I am asking for your critiques and comments about my video guys

[maltesefalconese]

hi guys;

could you please comment about this shortcut i made.. especially in the aspects of editing, and quality of the scenes.. thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UU5DCHVKBc

how is it?

[edDV]

I watched 62 seconds. A few cuts.

A total waste of a minute.

Be more specific.

[maltesefalconese]

I watched 62 seconds. A few cuts.

A total waste of a minute.

Be more specific.

are you crazy man... there is only 5 cuts in 1 minute.. than how do you explain tv series with 567 cuts in 2 minutes

[edDV]

I watched 62 seconds. A few cuts.

A total waste of a minute.

Be more specific.

are you crazy man... there is only 5 cuts in 1 minute.. than how do you explain tv series with 567 cuts in 2 minutes

Dude the sky was blown and I get quickly bored watching a guy smoke joint.

Is there something great about to happen?

[luigi2000]

The video quality was good. The music was OK--not annoying. But I skipped through the last half of the program. By definition all interesting programs tell an interesting story. Your video does not have a compelling story. As for the editing... unless the actor is intriguing in some way or doing something noteworthy, do not let a scene last for longer than it takes the average person to understand the action. Your actor smokes. After a few seconds the viewer needs to be told or be shown why the actor is smoking. After a minute of no action, the viewer will not care. This is pointless. Near the beginning you cut to a long shot with half the actors face and torso in the shot. There was no connection in this situation. This is bad form. There was too much time spent waiting for the door to open. Also too many low shots were used. This technique along with tilted camera can build tension if it helps in the telling, but there is no plot. Now you know something that many Hollywood producers don't know. Story is king.

[maltesefalconese]

The video quality was good. The music was OK--not annoying. But I skipped through the last half of the program. By definition all interesting programs tell an interesting story. Your video does not have a compelling story. As for the editing... unless the actor is intriguing in some way or doing something noteworthy, do not let a scene last for longer than it takes the average person to understand the action. Your actor smokes. After a few seconds the viewer needs to be told or be shown why the actor is smoking. After a minute of no action, the viewer will not care. This is pointless. Near the beginning you cut to a long shot with half the actors face and torso in the shot. There was no connection in this situation. This is bad form. There was too much time spent waiting for the door to open. Also too many low shots were used. This technique along with tilted camera can build tension if it helps in the telling, but there is no plot. Now you know something that many Hollywood producers don't know. Story is king.

thanks for the critiques.. they were serious and sounds professional.. most of things you said sounds reasonable but the idea is that i did want to have a stroy in the movie.. there are many movies like that,telling a persons one day,without any plot but of course you have to shot it very professinoaly to make it not boring to watch..

[maltesefalconese]

I watched 62 seconds. A few cuts.

A total waste of a minute.

Be more specific.

are you crazy man... there is only 5 cuts in 1 minute.. than how do you explain tv series with 567 cuts in 2 minutes

Dude the sky was blown and I get quickly bored watching a guy smoke joint.

Is there something great about to happen?

there is an exciting foreplay scene in the 5 minute man.. u should see it

[maltesefalconese]

I watched 62 seconds. A few cuts.

A total waste of a minute.

Be more specific.

are you crazy man... there is only 5 cuts in 1 minute.. than how do you explain tv series with 567 cuts in 2 minutes

Dude the sky was blown and I get quickly bored watching a guy smoke joint.

Is there something great about to happen?

there is an exciting foreplay scene in the 5th minute man.. u should see it

[lordsmurf]

The camera work all looked good, but there's nothing going on.

[guns1inger]

You managed to drag out a 40 - 60 second story to almost 10 minutes simply because you were too in love with your footage. Most of it could have been cut. Too many unnecessary close ups of door handles, too much waiting for nothing to happen, and please, stop putting your camera inside things. I don't want to look at someone putting their laundry in the dryer or getting something out of the fridge from the inside (and actually, I didn't need to see it from the outside - again, too much footage). There only seemed to be three camera angles used the whole time - the aforementioned "inside" shots, very low looking up, or very close to the object in the scene. No variety. And given virtually nothing happens throughout the story, you needed much more variety to hold the viewer's interest. Work on your colour grading to get better consistency to help tie things together more.

I suggest you read William Goldman's "Adventures in the Screen Trade" and it's follow up, or watch "Tales from the Script" (find the DVD if you can because the extras are excellent as well). A few times he talks about how film can be used to accelerate time because we don't need to see every little piece of minutia - we can fill in the gaps ourselves. We don't have to watch every step of the journey home, getting out the keys, unlocking the door, opening the door, walking through the door, closing the door, locking the door, putting away the keys etc. We know that is the process, so we assume that it happened if we didn't see it. Only if it is important to the story - perhaps because later something in that process will change - do we need to be shown. And then in a much truncated form.

