Actually I'm bored to tears (yeah, I should be at work, but I'm one of the millions of unemployed), so I'm going to comment on the review, which for the most part was fair, and one person's opinion.
We all have opinions DON'T WE?
ZIgZag wrote:
The cover art promises an ending "so disturbing it will leave you breathless." As is usually the case with over-hyped no-budget features, disappointment is the strongest feeling the audience will leave Us Sinners with.
Snow says:
I've sent out about 20 - 30 screeners. Us Sinners has received 11 reviews. I'm told that's not a bad percentage.
8 have loved the movie and whole-heartedly agree that the tagline is one of the few movies that actually lives up to the hype.
1 person did not like the movie, but wrote "Still, this film will have it’s audience – those that want to shriek out loud from the inherent “wrongness” of a film will find plenty to shriek at in this one"
1 person besides yourself hated the movie (his review is extremely similar to zigzag's) Yet as he put it "So are the final moments of the film "so disturbing" and did they leave me "breathless"? I wasn't left breathless, no, but it was kinda cool, I'll give it that much."
Zigzag is not only the first person to hate the ending, but the only one that actually gave the ending away. Perhaps it's just me, but that's not very fair to the movie-maker or any potential viewer.
ZigZag wrote:
"Snow's lack of coverage leaves many scenes either confusing or simply annoying. Insert shots and cutaways are the first casualty, closely followed by the absence of decent establishing shots that allow perspective to the characters and action."
Snow says:
I'd actually be interested in where you were confused or annoyed by a lack of coverage. This was my first movie, and any constructive criticism is always appreciated. After all we learn from our mistakes.
IMO there's only two shots I regret not getting. They were not shot because I mistakenly forgot to get them. I had my check list, and checked both before they were done (Yeah, we all make mistakes).
The first is when "Louise says she likes Andrew's gloves", I never got a CU of the actual gloves. But, Andrew is always wearing them, so the audience does see them.
The second is when "Tim kisses Mom's forehead and grabs for something on the table and she stops him". It's the firecrackers, and I thoroughly regret not getting that shot.
As a film maker told me when I started making Us Sinners: there's the script you write. The movie you shoot. The movie you make from the footage.
I could go into the restrictions we had when shooting (room sizes etc), but there's more then enough coverage for a micro-budget movie. I can't think of a scene where there aren't various shots creating the sequence, proper reactions etc...
Zigzag says:
Insert shots and cutaways are the first casualty, closely followed by the absence of decent establishing shots that allow perspective to the characters and action. For example,Bobby (Jason Reed) to stand up for himself when picked on by fellow neighborhood kids. Despite numerous encounters, the other kids never appear on camera, resulting in off screen voices throwing trash at little Bobby.
Snow says:
First in this example you say "numerous", which implies more then two. Bobby encounters the bullies twice. Once in the beginning, and when Tim grabs Bobby. There's a reason for this. Bobby gets a water balloon thrown at him in the beginning. Obviously there's actual kids down the block. But, when Tim hears them picking on Bobby later it's because "It might be in Tim's head". He's protecting the kid he sees living his childhood. Tim is losing it. It's really up to the viewer whether they are real or not. If they were real, we don't hear the footsteps running away, or even see where they ran off to.
Perhaps I didn't piece it together correctly (which is absolutely possible) but that's why they're not seen.
Zigzag wrote:
Or when a character is presented with a gift-wrapped box, we only see her happy reaction without being shown the contents. Some things are better left to the audience's imagination, but basic storytelling is not one of those things.
Snow says:
You are partially correct about this.
Obviously movies are not shot in sequence. The pearls belonged to Brenda (played Louise). Her scene with Mom was already shot. She was wearing the pearls. When we shot her and TIm heading to the car, she had forgotten the pearls. So, we took a box and had Tim give it as a present. Of course it couldn't be shown because the box was empty. However, she distinctly says "Tim, these are pearls" and not even a minute later she's seen putting the pearls on.
It actually worked out pretty well. Where did Tim get the pearls? It takes a little thought, and adds a whole other layer to Tim's character, but it's clearly there.
Zigzag wrote:
The film is also padded with several endless driving sequences that all play out to the same song.
Snow says:
Even people that enjoyed the movie agree with this. So, I've gone back and edited over two minutes out of the movie and replaced "Does the Mother" where it's not completely needed. This is one prime example of learning from my mistakes. I think I've corrected it.
Zigzag wrote:
Additional padding comes from repeated encounters with people at work teasing Tim — one overlong improv sequence is followed by another.
Snow says:
There is not one padded or improved work scene. Every scene was written and has meaning. You might not have gotten it, but they are all necessary.
