I don't know if you've seen the trailer, looks good. I was surprised to hear it was shot entirely on the 5Dm2.

Act of Valor Official Trailer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dS7XkRcD-c)

Bought by Relativity Media for 13 million. Also check out 'Like Crazy' in theatres now and shot entirely on the 7d Like Crazy | Movie Trailer & Official Site | Now Playing In Select Theaters (http://www.likecrazy.com/) Like Crazy was bought by Paramount for 4 million.

And I thought it was cool to see 'Rubber' shot on the 5d... Definitely interesting. I'm scheduled to shoot a feature in the spring and was going to rent my friends Red Epic for it. Probably still will, but it's great to see doors being opened by these cameras and DP's like Shane Hurlbut.

It wasn't shot entirely on the 5D. The original plan was to shoot just the ops on the 5D and the rest on 35mm--by the end of the shoot Shane was doing more and more on the 5D's but there's still plenty of film in the final movie.

I operated a few days with Shane and the gang on an aircraft carrier out in the open ocean--that alone was a surreal experience. Piloting the Steadicam through the incredibly cramped bridge of the ship while it was slowly rolling back and forth was a whole other kind of surreal. Try to keep it level during the blast of a Harrier jet taking off on the flight deck (with the full-size rig and Panaflex plus gyros weighing in around 80 lbs while wearing the bulky body/ear/eye protective gear)--well, that was intense.

I also covered the DP position for a few days for Shane while he was off an another job; a few of the shots are in the trailer and like the rest of the film were a mix of 5D and 35mm footage.

I just remembered I had posted a pic from the aircraft carrier shoot right here on DVI:
5D Mk. II hits the “bigtime” at DVInfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/news/5d-mk-ii-hits-the-bigtime.html)
Holy cow, 2 1/2 years ago!

Thank you, Charles for the update and information.

Wish I were with you filming aboard that aircraft carrier! Although would prefer calm seas. My stomach goes tight when filming during stormy weather... and it gets difficult not to taste breakfast twice! :)

I get motion sickness in the back of a van, so I was very concerned. I went with the Scopalamine patch and was perfectly fine out at sea, while others suffered a bit.

Thanks for the insight Charles. I remember you talking about this back then, I hadnt realized it was the same film. Interesting that the 5d matched up with 35mm.

While the ultra low budget/short film festival circuit will continue to shoot DSLR, I think that the C300/F3/Scarlet will bump the 5d/7d out of anything with even a modest budget. The c300 at least, has the small form factor, low light capability, large sensor size, ease of use, and relatively low cost. All the benefits of the 5d, with very few of the negatives.

Or the FS100 or AF100/101

There doesn't seem to be much point anymore of using a DSLR for projects with commercial potential. What's the cost per day difference between a 7D and the FS100?

Sorry, wrong post.

Or the FS100 or AF100/101

There doesn't seem to be much point anymore of using a DSLR for projects with commercial potential. What's the cost per day difference between a 7D and the FS100?

Depends on what commercial market you are working in. For wedding videographers that dabble in commercial video's for local business's, its great. And the mark III is coming.

Saw the trailer last weekend during mission impossible. I was seriously impressed. I remember telling myself that I needed to double check the technical specs because I couldn't believe it was dslr footage. Goes to show what a tool can do in capable hands. Like crazy, I could recognize the footage very easily. All the highlights are blown out in that movie, and not in a nice intentional way like "mission impossible".

Bought by Relativity Media for 13 million. Also check out 'Like Crazy' in theatres now and shot entirely on the 7d Like Crazy | Movie Trailer & Official Site | Now Playing In Select Theaters (http://www.likecrazy.com/) Like Crazy was bought by Paramount for 4 million.

And I thought it was cool to see 'Rubber' shot on the 5d... Definitely interesting. I'm scheduled to shoot a feature in the spring and was going to rent my friends Red Epic for it. Probably still will, but it's great to see doors being opened by these cameras and DP's like Shane Hurlbut.

My girlfriend actually took me to see Like Crazy in theaters. To be very honest, it looks like it was shot on film. Unlike DV films of the past like November (DVX-100), Bamboozled or Chuck and Buck (VX-1000), or even Paranormal Activity (Sony FX1 - HD Cam), this film actually looked like it was captured on celluloid. Needless to say, as an owner of a 5D Mark II, 7D, and 550D (T2i) I feel like I have the tools to make a masterpiece now.

