In addition to omitting spoilers, I’ll also avoid discussing plot specifics in this post. I’m sure you can find those all over the web. I just wanted to note a few things, especially for those who haven’t seen the film yet:
It’s extremely beneficial to watch Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 immediately before viewing Part 2. They’re designed as two halves of a whole, much like The Matrix sequels, as opposed to any given Star Wars or Back to the Future film.
Expect an action movie. While Part 1 was a drama in every sense, this one is all climax.
The 3D conversion is serviceable, but unnecessary. Since the film wasn’t shot for 3D, only a few angles benefit from it, while the sharp and beautiful cinematography loses some of its punch. That said, see the movie in whatever format makes you happy. I’m not here to judge.
I look forward to writing a more complete reaction soon, but I’ll wait until more people have seen the film. It’ll give me more time to think about it anyway.
This isn’t the first time I’ve run across this kind of ignorance, but this entry is directed specifically at Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter, whose review of The Losers has the subhead: “Bottom Line: An action film designed for those suffering from ADD.”
Where do I even begin?
Let me get this much out of the way: A.D.D. is real. It’s not a pop culture joke. It’s not an excuse for badly behaved school children or lack of parenting. It’s a clinical disorder defined in the DSM-IV. It’s an affliction, a real problem. And I have it in spades.
Attention-deficit disorder isn’t just a short attention span. I once heard it accurately described as the compulsive need to pay attention to everything, all the time. A person with A.D.D., such as myself, is constantly distracted, because everything is distracting. I can be having a one-on-one exchange with someone, notice a flashing light or an insect or just the color of the wall, and then suddenly realize that I have no idea what that person said or what I was going to say. All in the space of ten seconds. This can happen numerous times in a single conversation. Every day.
It affects not only academic pursuits, but my social life, my job, my fiancé, and more. I deal with it every day, and have for a long time. It’s very treatable, but never without side effects and an immense amount of effort. Can you imagine knowing you have to focus on something and being physically unable to? It’s incredibly frustrating and has long term consequences. It causes other problems too, like losing things many times over or getting halfway through a task before realizing what I’m doing is totally wrong.
I’m not trying to start a pity party. My A.D.D. is part of who I am, and I accepted that a long time ago. I’m not ashamed, embarrassed or offended by it. I’ve learned to cope with it very well without medication for a long time now, and I’m happy to tell others about it to encourage them as they struggle with it. So don’t feel sorry for me; I’m just fine.
Now, Mr. Honeycutt, let’s talk about you. You negatively described a movie that is fast-paced and flat as being “for those suffering from ADD.” Excuse me. I suffer from A.D.D.. What makes you think I’m going to enjoy a bad movie any more than the next person? Because I don’t focus as easily as you do? What kind of thing is that to say?
That’s like describing a movie with a simple plot as “for people suffering from mental retardation,” or bad reality shows as “for paraplegics without the ability to get up and go somewhere else.” Should we all start talking that way? Shame on anyone who does, so shame on you, sir.
Some movies are fast-paced, and some are slower-paced. Some of them are good, and some are bad. A.D.D. doesn’t have anything to do with anything. So please try not to showcase your ignorance with insensitive and frankly insulting platitudes that provide nothing to your audience and alienate people like me.
By the way, I once heard it was estimated that 10% of the American population could be diagnosed with A.D.D.. So say goodbye to 10% of your readers. Until you’re ready to apologize.
I won’t give you any ammunition by commenting on the quality of your review, but you seem to have a lot of contempt for video games, comic books, and violence for a guy reviewing a modern action movie.
Mr. Honeycutt’s “review” can be found here; don’t forget to leave him a comment.
Augh, I did it again! I was just jotting down some notes and playing with my camera, and before I knew it, I’d shot a movie! Actually, it took a little more planning than that, and I involved some very gracious, talented people.
A brief back story: In January, I watched Paranormal Activity at my apartment. This was a bad idea, as I have an active imagination and live alone. However, shooting a feature film on a single camera with a couple friends and a minimum of effects was an intriguing concept. The camera in the film is a top-notch professional camera, but couldn’t one tell a story in the same way using a different, cheaper camera? I conceived of a feature composed entirely of footage from consumer devices: webcams, cell phones, security cameras, etc. Instead of trying to make the whole movie, I got a Flip Ultra HD Video camera and decided to film what I envisioned being the opening of the film, which I always thought would be a standalone story of its own. The result is the short film you see here. (Warning: mature content)
Please share this with friends. Below is what I call “print commentary”: some notes about making the film instead of just detailing the whole process.
