Category: angles

Side view flipping is flippin annoying

There are times that this style of video editing fits, not here in this vaping review for the Vaporesso Polar 220w starter kit. What it does is take the focus away from the product and instead put it more on the reviewer. Another thing that this technique does is add an element of distrust. Why are we looking from the side? This technique often can effectively be used to portray oh so subtly that there is someone (or the viewer even) critiquing, questioning, analyzing, and flat out not trusting of the person, it gives an impression, again subtly, that there is a hidden camera catching someone or trying to catch someone in a lie. It’s used way too often in the wrong way.

I also think this guy goes a bit overboard in his sales pitchy thingy. He reminds me of a car salesman. Why do that on what is supposed to be an honest review.

Another problem is his set, notice all the light bulbs in the background. When he vapes and blows the vapor at the camera we see these spots, like as if we are seeing spots in our eyes after being knocked out. It also looks like the vapor just hit the camera and caused droplets to form on it. Although we can see clear enough that it did not, movies should not present to the viewer anything that causes the mind to have to start analyzing even for a split second the set unless it is used for a purpose on purpose.

I had to vote this guy down on his production because of all this along with the main reason of voting him down, he never showed in detail how the screen functioned.


Mute

One review stated “If it wasn’t for Netflix, Mute wouldn’t exist”.

My review:

I liked this movie but it did not get a high rating. It’s appearing on Netflix and as seen on an article on Hollywood Reportler that claims the movie might be as bad as Cloverfield Paradox (no comparison in my opinion) the producer says, “if it wasn’t for Netflix, Mute simply wouldn’t  exist”. The movie is also obviously one of dedication to the movie making arts, in the article it also says “Mute is a film defined by its director, who worked for more than a decade”. I am sure this film is not for everyone thus the middle range rating, but what is incredible about what Netflix doing it that it is providing movies for everyone, whereas in the past many films would not have ever been made, and unfortunately, many films never were.

 

 


What makes a great actress actor actperson?

Not sure I should even use that word person as it has the male connotation to it and these days everything offends certain homo sapiens some of whom call them selves mee three or something like that. Some consider Amy Adams as beeing a massively better acting thingy than Merryl Streep. I have to agree with the author of this full article that there are many more who might be better, but in one example saying that Sigourney Weaver is better is leaving out important dertermination materials in evaluation. Whenever an acting thingy homosap is being judged on “acting ability” one is mostly limited to what they have acted in. Weaver is well known for Aliens and Dave and some other well received films but who wants to see Aliens more than once? I don’t and it’s not just because I don’t love alien or sci-fi films like others do, it’s that when I think of seeing a sci-fi film and think of seeing Weaver again, I cringe. I’m not even tototally sure why that is. Yes her acting is good, even great in that film, but it’s not good enough to make me overlook how she acts. Not that there’s something seriously wrong with it, it’s just not acting that draws me back in. Great acting includes a style that draws in everyone. Her style is limited somehow. Streep has more variety in style thus when we see her we don’t see the same person all the time, oh sorry, perthing. Streep has done so many roles where I would watch more than once.

Written by Ken Wegorowski. Copyright 2018. All rights reserved.


Spacex again claims to have shot up and landed a rocket into and out of “space”. Looks more like special effects and hype.

In viewing a video preseneted by RUPTLY regarding what SpaceX claims is their successful rocket launch and land, I can’t help but notice some wildly peculiar oddities. For example, take a look at this snapshot from the movie and look at the foil to the right of this “rocket”. Foil in space? Really? Looks more like a model on earth.

Another odd thing is the white zone on the left which is a super bright white Earth, notice how it’s concave and not convex. This is proof that the Earth is not round or flat but rather space is round.

Maybe it proves that the Earth is black and space is white.

Maybe the flash was so bright it whited out space.

Critically thinking we have to wonder was this space foil unwrapped in space on this unmanned rocket or was it there when it hurled through atmosphere at a billion miles per hour remining so smooth it “reflects” the clouds below, an effect of computer animation? It would be easy to add this effect to a stationery object on just the foil using a computer to make it look like it was moving.

Observing this obviously edited sequence of events (click on the image above to view the video on YouTube) the trained eye and ear can tell that this presentation is not exactly real unless you mean real fake. Notice how they don’t show a side view of it “landing” which appears to be mere reversal of the movie sequence of it taking off.

Then there’s this one below.