Have you guys seen "I Melt with You" by Mark Pellington yet? It's sort of an either love it or hate it movie.. I loved it ;) (of course no movie is without flaws) ... but I was totally puzzled once I realized it was shot on 5D & 7D only!
At first it totally looked like film.. but then I recognized some rolling shutter here and there and thought it was shot on RED... and then I catched a glimpse of moire here and there on sceneric wide shots and it sort of hit me...

At least for me this was the first movie where the "cheapo" cameras didn't pull me out of the story at all... nicely done...

Or the FS100 or AF100/101

There doesn't seem to be much point anymore of using a DSLR for projects with commercial potential.

Well... there are some advantages to DSLRs, besides the obvious smaller form factor:

- the hacked GH2 has more rez then either the AF/FS100...

- The Mark II is still the only real option for a full frame camera (of course, that will change as soon as the D800 and 1XD hit, which should be in the next 60 days).

- the AF100 notoriously hard to "dial in," and handles highlights poorly, while the FS100 doesn't have a proper view finder or built-in ND filters and generally speaking is the most fragile camera.

- The AF100 won't let you "push-in" digitally to achieve focus with 3rd party glass (which you can do with the Canon DSLRs). That's a huge omission.

- The AF100's smaller sensor means that it's not quite as keen in low light as DSLRs (however the FS100 is amazing in this regard).

- Neither the FS100 or AF100 is a rugged as something like a 7D. Generally speaking, DSLRs are going to be quite a bit more tough, as they're first purpose is to be dragged all around the world by photographers.

- Neither the AF or FS mount has lots of native glass to choose from. Worse, neither can be used for any other mounting system - meaning, you're almost certainly going to have to buy lens adapters.

- On the other end of the spectrum, there are hundreds of native lenses for either Nikon or Canon mounts. The Nikons can be used on virtually every other large chip cameras ever made, while the Canon will fit on any mount except Nikon bodies. Not such a big factor if you're renting the body and glass, but it is a big deal if you're investing in glass.

- Cost. The FS100 is $4,700 with a $300 rebate (which ends at the end of the month); the AF100 is $3,850 with their rebate (which ends at the end of March). You can get a brand new Mark II for $2,000 if you look around. Heck, you can get a T2i for $550 - an amazing deal really.

None of the above are deal breakers per se, but it certainly gives some reason to weigh all the options. I've been patiently waiting for the Mark III to be announced (as opposed to buying either the AF or FS100), as I have a lot of Canon glass and generally speaking, I like the smaller form factor...

But if I don't hear something positive from Canon soon (and for me, 3 new lenses plus the $16,000 C300/$6,800 1DX don't get it done), I will likely be picking up a FS or AF100.

All Valid and excellent points. I too was waiting for the Mk III, but grew tired of waiting. I picked up the FS100 (and love it), and now I'm happy that a company has come out with a smart adapter for the emount, that allows electronic control of the aperture, use of image stabilization, and I believe electronic manual control of focusing, but no auto focus (which Im not interested in anyways). As soon as more are in stock, I will be picking one up, and adding more Cannon glass to my collection. Im still interested in a MK III, and will probably pick one up, when released.

Sony NEX System : Canon EF Lens to Sony NEX Smart Adapter (http://conurus.com/sony/buy-eos-nex-adapter)

I love the imagines the FS100 produces - clean, nice grain structure at higher gain, and great low light performance...

I hate the form factor though - a plastic brick w/o a handle or viewfinder and lots of little buttons. I tend to be extremely tough on my gear - and I've never had a camera I didn't drop at least once. The FS100 looks like it would die after about a month with me.

The AF100 on the other hand looks quite robust... but I'm not in love with the micro 4/3s sensor, and I've yet to see any footage that made me say "Wow!" Good solid footage yes, but nothing as jaw dropping as the low light yumminess of the FS100, or the creamy/dreamy quality of the Mark II at it's best.

For my purposes, no 8 bit, 4:2:0 sub 50Mbps internal recording camcorder is worth $5 grand - or even $4 grand. The Canon XF100 records 4:2:2 50Mbps, costs $3,000 - and comes with a built-in lens to boot. Granted, the AF100 is dropping in price, but it's still priced about a grand more than it's actually worth.

