Directors with creative angles

CORPSE GRINDER · Post by **CORPSE GRINDER** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 5:36 pm

AMEN!!

Lorenzo_amateur_prods · Sat Sep 27, 2003 5:37 pm

this is one blood dripping weopony forum

[Edited on 27-9-2003 by Lorenzo_amateur_prods]

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 8:24 pm

We are all clearly mislead, but have found a common place to guide us!

Hey, I'm not asian! You guys saw the photo, remember with the giant cat!

Oh I'll post it back up soon!

Creative angles rock when you're using swordsplay in movies! I love it when they show the swordsman fighting away like you're looking through his eyes!

Lorenzo_amateur_prods · Sun Sep 28, 2003 6:20 pm

creative angles always rock... yeah i remember the cat LOL that was funny

kowalski · Post by **kowalski** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:13 pm

Anyone seen Jim Muro's "Street Trash"? There's some great, inventive steadicam work in it, as well as enough gore/politically incorrect dialogue to keep the most discerning film lover happy, and all shot for about Ã‚Â£1.50 - a budget most of us are probably familiar with!

Carnage7p · Post by **Carnage7p** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:20 pm

i like the camera angles in pi.

welcome to the forums kowalski

Lorenzo_amateur_prods · Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:28 pm

Carnage7p · Post by **Carnage7p** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:38 pm

you havent seen pi? it's a great movie. by pi i mean like the symbol that equals 3.14? it won the sundance film festival a few years back and is one of my favorite movies.

foxwood · Post by **foxwood** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:42 pm

Ya its interesting then the directer went on to make Requeum for a dream which is cr**, he took all the good things people said and went over board, with angles and such. See what a good film maker can do when he thinks to highly of himself.

Carnage7p · Post by **Carnage7p** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:59 pm

i didn't think requiem for a dream was horrible but it wasn't good either. it was so depressing that it wasn't fun to watch.

[Edited on 28-9-2003 by Carnage7p]

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:01 pm

I hate depressing movies, or movies with endings that suck!

Like some of the Planet of the Apes movies - You get all the way through the movie, hoping it's all going to be okay, and BAM, they hit you with a crappy depressing ending! Makes you want a refund when you go to the cinema to see it!

Carnage7p · Post by **Carnage7p** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:08 pm

yeah i agree. underworld is one of those movies. i hated it.

foxwood · Post by **foxwood** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:34 pm

I just wanted what felt like a story with requeum, I just didn't enjoy it I felt bad after watching it and I felt that I had wasted money renting it. I just hated it.

CORPSE GRINDER · Post by **CORPSE GRINDER** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:34 am

Who's seen MULLHOLLUND DRIVE? Now that's one of the weirdest movies EVER!!

foxwood · Post by **foxwood** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:46 am

Crazy david Linch flick. You want to see a strange movie watch Pink Floyeds The Wall.

reflexive_cinematics · Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:00 am

foxwood wrote:Exactly, I'm saying that the films are bad, Black hawk down is one of the best War films ever.

yeah, but too bad the f*** government made them change the info so that the military didn't look stupid. example: the ranger David Grimes in the movie.. that wasnt' his real name...his name was John ' stebby ' Stebbins and he was court martialed and thrown in the stockade for sodomizing and raping a child under 12.

Some hero.

P.S. f*** the government.

"Listen to those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who have found it."
> Andre Gide
"Every government is run by liars, and nothing they say should be believed."
> legendary investigative journalist I.F. Stone

"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who loves his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair."
> H.L. Mencken

cwf · Post by **cwf** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:34 pm

you just brought a thread back that was over a year and 5 months old?!!?!?!?

crb · Post by **crb** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:20 pm

My favorite directors when it comes to angles (and not just angles, but to me using the scenery and building the moment) are Spielberg for Schindler's list and Saving Private Ryan, I also liked the way he shot that Tom Cruise movie ooh what's the name when he sees someone is going to kill someone before they do.... anyways, Mel Gibson for the way he shot Braveheart and The Passion, Rodreguez, especially for El Mariachi, Tarintino for the way he shot Pulp Fiction (even though I'm not apealed to the raping scene, this is about angles), Hichcock for the Birds (which was inspiration for M. Night in "signs"), I like M. Night especially for "signs". Some of how they shot The Rock was good, even though I think the story was wrote totally wrong. And my last favorite was Michael Mann for The Last of the Mohican's. That's still one of my favorite movies! I love how Micheal Mann used nature to really builld the feel of the movie. He also built up the moments in the script.
Pearl Harbor, it had some nice shots. But the problem wasn't Micheal Bay, even though I'd like to blame him. And in a way it wasn't Jerry Bruckheimer, it was the stupid script writter. They should have fired him and got someone who could write (like me, just joking!) You make a movie that you advertise as Pearl Harbor (the battle!) and then you take 90% of the movie and make it a soup opera. And then you make those words on the screen so small you can't figure out what they are saying. They should have started the first scene the day before teh battle and had the end of the scene the day after. And then had Michael Mann direct it and make the batttle feel like it went on for eternity. Or even yet, Spielberg should have done it and made it feel like Saving Private Ryan. It was a major disapointment. Oh another flaw in that movie that goes by the name of Ben Affleck.

cwf · Post by **cwf** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:20 pm

crb wrote:I also liked the way he shot that Tom Cruise movie ooh what's the name when he sees someone is going to kill someone before they do.... anyways

Minority Report

SgtPadrino · Post by **SgtPadrino** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:48 am

The government didn't change anything about Black Hawk Down - it was Ken Nolan, Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott that did it. There was over 100 ground troops that participated in the battle and it's impossible to keep track of all them in a two and a half hour long movie. So, half the characters are composites, and even those that aren't end up doing things that other people did or things that never happened. Stebbins wasn't in the movie because his ex-wife objected to him being portrayed as a hero. I don't get why you're so mad at the government; without them there wouldn't be a Black Hawk Down. They handled the negotiations with the Moroccan government to allow eight military Black Hawks and 100 Rangers to be shipped to the set, and oh yeah, supplied the eight military Black Hawks and 100 Rangers as well.

But if everything you say about the government censoring it is true, then why did they completely embrace the book, which shows groups of rag tag African militia practically bringing an immense fighting force of the mightiest military power in the world to its knees, and an immense amount of errors and mistakes on the part of the US government? Ridley Scott only wanted to tell one side of the story, and that's what he did. If you want both sides of it then read the book.

Father_McGrueder · Post by **Father_McGrueder** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:43 pm

No one here a fan of Lucio Fulci? He is a man of amazing visual style. The shots and editing in his films are really second-to-none. Astounding man.

film fanatic · Post by **film fanatic** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:58 pm

Oh my god! What an old thread! My opinions have changed and so have my grammatical and spelling skills