Awesome movie, I love how you made it go over and over again, and it makes sense, it's not like one of those movies where you don't know what's going on.

That was exceedingly eerie and cool. Plus, it was almost funny how they both died but weren't actually dead because their past selves were alive, etc. Really nice job and good music. 5/5.

Okay, well first things first, it's good to see clever narrative strategy at work from you guys.

I'm a big fan of the film Déjà Vu, and the whole 'catching a glimpse of yourself changing things' is a nice concept, and you pulled it off well. That being said, there are three things that bring this down a lot, and make it almost uncomfortable to sit through. Here goes:

Kids playing adults. Just don't do it.

Unless they've got facial hair, it's going to seem really bad. I've done it before, and it didn't really work, but at least I pulled off the facial hair motif. Especially when you've got an 'old shopkeeper' - you need someone old!

I know it can be tough to find people, let alone convince them to act, but if you write such a part into your story, it is a necessity that an adult play the role. If you don't have anyone to play the role, you've got to cut it out of the film. Sometimes it doesn't seem like a big deal, especially when you're filming it, but it is. What would otherwise have been a solid end-product comes off as trite and mostly cheesy; and it's pretty much solely because of this element.

The grading as it pertains to the lighting and time is off. Big time.

This was a big deal to me - why the blue grading, when you so clearly state someone is about to go on vacation? I'm all for doing whatever grading looks the coolest, but when you need to convey a 'summer' atmosphere - and, to really make the Hawaii story 'click', you do need to - bright, harsh yellows work better than crunched blues. My film 'Pages' has blues in it, but on the whole it's veeery yellow, resulting in a distinctly hot, sweaty 'summer' feel. I'm aware you probably live in a colder climate than Texas () but Kuleshov's geography dictates that you need to emphasis aspects of your location even if they aren't obvious. So summer = warm grading almost all the time, especially when outdoors, which is most of the film.

I don't think you understand cinematography, really. At least, not yet.

I don't say this to be rude or overly harsh, but I just don't think you understand cinematography, or why certain shots are important in certain places. You cross the line more than fifteen times by my count, and it's obvious and it looks sloppy. Normally I don't subscribe to cinematographical 'rules' as much, but when you're crossing the 180 degree line so much it's hard to tell where the person is: that's a problem. Cuts would be made to the person walking in a different location than the last, and it would look awkward. Sometimes I wouldn't even know if they were still walking in the same direction or not. Follow-along shots are intermixed with follow-alongs from a slightly similar angle. Not a fan.

When I watched this film, most of it was walking randomly. That's fine, my favorite film I've made is about walking randomly ('Pages', 'Marathon' to an extent) but from the shots I see it just seems evident: you don't really know what you're doing. Some shots are in there just because they're a shot, not because they matter, show anything, or look necessarily good. I hope you realize: I'm criticizing you here because I care about your development as a filmmaking crew, not because I want to tear you down.

There's also an issue with shaky shots: yeah, 'floaty cam' is fine, it's a personal favorite of mine. But a simple pan should be a simple pan, not a 'move a little, pause for a second to frame properly, move a little more, pause again to correct framing'. Pans are easy, come on! Use a tripod if need be.

I think, too often in student productions, people have big ideas about shots and then aren't able to adequately execute them to the best of their ability. Here, at least from what I've seen and can gather from my own recollection, I truly think you didn't really have a great idea of what you wanted, and proceeded to shoot just anything. Sometimes that works to great effect, especially in a time crunch, but here it just didn't. You might have to come to accept that you might not have the most natural talent in cinematography. That's alright, it's just something you're going to have to hone over time. But there's something I want to stress, and I really want you to pay attention to it: have a reason to shoot what you shoot, even if that reason is as simple as 'I think this will look cool'. The fundamental error here, to me, is that your visual aesthetics are naturally that great, and your lack of attention to relational editing pulls them down further.

In cinematography, relational editing in terms of aesthetics is a HUGE deal - and that tends to be a big pullback in your productions. When shooting a shot, think about how it relates to other shots you've gotten, and how well they'll go together. You don't have to 'edit' the whole movie in your head, but think 'am I getting this shot just to get a shot, or does it fit with what I need'. To me, after the follow-along and wide shots of the walking, the next obvious shot, relationally would be a telephoto front from the front, roughly 100 feet away from the actor. This would add depth, give more meaning to the walking, and pique visual interest.

Now you might think to yourself 'well, we do this stuff already, so what gives?' - if that's the case, then you need to figure out where you're going wrong; because not all the visual pieces fit together appropriately at the moment.

I know this is going to sound taxing and derogatory, but as mentioned, I am only saying it to be constructive. I'm sorry that my last two reviews of your films have been more criticism than compliments, but I wouldn't say these things if I did not honestly believe you could benefit from them.

3/5, and a solid effort in terms of narrative concepts.

One thing that really got to me was how thought-provoking it was about temporal revolutions, such as where this all started. Was it before or after?

