Quote:
Originally Posted by Champion of Europa
I love slasher movies, but there is no excuse for the awful cinematography, horrible acting, and predictable nature.
|
I saw it, and thought it was an awful movie, so you're not going to get any argument from me there. You're right about the acting and predictability for sure.
However, no excuse for the cinematography being so awful? I'm going to have to disagree on that. It was awful. No doubt. But it was shot for 3D. Cinematography was non existent. It was done in a way to place object in the forefront for 3D, and get things on the middle of the screen.
Pretty awful by normal standards, but you have to cut it a break on that account considering what it is. It's a gag.
They wouldn't be lighting things the way they did, or placing fences in the foreground and objects in front of the camera and what not if it weren't for 3D. Even the shots of the sets were done to add depth for 3D.
I dunno, it was a shit movie but if you're going to a 3D slasher movie expecting anything resembling cinematography I think that's pretty unfair and pointless.
It was bad cinematography by any sense of the word, but I think there was a clear excuse.
p.s. I do know that it's possible for a 3D film to be passable with cinematography too. I'm sure we'll see more in the future but those are more interactive with the film.
This is a classic throwback to the "poke you in the eye" 3D days. It's the gag, not an added bonus. So it's a different story than most things.