archived-videos "Subject 815" - A short action film.

DanTheMcIntosh

DanTheMcIntosh

Here is a film I shot during summer 2008, with a UK-based Martial Arts group called "The Reckless Ninja Squad".

The film was shot on no budget at all, so please excuse the terrible sound on the dialogue. This was my first "proper" short film effort, so I would appreciate any feedback you have for me, and would love it if you could rate or comment on the original YouTube film too...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AvUxhDKm89c&feature=channel&fmt=18

(Please excuse the poor picture quality, this was uploaded before Youtube changed the pixel-ratio of their video windows)
 
Upvote 0
I found out enjoyable. The acting was kind of a miss -- but then again, it's wasn't a drama.

My two biggest complaints are the camera work, and the lighting.

Camera work: There are many times in this film where you violate the 180 degree rule.

Lighting: Not sure if I really need to say much. The movie did not look lit. Not sure if you used a lighting kit or not, but 90% of it was way too dark for my liking.
 
Agreed, the lighting WAS dark, and we did use a lighting kit, but it was less than spectacular.
Also, for some reason during the upload process, it seems to have gotten a hell of a lot darker. Not sure if that's due to the file type I made or what, but it wasn't like that on the final cut.

In terms of the 180 degree rule, I don't personally agree. But of course each to their own, and if you felt disorientated then we obviously did something wrong somewhere...

Thanks for the comments though, much appreciated. I will take them all on board for my next project.
 
DanTheMcIntosh said:
Agreed, the lighting WAS dark, and we did use a lighting kit, but it was less than spectacular.
Also, for some reason during the upload process, it seems to have gotten a hell of a lot darker. Not sure if that's due to the file type I made or what, but it wasn't like that on the final cut.

In terms of the 180 degree rule, I don't personally agree. But of course each to their own, and if you felt disorientated then we obviously did something wrong somewhere...

Thanks for the comments though, much appreciated. I will take them all on board for my next project.
Click to expand...

You don't agree with the 180 degree rule, or you do not agree that you violated it?

I personally think it's very important to maintain, especially during a fight scene. I did feel a bit disoriented throughout the fight. Main character is on the right. He gets thrown, he starts to get back up -- BAM he's on the left side of the screen. This happens once or twice more throughout the film. It wasn't an insanely terrible, but I guess it's a personal pet peeve of mine.
 
I agree that at a couple of points I may have close to crossing the line (although I sturggle to see any particularly bad examples), but what I meant was I don't believe that there should be any ruling that says if you defy the 180 rule your film is broken. It's different to say you felt disorientated, which you did, but without specific examples it's hard to say whether that is actually due to the breaking of the 180 rule, or other factors. I mean if it's clear enough for you to KNOW that a character switched sides, then it's obviously not that big a deal in that respect...

Actually the one thing that makes this fight more disorientating for me when I watch it back is the unsteadiness of the actual camerawork, and maybe the lighting, but as for the 180 rule, I feel like it often gets used as the figurehead of film-making criticism. So maybe that's my pet peeve :P
 
180 degree rule was broken, but I don't think it was a deal breaker. For film people, when you see it and there's no real reason for it, it just feels amateur. I was never that disoriented though.

Honestly, that action sequence was about 5 times better than your average indie short film. There were punches and kicks that looked like they truly hurt. Good job. Obviously, the chair has been called out, but there are some other punches that didn't look quite as convincing as the others. Why not cut it down to just the stellar punches?

I thought the ending was weak.
 
MacV said:
180 degree rule was broken, but I don't think it was a deal breaker. For film people, when you see it and there's no real reason for it, it just feels amateur. I was never that disoriented though.

Honestly, that action sequence was about 5 times better than your average indie short film. There were punches and kicks that looked like they truly hurt. Good job. Obviously, the chair has been called out, but there are some other punches that didn't look quite as convincing as the others. Why not cut it down to just the stellar punches?

I thought the ending was weak.
Click to expand...

Cutting it down to the stellar punches is something I agree with as well. The action sequences WERE great, but there were a few instances that dragged the entire experience down. Many film makers cut large portions of their films when it comes to post production. Maybe something didn't look exactly like they wanted it to. Maybe on further inspection, the film could do without it. I think the same goes for fight sequences.
 
Yeah, I would agree on that front, definitely. In hindsight there are bits I would like to cut out, but luckily this was just a learning experience, so at the end of the day I'm fairly glad I've left it as I have and moved on. I appreciate the comments, I really want to simply the action on my next film and keep it brutal but short.

