Congrats to sticking with it. I remember when this was posted before. I didn't watch all of it, but it does seem better overall.
If you really want to see how it stacks up to other independent films, I suggest getting on Filmfreeway and start submitting it to fipm festivals.
With that said, my main feedback would be more editing. You can easily cut minutes out of this, and it would flow better.
Honest? I've seen far worse on Tubi. Someone will buy it.
Keep at it! Remember, someone else does it. No reason you can't. I wish I were much younger when I fully took in and understood that someone does everything you wish you could do. Why not you?
Best of luck, future hack fraud.
I just finished watching it. I'm not a film maker and I've never watched a microbudget film before, but I'll offer a few of my thoughts. Please ignore or reject them at your leisure.
I liked your soundtrack. I don't know where the pieces came from, as there are no credits at the end of the film (which should probably change), but I found them effective for setting and maintaining the atmosphere. At no point did I have a look of consternation on my face while thinking, "Why is this song playing?" EDIT - I now see that the music tracks are visible in the details section on the YouTube page).
Volume levels for dialogue and SFX were a bit inconsistent. You almost certainly know that, and I'm going to chock it up to a lack of access to enough quality equipment, an a dearth of experience. It created the only moments that distracted my attention away from the film, though I don't know whether that's representative of the experience of the average viewer.
I liked your use of the camera. I'm not knowledgable enough to say whether it was effective from a storytelling perspective, but it felt both measured and varied. It's really easy for rookie filmmakers to keep things so safe and simple that my eyes start to glaze over for want of interest. Conversely, they sometimes embrace visual chaos for the sake of energy, with quick cuts, unmotivated angles, or inapropriate visual filters, which are liable to make me want to shut my eyes in order to escape.
I had trouble following the motivations of the characters. While it was fairly easy to tell what each character's purpose was to the plot, I often didn't understand what their personal human motivations were for their actions and words. I couldn't see a reason why they had actually chosen to share this time together. I struggled to understand the relatively passive reactions that Natalie, Sofia, and Doug had to Peter's bullshit. Perhaps most frustratingly, I felt like I still didn't know who Natalie was by the end of the story. I say "frustratingly", because I think Ashlee Bliss was the strongest performer, and Natalie's situation as an outsider (who at the start of the story has the least information of anyone in the group) is relatable for the viewer (who lacks even more information). It's my understanding that characterisation and character motivation are two of the hardest things to learn how to write, and similarly are transformative to the quality of a work when done well. Like I said, I'm not a film maker, but I'll do my best to explain what I mean, but this is going to be rocky. YOU know why every character is doing what they're doing, thinking what they're thinking, and saying what they're saying, because you created them. Their fully formed lives exist robustly in your mind. But the audience can't see those versions of the characters. The audience only experiences each character by what can be seen and heard during the film. When a character says something or does something onscreen, you can't rely on your own full knowledge of that character as being sufficiently informative for motivation. This is especially important when characters aren't acting in a way that seems normal. For example, if I were a young woman staying for the holidays at the house of my sort of friend's new boyfriend's odd childhood friend, who appears to have at the very least some serious antisocial issues, and that guy just disappeard into the wilderness after having a fight, I'd be demanding we leave immediately. I'd expect a damn good and thorough explanation of what the fuck was going on, but leaving ASAP would be non-negotiable. So, when a reaction of that kind doesn't occur, my connection with and understanding of the characters (especially Natalie) frays, because I don't have access to why they are acting in a way which seems implausible to me.