Saw "Act of Valor" last night.

I think it will do very well as it will appeal heavily to the young male demographic. It's a well-made film. All the more impressive considering that the Seals are all the real deal and not actors.

Overall the film looks amazing. Shane is an extremely talented DP and he rewrote the playbook on this one. There are many uses of "first-person shooter" techniques that are sure to thrill the videogamers. It certainly places you inside the action. We talked last night about it and he pointed out that he made sure to include wider coverage that set up the geography, as opposed to the Michael Bay super-tight, super-fast cut style of action shooting that tends to leave one baffled as to what is actually going on.

Does the 5D footage hold up? To the critical eye, everything we know about the shortcomings of these cameras can be found in this film. Limited dynamic range, hard lines between bright and dark areas, "plastic" flesh tone rendition (compared to the 35mm film footage), rolling shutter (one night exterior walk and talk has a lot of hot highlights in the background that are distractingly jello'd)--you name it, they are here. Is it distracting? Rarely. Most viewers will be unaware. Initially, the concept was just to shoot the ops on the 5D and all of the storyline on 35mm, but that slowly shifted over the course of the shooting schedule (which was long and sporadic, based on the Seal's ops and other factors). I think that probably some of the storyline scenes should have remained on film as there is more of an opportunity to scrutinize the frame and find issues, and the 5D doesn't really lend anything to the shooting style. Although--I myself was happy to shoot with that camera instead of the Panaflex on one Steadicam scene (which didn't make the final cut) that required me to do a long walk and talk down a ramp onboard the aircraft carrier over dozens of takes--much nicer to do so with the lightweight rig!

During the ops, it's extremely obvious how the 5D made certain shots possible that would never be attained with a film camera, and it's here that it all makes sense, and is truly triumphant.

Having been a small part of the production and knowing what these guys went through (tiny crews and grueling circumstances), the film looks huge and expensive and epic. It simply wasn't, and that should be inspirational to all indie filmmakers.

Interested to see what you guys think.

Thanks for the info, Charles. Very interesting.

I look forward to viewing the actual film when I get a chance.

Saw "Act of Valor" last night...

Charles, you're an amazing asset to this forum, and I thank you for your contributions. I can't wait to see the movie, as I sense it will change a few things in Hollywood (whatever "Hollywood" is nowadays).

Rock on, amigo.

(whatever "Hollywood" is nowadays).

groan--Steve, it's literally changing under my feet every day. Some of the things I've experienced in the past year would have been absolutely unfathomable five years ago. We just keep breaking through the basement to find new basements underneath. Budgets shrink, schedules swell...I'm shooting A-list actors on the same gear as most in this forum, with a fraction of the resources that one assumes of a "Hollywood" production, at breakneck speed.

But it's fun! (we keep telling ourselves).

In the world of no budget contest films, one of the things I have learned doing 4 48 hour film contests and one 10 x 10, is that in order to get it done quick and clean you have to keep your crew to a minimum. Seems like every time you add a person to the crew, you have to add another one to support. Food and other costs skyrocket, and shooting gets delayed more and more as each with a vested interest in their particular area of expertise being shown in a good light. Something to be said for one light, one camera, ala "EL Mariachi".

Thanks again Charles for your insights...

Saw "Act of Valor" last night.

It's a well-made film. All the more impressive considering that the Seals are all the real deal and not actors.

Overall the film looks amazing.

During the ops, it's extremely obvious how the 5D made certain shots possible that would never be attained with a film camera, and it's here that it all makes sense, and is truly triumphant.

Having been a small part of the production and knowing what these guys went through (tiny crews and grueling circumstances), the film looks huge and expensive and epic. It simply wasn't, and that should be inspirational to all indie filmmakers.

Interested to see what you guys think.


Thanks for sharing your experiences on this project Charles, you do inspire a lot of us here.

..

I we to go see "Full Frontal" because it was half shot on a Canon XL1s (half on film), but I liked "Full Frontal" because Steven Soderbergh makes really good movies.

I've been cynical in some of the promotion of this movie as playing off of the DSLR hype, but I'm glad to read the comments from Charles as it sounds like they were excited about using the right tool for the right job.

