Posted 26 July 2006 - 02:05 PM
We open in LA and NY in 2 weeks! It goes wider the week after.
Hope you all get to check it out. It will be at the Arclight in L.A.
Posted 26 July 2006 - 02:30 PM
Can you refresh my memory....which camera did you shoot on?
Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:59 PM
Posted 03 August 2006 - 11:32 PM
Here is what critics are saying about the film:
"A FUNNY AND TOUCHING TALE. LYRICAL AND EMOTIONALLY
RIGOROUS." Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
"A RICH HUMAN COMEDY. A FILM THAT IS SERIOUS, JOYFUL,
AND FILLED WITH HEART." Roger Ebert, Chicago
"LUMINOUSLY PLAYED. THE THEMES OF FAMILY PRIDE AN
PREJUDICE PROVE TO BE UNIVERSAL." Steven Farber,
"A WONDERFUL MOVIE. THE NICEST SURPRISE OF THE
SUMMER." Leonard Maltin
"A TERRIFIC FILM." Film Threat
"CHARMING, MOVING AND DELIGHTFUL." David Poland,
Movie City News
"THE INDIE SENSATION OF THE YEAR." Hispanic Magazine
Posted 04 August 2006 - 09:49 PM
Posted 05 August 2006 - 01:20 AM
Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:19 AM
First of all, I don't recommend people seeing a movie at the Laemmle Monica, or the Laemmle Grand, or the Westside Pavilion Goldwyn, if you have other options ("Quinceanera" is playing at the Arclight luckily.) None of those theaters can seem to project a sharp image with decent blacks, especially a scope print. It's like they are using dirty plexiglass for their projection ports or something, or maybe they clean their lenses with vegetable oil. The only thing I tend to see at the Laemmle's are documentaries.
I only bring this up because my own film, "The Quiet", also shot on the F900 and cropped to scope, will be released in the same theaters probably, and suffer the same fate. Good blacks in a print are key to it looking sharp, and it particularly matters with digital material transferred to film.
I don't know, Eric, if you managed to get them to print the movie on Vision Premier, or at least Fuji 3513 D.I.
I'm also curious about the diffusion filtration used -- there seemed to be something very light, but it may have been the foggy projection.
I thought Eric's work was pitch-perfect for the material. It's so natural and believable that you quickly forget it is being photographed by anyone, which is a sign of real maturity in a DP, when they can disappear like that behind the material and the acting. There were only a few moments when I thought the realistic lighting was a little cluttered (logically) and maybe should have been cleaned-up. I'm thinking of the early scene where the cousin is sitting on the couch at night when the uncle comes home, and he's lit with two lights, one coming from the left and one coming from the right, and one is throwing a hard shadow on the wall, and the other a soft shadow on the wall. That was motivated by the room, but it looks a little too crude.
Also, a few of the day exterior scenes had more HMI fill light than I think looks natural. But again, because of the hazier projection at the Laemmle, it tends to make scenes look more low-con than they really are.
The night exterior work was great, very natural -- one area where HD is an advantage. For the most part, I didn't see many HD artifacts, except for the occasional clippiness from hot sunlight that someone walks through momentarily, or in a shot that tilts down from a hot sky.
The movie really captured the tiny, realistic details of the neighborhood that lend it a lot of authenticity.
Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:55 AM
I tested a few different print stocks, the Premier looked the worst actually. We recorded to and printed on Fuji, which through my eyes looked so much better than the Kodak stocks I don't know why they even showed it to us on Kodak. A bonus was that Fuji also saved some money.
Damn...you noticed the lighting that pissed me off the most! A word about the couch scene and the big no-no. I had it lit beautifully from one side. We rehearsed, everyone happy. One of the directors says...I think it's too moody, turn on another light (pitfall of HD monitors). I said it was already lit and would have to relight. No time, actor had to leave after take and was already late. The directors didn't want any shadow on the actor's face so in a moment of despair, I commited sin...and then there was 2 shadows. I pouted for about 3 days after that. Oh well. Just goes to show you can't sneak anything past an ASC member.
Posted 16 August 2006 - 12:29 PM
Oh well. Just goes to show you can't sneak anything past an ASC member.
Or a director looking at a big HD monitor...
There is clearly some fill light though in the walk-n-talk of the girl and her boyfriend (walking his bike down that alleyway / hill) in the overs -- maybe it was just a bounce card, but it was cooler than the sunlight which is why I thought HMI's were used.
You'd have to suffer through a screening at the Laemmle Monica 4, I guess, to see what I mean...
I once saw a scope movie there in the big theater where the whole left third of the screen was fogged-out.
Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:36 PM
Posted 13 September 2006 - 09:36 PM