Comments

1. Kelly 'Zed-Killa' King
   May 1st, 2008 | 8:46 am

   Does anyone else think this is gratuitous and unnecessary? Granted that so much of horror is gratuitous and unnecessary to begin with, this movie especially doesn’t need the port to English language considering how unimportant and sparse the dialogue is in [REC], so this looks like a pure money run to me. I doubt they will add anything to this (as in things [REC] needed a better script and better secondary actors).

   Also to Jef, I agree that [REC] has a more organic and loose camera style than “Diary of the Dead”, but the majority of more orchestrated shots of “Diary” can easily be attributed (storywise - real-life wise, it’s obvious that Romero will not sacrifice setup for handheld jitters) to the characters’ more creative training and the underlying (and unspoken) determination that the main character Jason has to making a “good movie” as opposed to “just get the shot so people will believe this”. [REC] seems better orchestrated than Diary towards its climax, particularly the staircase scenes, which is quite an achievement, but with all the jump cutting and lack of lighting, it is hard to tell how artistic it is and not just happenstance.

   I am in general not pre-disposed to liking the handheld style anyway; I say if you can afford a balance piece for your DV cam, which are affordable for even a no-budget movie, please use it. And what’s more, if you have hired a photography crew that knows what they’re doing, why waste time doing it handheld style when all you need is a good editor to make the even the worst handheld shots fit together?

Leave a reply