I hope to see this movie in the next week & hoping that I enjoy it, but I'm keeping my expectations low as the trailer looked like it was just a bunch of cliche action scenes stitched together without much of a plot. Though I try not to judge movies by their trailers & I'm not expecting this to be greater than Citizen Kane, just hopefully better than a campy '90s WGN weekend Van Damme flick.

I think the maturity of the DSLR gear with 1Dx, D4, D800 and the upcoming 5Diii (I will be surprised if they'll wait more than a couple of months to announce it), will really change the way, even mainstream media are shot.
This project and many more before, have prove that the lines between very expensive equipment and DSLRS are blurry to say the least and will get more invisible sooner than later.

The only limitations of DSLR is the professionalism of the people using them.

Charles, any idea why the boat interrogation scene was 60% out of focus?

Actualy, there were some key monolog shots that were out of focus (eyes out of focus, ears in focus type of stuff. The focus puller's first day with a 5D2?)

FWIW, thought the movie overall was terrible. Horribly directed, Grade 3 writing, and the acting... well, don't think everyone will ever use soldiers as actors again... but the Steadicam work was great! :)

Well, in a sense it was EVERYONE's first day on a 5DMKII--remember, this was like three years ago; the guys were making it up as they went. At that time there were no loupes, no outboard monitors, no existing infrastructure for these cameras. One of the things that I always found difficult about the 5D was the lack of HD monitoring while recording, which is why I embraced the 1dMKIV for my own work. So, nobody was able to confirm what was or wasn't in focus while the camera was rolling. And of course that big sensor is that much more difficult to manage, given that one has to use longer lenses to achieve a given FOV compared to a S35 sensor.

Ultimately, it's probably about the same percentage of out-of-focus material that many people who shot with these cameras produced--it just looks a whole lot worse projected on a big screen.

I am happy to report that of the three dialogue scenes that I served on as DP, focus was good! (one was shot on 35mm, the Seal saying goodbye to his wife at the house, and the other two were on the 5D's--the two Seals talking about their home lives in the bar, and one of the briefings onboard the boat).

I saw this on Friday, I guess I'm not as picky, but I enjoyed it. I do agree the SEALS weren't the best actors. But I loved all the tactical footage. Back in the early 90s I served on a Balistic Missle sub (similar to the one used in the movie, I was a Torpedoman), and the sub scene brought back some memories. I thought some of the tactical stuff might have been lost on people who don't know a lot about that stuff, because real life is much different then most that is presented in movies.

Well, in a sense it was EVERYONE's first day on a 5DMKII--remember, this was like three years ago; the guys were making it up as they went. At that time there were no loupes, no outboard monitors, no existing infrastructure for these cameras. One of the things that I always found difficult about the 5D was the lack of HD monitoring while recording, which is why I embraced the 1dMKIV for my own work. So, nobody was able to confirm what was or wasn't in focus while the camera was rolling. And of course that big sensor is that much more difficult to manage, given that one has to use longer lenses to achieve a given FOV compared to a S35 sensor.

I've got to call you out on this one... Not having a loupe or a monitor is no excuse for not being able to keep an actor's face in focus while he's sitting in a chair. Running through the jungle? Ok. Jumping out of a plane? Maybe ...But not two guys sitting talking across a table. Film school students around the world can do this on a regular basis.

Besides, what was Hurlbut shooting that at, T1.00001?
The focus in the rest of the movie was almost perfect, save a few mistakes. It's like that scene didn't have a focus puller at all.

Dylan, I wasn't there for that scene, so I can't comment on it.

What I can say is this: soft takes happen. They are noted, we do another one. There's no such thing as non-printed takes these days, everything goes into the hopper. Director makes a choice to use the soft take because the performance is better. Nothing that can be done about it.

How does it happen? Actor shifts in chair, shifts back again, looks like it's the same spot; it isn't. Or, the Preston skipped a gear, so the lens and the handset didn't match up. If the focus puller is off by two or three inches, ears are in focus and eyes are out. At that point, it's up to the operator to call it. Once upon a time, we had these things called optical viewfinders that made it possible for the operator (and the operator alone) to see that there was an issue. These days, with "legit" cameras we have any number of monitoring tools so everyone BUT the operator can see focus...! But again, back then with the 5D, it was that little 3" rear monitor and that was it.