0:00 – This opening isn’t as creepy as it is unsettling. Even though there’s no picture, there’s a lot being communicated here with the lack of it. Not to mention the sound. This scene immediately invites the viewer to engage by asking questions.
0:35 – A confused man’s face. A messy apartment. The audience is being given answers little by little, but there’s a lot being fed with no overt explanation. Oh, that’s my apartment, by the way.
0:43 – Momentary Batman cameo.
0:47 – This was the most difficult shot in the film. There’s blue tape on top of a Tupperware bin marking where he’s supposed to set down the camera in order to frame everything correctly. But he had to do it fast with a very small margin of error. We have a number of botched takes where something crucial is out of frame. And this is a long, continuous take.
1:03 – Ronda’s a great sport. Apparently, she and Abby did something with tape (?) to keep her bra in place, but to this day, I’m not really sure what it was. They refuse to tell me.
1:36 – This shot was difficult as well, but there’s less to frame. In fact, the effect is heightened by what little we actually see of the actors. Plus, we didn’t need a prop for the cocaine this way.
1:50 – The slap is an aural effect, avoiding too much explanation. We do see his hand fly up, then suddenly, hair hits the camera. The slapping sound is actually his hand hitting hers, but it sells.
2:01 – This was an unexpectedly unnatural moment for both actors in rehearsal. It was made a little easier by the fact that they were acquainted before the film. I think it works well with the abrupt cut.
2:04 – Abby got to say “action” on this scene so I could wait outside to say “cut.”
2:28 – The dynamic lighting in the hallway is just the way that hallway really is. I love the feeling of movement and eerie quality it creates.
2:51 – Unintentional but very desirable washout. Again, it helps to have things happening on the screen while we’re in transition here.
3:12 – Sam’s hands are his most ominous feature. Good thing.
3:27 – One of the best things about this approach was that the way each character handles the camera says something about who they are.
3:44 – I told him to mumble, but not what to mumble.
4:04 – Abby’s cameo.
4:34 – The reflecting red light on the peephole was unforeseen, but again, there’s something about it that just seems right.
5:00 – There are takes that reveal more, but the off-camera slap and brief glimpses of silhouettes on the wall in this take are more effective.
5:02 – Honestly, the rape is less graphic than I’d imagined, but it’s the thought, not the visual, that’s most disturbing. The shot was written to be Mandy’s leg, but focusing on her face made a lot more sense.
5:27 – Abby’s house. The doormat says “Wipe Your Paws.” Which he does.
5:45 – This was a great location, and one of its best features was the changing floors between the door and the basement.
6:07 – He gave Chris a nightlight.
6:14 – By far the dirtiest-looking scene, and I have no problem with that. Low light isn’t the Flip’s best environment, but I think it suits the climax well. Chuck’s performance comes through loud and clear.
6:18 - The sound quality of Sam’s voice behind the camera contrasts well with Chuck’s in front. Sam’s is almost godlike.
7:02 – The tension in this take was palpable. It’s never more obvious than at this moment.
7:22 – In a simpler version than my original plan, Sam’s shirt was pre-bloodied (new word!), and he charged empty-handed. When he stood up to walk to the camera, Abby handed him a real knife. Movie magic.
7:27 – If you pause here, you can see a hand print on Sam’s chest.
I just wanted to give a small shout-out to three films that made 2009 a better year, but saw no action last night at the Academy Awards. Between the expansion of the Best Picture category and the scarcity of truly stellar Hollywood films last year, surely there’s room for these unique, touching, courageous pictures.
1) Where the Wild Things Are
A 10-sentence book adapted into a two-hour character study, Spike Jonze’s quirky kids flick is tough to analyze, but fascinating nonetheless. Jonze and co-writer Dave Eggers turn the land of the Wild Things into a wilderness, complete with vast deserts and canyons, perhaps representing the blank slate that imagination can fill. And young Max, fleeing a childhood with no one to connect to, finds idiosyncratic but remarkably authentic friends who support him and trust him. In this world, Max learns through the personalities of the Wild Things what it’s like to be in other people’s shoes and how his behavior affects those around him. When Max returns home, he’s moved into a new stage in his life. The film never answers exactly where Max was, but does it matter?
Some people complain that Max is unlikeable and that the film’s message doesn’t resonate, but I’ve noticed a gender divide in that opinion. It seems that in unlocking the workings of a child’s mind, Jonze and Eggers evoked the responses they wanted from those of us who used to be little boys, but not girls. So the film could be considered a niche offering in a sense, but I don’t believe that diminishes its accomplishments.