And I agree, the ending was weak. I'm actually surprised no-one has picked up on that so far. It felt tacked on when we did it, and it still feels lame now. Oh well, live and learn :P
 
the ending was weak. I'm actually surprised no-one has picked up on that
Click to expand...

Heh, the actual story was pretty much all I was going to comment on after watching that. :hmm:

There is none. A few guys walking into a room and getting chop-sockied™ ain't exactly a plotline. ;)

I was going to ask if it was a segment taken from a larger film you had made, but it appears not.

The choreography itself is very well done, and the editing to match as well. (Not going to mention any 180's... it's been done) You've put together a great demonstration of how to put together an exciting fight scene.

Some more love in the lighting department would have been nice (as well as some attention to white-balancing), but we all live & learn. :)

the one thing that makes this fight more disorientating for me when I watch it back is the unsteadiness of the actual camerawork
Click to expand...

Why do you find that?

In a fight scene, it's easier to get away with... and often adds something. Maybe it's just being done too much, these days.

I do find it really distracting when it's used in slow-paced dramas, though. (Take "Half-Nelson", for example)

_______

Oh yah, I meant to ask about that one particular part:

Just after 03:33, the prisoner throws a goon into the wall. The goon's head hits the wall, and he falls down. There's a new large impact-mark on the wall. What preparations did you have to do, to do that?

Just really curious, as I know nothing about choreography and stunts. My last film had issues with a single "punch the to face" scene. :lol:
 
DanTheMcIntosh said:
I agree that at a couple of points I may have close to crossing the line (although I sturggle to see any particularly bad examples), but what I meant was I don't believe that there should be any ruling that says if you defy the 180 rule your film is broken. It's different to say you felt disorientated, which you did, but without specific examples it's hard to say whether that is actually due to the breaking of the 180 rule, or other factors. I mean if it's clear enough for you to KNOW that a character switched sides, then it's obviously not that big a deal in that respect...

Actually the one thing that makes this fight more disorientating for me when I watch it back is the unsteadiness of the actual camerawork, and maybe the lighting, but as for the 180 rule, I feel like it often gets used as the figurehead of film-making criticism. So maybe that's my pet peeve :P
Click to expand...

Sorry, missed this post before.

Don't really want to get into an E-argument here, but I thought I might as well reply to this. If you don't consider that a viable cirticism, then there must've been a reason for the camera placement. If there was a reason for the camera placement, I'm not seeing it. It's a big rectangular room. I'm just not sure why you decided to place the camera where you did. Not only is it slightly disorienting (yes, I said slightly. It's not a movie breaker :)), but it does make your movies seem a slight bitamateur. This isn't necessarily a terrible thing, but I figured in an industry where everyone is crazy-in-love with the "film look", it was worth mentioning.

In my personal opinion, a violation of the 180 rule is a bad thing, if it is done without reason (which it was, in this case). Given that you risk disorienting your audience, but gain absolutely nothing, I don't see how mentioning it was a "figurehead of film-making criticism".

It's like complaining about someone correcting the grammar in your script. Perfect grammar is not the most important thing in the world, but it will make things a million times easier for your cast and crew.
 
Very cool... the pacing and use of sound struck me as exceptionally bold. It is certainly a strength.

As for criticism, I can only offer what has already been said. Good job.
 
@ ZenSteve: I appreciate the comment on the story. Yes it was only really a test, and so the story was pretty much the last thing on everyone's minds... In fact the whole thing was VERY loosely based on another longer project I had planned at the time, so is very watered down in that department.

And I was going for the handheld look at the time, but in hindsight, I think it could have used a couple of steady shots here and there, as a few people have now complained about the general untidyness of the camerwork. But no, I don't think it's necessarily a big problem this film has, you're probably right...

And as for your final comment, the impact hole was actually genuine, and a complete fluke. The building was going to be refurbished shortly after the shoot, so we were pretty much free to do whatever we wanted, and the walls were paper thin, so pretty much just caved in as soon as we touched them. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! :P

@ VladCan'tSleep: You're right, I shall take on board what you've said... The 180 rule was only ever broken in this film out of carelessness on my part, and I guess it shows more than I'd realised. I just get a little tired of people referring to the 180 rule almost automatically, as though that is the only thing they look for, but I guess in this case it was out of genuine concern, so thankyou.

@ Haz: Cheers, not had many comments on the sound so far, glad you liked them. At least they haven't stuck out like a sore thumb in any case...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top