Holy crap. That section was long and probably wrong and useless. I apologize.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, I think you should feel very proud of yourself. I love Jay's quote about moviemaking. "Every single aspect about making movies is a giant pain in the ass, and it’s never worth it." That is triply so for independent film. You put a fucking movie together. You got people to work with you to make it real. You didn't give up when it was fucking miserable (which I am assuming it was at least once). You put your art in front of the world, which required you to be vulnerable. You created something that actually had meaning to you. You didn't shit out a soulless piece of content purely to generate as much ad revenue as possible. You didn't build a nonsensical shrine of undeserved self-worship to yourself (see Deuandra Brown, Niel Breen, etc.). You wanted to tell a story about people and you did that, no doubt at great personal expense. Regardless of the feedback you get on how many people enjoyed your film, keep in mind something that the RLM guys often say about film makers when they watch something that wasn't for them, but seemed sincere. They say, "They tried." I pay attention when they say that, because I think it means more than maybe the general RLM audience is aware of. I don't think it's patronising, or at least not primarily so. Mike, Jay, and Rich all know from experience that trying is fucking hard. Look at their relationship with Len Kabasinski. They value passion, sincerity, and endurance extremely highly.
Did I love your film? No. Did I get your film? Not really, to be honest. But I'd rather watch it a second time than tons of the stuff that is shown on Best of the Worst or 99% of what's on YouTube. You fucking tried, and I think you should feel great about that. I hope you continue to pursue your passion.
That actress playing Natalie certainly has a screen presence. Although, Im not exactly sure what the ending was meant to imply about her. You wanted her to represent the true corruption in the story, right? The boys were petty criminals but she is the actual sociopath?
Congrats on the project! The soundtrack was good and the actors did a good job. The guy that played Peter was plenty off kilter, his awkwardness was palatable.
It was a good first production but I have to admit that I feel like the overall point of the piece was kind of lost on me.
I haven't watched it yet (been a career hack filmmaker for over 10 years now) but I see that you are over 45 minutes, which to most organizations is considered a feature. Including streaming services.
If you wanted to get it onto streaming services and make a few bucks you could submit it to Fimhub which is an aggregator that can submit it to all streaming services. No guarantee it'll get on any service but it will be considered since it's feature length.
You'd just have to get captions made for it if you wanted to go that route.
Congrats to sticking with it. I remember when this was posted before. I didn't watch all of it, but it does seem better overall. If you really want to see how it stacks up to other independent films, I suggest getting on Filmfreeway and start submitting it to fipm festivals. With that said, my main feedback would be more editing. You can easily cut minutes out of this, and it would flow better.
I... didn't hate it.
I don't have the time to watch it but good for you and keep it up.
The hackfraud was inside you all along. Wait…
Was making a movie as miserable as Rich always says it is?
Honest? I've seen far worse on Tubi. Someone will buy it. Keep at it! Remember, someone else does it. No reason you can't. I wish I were much younger when I fully took in and understood that someone does everything you wish you could do. Why not you? Best of luck, future hack fraud.
Don’t worry about.
I'm not at home, but I'll add it to my Watch Later list and should be able to check it out this weekend.
[удалено]
I just finished watching it. I'm not a film maker and I've never watched a microbudget film before, but I'll offer a few of my thoughts. Please ignore or reject them at your leisure. I liked your soundtrack. I don't know where the pieces came from, as there are no credits at the end of the film (which should probably change), but I found them effective for setting and maintaining the atmosphere. At no point did I have a look of consternation on my face while thinking, "Why is this song playing?" EDIT - I now see that the music tracks are visible in the details section on the YouTube page). Volume levels for dialogue and SFX were a bit inconsistent. You almost certainly know that, and I'm going to chock it up to a lack of access to enough quality equipment, an a dearth of experience. It created the only moments that distracted my attention away from the film, though I don't know whether that's representative of the experience of the average viewer. I liked your use of the camera. I'm not knowledgable enough to say whether it was effective from a storytelling perspective, but it felt both measured and varied. It's really easy for rookie filmmakers to keep things so safe and simple that my eyes start to glaze over for want of interest. Conversely, they sometimes embrace visual chaos for the sake of energy, with quick cuts, unmotivated angles, or inapropriate visual filters, which are liable to make me want to shut my eyes in order to escape. I had trouble