Prolost just turned me on to this excellent micro-budget trick that should be in everyone's quiver. To get a smooth dolly or low angle crane move, simply shorten the front leg of your tripod and push or pull while tilting. It's stupid simple, but can yield some very professional results. Check out the video above for some very convincing examples. Sure, you still need a tripod, but you own one of those anyway, right?
There's a great debate going on over at $1000 Film concerning the possibility of making money with a micro-budget movie. This is, and always has been, the mantra of Clive and his excellent blog, but it is a radical concept. It boils down to this: you can make something great for a paltry sum, as long as you know what you are doing. It's a philosophy I completely agree with.
Click on the link and read what others are posting (and Clive's responses) for a very informative read. $1k rocks!
Heavy Metal
Did we really need another superhero movie? We seem to be inundated with them as of late, and while some do the job well (the Batman reboot, and the Spider-Man series), most have fallen pretty flat (Daredevil, Hulk, Fantastic Four and its sequel). I grew up reading my share of comics from the Marvel universe, but haven't been as excited about the latest villain-smasher as in previous years. When I heard that ol' Metal Head was coming to silver screen, I was mildly interested. When I discovered Robert Downey, Jr. was going to play lead Tony Stark, I was very interested. Fortunately, they really got it right this time--Iron Man is a very good movie in almost all categories.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has it all. Brains, money, women, all the booze he can drink, and the most powerful weapons manufacturing corporation in the world. While showing off his latest creation in the Afgani desert, he is abruptly captured by a terrorist army armed with his products. Locked in a cave with the man who saved his life, he must build his latest missile from spare parts or face certain death. Stark has other plans, however, and learns that he must give back to all the lives he has indirectly taken over the years. He shuts down weapons production and creates a high-tech suit of armor that gives him super powers. But will his own company and partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) sit still for such radical action? Does Tony Stark care?
This is a great story that flies in the face of just about every rule we've been taught about movies of this ilk. Instead of already being a straight arrow type, Stark is a selfish man of the world, who has a change of heart. He's not a mutant of any kind, but creates his powers through the ability of his creative engineering chops--he's a DIY Superman. He even lacks the typical alliterative name that we usually associate with superheroes (personal assistant and love interest Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) does have one, however). The film carries this theme right down to the last line of dialogue which lets us know this ain't your mom's comic book movie. I love it.
All the characters are well-devleoped, but this is Downey, Jr.'s movie. He is so good here, bringing a snarky likability to the shallow-turned-deep Stark that you totally root for him. He fights not only the obvious baddies, but also the corporate America he helped create. A great script from the writers of Children of Men, fleshes Stark out and gives him lots of funny dialogue (As he gets in an Army vehicle: "I'll be here in the Funvee, while you're back in the hum-drumvee"). Who better to cast as Stark than a guy who himself has turned his life around?
There are three relationships in the movie, but two are critical and effective. Stark and Potts have several great moments, including a potential kiss on a balcony and another where she must perform impromptu surgery on him. It's funny, tender, intense, and perfect. The second involves Bridge's character and he is wonderfully sinister here. I've never seen him play someone this dastardly before, but he nails it. Every comic book movie needs a great villain, and Iron Man has one, thank you very much.
Of course you gotta have action, and director Jon Favreau (Zathura) gives us just enough to keep us happy. Iron Man flies, shoots repulsor beams from his palms, micro-missles from his forearm, and can take out hostage-holding bad guys with one shot. The CGI work really excels, looking realistic enough to suspend our disbelief and keep us in the movie. My only qualm is that while the action is good, it doesn't blow your socks off. Considering how high the bar was set by the rest of the film, I was hoping for more, but didn't really get it. This is just a minor knock on an otherwise excellent movie.
In my book, Iron Man ranks right up there with (but doesn't surpass) the very best of superhero cinema, the first Superman (1978). It's got a unique, well-acted character in Tony Stark, an engaging plot that never feels boring, good relationships, and decent action. It fulfills every requirement of the genre and then some. It sets a very high standard for the rest of the summer, and here's hoping that's a good omen rather than all downhill from here.
This past weekend I had the great joy of experiencing the wonderful Iron Man (review coming), which ranks right up there with the best of the superhero movies, the original Superman (1978). Since it was the first big movie of the 2008 season, I was excited to see the new crop of trailers that would tease audiences about what this summer might be like (as if we didn't know already).
One of the best is the goose-bump inducing Speed Racer which looks visually stunning and super exciting (let's hope there's a story to go along with all the flash). Here's what I saw:
This trailer made me want to test drive the nearest sports car and stomp hard on the gas pedal. The tempting thrills presented in these few minutes were immediately dampened by this laughable commercial from Lexus:
This typical slo-mo car ad, quickly became a joke due to unfortunate placement. What about this boring spot makes you want to drive their fancy car? Not much. I want a Mach 5 instead! I wonder if it comes with a white helmet...
Last week I viewed the first feature length film to premiere on YouTube, The Cult of Sincerity. It follows the lead character, Joseph, in his quest to escape the mediocre life that has befallen him and all of his old college friends. He does his by attempting to eliminate sarcasm and irony from his life as well as helping all those around him. It's a good little film with nice performances, some funny writing, good production values, and (for once) a positive, upbeat message.
The filmmakers (co-directors Adam Browne and Brendan Choisnet, and producer/writer Daniel Nayeri) have struck a bargain with the indie music site Amie Street, to snag a bit of cash. If you sign up via the Cult link, you get two bucks of free music credit, and the movie makers also get two bucks. Not bad. Sign up for three dollars, and the boys get one buck, charity gets two more, and you get to download the movie to your computer.
This last part is important, because YouTube's compression on Cult is so bad, it almost makes the film unwatchable. I'm not sure if it's due to the length of the project, or just poor encoding choices, but it is a problem. Fortunately, the quality of the movie still comes through, but the pixelating and picture breakup is really an issue. I was tempted to go ahead and get the $3 download, but felt the film wasn't great enough for me to revisit. If you do, you should spend the three bones, as anything will be better than what you get on the Tube.
This is also the second time that a full-length indie has come to YouTube with some sort of collaborative deal that bumps some coin back to the creators. Remember Four Eyed Monsters? Arin and Susan's deal with Spout (sign up through the FEM link and they get $1) was a first, and gave some incentive (they took in over $40,000), which we can see with Cult.
I love the idea of putting an entire film on the web (and especially YouTube, which millions of people visit), but wonder about the viability. As mentioned above, the video quality has to be better. A crappy picture will take you out of the mood quickly, and you'll lose your audience. So far, the number of views are at 17,000 plus, but how many of those watched the entire movie? Again, I'm not sure if this is an YouTube issue or not (FEM looked pretty decent, as I recall), but has to be fixed. I'd be infuriated if my movie looked like that to a worldwide audience.
Size also seems to be an issue. The tiny screen on the Tube is okay for short stuff, but generates eye strain for long periods. Go full screen and it looks like your watching through a fish tank. Recent history has proven that folks will watch movies on a small screen, but iPods have a razor sharp image, something we don't get here. Check out what director David Lynch had to say about his films viewed on a screen the size of a postage stamp. Pretty funny.
No one has been able to breakout with a giant web-based hit yet. I am always encouraged by resourceful filmmakers who keep trying new things to get their work out there, and try to make a buck. It will happen, and I can't wait to see whatever product drives millions of people to their computers (or set-top boxes) to watch it. It's very exciting, and it's most definitely the future.
