Kind of bothered me to see production way below average. Grainy low light scenes and laggy movement of cheap DV cam.
The movie itself is ok...ish.
Didn't notice it. Then again I wouldn't know what to look for. But from a lay point of view, lighting seemed fine.
shareYou better get used to DV camera; it's the future of cinema. DV costs a fraction of what traditional film costs, and nowadays it is looking better. Big Hollywood films like "Lawless" are being filmed with DV, and that film looks amazing. Digital allows people without millions of dollars the opportunity to create art. If you don't like it i suggest you stop watching new films..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
i don't think it matters, really
the only one to split a hair is someone like you who is paying more attention to that than the story lol
and on the flip side i see lots of shots cut into 'great' movies that don't match or look poorly done or both
now for a THIRD point, i champion the bratts for making it on DV if in fact that's even true. show's they have confidence and balls to make an effort, that their minds are focused on the real point and not the superficial crap that most of hollywood focuses on now (overdoing CGI, sacrificing story for superfluous action/stunts, etc etc)
btw phantom menace look great but SUCKED TERRIBLY. terribly
-------------
"You are literally too stupid to insult."
"Thank you."
I never would have known if you hadn't of mentioned it. It looked fine to me.
shareI noticed that the shots aren't crystal clear like a (studio) Hollywood movie. You can check the end credits (no film school knowledge required.) it wasn't shot on traditional film.
They didn't have the budget. It's not something that needs "championing", its just the way they had to go.