However, if you are unable to fund the proper makeup (and the artist) and costuming for the demon, I would suggest forgoing the idea altogether (or maybe imply them without actually seeing them...sometimes the unknown is more frightening) as opposed to jarring the audience with a still picture.
As to the camerawork, there were some handheld shots that worked nicely with creating an uneasy feeling that complimented what was trying to be communicated in the story. I liked that a lot. Aside from that it was pretty cut and dry. I'd like to reiterate that when changing angles you must change the angle by at least 30 degrees to prevent it from looking too close to the last shot and thus having a jump cut. There were too many places where the shots were too similar and created a disjointed, mind-jolting viewing experience.
There is a music video in the ending credits containing an intro that seems to have little to no connection with the movie, followed by scenes from the film. I bring this up to mention the 180 rule or the "the line." The 180 rule establishes the visual orientation of your audience...what is on their right and on their left, etc. Once you've established this line, it is bad form to cross it. This is very hard to explain without being able to draw it out, but the line gets jumped in the intro. Of course, there are ways to break that rule (watch the shower killing scene from filmmaking master, Alfred Hitchcock), but you have to understand the rule before you can break it. Those that break the rule properly are fully aware of what they are doing. In "The Eternal" music video it didn't feel like that was the case.
Lighting. The bane of the low budget filmmaker, and, yet, it is the one element that can significantly up the look of your production...if done right. In "The Eternal" the lighting is very inconsistent. There are times when a scene is lit too dark, especially the scenes in the "nursing home." There are other times when natural light was used. I love natural light because it looks...well, natural. However you have to be careful to not position your actors in such a way that silhouettes them (unless that's what you're going for).
With this film, there is an inconsistent feel from scene to scene due, in part, to inconsistent lighting and also to what seems to be a failure to properly white balance. I, of course, wasn't there, so it isn't possible for me to say exactly where the issue came from. It could be a little bit of both. When you light your set for the master shot you still have to adjust to shoot your medium shots and close ups. It isn't enough to just throw up the lights and leave them there for all of your shots. Play around with test shots and different lighting schemes until you get a feel for what works. Take it one step higher and invest in a book on lighting, like "Motion Picture and Video Lighting" by Blain Brown (available at Amazon.com). A book like that will run you around $30-$40 dollars, but it is well worth your investment. Do whatever it takes to improve the quality of your lighting because it is not an area you want to skimp on.
With all that said, let me say that there were a couple places where the placement of the lights and the camera angles allowed for some nice, artistic used of shadows on the wall which greatly increased the drama of the moment.
As far as white balancing goes: do it, do it, do it! I am a white balance dictator if I'm at the helm of a project. Not white balancing will cause you to have one of the world's biggest post production headaches. I will re-white balance from shot to shot even if I'm in the same room and haven't changed any lights. Why? Because I'd rather be safe than sorry. If you're shooting outside it is exceptionally crucial, as the sun's position and intensity are constantly changing.
I already hit on editing in the content section, so I won't beat a dead horse. But I will say that an investment in a better editing platform and maybe a class or two would be in order. (We’ve done a lot of reviews of the excellent Adobe Production Premium Products here, but I’m also a big fan of FCP. Either one has a myriad of training videos available from Class-on-Demand, Total Training, to say nothing of all the available books.)
Let's talk about special effects, shall we? I believe I've already discussed that juxtaposing your footage with still images ripped from the internet doesn't work as a special effect, but only serves to take the viewer out of the moment. So, I won't mention that again. The only other "special effects" that existed here were: a shot of what was obviously a rubber spider in the bath tub, cut to the victim (Nick), cut back to the bath tub where someone in a black hooded robe has taken the place of the spider. The victim reacts in fear, but the mysterious evil figure isn't seen again, except that it's implied that the demon sodomizes Nick. The whole effect didn't work. I know the goal was "scary" and "edgy," but it only came off as cheesy and dull. How do you make it better? Have the demon step out of a shadow where it is easier to hide him. This will create more of a "OH MY GOODNESS!" moment for the viewer. It's more a surprise. Rubber spider to full grown demon with a cut away in between doesn't work for this generation of viewers.
The other "special effect" that was used was a post effect in which the skin color of the actors changed intermittently and randomly during certain scenes of the film. My first reaction was, "Hey, that's kinda cool." It was because the background didn't seem to change colors like the skin of the actors. However, it didn't seem to serve the story at all and it was overdone. I would get rid of this effect since it seems to serve no other purpose than to say, "look what we can do...cool, huh?!"
There's a two part rule of thumb that I like to live by when it comes to filters and such things: Less is more and just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.