Actually, ben, I think the young clockmaker did pretty well. Seems to me like it would have been a bit cliched to have him as another old mysterious dude. This guy kind of gave me a sense of agelessness, the way he seemed to know how the clock worked and what it did. I don't think an old guy is necessary for that role. Also, since he seems a pivotal element in the film, they didn't really have the option to cut him out.

EDIT: By the way, I thought the ending was pretty ingenious. He just hops out and gets hit by a car. Normally, that would be pretty unnerving, but in the context it seemed almost humorous how it ended. After all that suspense, he is conveniently dropped from the temporal equation by a careless driver.

All I can say is that when you get older, you'll realize how strange and ridiculous it looks to cast kids in these roles - especially when it's so obvious they're trying not to look like kids. He walks with a limp, has a haggard voice - he's supposed to be an old guy. At least, that's what movie archetypes dictate. I made this decision when I was 16, and haven't looked back since: teens play teens, adults plays adults.

Again, props to the movie for such well-executed concepts in narrative structure, but technically (and creatively) not your best work.

But again, what if you need the role but don't have an adult? You're left with no option except a heavy makeup job, which can work sometimes. I think he could look fine as a young guy.

I think what ben is trying to say is to just not write a film with older parts if you can't get them.

A couple things to work on would be the color grading because I didn't really like it. The color grading isn't that bad, but it seemed too blue for this film. But I like the part where they walk into the shop full of cocks. I thought it was cool how you set that room up to look like a shop. The music was good at the begging. Anyway, nice job. This was a real interesting film and I liked it. And the guy in the store was mad funny.

Yeah, the idea is to not write roles like that, the same way you wouldn't write a specifically black character into your story if you don't know any black actors, or you wouldn't write a female role if you don't know any female actors. It's the same reason you don't cast a 50 year old as a teenager (at least unless you've got a David Fincher budget...).

There are exceptions, of course, in which you can make a point of it, but otherwise it does tend to come across as a bit strange and difficult to watch for older viewers. If your audience is 100% kids/teenagers then I suppose it isn't a problem, though.

The important thing to remember is that there are countless great stories to tell involving kids/teenagers, so there's no need to break your own fiction.

Having said that, I feel it's important to point out to Ben that he's recently had teenagers (or people that looked like teenagers) playing Batman, so it's not like he's innocent.

(it's also important to recognise that the issue is irrespective of the acting talents of the young actor)

Well, no, my main reason in making those three main points I did is that they're things that I have learned to grow past. Firstly, I think you should reserve judgment about the Batman film 'til you've seen it - secondly, Bryan M. Block is in it, just FYI. The acting in it is also........well, pretty incredible so just wait.

But my main point in being is this: it's fine to try anything wacky or pointless for fun; but in a contest that you know people other than your friends will be seeing, you have to relinquish these preconceptions that kids can play adults. It seems really difficult but it is not hard to get adults. Push to shove, get your parents to do it.

Why it's a big deal here is that the part of the shopkeeper is so small that it very easily could've been recorded with an adult in a matter of minutes. Trust me, I've cast the shopkeeper role in a timed contest before, and while you might not always get what you want, it seems more 'real' than a kid - even if the kid is a lot better at acting than the adult.

That being said,



To an extent this is true, but sometimes it's worth casting someone you know if they're reasonably talented. Still, I'd say they should be older than 16, ideally older than 20 so that they can have a more 'young everyman' quality, a la Shia LaBeouf, etc. The long and the short of it is this: I've been through a lot of contests, mostly done in my teens, and not once did I have to cast a kid as an adult. Because, believe it or not, adults want to be in your films! You likely just have to ask the right people.

I would also like everyone to keep in mind that I didn't find this to be a large drawback for the film - it was, as mentioned, brief - I just wanted to make a point of it because it's so easy to solve: just don't write that role in there!

i like it very creative cant wate to see whats next

That was cool. Like some sort of Harry Potter magic type thing. I liked the (stuntmen?) and how it was exactly like him.
4/5

Thanks for the comments!


Well, first of all the competition was for high school filmmakers, so we weren't allowed to use adults as actors. Although, the clockmaker wasn't really supposed to be an old guy; he was really supposed to be young and quirky, probably in his early twenties. So his limp and odd voice weren't really supposed to show that he was old; that's just how he is.


Well, while we do clearly state that someone is going on vacation, we also clearly state that the story is taking place in April, so it isn't really that ridiculous that we chose not to grade it orange. The stylized blueish, glowy low-saturated look that we gave it was meant to give it a sort of fantasy feeling.


For this movie, none of our usual crew was on set for almost any of the filming; the cinematography was done almost entirely by someone else, and this was his first serious attempt at doing cinematography. Considering that, I'm pretty happy with the way it came out.

Which is kind of what I was saying...Either way, I think it worked very well for the part. Just one thing; when he goes "It'll be done in an hour" his voice is a bit too normal. Usually he's got that drawl and deliberate speech pattern, neither of which seemed present in that line.

"Have a nice day." Once I had seen the film once already and watched it again, I almost laughed at that line. How about "have a nice two or three days in the span of an hour until you get hit by a car"?

A little question. Did the clockmaker know what would happen all along, or is that a mystery?

That's a mystery.