January 2, 2004 at 1:57 am #27532
Hey that was pretty clever Logan Arts! (Sorry for bumping this up)
I felt you animation was superb and so was your lighting. The Background animation was super duper aswell, but it would have been better with maybe a parked car or something. Is that your voice for the murderer?
(I think I left a bunch of spelling mistakes in my short review.)January 2, 2004 at 2:45 am #27541
The Background animation was super duper aswell, but it would have been better with maybe a parked car or something.
Unfortuanetly, the setting forbids that, the story takes place before cars were invented. Perhaps, some sort carriage.
Is that your voice for the murderer?
No, that is my father’s. I played Fortunato.
Thank you for your review, it is much appreciated.
LoganOctober 21, 2004 at 10:03 pm #64232
This film was very well done from a brickfilming standpoint, but rather a letdown to that of a reader of Edgar Allan Poe.
The animation and picture quality were good enough that I didn’t notice them. That is to say, there was nothing at all detrimental about it, but nothing that I found, initially at least, to be outstanding. The cinematography certainly caught my attention. The mood was set very well, but not as well as I think you could have done. Your selection of music was nearly perfect. It might be my favorite thing about this movie. It made up for any loss of the creepy mood you surely were trying to acheive, which often wasn’t there visually. You managed to get the film beyond the “silly plastic toy movie” level, but not significantly beyond. Montresor’s voice was well done, while Fortunado’s did not represent his character well. You should have made him sound more obnoxious or something. Actually, he was obnoxious, but only because he was done by a 13-4 year old.
Now, as for the story. I became aware of story by Poe several years ago, and I would say I immensely enjoyed it. I didn’t find this movie to be a particularly great rendition, though. The story was simplified FAR too much, and thus removing the creepiness and astonishment I received from reading about Montresor’s perfect crime in Poe’s original. Montresor’s crime was lowered from making sure both he and Fortunado were in costumes, so that no one would recognize them, ensuring that Fortunado is thoroughly drunk, leading him into the vaults, chaining him up, building a wall, and then playfully messing with his mind, to bringing him into some vaults, tripping him, and shoving a bunch of rubbish in front of him.
The sets were sort of bland. That was the lamest Carnival I’ve ever seen . The vaults were much better, but more skeletons would have been nice.
And now for my BIGGEST complaint.
This destroys the entire theme of the story: the perfect crime. I agree with you that you needed a first person narration, but surely you could have found a more creative way than that. The creepiest, most ingenious part of “The Cask of Amontillado” is the fact that Montresor will never, ever gets caught. You seem to agree, at least to an extent, as you used the line, “I must not only punish, but punish with impunity”. Yet, he uses this line while apparently pleading guilty in a court case. 😕October 21, 2004 at 11:06 pm #64234
GopedGuyParticipantOctober 21, 2004 at 11:08 pm #64235
dude why di du bump this up to the top. Its a really old post, try not to do that.
It is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged to bump up posts in the Post and Review forum, especially when writing a very nice review like Dragoon did.
Stop worrying about other people and start trying to think of positive ways to contribute.October 21, 2004 at 11:36 pm #64237
OK, I’ve decided to put a better review of this film since I’ve read the story.
I totally agree wtih you here, dragoon. After reading the story, I felt that this movie lacked a lot of spirit and detail. The suspense of the story is what makes it unique; I did not believe that this movie accomplished that. It lacked detail in many aspects of the plot. The vaults…. didn’t really seem like vaults at all.
Cinematography, was pretty much OK. Lighting was excellent for the most part. The carnival, like dragoon said, was lame. It lacks detail, and the viewer, without reading the story, wouldn’t have known it was a carnival.
The vaults was my biggest complaint in the cinematography of the film.
there was NO sense of darkness, eerieness or macabre that would’ve movie so much more intense.
Sound, music was pretty good. It fitted well with the story. The voice acting was OK. It was a bit dull at times. I thought if there was more adultish voices with more expression, it would’ve been better.
You told me that you took out the drunk characteristic of Fortunato in the film because it was shown in a school environment. I doubt anyone would be offended of a lego figure acting a bit drunk. Without the drunkness of Fortunato, it seems like he really did want himself to be killed and knew the circumstances very well. Fortunato being drunk showed that he had no idea what was happening, which lead him to his ultimate fate.
So, if you haven’t read the story yet, don’t watch this movie. You will have absolutely no idea what is happening.October 22, 2004 at 12:16 am #64239
The story was, yes, simplified greatly. The cutting was done largely before filming, with some cut due to a lack of ambition on my part, and some cut simply to dumb down the story (I know…).
The Cask of Amontillado, in its brickfilm rendition, wasn’t meant to be the work of word EAP wrote. It was meant to be a loose showcase, with an emphasis on getting the main plot across in a simple fashion.
A “redux” of the film would have been able to add a few welcome additions, I’m sure, although I was never particulary concerned about making a print-to-screen version of TCOA. The suspense is also an aspect I’d like to improve upon with a redux, but the presentation of “the perfect crime” is what I was most disappointed with in the film.
I lack the motivation, as well as sets, to add scenes to the film, though.
So, if you haven’t read the story yet, don’t watch this movie. You will have absolutely no idea what is happening.
But you have said that the film was not true to the story, therefore not a read-along-and-watch. The film was shown to a decent sized group of people, few of which had read the story, and all of them understood what happened.
loganOctober 22, 2004 at 12:45 am #64243
“Revmen” wrote: It is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged to bump up posts in the Post and Review forum, especially when writing a very nice review like Dragoon did.
*Claps for Revmen*
I like this one, Logan. Technically, this film is superb, and the voice-acting is good, too. But since I haven’t read the short story, I had a bit off trouble figuring out exactly what was going on. Did he actually build a brick wall over the entrance to the cave? Why did Fortunato give him time to do this?
I was a bit confused, but hey, I like the animation. I’m happy. :wink
-NosOctober 22, 2004 at 1:09 am #64246
“Nosniborus” wrote: Did he actually build a brick wall over the entrance to the cave? Why did Fortunato give him time to do this?
He built a wall over a section of the vault to leave him for dead. In the story, Fortunato was chained to the wall, and could not get out. Fortunato was also deeply drunk in the story, so he was a bit crazy, did not know what was happening, and thought it was just a joke. This was not shown in the movie.October 22, 2004 at 2:41 pm #64319
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.