Phone Booth. That film's mantra was that "a ringing phone has to be answered." A ringing phone seems so innocuous, as does the discovery of a digital camera. But since anyone who finds a camera will likely use it to take their own pictures, any sort of hidden danger associated with that object will not be noticed until it is too late.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Content |
8.9 |
Visual
Look |
6.9 |
Use
of Audio |
8.6 |
Use
of Budget |
7.9 |
Lasting
Appeal |
7.0 |
|
7.9 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The
author of half a dozen screen plays, two novels, and a proficient
camera-woman in her own right, Monika
DeLeeuw-Taylor is Microfilmmaker's lead writing analyst and
one of our top film reviewers. When she's not writing a critique for
Microfilmmaker, she's writing screenplays for Viking Productions. |
|
|
|
|
|
