• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch Inundate

Firstly, I need to confirm: you are 16? Bloody hell!

Your film has some damn awesome cinematography, especially the water sequences. Those kids are great actors. Everything looked so clean, crisp... Oh dude, I heart this film! I'm gushing. I apologise. Ahem.

Okay, some of the dialogue was a bit clunky between the psychologist and our protagonist, and I wasn't feeling some of the music choices (a bit too happy?), but other than that, I seriously loved it. Need more people to watch it, people who know about film-making and can give you better criticism than I can!

Congrats on a great film, man, I look forward to seeing more.
 
Thank you so much. I know the psychologist scene wasn't too good. Oh well though...Thank for the review. If anyone else is seeing this, please show everyone. I would like as many audience reviews as possible. Thanks again!1
 
Ah, man, I'm totally the 180-Police. How did this happen to me? :lol:

You're killing the 180-Rule. I'd point out a couple examples, but there are too many. Killing it. It's one of the basics of filmmaking for good reason. Learn it; practice it.

My second critique I guess isn't a critique but more a personal preference -- I don't understand why low-budget indie filmmakers modify their footage, in post, to fit the 2.35 aspect ratio. Surely, you know this won't be seen on a giant canvas, like this aspect ratio calls for. And I don't think it makes it look more "cinematic". I think it makes it look like you're trying to make it look more "cinematic". Meanwhile, there's this large area of your screen that could've been used to paint a more complete picture.

A previous poster mentioned the dialogue. Yeah, it's a tad expeditious. But hey, it's tough to do everything. Keep practicing. Plus, it didn't completely make sense -- his older brother can swim freestyle, but he can't do the doggy-paddle to stay afloat? Can't tread water? By the time the average swimmer is able to swim freestyle, they're able to tread water for hours, effortlessly. This story would make more sense if it were shot in the deep ocean, not a pond. Anway...

Alright, so those are the critiques that I offer, and that's more than I offer most first-time filmmakers. Most first-time filmmakers have so many huge blatant misjudgments that I don't know where to begin, so I kinda just choose whichever blunder sticks out most to me, and focus on that one. I don't want to inundate them with too many corrections, so I focus on one.

With you, it's different. With you, it's more focusing on the few that are actually worth mentioning, because otherwise -- this is a damn solid product! Let me reiterate -- THIS IS A DAMN SOLID PRODUCT!

It's clear to me that you put every ounce of effort into this. Your camera work, cinematography and editing are all so thought-out, meticulously-planned, and that is so crucial. I can see that you wrapped your entire brain around this project, and the evidence is in every frame. So, please don't take my numerous criticisms as harsh criticism; please take it as me taking particular interest in you, simply because you're awesome!
 
Michael this is fantastic and to produce it at 16 is stunning. It's exciting to think of what you will be doing after a decade of learning more about your craft.
I think the music works really well but it doesn't quite work for me during the psychologist scene and the swimming story that follows. It doesn't feel serious enough and I agree with the dialogue critiques you've already recieved. I think it's also worth me checking you've got clearance to use some of that music because there are some very well known artists in the credits.

I hope you keep posting your work here because it's sensational.
 
16 - brilliant. I like subject matter, kinda simple, interesting and thoughtful.
Its really refreshing to see a young director who isn't aspiring to plagiaries Guy Ritchie films.
 
WOW you guys!!! Thanks for all of the feedback. I'm not in film school and totally kinda forgot the 180 degree rule for this one. We live and learn!!!! I will take every comment into consideration for future projects!!!
 
Wait... where were all the muzzle flashes? What's with all the steady shots and mindful framing? You mean you actually want me to follow a storyline? :P

I kid, I kid! Excellent work, Mike. I'd say you are headed in the right direction with your filmmaking ambitions. If you continue to tell stories that are of interest to you with production value like this film, you'll have an impressive body of work down the road.

Keep writing, stay true to your vision, and the next one will be even better. :yes:
 
The opening scenes were fantastic, you did very well with how you brought us into this story. Beautiful scene work! The production quality overall is great. I didn't make it through the whole thing though because of the acting....

I look forward to see what you create next!
 
There's a real artistic temperament at work here. The association of music and image is beautiful especially in the opening water scene.

However I think there's some room for improvement in the storytelling department. Maybe it's just me but I did not understand the end of the movie.

I have an interpretation.

The guy lied to the psychologist, he's the older brother.

But some other interpretations are possible.
 
16!

MR you are so far ahead of the curve - keep it up, I'm sure you have an enormous future in front of you - kudos, Jim.
 
First, I agree that it is really a well done work. The camera work needs some improvement. The continual flipping back and forth, the prolonged blurs, some spots where you need perspectives to draw attention in the scenes. Camera work is not my area, but as a viewer they were distracting. The others are experts and have given you good suggestions.

The story and script were not clear and that plays out in the movie. You mentioned the psychology scene. This is an example of a 'talking heads' situation. In screenwriting, you really want to cut out as much non-essential conversation as possible. For some bizarre reason, normal conversation seems to take longer on screen. Then the 3 second break 7:27 seems like an eternity. "No. You're wrong. I could've ...". 3 second pause. Cuts into walking in the woods.

Also I was left a bit confused by the ending. Was he trying to sacrifice himself to save Ben? He jumps in as adult Wayde, then it runs backwards. Then we see he reaches his brother as young Wayde and gives his brother the life jacket. I've watched it twice now and I still don't get it. Was it supposed to be nebulous as to which brother really drowned? Movies should intrigue, not frustrate, the audience. Movies need to tell a story.

It lacks a solid structure. Most movies have a 3 Act Structure--Intro (present the character), Middle (build the conflict), and End (crisis and resolution). Your middle presents the conflict as "I killed my brother". Your end, however, leaves it unclear as to the resolution. My take is that you wanted the older Wayde to dive in and he allows himself to drown to satisfy his guilt.

To make the story reflect that and drive it home for the audience, I would have kept Ben climbing onto the shore in B/W. Then I would have shown the color scene of the lake with the life jacket floating back to shore. It was a nice visual anchor but in the wrong place. Once they see it floating, that last scene makes sense as adult Wayde is in B/W.

My comments are not meant to take away from this production. It's well done for high school. I only want to point out how script elements do influence production elements. It shows you have lots of potential.
 
First let me say this looks very nice. It is well put together technically speaking. The one thing that jumped out at me was the chunky-clunky dialogue, and once we hit the slow-mo part at the end, I was clicking ahead to see what happened cause I was bored by then. Over all I liked it.
 
I got a question for ya. How did you make the video so grainless? Im guessing you used either Magic Lanterns Native ISO (160, 320 etc.), a different picture style thats just been released (like cinestyle) or some grain reducing software. I could be wrong on all of these..

Looking forward to your reply.

Good job on the vid btw :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top