Zach Ashcraft Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Lets talk about it.This film absolutely blew my mind. I could rave about the story, pacing, and acting for days, but I'm sure most people here would like to talk about the camera and the images they produced, which were equally incredible! The way they harnessed natural and practical light was the first thing I marveled at. The use of fire, in particular, created some wonderfully dramatic scenes - namely the conversation between the chief and the french trapper. The one thing that will stick with me for a while is the way they moved the camera, how close they got to the actors, and how immersive it all felt. Clearly they learned a thing or two while filming Birdman, and that same steadycam technique is put to masterful use in this film. Also worth noting, whoever the focus puller was, I hope he got a nice Christmas Bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enny Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 film was really good and interesting i did not like bird man for some reason it did wow me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 but I'm sure most people here would like to talk about the camera and the images they producedEh. Not all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRenaissanceMan Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Three hours of hollow, pretentious posturing with nothing of substance to say.At least it was pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 It was VERY pretty. So. Take that.Spoilers..No, I really liked it. Some dream sequences were repetetive and useless. Didn't need him to look at the camera at the end. Also I don't really like how that "decent" redheaded actor is suddenly in everything.. but I thought it was a really great story really uniquedly filmed. Nikkor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanC1 Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 The way they harnessed natural and practical light was the first thing I marveled at. The use of fire, in particular, created some wonderfully dramatic scenes The fire / burning building in the initial scene reminded me of a Tarkovsky film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homestar_kevin Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Got to see it last night, here are a few scattered thoughts. Spoilers indeedThe bear sequence was intense and looked great/horrifying I loved the camera movement and the landscapes and lighting were pretty magical. Absolutely gorgeous throughout the movie. Did I hear that most of the movie wasn't filmed on Alexa 65?I liked how close they got to actors, but I don't know how I feel about all of the fogging on the lenses from their breath, what did you guys think about that?I need to see it a second time, but that did jump out for me.The film made me feel like a little baby, Holy shit. I could see Tom Hardy getting an oscar and Leo getting passed up again here. Liam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphicnatured Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Saw it last night. I loved it. The images were breathtaking as was the action, which had me tensed up quite a bit. Lubezki is at the top of his game. I liked the fogged up lenses on the closeups. The bear scene was awesome, as was the horse jump. Leo did a good job. I'm excited by these guys, the films they are making. Zach Ashcraft 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Great movie, heir to others like Aguirre, Wrath of God or Letter Never Sent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Policar Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Bad movie, looked great.Is it true most of it was not Alexa 65 and that was only used for a few establishing shots? The lens flares don't look like Summilux lens flares and I think that was their S35 set... to me most of the wide angle coverage and almost everything but some of the tighter shots and night time work looked like older rehoused hasselblads.Very impressive. If it is merely open gate 3.2k Alexa they really exposed and graded well, it looked better to me than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Ashcraft Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 How one can come onto an internet forum and claim that a massively successful film by any measure was a "Bad Movie" always blows my mind. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I loved every second of it, truly graphicnatured 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Policar Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Congratulations on your bad taste and your sense of entitlement/superiority that somehow derives from it.[...] millennial. Anyone know how much was Alexa 65? The photography was breathtaking. Too bad about the script and edit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhar Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 How one can come onto an internet forum and claim that a massively successful film by any measure was a "Bad Movie" always blows my mind. What do you mean massively successful? Not dissing, just trying to understand. Certainly doesn't look like a success at the box office: $60 million worldwide for a Christmas release after 3 weekends against a $135 million budget doesn't seem great. Did well with the critics though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Policar Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 It's "successful" at being a movie... it should be for $60mil. Good production value, great photography, some good performances. How that makes it beyond reproach is beyond me.It's completely creatively dead in every respect but photography and the script and edit are just bad. Its politics and historical angle are incoherent, the whole subplot with his son is a mess, and the Malick worship, however visually accurate, is laughable, and pays off incoherently. It's a bad story poorly told and well photographed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Ashcraft Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 Congratulations on your bad taste and your sense of entitlement/superiority that somehow derives from it.Fucking millennial. Well that's a first. Simply hoping for you to justify your claims of it being a "bad movie" which I don't think is too far out of line.Carry on though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I was expecting a great movie but I was glad when it was over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo43 Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I thought the lighting, acting and cinematography was fantastic. If I shot this or had anything to do with this movie, I would be proud. Zach Ashcraft and Zach Goodwin 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Kotlos Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Wide angles work very nice with large format causing less distortion. Worked great with the camera movement too. Natural light was captivating, one of the advantages of digital:http://www.videomaker.com/videonews/2015/12/epic-western-the-revenant-shot-using-only-natural-light teddoman and TheRenaissanceMan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer5 Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Congratulations on your bad taste and your sense of entitlement/superiority that somehow derives from it.Fucking millennial. You've got some goddamn nerve being that disrespectful to a peer. You would never address someone like that in person. Zach Goodwin and Zak Forsman 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Policar Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 You've got some goddamn nerve being that disrespectful to a peer. You would never address someone like that in person. I absolutely would if you offered such a disgusting and ignorant take on a subject I cared about. Come meet me. Except, he's a millennial. He's far from a peer.Who are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.