ponyproductions (29th Dec 2007 21:47)

It's 50 seconds long because we made it for a 50 second film festival. Original cut was somewhere closer to 2 minutes, this is very much "bare bones" stuff. Still, at the time of writing, it's number 2 at the box office.

ben3308 (24th Dec 2007 19:49)

Wow, -1, what the hell? I offered good, founded criticism and advice. PonyProductions, this is my take on this movie, so please don't be overly alarmed: I agree completely and whole-heartedly with Aculag. It has been done so many times before, and in much better ways. Now I know that you didn't really submit this to be as comparative as we're making it, but by submitting it to a community cinema where the films are rated, comparison is inevitable. Digressing, there were several ups to this movie. Cinematography was good, as was editing. The effects were pretty good, and I'm not at liberty to say they're bad, as I myself am a horrible effects artist and know how difficult it is. One thing for me that is, in a sense, 'inexcusable', however, is the shortness and lack of 'oomph' in this movie. The opening few shots with the boss and the employee set the scene nearly perfectly, but the digression into the office madness is weak and fails to keep the action running. More angles, more cuts, and a shift to more extreme grading could greatly benefit this. Another thing: it's entirely too short, and it is for this reason that the 'clever' ending lacks much impact: there's not enough setup. More fighting and more creativity are two things I would've liked to have seen. Sure, shooting person-to-person is fun, but in most action scenes there's an obvious 'clencher' of sorts that changes up the action a bit. In 'K-Text', it's the swooping dutch angles as the bad guy runs towards the protagonist. In 'NightCast' clips, it's the hero sliding down a storm drain or piledriving some bad guys. Something, anything different from the standard 'I'm shooting guns at you!!!!' angles/choreography that makes the action more interesting. Essentially, this sort of seems like a 'nothing' movie in my book: the office setting is properly established, the guy draws his guns and fires, and then....nothing else happens. It's a cold, abrupt ending. Doesn't work in my book. What adds insult to injury is that even with limited time/resources (which I myself am well aware of in smaller-scale productions) it would not have been, by any stretch of the imagination, a difficult feat to just add a bit more flair and extend the action by a few shots/cuts/and gunshots. In retrospect, you should have focused more on action/blocking/choreography instead of effects. Moreover, the fact that you spent so much money on this is, I'm very very sorry to say, laughable. Where'd the money go? I understand paying extras/PA's/craft services, but Jesus, at least spend money in the proper places. One thing I think you could learn from this criticism, if anything, is the never-ending production values that can be attained from stretching a dollar. Not to condescend at all, but I have done productions of twice the value (costuming/setting/props/etc) with less than a twentieth of the money you've used here. I'm not trying to completely shut you down, but say this: learn to use the money in your movie better. With that much money used, it definitely could have been much, much better/longer than it ended up being. 3/5 in my book, but close to a 2 because of the length and impact of the ending.

neoglitz (24th Dec 2007 19:29)

Dear Pony, Welcome to the community! Personally, I liked the short film 4/5. Like all communities, there are all sorts of people. Here are a few of my favorites; the person who criticizes films, but has yet to offer their own work for the community to do the same and the person who criticizes films, yet will give their own work a five star rating. As Sollthar stated, some people just like to sound like they're important. Keep this in mind, you have the complete right to ignore all comments or suggestions.