 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
199.131.134.156
In Reply to: Children of Men (second viewing) posted by Duilawyer on January 8, 2007 at 07:51:52:
I read at IMDB that the blood on the lens was real (fake blood, but not CG). Cuaron decided that the spots on the lens were too distracting for the viewer to look through during the rest of the single continuity shot, so he had the spots digitally-removed, one frame at a time.
Follow Ups:
In interviews and in the press kit materials Cuaron & Owen said that the "blood" on the lens was an accident that was left in for a bit. Cuaron originally didn't want to use that take because of it, but in the editing room it was apparent that this take was by far the best. His co-editor talked him inot using the take with the spatters.Obviously, there was much rehearsal and very few of these long takes.
After all, I paid $4 at a Marcus Theatre to see the film.Thanks for the corrections to the IMDB info, anyway.
I dunno that I believe everything in press kits either. Or interviews. But really beware of IMDB and Wikepedia. Since I've seen the info confirmed 2x from separate sources, it seems reasonable.You can get presskits on ebay. Or ever better, you can borrow them from friends who are execs at the local film festival. ;-) The interviews are on the web.
Of course that may just mean that Encyclopedia Brittanica isn't very accurate.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
It's a great idea, Wikepedia is, but in certain entries I have extensive knowledge of I've seen more than a few errors and misinformation.
Thanks. (They should not have been round!).
I found it entertaining (in a harsh way) and really enjoyed the cinematography - a little more back story would have made it a more realized film. Although some of the questions I had were answered in a subliminal way, I would have enjoyed the ideas presented in a more concrete style.
All that said- Michael Caine was delightful and Clive Owen is always fun to watch. I was on the edge of my seat the duration of the film despite it's shortcomings it was a great popcorn movie, instead of a great film.
And why did the black guy order Clive killed as he walked away, in hte first minute of the seven minute uncut sequence?
For revenge: the red-haired guy and his partner got screwed up (both made it back to the farm, but the partner was dying) by Clive Owen when he opened his car door to clobber them during their hit on Julianne Moore.
,
...the other, the cousin, apparently died.Remember, two guys on motorcycle, heads and faces covered, both wrecked.
Patrick (sandy haired cyclist) shows up at the farm with his wounded cousin and tells Luke he wants to "get" Theo on account of his cousin. We learn as Theo & company escape that the cousin isn't gonna make it.
In Bexhill, Luke doesn't want to upset Kee any more than he already has, so he tells Patrick to "do" Theo & others after He and Kee are out of sight.
Patrick doesn't get his until the battle in the apartment building.
As I said, I'm no authority but my take was that Clive's character needed to be "removed" so the "movement" could use the child as a political tool. He was in the way.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
