Honestly what's the deal with one take movies. Why do they get so much praise. I understand it's difficult and such but what's the point if it makes the movie worse. The only people who would be truly impressed with it are people in the film business like cinematographers but the audience won't care as much. I was about to watch this until I heard its a one take thing. Is it still good tho?
it's great
But it wasn't worse fampai. It's better than most trash you watch in your American shithole.
I just watched it.
its alright, but yeah, birdman kinda destroyed the purpose of such gimmick films.
>>63797491
It drags along for quite awhile, but when it gets going, man...
IT GETS FUCKING GOING
the acting is superb aswell
pretty based movie desu
>>63797491
It enterily cuts editor's job by filming that way. Jewllywood likes to save bucks. Of course they'll like it
>>63797491
Is she a qt?
>>63797491
Youre right; knowing it was taken in one take, with how specific and tedious films are to produce, makes it a more impressive feat.
Is it actually one take this film? Or one of those "its one take but its actually three" type deals
>>63799487
Actually one take all the way through, it's actually fucking insane how much happens and how much ground they cover around the city in one take.
As someone who has made short films, it made me break out into a cold sweat...
It's just a in-vogue cinematic convention.
This movie really didn't make good use of its concept
for the one take everything else suffered, my immediate thoughts walking out of the theatre were 'how much better would this be if it weren't one take' and my mental response was 'only a little'
truth is nobody would have seen this without the gimmick. with the gimmick it's a curiosity, but not a good movie. it will be quickly forgotten, im sure
>>63798519
Birdman wasn't one take though.
