I'm suprised nobody has mentioned (or I couldn't find) the quality of the film used. I really enjoyed how it was shot on crappy film stock, it added to the environment of the film; it FELT like the 70's. What do you guys think about it?
share[deleted]
I agree that the filn really felt like the 70s. It kind of reminded me of some parts of The City of God which was also able to transport the viewer into the time period. At times, I did think that the cinematographer went a little to far, but I found out that this was the same one who filmed Requiem for a Dream and another one that I can't remember.
shareMe too for the 70's feel. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought it was a 70's film. It's a good misfortune, if it wasn't intentional.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't understand.
What's crappy film stock?
Who are the customers for said product?
I only noticed this effect in the swamp Vietnam simulation scenes, and it wasn't so much the grainy/high contrast pushed film look as it was that jittery action filming style. I don't know how they do that, but any time it is done it is a 150% Ridley Scott ripoff.
Not crappy film stock as in a defective product. When shooting with film you can have a whole lot of choices on what type of film you order to shoot on - it just depends on what type of look you want, the conditions you are shooting in, etc.
As it is, this film was shot on 16mm film stock (as opposed to the industry standard 35mm film stock), which generally produces a grittier, grainier looking image - appropriate for the look of this film.