I'm not making excuses for anyone; I was on the movie for a total of five days. What I can tell you is while the movie looks big budget, and is raking it in this weekend, this was an indie through and through. Some of the lighting setups were big (Shane's hallmark) and others were miniscule. Bandito's style is to work run-and-gun with a minimal crew, and fast. That crew got beat up, but hard. It's entirely possible that whoever operated that soft shot was virtually asleep at the time...nothing harder than operating long static dialogue scenes when you are exhausted. Take it from someone who took his share of mini-power-naps inside the viewfinder over the years!

As far as student films go--I've witnessed plenty of those that have more resources, personnel and move at a far slower pace than this production. Obviously lack of experience levels the playing field, but whatever image anyone might have in their heads of the behind-the-scenes clips from big action movies, with directors sipping cappucinos at their monitors and seemingly hours to get each setup--this one was very much NOT that.

No need to defend it at all, it's a good example of why most experienced filmmakers shoot at F4.

I saw this last night and enjoyed it immensely. The seals are far from being professional actors and it showed, but I thought it was terrific over all. I too noticed some soft focus and other discrepancies that come from shooting with a DSLR. However, I see no need to harp on it. I have seen plenty of big budget shows that made rookie mistakes. One of my favorite shows "Fringe', which shoots 35mm and on an Alexa has had tons of out of focus shots. In fact, I think I have noticed it on almost every episode.

However, it doesn't happen all the time and I am not going to slam it for missing the mark a couple of times. From someone who does a lot of run and gun shooting myself, I understand how easy it is to miss focus sometimes. I think you guys did a terrific job, especially working with something as new as what the 5D was at the time.

I really enjoyed how the action scenes were shot. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I found it to be more engaging than what I have seen in many other blockbuster action films.

I've probably already said it but I'll say it again: today's production schedules are so relentless that the filmmaking process has been all but uprooted. Used to be, there was such a thing as a rehearsal, which allowed everyone to, well, rehearse their jobs. Focus pullers could pull tape in the middle as required, operators could practice their moves, boom guys could watch for shadows etc. The rehearsal has largely been replaced by "let's just roll, maybe we'll get lucky". And then probably there will be a take two, but not always. Even when we report focus issues or mis-frames, the director may opt to move on with the assumption to cut around it.

I could go on and on--it's a popular discussion amongst crews these days, the transformation of the craft into some sort of hyperactive assembly line--but it is what it is. A lot of things get short-cut along the way, and focus is one of those.

msnbc.com Entertainment - 'Act of Valor,' featuring real Navy SEALs, wins box office war (http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/26/10512545-act-of-valor-featuring-real-navy-seals-wins-box-office-war)

Its making money according to this news. So people must be watching it. -MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. :)
I'm watching it tomorrow with some friends. Congrats Charles.

Charles, any idea why the boat interrogation scene was 60% out of focus?

Actualy, there were some key monolog shots that were out of focus (eyes out of focus, ears in focus type of stuff. The focus puller's first day with a 5D2?)

FWIW, thought the movie overall was terrible. Horribly directed, Grade 3 writing, and the acting... well, don't think everyone will ever use soldiers as actors again... but the Steadicam work was great! :)

Maybe I am a bit biased because I work with Shane but after reading "thought the movie overall was terrible" I wonder if you watched the same movie. Do a search on Twitter for "Act of Valor" and read what people are saying. I'd say they are 99% positive. Forget the "critics" reviews and read Rotten Tomatoes or any of the other review sites and look how positive the audience is about this movie.

This film was not shot like a traditional movie. There were very little "re-takes" and the interrogation scene you are referring to on the boat was shot as part of that entire yacht takedown sequence - all of it shot in 1 day. Normally a sequence like that would have taken 3+ days to shoot. This was also one of the times the 5D2 was used - when there was no manual settings, no 24p. Try keeping someone in focus on a sensor that size at f2.8. It's like shooting at under a 1 on a Super 35mm sensor. They decided they wanted that scene in very shallow depth of field to give the feeling that Cristo's world was closing in on him. The AC's on this pic are all established and talented focus pullers. Some of them zen masters.

