The Forest II: Relentless Thirst (deadpan comedy/action/horror)

MasterMike · #1 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 07:56 AM

Hello all:

A couple of years ago, I posted the first part to this on here. We've done another, and it's been nearly two years of work, on and off. Firstly, while I of course welcome comments about our film-making technique in general, the film primarily serves as a source of demo reel material to me - that is, I made it mostly for the experience. That's not to downplay the significance of many other people in its production - Liam, for instance, did a lot of intricate cloning roto and Paul created many CGI effects.

The Forest II on STAGE6 (Recommended)
Big ol' high-quality WMV download
Not quite so big very good-quality WMV download

I'd recommend watching the first before you see this - but we deliberately wrote it in such a way that it's not entirely neccesary. If you get the urge, watch the first one here.

It'd difficult to fit this film into any specific genre - it works in action, comedy, horror, mystery, and several others. Mainly I'd define it as a deadpan comedy, if I had to. Ultimately it's quite silly and whimsical. It has guns, beer, explosions, and a ridiculous amount of rotoscoping. What more could you want from a film! A story? PAH! It has a bunch of movie references too.... loads of 'em... might be fun trying to spot them all.

THE FOREST II: RELENTLESS THIRST
A year or two after the grim events that led Mike and Liam to take a shortcut through The Forest, they find themselves once again beerless and in desperate need of a fix. They must battle The Simons to retrieve beer. This 20-minute, tongue-in-cheek deadpan action comedy is directed by and stars Liam Comerford and Michael Connor as themselves, and Simon Plant as The Simons. 3D work by Paul Canning.

========

So, there you go. I hope you like.

Mark W · #2 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 10:51 AM

All I can say after one watch is WOW.

After my jaw has left the floor I will watch again and see if i can find anything to criticise.

Possibly the best thing ever submitted to this section.

The Guru · #3 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Mark W

Possibly the best thing ever submitted to this section.

I wouldn't go that far.

The effects are superb. The camerawork is very, very good and the editing is tight and flows nicely. The sound is generally good but does fall down on a few occasions. However, I found the script, especially the dialogue, very weak and the acting wasn't that good either. Sorry.

It does seem to be a case of "we can do these effects, now let's quickly make a film around them". Although it is an effects-led video, you shouldn't loose sight of the other parts of the process. Spoof films are very difficult to get right, otherwise they look immature and bad acting just makes the weak script stand out more.

To end on a positive note though... It's obvious that a tremendous amount of work has gone into this. The digital effects are top notch and very, very professional. I really can appreciate the work which has gone into this and you should be chuffed with what you've achieved.

Mark W · #4 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 03:14 PM

I tend to be generous with my praise - having said that I cant remember being as impressed with anything else for some time.

Have no fear i will find fault when i look again with my Barry Norman head on.

MasterMike · #5 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 03:22 PM

Well, yeah.

We're not actors, and we're not scriptwriters either. I am, however, an aspiring effects artist - I'll be posting my reel (which is mostly work from this) later on tonight. It's not a spoof - it's a deadpan comedy. We're not spoofing anything, except perhaps the Lord of the Rings and Indiana Jones shots, which I would call more homages or references than spoofs.

So, yes, in essentials this is an effects film with a story built around it, I freely admit that.

Mark W · #6 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 03:30 PM

The fx were tip top bloody awesome. I watched the big shooting explosion bit 5 times - very impressive.

However - I have found somethnig I really didnt like... did you shoot it all in 25p? - looks that way - saw some very jittery pans.

MasterMike · #7 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 03:37 PM

We shot in 50i then deinterlaced it to 25p. The overlay method we used causes a ghosting artifact, which is inevitable, but hey-ho. For some shots we did a bit of stabilisation, but I'm quite a fan of the handheld look, so in other cases we added some camera shake to a locked-down shot.

Mark W · #8 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 03:47 PM

I tht the camera shake was ok - not distracting and appropriate for the film and the added shake looked very convincing on those fx shots.

I admit I have this 'thing' about 25p - I think that as a rule always worse than 50i, unless you never move the camera faster then 10 degrees a week and all your actors are snails. I appreciate it is a nightmare to work with when doing fancy stuff but 50i just looks so much smoother all tround.

I blame film studies lecturers for the 25p hegemony. Roll on 50p I say.

MasterMike · #9 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Mark W

I blame film studies lecturers for the 25p hegemony. Roll on 50p I say.

Ooh, the rotoscopers won't like that! (although in a lot of the shots I rotoed the fields seperately anyway for the sake of better integration, so 50 fps roto.)

Mark W · #10 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 03:54 PM

Ha -watched it four times now - for me the most entertaining thing ever on user vids.

'MAN BEER' lol.