In your defense, you're not the first person to say there were too many "making fun of Tim" work scenes. In reality that's not true at all. But, obviously there's something I did to make some viewers think this.
Zigzag wrote:
RE: Tim and Mom. The actors appear to be less than ten years apart in age, but Leslie Hughes helpfully has some grey highlights and greasepaint wrinkles to cue the audience that she is "old."
Snow says:
There were some partial grey highlights added. But, not make-up. Shooting DV increases imperfections, coloring, etc. So, you don't use make-up to age, you use nothing. Leslie is an attractive woman (extremely hot and sexy) in person, and is old enough to be Tim's mother. She could have been in her twenties when he was born. When I auditioned her (originally for Melissa) she was so talented I asked her age to be sure the reality was there, and then had her audition for Mom.
Zigzag wrote:
Tim, but his split personality behavior is unsatisfying. Tim is a pathetic goon by day and a totally in control, though viciously psychotic, serial killer by night. He cannot stand up to people at work, yet he can control his victims with concise direction. Perhaps if his crimes were a bit less organized or if he struggled to commit the acts, the character would seem more sincere.
Snow says:
Tim is not your stereotypical "movie" psychopath. You didn't see it, but he has plenty of depth. What does "split personality" mean in your book? It's a split personality, two distinct individuals within the same body. How many serial killers actually murder the people that caused them pain? Henry Lee Lucas killed his mother in a fight. How about Rifkin or the Green River Killer? How many prostitutes are murdered yearly? How many are murdered because they're easy prey? They won't be missed, and usually can't be traced back to the killer because they have no connection.
You obviously didn't recognize it, but Tim grew increasingly violent and confident with each kill. His first two kills were not organized, and he did struggle to commit the acts.
Zigzag wrote:
Key sequences are poorly edited to the point of frustration, thus denying the satisfaction of actually getting a payoff to some of the monotony.
I wouldn't mind some examples. I may not agree with everything you'll tell me. But, obviously you see something that I didn't or else I'd have edited the movie differently. Most reviewers think I did an excellent job editing. Again, we learn from our mistakes.
Zigzag wrote:
Performances are generally solid, given the limitations of both script and direction... The direction is poor... Director George Snow manages to succeed at consistently letting down the audience.
Snow says:
I guess I'd just ask for some examples of movies that were budgeted under ten thousand dollars that have finer acting. EVERYONE who has seen the movie says the acting is exceptional. Even the person that hated it says the acting is better then most big budgeted horror movies. Who got those performances out of the actors? You don't put actors in front of the camera and press record? If the direction is poor, then the acting would suck.
I don't know how far back your tastes go. But, I created this movie closer to films made back in the 30s and 40s then movies made today. There's reasons for that. The main reasons were money and time. Many micro-budget movie-makers choose to worry about getting motion shots that end up not working and have awful acting. I chose to make a movie with exceptional acting instead of worrying about continual motion. In the end, it depends on what you enjoy watching. That's individual opinion. I enjoy good acting, and I believe I got outstanding performances from all of my actors. There's very few moments I'd do differently performance wise. Given "real" time and budget I'd have shot completely different. But, that's micro-budget cinema for you.
Here's what your review boils down to:
Zigzag wrote:
Us Sinners is guilty of breaking the cardinal rule: Don't Bore Me.
Snow says:
I'm sorry I bored you. It was not my intention, and thankfully the majority does not feel this way (not just reviewers, but the many e-mails I've received from people who have viewed the movie)
It's this boredom that sets your review apart from the others. You either tuned out or fast forwarded (which I have no problems with. If I despised a movie as much as you hated this, I'd have turned it off after a half hour) You obviously looked for things to complain about. It's just many of your examples were poorly chosen for all the reasons I commented on above.
The people who enjoyed it seem to say the same things: Exceptional acting, with shocking and disturbing kills, and a climax that goes beyond their expectations.
The one person who didn't like it thought it was too disturbing and annoying, but that there's plenty of people that will enjoy it.
The two people (you're one) that hated the movie, thought it lame and boring. The other person who hated Us Sinners, who felt exactly as you, I have no qualms with his review. His review was all personal opinion and didn't go into much detail of actual scenes or sequences.
ANYWAY: Horror DNA has this new board with a need for posts, so I'm here to start the first argument. I'm kidding. KIDDING. Kind of.
Actually people take offense to my posts at numerous boards. I'm not as nasty as I sound on paper. I'm actually very nice and not confrontational. Really!
Thanks for the CRAPPY review.
(I love the smilies)Just to be sure: I"m not complaining about your total review, as I stated in the opening, for the most part you were fair and it's strictly your opinion. But, I got opinions too. It's the
we differ on.
Really.