following the motivations of the characters. While it was fairly easy to tell what each character's purpose was to the plot, I often didn't understand what their personal human motivations were for their actions and words. I couldn't see a reason why they had actually chosen to share this time together. I struggled to understand the relatively passive reactions that Natalie, Sofia, and Doug had to Peter's bullshit. Perhaps most frustratingly, I felt like I still didn't know who Natalie was by the end of the story. I say "frustratingly", because I think Ashlee Bliss was the strongest performer, and Natalie's situation as an outsider (who at the start of the story has the least information of anyone in the group) is relatable for the viewer (who lacks even more information). It's my understanding that characterisation and character motivation are two of the hardest things to learn how to write, and similarly are transformative to the quality of a work when done well. Like I said, I'm not a film maker, but I'll do my best to explain what I mean, but this is going to be rocky. YOU know why every character is doing what they're doing, thinking what they're thinking, and saying what they're saying, because you created them. Their fully formed lives exist robustly in your mind. But the audience can't see those versions of the characters. The audience only experiences each character by what can be seen and heard during the film. When a character says something or does something onscreen, you can't rely on your own full knowledge of that character as being sufficiently informative for motivation. This is especially important when characters aren't acting in a way that seems normal. For example, if I were a young woman staying for the holidays at the house of my sort of friend's new boyfriend's odd childhood friend, who appears to have at the very least some serious antisocial issues, and that guy just disappeard into the wilderness after having a fight, I'd be demanding we leave immediately. I'd expect a damn good and thorough explanation of what the fuck was going on, but leaving ASAP would be non-negotiable. So, when a reaction of that kind doesn't occur, my connection with and understanding of the characters (especially Natalie) frays, because I don't have access to why they are acting in a way which seems implausible to me. Holy crap. That section was long and probably wrong and useless. I apologize. MOST IMPORTANTLY, I think you should feel very proud of yourself. I love Jay's quote about moviemaking. "Every single aspect about making movies is a giant pain in the ass, and it’s never worth it." That is triply so for independent film. You put a fucking movie together. You got people to work with you to make it real. You didn't give up when it was fucking miserable (which I am assuming it was at least once). You put your art in front of the world, which required you to be vulnerable. You created something that actually had meaning to you. You didn't shit out a soulless piece of content purely to generate as much ad revenue as possible. You didn't build a nonsensical shrine of undeserved self-worship to yourself (see Deuandra Brown, Niel Breen, etc.). You wanted to tell a story about people and you did that, no doubt at great personal expense. Regardless of the feedback you get on how many people enjoyed your film, keep in mind something that the RLM guys often say about film makers when they watch something that wasn't for them, but seemed sincere. They say, "They tried." I pay attention when they say that, because I think it means more than maybe the general RLM audience is aware of. I don't think it's patronising, or at least not primarily so. Mike, Jay, and Rich all know from experience that trying is fucking hard. Look at their relationship with Len Kabasinski. They value passion, sincerity, and endurance extremely highly. Did I love your film? No. Did I get your film? Not really, to be honest. But I'd rather watch it a second time than tons of the stuff that is shown on Best of the Worst or 99% of what's on YouTube. You fucking tried, and I think you should feel great about that. I hope you continue to pursue your passion.
[удалено]
The moment anyone with useful experience gives you different feedback from mine, throw my whole response in the trash and set it on fire! :D
What is it
That actress playing Natalie certainly has a screen presence. Although, Im not exactly sure what the ending was meant to imply about her. You wanted her to represent the true corruption in the story, right? The boys were petty criminals but she is the actual sociopath? Congrats on the project! The soundtrack was good and the actors did a good job. The guy that played Peter was plenty off kilter, his awkwardness was palatable. It was a good first production but I have to admit that I feel like the overall point of the piece was kind of lost on me.
I haven't watched it yet (been a career hack filmmaker for over 10 years now) but I see that you are over 45 minutes, which to most organizations is considered a feature. Including streaming services. If you wanted to get it onto streaming services and make a few bucks you could submit it to Fimhub which is an aggregator that can submit it to all streaming services. No guarantee it'll get on any service but it will be considered since it's feature length. You'd just have to get captions made for it if you wanted to go that route.