2) Away We Go
I just caught this one recently on Blu-Ray, but I was so touched by it that I have to include it here. A couple looking for a place to raise their unborn child (she swears she’s only 6 months in) visits friends and families in various parts of the country (and Canada), hoping to find a home for their new family. This isn’t a road trip comedy, though it very well could have been from its premise. Very little time is spent in transit, and much more on the destinations. This breaks up the film into a neat structure, where each family they visit represents a theme of family life in a very exaggerated fashion. Most of the humor (and indeed the drama) comes from the relatively normal visitors trying to deal with the dysfunction around them both socially and philosophically. John Krazinski of The Office and Maya Rudolph of SNL give surprisingly nuanced and identifiable performances with great chemistry, lending the dramatic moments a gravity that raises the film above its roots to a more significant place.
3) (500) Days of Summer
One of my early picks for the Best Picture category, I’m still rather shocked that it wasn’t even mentioned. How could this wonderfully original, poignant, hilarious, gripping, unequivocal experience be excluded? Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives a career performance in one of the greatest love stories ever filmed as Tom, falling madly into and maddingly out of love with the infinitely entrancing Zooey Deschanel as Summer. The narrative jumps back and forth in time to specific days within the titular 500, often showing how much Tom depended on Summer by showing what happens to him after their break-up. The arc of the film leads not to the end of the 500 days (okay, so maybe it does, but not exactly), but to the conclusion of what the lead characters’ relationship meant to each of them, what ended it, and what to do with it now. In one of the film’s most powerful scenes, Tom visits Summer after their break-up, and his imagination runs parallel to the reality of how that encounter plays out.
First-time director Marc Webb taps into something beautiful as he explores the workings of these characters’ minds, evoking strong romantic emotions and primal instinct all at once. It’s a masterpiece in every sense, and to me, it’s the Dark Knight of 2009. I must admit a bias due to my strong identification with the lead character’s plight, but I believe every man with a heart he admits to having will feel similarly.
I firmly believe that (500) Days of Summer and Where the Wild Things Are belonged in the Best Picture category, but Away We Go featured excellent performances from its leads that deserved recognition. Everyone has an opinion, I know, but looking at the nominations this year, I was a little disappointed by the lack of greatness compared to 2008′s offerings. And then I remembered these wonderful pictures.
Posted on: February 19th, 2010 by Adam T No Comments
I’ve got a few things on the horizon I wanted to let you know about.
First of all, a lot of people want to know what the big delay is on making my directorial debut public, especially since the movie has been complete since November. Well, there are two things keeping it under wraps. First, the ending credits are incomplete. Some credits were thrown onto the current copy just so we could make the deadline on a couple of film festivals; we planned to correct them before exhibition. I worked with a lot of great people for free, so the least I can do is ensure that they’re credited correctly. So my producer is fixing that the first chance she gets. I shouldn’t detail the second reason publicly, but I can tell you that there’s just a bit of remaining red tape that it takes time to cut through before we’re allowed to exhibit the film.
In short, we plan to have the film online anytime now. Hopefully, it won’t stay in limbo for more than a few more days.
Currently, I’m in the midst of a much smaller project I’m directing and co-producing from my own script. It’s an experimental horror short told through “found footage,” a technique used in independent films The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity. We’ll shoot it next weekend, and it will be cut and released online in mid-March. I have another short film project that I’m starting to put together to shoot in the spring, but I’m keeping a lid on details until we’re closer to shooting (hint: it’s really exciting).
Finally, I’ve been hired by a local studio to write the screenplay for a feature (maybe?) film from a producer’s outline. He and I have had a few conversations about the story and characters, but we’re still in the early stages of figuring this thing out. Needless to say, it’s a very cool project being made by some very talented people, and I can’t wait to delve deeper into it.
So that’s what’s on the schedule for the next few months. And if anybody’s wondering, YES, I AM AVAILABLE FOR PAID WORK. Trust me, I’ll make time. I’m very flexible.
In addition to omitting spoilers, I’ll also avoid discussing plot specifics in this post. I’m sure you can find those all over the web. I just wanted to note a few things, especially for those who haven’t seen the film yet:
This isn’t the first time I’ve run across this kind of ignorance, but this entry is directed specifically at Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter, whose review of The Losers has the subhead: “Bottom Line: An action film designed for those suffering from ADD.”
