<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Redifer : This movie is bombing BAD! We have two prints (lucky us) and we haven't even sold ANY tickets for our second print yet. And our main print has sold maybe ten tickets at most, and four people have left mid-show because it was boring and looked BAD. There are only 4 screens with this movie in the entire Denver-metro area. Big Fat Greek Wedding continues to rake the people in even 10,000 weeks after release. Our theater is LOSING money with Full Frontal, as it costs more just to turn the breakers on for the auditorium than we make on this flick.
-->>>

My wife drug me to see Big Fat Greek wedding. What a shock I was in for, I actually enjoyed it. Not that it is going to win any awards (maybe it did...no idea). Funny story that held my interest.

Worth renting when it hits video.

I'm really sorry to hear that FF is so (apparently) bad. The NYT panned it today (to the extent that they pan any film). Canon has so widely publicized that SS shot it with the XL1s that using this camera could become a bit of a stigma for folks who use the camera well. Like the many really fine auditors at (the former) Arthur Andersen whose reputations were unjustly besmirched by the firm's rotten politics and practices. People will think that the grit and grain of the DV footage are produced by the camera. (BTW, the September issue of DV Magazine lists much of the stuff used on the DV footage...why not just shoot film?)
I'll probably go to see it next week, if only to be informed.

People, please. Repeat after me: Soderburgh (or at least fairly close. . .definitely not Sodaburger. . .unless you're all just making fun of him, and in that case have at it. No I haven't seen it yet.)

FF
 

Dreadful, one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The XL1s footage looks like vhs blown up. What a waste!

if I was a paranoid guy I would think it's some conspiracy by Sony, who in fact "sponsored" SodaBurger, yes, we are making fun of him;-) into making a crappy movie with our beloved XL-1s. If he turns around and makes a great film with a Sony camera then we know the fix is in.

Roger Ebert's Review
 

From the Chicago Sun Times (his home paper):

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-full02f.html

Looks like a real stinker.

That bad eh? Both our city's paper's (technically one's not a newspaper but oh well) gave it pretty decent reviews.

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : That bad eh? Both our city's paper's (technically one's not a newspaper but oh well) gave it pretty decent reviews. -->>>

Josh,

Who was the second paper...Houston Press?

Yessir. Exactly.

Sex, Lies and Bad Lighting
 

Maureen Dowd's column in the Sunday Times mentions Full Frontal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/04/opinion/04DOWD.html

Come on be honest guys
 

Regadless of what you guys thought of the movie, it being bad or really bad, you are entitled to you opinion, but be honest, I can bet most of you were excited and encouraged when you heard Steven Soderbergh is going to make a DV movie. I definitely was encouraged and motivated.

to go as far as saying he does not deserve the XL1s is a bit extreme.

If for nothing else, at least respect Soderbergh as a director for being innovative and being an encouragement for DV filmmakers world wide.

Daniel

I understand your point, Daniel. Soderbergh's use of the camera, and Canon's publicity surrounding it, has used his notoriety to shine a light onto the use possible use of prosumer-class equipment such as the XL1s. But when you actually see how grainy and poorly-lit the DV footage was you realize that the notoriety will likely be of a strongly negative nature. Indeed, several of the critics have already flatly criticized the use of DV for the film, subtley indicting the technology rather that Soderbergh for some of the film's poor quality.

So, should we -really- praise Soderbergh for using the XL1s on this film when, in fact, it has made an already steep hill of professional acceptance for DV gear even steeper?

Someone should explain to those critics that the footage was processed in post to make it look more assy.


Does anyone happen to know what Spike Lee shot "Bamboozled" on (camera type, that is?)

Bamboozled
 

The reason Spike used DV for this film is because no studio wanted to fund this movie for obvious reasons.

They used about 6 Sony VX-1000 to shoot everything except the stage show footage. They used 16mm film to do that. That explain the detail of glare coming off the actor's painted faces.

I got the DVD cos I thought there would be a lot for me to learn about DV filmmaking but after watching the hour long docu and listening to the commentary, he did not say much about the shooting of the film.

The following link goes to an article on the DP of the film, she talks about using DV and how they did it

http://www.sonyusadvcam.com/article/mainv/0,7220,30464,00.html

Daniel

See people? Right there. A good looking (or relatively, anyway, I don't remember how it looked) movie can be made, and blown up for a theater sized screen.