"Lost Tribes" Arrived Today

[tfunch24]

Since the original "Lost Tribes" thread has veered off on to the subject of low-budget film advertising, I'll post this here instead. My copy of "Lost Tribes" arrived today, about two weeks after I mailed payment (money order).

Tom

[FastFilms]

Mine arrrived too! (Monday, Jan. 6th) I sent Matt a money order and it only took a week and two days to arrive. ( and that was with the New Year's Eve holiday in-between and I had also forgotten to give him my home adddress so he could send me the tape)
It's a pretty cool movie.

Michael

[Jerome Cain]

Where can I get to buy it? That way i can call an interpreter to translate for me. Jerome, deaf filmmaker

[tfunch24]

Contact Matt Pacini directly. It's $19.99 (shipping included if you're in the USA). That's how I obtained my copy.

I haven't watched it all the way through yet (I had to go somewhere; I stopped the film during the party scene where the guy tells his wife that their marriage is a "democratic marriage.")

The beginning is confusing. After we get an little introductory bit about the Hukara Indian tribes, we cut to:

a.) a guy discovering a skeletal hand in the woods.
b.) a break-in and theft of an artifact at a museum.

After that, we're introduced to the detectives who are hired to recover the artifact and the plot starts to move from there.

I can't review the film because I haven't watched it all the way through.

Tom

[Matt Pacini]

Confusing?
Gee, I've never heard that before! (har har!)
That whole intro part, was supposed to function as sort of a collage of images to show the miner accidentally falling into an Indian burial ground, and discovering the artifact.
So of course, it's confusing, because you haven't seen the rest of the film!
It gets explained later, although I can't claim to have made a masterpiece!
I hope you liked it.

Matt Pacini

[Scotness]

Hey - I liked the intro! - it was kind of like what you expect - all bits and pieces that fit together as the film continues

Scot M

[tfunch24]

Well, I hadn't seen the entire film at the time I wrote that post so to me it was confusing. An unfair criticism, considering that I had not seen the film in its entirety. I brought that up in my initial post. I apologize for that.

That said, I did not think it was not a bad movie, considering the technical/creative hurdles you faced (inadequately barneyed camera, casting problems (you mentioned once that you had to write certain characters/scenes out b/c of problems with casting)). Good luck on your next feature; from what you have posted, it sounds like you have learned a lot from the five-year ordeal.

I've just finished work on a twelve-minute b&w short that I'm too embarrassed to show to anybody.

Tom