I've heard this was crap. Anyone out there see it? If I remember the promos there's a "found footage" feel to it, which probably explains why I dismissed it out of hand. I've never much liked the technique amd now that every third film uses it I'm well over it. A bit here and there (as in ALIENS with the helmet cams during the first big xenomorph attack) can work beautifully, but more than a few minutes of it gives me a headache.
its one of the cheapest ways to make a movie now in as much as it excuses a lot of the failing of a shite film as deliberate real world technique. I thought the idea of Apollo 18 sounded good but that style of film making is invariably disappointing.
I think some (alleged) filmmakers think it gives them a sort of free pass on cinematography. Why bother setting up intriguing visual compositions which may propel the story forward or give subtle insights into character and emotion when you can just hand someone a camera and yell "action!"? I must say I enjoyed "Troll Hunter" despite the technique. Likely due to the need for many cgi inserts there was a more polished and deliberate feel to the framing and not as much nauseating shakiness. Generally speaking I stay away from anything using it unless I'm very intrigued by the write-ups.
It seems you guys haven't seen this flick which is too bad since it is actually pretty good. The special effects are great as it the photography-yes part of it is the Blair Witch shaky type of camera work but no where near as much as you two seem to think. In the story the LM had the addition of several TV cameras as this mission was intended to televise the whole trips duration. Certainly worth 85 minutes of your time.
Thanks Paul, Yes my comments are written in ignorance. I actually like Blair Witch, though. The style and lost footage works well with that story. Unfortunately that same style of film shooting seemed to get jumped on by a lot of cheap ass, no story copy cats. On your recommendation and the fact that the idea of Apollo 18 is a good one, I do still intend to check it out.....I just paused in the middle of that last sentence to go order the DVD from Amazon. I'll let you know.
Well the Sunday afternoon movie of choice was this and...its OK. It is worth 85 minutes of your time. Will I watch it again...mmm probably not but I am glad I watched it once. To pick up a point from Paul's comment above. It's not the shaky "hand held" camera of such films that cheapens them, its the fixed limited POV of the first person camera 'eye' which severely limits the language of film making. Apollo 18 can justify all of its in story cameras better than most that use this technique but - and this is entirely a matter of opinion - it would have been a lot better had it have opened itself up to 3rd person camera eye, as well.
Nor me but the story has got to justify every camera used... and more importantly; why the characters carry on filming when being chased by (insert; Zombies or witches or monsters or whatever). Apollo 18 does. It's also well acted, has satisfactory effects and good sound so is worth a watch. The Soviet Lander for me is the design highlight and makes up for the less creatively interesting (SPOILERS)
I'm impressed personally, because they didn't make it up: that's a Soviet LK that would have taken Leonov to the moon if their N-1 booster had ever worked.
I've heard this was crap. Anyone out there see it? If I remember the promos there's a "found footage" feel to it, which probably explains why I dismissed it out of hand. I've never much liked the technique amd now that every third film uses it I'm well over it. A bit here and there (as in ALIENS with the helmet cams during the first big xenomorph attack) can work beautifully, but more than a few minutes of it gives me a headache.
ReplyDeleteits one of the cheapest ways to make a movie now in as much as it excuses a lot of the failing of a shite film as deliberate real world technique. I thought the idea of Apollo 18 sounded good but that style of film making is invariably disappointing.
ReplyDeleteI think some (alleged) filmmakers think it gives them a sort of free pass on cinematography. Why bother setting up intriguing visual compositions which may propel the story forward or give subtle insights into character and emotion when you can just hand someone a camera and yell "action!"? I must say I enjoyed "Troll Hunter" despite the technique. Likely due to the need for many cgi inserts there was a more polished and deliberate feel to the framing and not as much nauseating shakiness. Generally speaking I stay away from anything using it unless I'm very intrigued by the write-ups.
ReplyDeleteIt seems you guys haven't seen this flick which is too bad since it is actually pretty good. The special effects are great as it the photography-yes part of it is the Blair Witch shaky type of camera work but no where near as much as you two seem to think. In the story the LM had the addition of several TV cameras as this mission was intended to televise the whole trips duration. Certainly worth 85 minutes of your time.
ReplyDeleteThanks Paul, Yes my comments are written in ignorance. I actually like Blair Witch, though. The style and lost footage works well with that story. Unfortunately that same style of film shooting seemed to get jumped on by a lot of cheap ass, no story copy cats. On your recommendation and the fact that the idea of Apollo 18 is a good one, I do still intend to check it out.....I just paused in the middle of that last sentence to go order the DVD from Amazon. I'll let you know.
DeleteWell the Sunday afternoon movie of choice was this and...its OK. It is worth 85 minutes of your time. Will I watch it again...mmm probably not but I am glad I watched it once. To pick up a point from Paul's comment above. It's not the shaky "hand held" camera of such films that cheapens them, its the fixed limited POV of the first person camera 'eye' which severely limits the language of film making. Apollo 18 can justify all of its in story cameras better than most that use this technique but - and this is entirely a matter of opinion - it would have been a lot better had it have opened itself up to 3rd person camera eye, as well.
DeleteI'll give a film points for having a Soviet lander (wonder how that got there?) so I have to admit I'm curious, now.
ReplyDeleteFound footage has its ups and downs, in my opinion more downs than ups, but I won't condemn a film for using it.
Nor me but the story has got to justify every camera used... and more importantly; why the characters carry on filming when being chased by (insert; Zombies or witches or monsters or whatever). Apollo 18 does. It's also well acted, has satisfactory effects and good sound so is worth a watch. The Soviet Lander for me is the design highlight and makes up for the less creatively interesting (SPOILERS)
DeleteI'm impressed personally, because they didn't make it up: that's a Soviet LK that would have taken Leonov to the moon if their N-1 booster had ever worked.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)