The footage is clean, and I suspect if you reshot a few scenes with different angles and tightened up the editing a lot, you could probably get a brisk minute and half to two minute film out of it.

[maltesefalconese]

You managed to drag out a 40 - 60 second story to almost 10 minutes simply because you were too in love with your footage. Most of it could have been cut. Too many unnecessary close ups of door handles, too much waiting for nothing to happen, and please, stop putting your camera inside things. I don't want to look at someone putting their laundry in the dryer or getting something out of the fridge from the inside (and actually, I didn't need to see it from the outside - again, too much footage). There only seemed to be three camera angles used the whole time - the aforementioned "inside" shots, very low looking up, or very close to the object in the scene. No variety. And given virtually nothing happens throughout the story, you needed much more variety to hold the viewer's interest. Work on your colour grading to get better consistency to help tie things together more.

I suggest you read William Goldman's "Adventures in the Screen Trade" and it's follow up, or watch "Tales from the Script" (find the DVD if you can because the extras are excellent as well). A few times he talks about how film can be used to accelerate time because we don't need to see every little piece of minutia - we can fill in the gaps ourselves. We don't have to watch every step of the journey home, getting out the keys, unlocking the door, opening the door, walking through the door, closing the door, locking the door, putting away the keys etc. We know that is the process, so we assume that it happened if we didn't see it. Only if it is important to the story - perhaps because later something in that process will change - do we need to be shown. And then in a much truncated form.

The footage is clean, and I suspect if you reshot a few scenes with different angles and tightened up the editing a lot, you could probably get a brisk minute and half to two minute film out of it.

oh come on. this was really cruel.. ok i am not a professional or smt,also i did not have any story to tell in this movie ( maybe out of the idea that director dies at the end of movie and it could not be completed ) but please do not say that you cant shot a movie without a story.. i have seen many movies without any proper story in it,but they were beautiful. Like A Bout De Souffle.. They dont have an interesting sotry in that movie,but it is still great..

And about the camera in the freze or laundry.. Come on man,it looks beautiful hahaha.ok that is what aesthets say;you can not make certain decisions about tastes..

And i do not know if you guys are watching this crazy perfect tv series called Breaking Bad.. I tried to shot some seens close to it.. That why i made the movie..

p.s. please guyss, be less cruel..
None will say anything good?

[maltesefalconese]

The camera work all looked good, but there's nothing going on.

thanks man.. did you watch the end? there was going to be great things but the director dies!!

[lordsmurf]

If you had a story, I'm sure you could make some great short films.

Technically, what you made could have been a commercial for something. I thought the shots were all clean. Honestly, half of what I see is the same quality of worse.

Yeah, you only used a few angles -- so what? That's choice of style. I'd rather we go back to 1950s Desi Arnaz shooting, instead of this "masturbating with camera" garbage style that seems to be the current fad. Watching a camera zoom in/out, move around, shot high/low/far/near/above/below/in/out -- good grief, I want to puke. Just because there are more options does NOT mean they all have to be used together. I say good for you for sticking to just a few types of shots and making it work!

I'm usually very brutal with critiques, but I don't see any reason to pound you over the head here.

I didn't watch all of it, no. I had to skim because I don't have 10 minutes to watch mundane activities. I saw maybe 4-5 minutes, 30-60 seconds here and there -- enough to see what was going on without punishing myself to watch it.

Don't give up. Just make another one. Work at the story this time. Everything else is fine -- for now.

[guns1inger]

Hey, you asked. I didn't think I was being unfair, just telling you how I felt as I watched it. I'm not saying you need to be Paul Greengrass (who at least makes shaki-cam watchable) or Michael Bay (we already have one too many of those as it is), but I want my interest held. If I am going to give you my time, I deserve at least that in return. And yeah, I watch (and love) Breaking Bad - not sure I see the connection yet.

If you want to see harsh criticism (not necessarily unwarranted, either) try reading a review of some of Nic Cage's recent work, like Ghost Rider, or the Alvin and Chipmunk movies.

[chowmein]

You asked for criticism. The music SUCKS. Create your OWN music/soundtrack.

The 10min video is BORING. (And yes, I skimmed to 5min to see some foreplay, but it was just the guy talking on phone - yawn)...(not talking really, because SUCKY music was blaring).

And yes, I watch Breaking Bad and LOVE IT. Please don't compare yourself with Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad has fantastic edgy & bleak melodrama. Your effort doesn't.

Short films without story/substance are just filmmaker masturbation - unless they are done with ATTITUDE. There are experimental shorts that are GOOD, but only because they have ATTITUDE.

