True Story - It's Actually About Ethics in Journalism
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
You are overly dismissive of Rupert Goold. He directed the first adaption in the Hollow crown with more RSc actors in it than you can shake a stick at. Seriously you should watch before labeling at is made for tv.
Your "Recommendation" section basically nails all the reviews I keep hearing about this; Franco and Hill are excellent (especially Franco) but the movie itself is OK at best. I haven't seen it and I am unlikely to see it since most critics seem to be in agreement with your review.
Man... I had myself so confused... I legit thought this was a gamergate article because I subconsciously inserted "games" before journalism.
Well, when the phrase "It's Actually About Ethics in Journalism" comes up, I think it can be forgiven. It's not talking about the history of journalism in the 30s.Fox12 said:
The Mary Jane thing was weird considering the actor. Without reading up on the background, one could assume it was an out of place injoke but it really is the name of the wife from the real life killing. Stupid coincidence.
As for the story? Well, it was a pretty standard affair which explains your opinion on it. The only real conflict in it is how Chris lies to Mike. Franco and Hill really do bring their A-Game and they do breath life into a pretty generic script. Storywise, I could forgive it but that doesn't make it great. I don't need a twist but I would have liked a little more conflict in Mike's story. Implied tension in his marriage isn't enough. Show, don't imply.
Now then, for the thing that really did break me out of the movie.
When the camera is no longer invisible and there's no reason for it to be (no zoom in, no pan to reveal more information, etc) that's a problem! Who is to blame on that is a little more murky. Maybe the focus puller did point it out, asking for another take and the First Assistant Director said there wasn't time to do the scene again. Who knows. All I know is that I'm trained to look for that stuff now and it bothered the hell out of me. I just want to know if you noticed it too because then it isn't just me being hypercritical about a camera.
[sup][sup]I'm still mad about it. That focus puller got paid for that and I COULD HAVE DONE IT BETTER. >:/[/sup][/sup]
As for the story? Well, it was a pretty standard affair which explains your opinion on it. The only real conflict in it is how Chris lies to Mike. Franco and Hill really do bring their A-Game and they do breath life into a pretty generic script. Storywise, I could forgive it but that doesn't make it great. I don't need a twist but I would have liked a little more conflict in Mike's story. Implied tension in his marriage isn't enough. Show, don't imply.
Now then, for the thing that really did break me out of the movie.
You didn't mention it in the review but did you notice that a scene in the third act had Felicity Jones out of focus? Because it didn't justify it[footnote]A camera cliche commonly used is having a character visually out of focus when a character's reasoning/motivation in a scene is ambiguous. As their position in the scene gets more clear, so does the camera's focus on them. I'd have to watch again watching for this specifically but I am certain this isn't what happened here.[/footnote] and unintentional focus issues in a feature with star power should be unacceptable. It totally broke the movie for me, probably mostly because I'm a camera guy. I had to silence my head about it so I could see the conclusion of the film but I thought about it all the way back home.Marter said:
When the camera is no longer invisible and there's no reason for it to be (no zoom in, no pan to reveal more information, etc) that's a problem! Who is to blame on that is a little more murky. Maybe the focus puller did point it out, asking for another take and the First Assistant Director said there wasn't time to do the scene again. Who knows. All I know is that I'm trained to look for that stuff now and it bothered the hell out of me. I just want to know if you noticed it too because then it isn't just me being hypercritical about a camera.
[sup][sup]I'm still mad about it. That focus puller got paid for that and I COULD HAVE DONE IT BETTER. >:/[/sup][/sup]
If they were planning to release this by Oscar season (that magical time or year when actors with established comedy chops jump ship to do serious drama to win a solid gold statue worth its weight in drugs), they were off by a few months.