I do hear the "acting was terrible" comment a lot. The acting from the "real" actors, such as Roselyn and the bad guys was actually really good and the SEALS did a bang up job considering they are not actors. The problem is that the audience is so use to over dramatic acting that we think normal delivery of dialogue in a real sense seems stiff. Well that is because that is how SEALS talk. They don't shout, cry, throw their arms in the air. Watch the movie again, look into their eyes. That is real. Watch their muscle memory, they way they movie. I'd rather watch that then over dramatic bs that "Hollywood" thinks is real.

Is Act of Valor totally polished - no. It wasn't that kind of film.

Tim...everyone can have their own opinion. I've heard a few about the movie and they range from enthusiastic to, well, Dylan! As far as the acting goes--I don't think it's really accurate to say that we are attuned to "over-dramatic" acting. I can think of many examples of fine actors pulling off dialogue that seems entirely natural. The guys did a solid job for non-actors, with varying results. Personally, I think the best actor was Marc Marguiles! laughed my ass off when he appeared (as Tim knows but for the sake of everyone else here, Marc was the US ambassador in the early scene with the ice cream truck; he also was one of the AC's on the movie, not an actor!) And to be honest, I heard one assessment that put certain of the "real" actors in the movie behind that of the Seals. It's all in the eye of the observer!

Hi Charles, I totally agree. I'm not suggesting that someones opinion is not valid even when it differs from mine. I was just surprised that it's so far different than the majority that I've heard about AOV.

Marc was great and I love that they used his real name in the movie. I was at the screaming where Marc watched that for the first time - we were all laughing.

And for the record, Charles did an awesome job, I especially like the shot when LT is leaving the house after saying goodbye to his wife. Kudos!!!!

I just saw "Act of Valor" tonight, and I was generally impressed. I was looking for 5D v. 35 mm footage initially, but eventually got lost in the story more than worrying about that. Occasionally you could see a scene were there was a focus issue, that is comparable to issues I have experienced, and I have had my own productions show the same issues. I think as we all got used to the camera we learned that just because we could shoot super shallow depth of field, not every shot called for it, and we need to shut down the iris a bit. I think that to keep the head in general focus for instance with a 50mm shot, you need to be around F5.6 or you will have an unnatural looking shot with part of the head being out of focus no matter what you do. That becomes less possible in low light, as you try to take advantage of the camera's capabilities in that area, so its a matter of doing what you have to do.

As far as the acting went, yeah, it was certainly understated, and a few scenes didn't play naturally. But having had a lot of contact with front line military guys and women through my son-in-law who is has been in Afganhistan with a evac helicopter crew, I think the low key dialogue is closer to the truth than we see the common war movies. It certainly was more realistic to me than most of the war movies I have seen. These guys are trained to do their jobs in low profile no bs modes, and that is what they seemed portray in the film.

Oh, and Charles, I did see your name in the credits, if someone hasn't mentiioned that.

All and all, I think the film played well.

Oh, and Charles, I did see your name in the credits, if someone hasn't mentiioned that.

mmm yeah, not the one I was hoping for, but it is what it is.

The credit wasn't for the assistant to the assistant intern, was it? ;)

mmm yeah, not the one I was hoping for, but it is what it is.

Yeah, I was looking for more than steaycam operator based on what your actual involvement was...

First time I was DP in a 48 hour film, when I went to the theatre to watch it, the director had left my name off the credits completely....Kind of makes you wonder how much your hard work is appreciated....

Well to be honest Chris, that is far more of a transgression than what I experienced. As you were the sole DP working for free under the duress of 48 hour filmmaking (I know it well, having directed 12 of those myself), having your name left off the credits was downright rude. Sorry to hear that. I once had one of my DP's ask to have her name taken on the credits, for reasons that were to me absurd. Still, I acquiesced and listed her as "Alice Smithee!"

I only shot two days of relatively simple additional photography, while the rest of the team worked their asses off endlessly for months under grueling conditions. My contribution was a drop in the bucket compared to Shane's vision and commitment. But still, credits are there for a reason. What I think is a true oversight was the omission of Rudy Harbon from 2nd unit DP credit, who was there for a lot of days.

Eh, onwards and upwards.

I finally got around to seeing this movie last night, and I thought it was really good. My 15 year old son and his friend did as well. I personally thought that i preferred the use a actual soldiers. Sure the acting is somewhat forced in a few scenes, but there is an inherent authenticity in their actions that shows.

The movie is unique in many ways, and was definitely worth dropping 10 dollars to see.