(Re: Breaking Bad... Yes it is a fantastic series... BUT... it has its cinematic flaws. It experiments, but some of its experiments simply fall flat on their face. Lens flare for one thing. That sucks. "Jesse bored in the meth-lab" scene (Season 3) = unnecessary and stupid/glam. "Inside-the-fridge" POV shots are just stupid ("oh is there a camera in the fridge?"). Having said that, I still rate this series 10/10. It supplanted Deadwood in top spot, IMO - because it is so ENGAGING).

[filmboss80]

Chowmein hit upon something when using the word "engaging" to describe Breaking Bad and Deadwood -- and making an "engaging" movie should be your first priority. Decisions on how to light, shoot, and edit will fall into place much easier when you have that first priority in place. If the purpose of your project is to simply impress someone with your shooting and editing style, you will just end up making a boring, self-indulgent piece (what lordsmurf aptly described as "masturbating with camera").

Whenever you're editing your footage, always ask yourself, "if someone else had made this, would I be compelled to watch it." All the best camera and editing moves will amount to a heap of nothing if you don't capture your viewer. Even a slow-paced, static shot can grab the audience if the subject and characters are intriguing.

Have a storytelling purpose behind all the techniques.

[maltesefalconese]

If you had a story, I'm sure you could make some great short films.

Technically, what you made could have been a commercial for something. I thought the shots were all clean. Honestly, half of what I see is the same quality of worse.

Yeah, you only used a few angles -- so what? That's choice of style. I'd rather we go back to 1950s Desi Arnaz shooting, instead of this "masturbating with camera" garbage style that seems to be the current fad. Watching a camera zoom in/out, move around, shot high/low/far/near/above/below/in/out -- good grief, I want to puke. Just because there are more options does NOT mean they all have to be used together. I say good for you for sticking to just a few types of shots and making it work!

I'm usually very brutal with critiques, but I don't see any reason to pound you over the head here.

I didn't watch all of it, no. I had to skim because I don't have 10 minutes to watch mundane activities. I saw maybe 4-5 minutes, 30-60 seconds here and there -- enough to see what was going on without punishing myself to watch it.

Don't give up. Just make another one. Work at the story this time. Everything else is fine -- for now.

It seems we are the only 2 people sharing this kind of film taste here. Thanks for the comments and critique.

[maltesefalconese]

Hey, you asked. I didn't think I was being unfair, just telling you how I felt as I watched it. I'm not saying you need to be Paul Greengrass (who at least makes shaki-cam watchable) or Michael Bay (we already have one too many of those as it is), but I want my interest held. If I am going to give you my time, I deserve at least that in return. And yeah, I watch (and love) Breaking Bad - not sure I see the connection yet.

If you want to see harsh criticism (not necessarily unwarranted, either) try reading a review of some of Nic Cage's recent work, like Ghost Rider, or the Alvin and Chipmunk movies.

Michael Bay?!! You like him? Then i am glad you did not like the one i did.

[maltesefalconese]

You asked for criticism. The music SUCKS. Create your OWN music/soundtrack.

The 10min video is BORING. (And yes, I skimmed to 5min to see some foreplay, but it was just the guy talking on phone - yawn)...(not talking really, because SUCKY music was blaring).

And yes, I watch Breaking Bad and LOVE IT. Please don't compare yourself with Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad has fantastic edgy & bleak melodrama. Your effort doesn't.

Short films without story/substance are just filmmaker masturbation - unless they are done with ATTITUDE. There are experimental shorts that are GOOD, but only because they have ATTITUDE.

(Re: Breaking Bad... Yes it is a fantastic series... BUT... it has its cinematic flaws. It experiments, but some of its experiments simply fall flat on their face. Lens flare for one thing. That sucks. "Jesse bored in the meth-lab" scene (Season 3) = unnecessary and stupid/glam. "Inside-the-fridge" POV shots are just stupid ("oh is there a camera in the fridge?"). Having said that, I still rate this series 10/10. It supplanted Deadwood in top spot, IMO - because it is so ENGAGING).

I do not understand why can not you consider the things occuring in movie as a story? Does a story have to be always a big deal and great events? Can not a basic day of someone hanging around be a movie also? Do we have to save the world or blow up the planes and cars and get into a crazy environment to call it a story? Than what does Kafka and Beckett and Camus stand for? Do not some of us spend their time just like the guy in th movie? I am not sure about this things and i can say there is a story in the shortcut,but of course it might not be interesting for some people.

and i am not comparing myself with Breaking Bad.. I would kill myself for Breaking Bad.. It is greatest art activity since Tristan and Isolde

[maltesefalconese]

Chowmein hit upon something when using the word "engaging" to describe Breaking Bad and Deadwood -- and making an "engaging" movie should be your first priority. Decisions on how to light, shoot, and edit will fall into place much easier when you have that first priority in place. If the purpose of your project is to simply impress someone with your shooting and editing style, you will just end up making a boring, self-indulgent piece (what lordsmurf aptly described as "masturbating with camera").