When you look at the shadow on the rocket shell the sun is behind the camera yet the edge here is brightly lit. Makes no sense as that would mean the sun is both behind us toward the right while also infront to the left. Simple explanation, there are two suns, or, two studio lights. Maybe it’s the light from the burning fuel but where is the flame? It’s not there. For it to be from “the flame” we would see the flame.

How does one know if this is computer animation or not, I mean it’s like how do we prove these allegations….contact NASA? They do the same stuff, finally admitting it, so there’s really no way to ever prove any of this unless you do what no man has done, go to space. We can certainly take a good look at what is being presented and question and study and vote against going to the moon for the 2nd time since we haven’t been there for the first, and instead funnel those billions into helping the working class movie makers create more wonderful fantasies.

In this image from 17:59 notice the black edge of the rocket booster shell. Why is it now black? Obviously the sun set and the reason the Earth and rocket is lit is from the camera flash.

Frankly this looks like old Bugs Bunny cartoons with the black edge, and is a clear indicator of overlapping or whatever you call that. Also notice another oddity, here we have a round earth, or is it a wide angle lens that does this? Yes.

And what’s with the bubble wrap foil, It’s not even the same in each snapshot. In the last image it’s more crumpled up, no two are exactly the same, but + again what moving vehicle (movile) is wrapped in plastic foil?

Something is also not right with the focus, “Earth” somehow is out of focus further away and in focus closer yet this is supposedly millions of miles away so focus should be the same, and the rocket shell is out of focus also. And again look at the plastic tin foil how it moves as it’s being hurled through space by this rocket. OMG this is hilarious. They expect us to believe this? I guess most people don’t question those in science, especially rocket science because after all it’s rocket science. Also notice how when they show the rocket “landing” image next to this one, they aren’t even remotely possibly presenting two views of the same thing at the same time.

And the control room excitement is obviously staged, it’s too over the top melodramatic to be real.

The reporters are all acting so fake, and actually offended me. They are obviously reading the script in front of them. I guess if presidents can do it so can the rest of us but you might not want to read scripts in order to get the best movie making effect. Better films require that THE ACTORS remember and rehearse their lines and that’s where you should draw the line. The other reason some of us in movie making might not want to do this type of effect though is the thing called credibility. Reporting, news, and documentaries used to be credible, providing a balance with little or no hype, but today so much of it is hype.

Other views from the SPACE found in between ears aka the imagination can be seen presented in moving image form called movies (mov – images) at the following internet addresses

Feature image showing a satellite, space, stars, the Earth, and the world wide web is an original computer generated work of NASA and is in the public domain


Slums Of Beverly Hills (1998)

This film has some interesting things going for it but it’s also rather boring and frustrating especially in that it brings us a little too close to yucky sexual exploration. I had to shut it off about mid way when we are taken into the bathroom with the teen girl with her vibrator and her “first time”. In film making the way this was done effectively brings us in there with her so there are those who in watching this will find it fascinating. It doesn’t of course show anything too risque, so to speak, but it does show her face up close and her expressions. The camera doesn’t Blair Witch us thankfully as this was made one year before that, in 1998, and because of that we intensely focus on her face. In contrast one might want to use the BW effect a little to take away some of that intensity so keep this in mind when creating a film project. The film is set in 1974. The very fact that in those days there was no such thing as a cell phone and was a time that many of us can relate to makes this film worth a try as it takes you to both those days of fabulous Beverly Hills and those days of typical substandard American living. What I mean is that as you watch the interactions of all the players, we see how no one is distracted, people all in a room pay attention to each other, look at each other, talk to each other, and fully interact with each other for long periods of time, UNLIKE TODAY where ever you go people have their faced embedded in a piece of computerized glass thanks to Steve Jobs, and all those who invented and produced the telephone that can present us IMOVIES.

Slums Of Beverly Hills

 Slums of Beverly Hills (1998) on IMDb 

review by ken@imovies.com


Dog Years (1997)

This movie is rated #1 by an IMDb user for the ten best B-movies ever. There are some humorous elements of this film. It was created about 2 years before “Blair Camera All Over The Place” so it’s a good film to study regarding some basics in steady watchable film making, angles, dialog, plot, sound effects. In the film Wally’s dog is abducted by “gangsters” that believe that Wally robbed them. Wally does what it takes to track down and find his dog. There are some quirky twists and elements of surprise. There’s no computer graphics so the plot relies on good story telling and imagery. It’s a pretty rough quality and certainly dated and amateurish by today’s standards but it’s worth a look.

Dog Years

review by ken@imovies.com