My films online....for FREE!

[captainchambers]

Please check out this film! You can click on my name and see my other film online as well. Please tell me what you think....thanx!

http://www.undergroundfilm.org/films...cl?wid=1013564

[crookedfeatures]

My films online....for FREE

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">hmmmmm. Should we feel priveleged because you're not charging or something? sorry but that title just seemed a bit too cocky to me. anyway, on with the film...

1) that webserver sucks ass. Good god that took a long time to download. So long I actually binned the hi-res about 2% in and had to watch the small version. It was like watching a film projected on a postage stamp. There's small and there's eye strain...
2) your hippy friend needs a haircut
3) I see the obvious influence of george lucas in your work. But not his early stuff. Also there is a touch of Joel Schumacher in there, Roger Vadim maybe, Bob Spiers...
4) Ah the pain of location sound... You must have noticed that your sound is hideous?
5) The girls cute (well she looks it on a postage stamp sized screen anyway), what's her number?
6) whats the deal with that moffet guy on the other site?

[ieatpussyeveryday]

two seconds in I turned it off....fucking boring as hell.

for one, your sound is horrible.
2, camera work is shit.
3, was that wind I was hearing? in your zoom/dissolve to that statue
4, hippie dude is too ugly for movies--unless it is some kind of mid nineties danzig tour video.
5, other guy sucks as well
6, can't hear girl talking

and that was all in the first two seconds....oh yeah and your opening credits are WAY too fucking long.

on the other hand, i got alright download speeds from that server. but shit if you are the 4th most downloaded, that will be the last time i visit that site.

so Tulsa must suck right? move to a coast, you will probably be less lame if you do.

[emjen]

The above comments made me laugh.

Then I watched your movie.

[Bnew]

ouch... that was a roasting.

I really wanted to watch your film to give you a proper critique after these guys caned your ass but I'm sorry, I just couldn't watch it to the end...

The image quality is alright on the best quality option, but the double size option really fucks it up, I'd get rid of that if you can.

However it's the sound that really causes a problem, you need to fix up your sound recording. Never use the on-camera mic. Get yourself a shotgun mic to isolate the subjects from the background (I couldn't hear what the characters were saying because of the ambience most of the time). And if it's windy get yourself a windshield like a rycote softie. Poor sound makes the whole thing look and feel terrible, more like a home movie - and that's not helped by awkward camera work and editing.

For example: the two-shot with the guys at the wall, they walk off and the camera hangs for a few seconds before awkwardly tilting downwards to show the angel on the floor, then after another second you cut to a close up of the angel - this all needs to be more fluid - you could start the tilt earlier, as they start to walk off, because in the absence of music, your viewers are literally looking at nothing, thinking about nothing, and feeling nothing. You could definitely cut to the close-up of the angel quicker, don't allow the camera to linger unless there's a specific reason for it.

Also, you need to do something about the GOD AWFUL dialogue. What the hell was that? I really don't know how the hell you convinced those people to say those lines in your film, either you have some very good friends, or they're members of your church group or some shit. Whatever though, you just CAN'T get away with that kind of dialogue without proper actors (talented ones no less), otherwise it is painfully obvious, and it was. I mean, they didn't do that bad a job I guess, just that the image/sound was so terrible it amplified the shitness of it all. I mean... "Wisdom is in the honesty of the moment. The way you feel is a beacon that must be recognised." - Not only does that sound ridiculously pretentious (emphasised by the acting and lack of an appropriate context - when do average joes just hanging out talk like that?), it doesn't even make sense. The same can be said for your 'Filmmaker Bio' on the site: 'I have an intense passion for the basic elements of the creative force, and film seems so natural once you enter into that realization. Cinema has such a mystique...you cannot explain it away. All you can do is paint...'

As an aside, never proclaim yourself to be an auteur, that is for other people to say, let your work do the talking.

Anyways, I hope you'll continue as it seems like your heart/head are in the right place. I really suggest making an effort though to improve on your technical skills before trying more advanced things like this, which few people can truly pull off successfully anyways. Good luck for the future.

P.S. what's the deal with crediting yourself as Captain Chambers? I suggest dropping that if you ever want people to take you seriously.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 21, 2005 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Bnew ]</font>

[Spunkey1pestic]

Captain,
I agree with bnew COMPLETELY on "Adam & yvette" and I did watch it all-
(Plus you need to be careful of your continuity it was really bad as well)
I like your heart,but that was really long,boring, and technically off!
The only part I enjoyed was your blooper's at the end-

Let me move on to "When the Lightswitch Fades"

#1-AGAIN- NEVER USE BULDT IN MIC'S!!!!
You had some really worth wild scenes that were bunked thanks to sound- (wind,distance, voices to soft)

2-Your attempt at lighting was a little better, granted it was too dark in spots,and looked like a flash light in others- but several scenes looked really good!

3-Your pacing is still completely off, The dialogue was really cheesy, no character development, no plot,no storyline-

4-Editing needs work: Jump cuts, ill placed effects, rotten transitional choices.

5- but Cinematically speaking this piece was better. You captured some really interesting images, and I think your learning as you go!!

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ January 24, 2005 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Spunkey1pestic ]</font></font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 24, 2005 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Spunkey1pestic ]</font>

[Chance1234]

spunkeys going to pick us up with another art reference , but captain

First Rule of composition is to break the rules of composition, but to be able to break the rules of compoistion you first need to understand them.

[curtinparloe]

Ignoring the subtle lexical inconsistencies, and the obviously poor sound, I thought the main problem was that it was about 5 minutes too long, and seemed at times more like an attempt to showcase the composer rather than construct a narrative. For example, I have seen the massive central montage in so many (teen) romance films, but better made - tighter and more engaging. In fact, the whole thing would have benefited greatly from a much tighter edit.
And I did notice the jerky pan down; the only camera movement in the piece, and done on a cheap tripod (like mine). Better to do it handheld, or not at all.

On a personal note, I would have preferred not to have to download a 50 meg file when only half is the actual film (of the 16 minutes, only 9 comprise the film itself, the rest being 4 minutes of credits and 3 minutes of "outtakes").

Time for bed, I'm getting cranky...