Whenever you're editing your footage, always ask yourself, "if someone else had made this, would I be compelled to watch it." All the best camera and editing moves will amount to a heap of nothing if you don't capture your viewer. Even a slow-paced, static shot can grab the audience if the subject and characters are intriguing.

Have a storytelling purpose behind all the techniques.

As i said i do not think a story always has to be a great combination of great events.. Basic ones are a story also and for me they are more interesting..A story is a story..

[M Bruner]

Not exactly. If your critics are tuning out of your film after only a few minutes into it, you may want to consider a rewrite.

[filmboss80]

Story and narrative style aside, if you cannot engage your audience, they won't watch your drivel. You asked for critiques, but when you got them, you started arguing. Do you want the truth? Do you want helpful information? Or do you simply want us to tell you what you want to hear?

[lordsmurf]

Story and narrative style aside, if you cannot engage your audience, they won't watch your drivel. You asked for critiques, but when you got them, you started arguing. Do you want the truth?
Do you want helpful information? Or do you simply want us to tell you what you want to hear?

I don't think that's the case. I've clearly not told him he made a great piece, I only pointed out what was good and what was bad.

Professional critiques touch on all points of something -- good, bad and ugly -- and are overall constructive. That's what makes them professional, as opposed to mind diarrhea. (I would point out, however, that a forum is rarely the place to get engaging and professional criticism, unless it's specifically a "pro board" of some kind.)

Unfortunately, a lot of what he's hearing in this thread is "it sucks, pointless, boring" without any substances to the comments. It's not constructive (and therefore useless), and he's right to call those folks on it. To make matters worse, he's new here -- but I'm not. I know some of the people simply saying "it sucks" (paraphrased, not quoted) know better. Maybe some of them are just in a bad mood? (I can be guilty of that, too!)

Just don't be this guy:

[zoobie]

(ROTFLMAO) ^

Their first movie usually has the "star" committing suicide in the end...Too bad it's not the film-maker

[chowmein]

I do not understand why can not you consider the things occuring in movie as a story? Does a story have to be always a big deal and great events? Can not a basic day of someone hanging around be a movie also? Do we have to save the world or blow up the planes and cars and get into a crazy environment to call it a story? Than what does Kafka and Beckett and Camus stand for? Do not some of us spend their time just like the guy in th movie? I am not sure about this things and i can say there is a story in the shortcut,but of course it might not be interesting for some people.

and i am not comparing myself with Breaking Bad.. I would kill myself for Breaking Bad.. It is greatest art activity since Tristan and Isolde

Hey, you're the filmmaker, you can do whatever the hell you want! Shoot a blade of grass for an hour! Shoot the Empire State Building for 24 hours! That's fine, no one is arguing your artistic freedom to make whatever kind of film you want. If it means something to you, then it's worth it, right?

However you have put your little piece of self-indulgence up on public display, and even asked for critique. The consensus seems to be that it doesn't engage the viewer. Not because it lacks explosions & CGI and car chases, not at all, but because a discerning viewer (which all of us here are, no doubt) wants to connect with characters and have our emotions stirred. Your film fails to do that. Gunsl1nger was totally correct when he said you could tighten up the editing and hone it down to a minute or two. All that minutiae of exposition is just unnecessary - like in fiction, what works best is what is left to the reader's/viewer's imagination.

No, you don't need non-stop action to drive a good film. A good film is character-driven. Breaking Bad does this well. And on a sidenote, watch some Russian cinema for examples of movies that are slooow-moving and yet thoroughly engaging (eg Tarkovsky (Stalker, Solaris), Lopushansky (Ugly Swans, Visitor To A Museum), Zvyagintsev (The Return))...

[guns1inger]

I rank Michael Bay right up there with Brett Rattner - junk food film makers for moronic viewers. Obviously shit sells because transformers made billions. If you bothered to read what I posted, you would have noticed that I was not a fan.

Bottom line, you asked for comments, then got offended when you didn't get everyone fawning over your work and loving it as much as you obviously did. Next time you should post asking only those who loved your film to tell you how much they loved it, because obviously you can't handle criticism, even when it is constructive.

[maltesefalconese]

i am with ok all the criticisms.. but please do not stop me having the pleasure of discussing about movies,even it is made by me.. i am not a director or smt.. but i lke talking about movies.. so when i write answers to your comments it is not because i feel offended but it is because i enjoy this