|
Post by pendragon on May 29, 2020 5:13:46 GMT
Quite an intriguing little film, and surprisingly ambitious for a first time director (Andrew Patterson) without much of a budget. The film follows two teenagers in a small town in the '50s, Everett (Jake Horowitz), a small-time radio DJ, and Fay (Sierra McCormick), a switchboard operator, who stumble upon a bizarre sound one night coming from somewhere in the sky. They play the sound over the radio to see if anyone can make anything of it and get a call from someone who claims to have heard it before in conjunction with alien spacecrafts.
In tackling this subject, the film makes the most of its less-is-more approach, letting atmosphere, intrigue and especially sound drive the story. Even before it gets going, the stage is set perfectly. It begins with an homage to The Twilight Zone. Then the small town vibe and well drawn characters (and excellent chemistry between McCormick and Horowitz) draw us in. So much of the film is about isn't seen and the eerie, unsettling tone is slowly built up until the end.
Long takes are definitely in vogue now, especially the very showy and technically challenging kind and Patterson uses several in the film. One is very showy, though its use is absolutely appropriate, though the others are much more subtle. While they may be simple to execute, they do a great job building atmosphere and I'd love to see do more of these kind of long takes.
It's one of the best films of the year so far and well worth checking out.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on May 29, 2020 5:16:16 GMT
Oooh, so Blow Out with UFOs? I'm interested!
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on May 29, 2020 5:18:05 GMT
Oooh, so Blow Out with UFOs? I'm interested! That's actually a great description.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on May 29, 2020 10:37:19 GMT
I've been looking forward to this for ages!
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on May 29, 2020 18:38:18 GMT
www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-05-28/director-steven-soderbergh-advice-for-andrew-patterson-the-vast-of-nightInterview with the Soderbergh and the director a 38y/o with no agent or manager, no feature experience, and he left himself uncredited as director here too. Seems like a genuine dude and a fascinating new talent. This is impressive low-budget fun, a great sci-fi snack, an ode to the radio days of storytelling and '60s television chillers. The director even said they wrote the script so it could be "anything from a radio drama in the 30s to a stage play" - and some of the dialogue does have a Hawskian whip to it. But the style here couldn't've been achieved like this years ago - beautifully smooth, smoky visuals and some exceptional long takes. It really seeps you into the dead-of-night dimensions of this small Southern town. I watched this very late at night which is the perfect time for it. I have quibbles with it and I would've liked a different ending, but would def recommend for genre buffs.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 31, 2020 19:16:03 GMT
Slight but effective little chiller with some neat style and nuances that runs out of gas at the end for me but besides the (quite good) Israeli film Incitement and Bad Education is one of the few movie things I've come across of note in 2020 .........~7/10
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jun 3, 2020 5:09:47 GMT
I got a kick out of this for sure -- though it's certainly not without its flaws. At first it struck me as trying way too hard to be "tee hee it's the '50s!" and the Twilight Zone framing device is quite dumb. But it gets really compelling after its opening stretch -- that initial long shot switchboard scene was a genuine "holy shit" moment, the two leads both show immaculate endurance in their performances and I hope to see them in more stuff after this. It has a few hiccups along the way (the old woman's story), some parts drag a little and the ending is lame, but it kept me invested regardless. Sonically it's a great film ... really impressive rhythmic dialogue, the score is awesome, etc. ... but not much happening visually at all, literally some moments of audio playing over a black screen. Only really notable imagery here is with those streetlights that look suspended in the air evoking the UFO idea early, otherwise not much to note which is disappointing.
Overall not as cool as "Blow Out with UFOs" shoulda been, but I had fun. Agree wholeheartedly with what some have said though ... this really should've been a podcast ... the concept is entirely sound-based already, it would've been perfect for that medium and I think the same ending would've worked much better as well.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 3, 2020 13:32:20 GMT
I thought it was a very strong first effort, with some very good performances and some really sharp dialogue. In all honesty, the opening where Everett weaves through the gymnasium felt like a nice fusion of the Coens and Sorkin, and I honestly could've watched an entire movie where he's basically just solving problems in his school for two hours.
However, the film's shoestring budget works against it in major ways. The way it would cut to black for stretches while audio played over it was certainly a choice, and honestly not a very good one. I also think what works against it is that it abandons its mystery at the end in favor of a wham shot, and I think the film is far more effective if you don't know what it is causing everything. It's almost like the filmmakers didn't have enough faith in their audience to just play it vague and let the viewers fill in the gaps.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jun 13, 2020 9:22:29 GMT
I wish it were called "The Vast of Day" because I just kept wishing that somebody would turn on a light or two throughout this damn thing. This is a movie I cannot describe as 'lit' both in terms of its coolness and because of the literal lack of decent lighting. I've often seen it described as having a tiny budget but I think they could afford some lights for $700,000. That doesn't seem like such a small sum to me.
But what's even more frustrating to me is the lack of imagination. Or I should say, a relative lack of imagination because there are a couple of setpieces which do seem to strive for a cinematic feeling, like the much-discussed long take which ought to take at least some sort of medal in the 'showoffy long takes' championship. However, most of the film did seem a bit unimaginative to me. It felt like a product of a clearly limited vision, and I'm not talking about the budget issues. It just often felt like the director took the easiest route which resulted in scenes becoming uninteresting. Why do something interesting when you can just put the camera in front of the guy's unexpressive face while he's listening to the absurdly long monologue? Instead of finding a cinematic solution to the problem the director just cuts to black entirely. Kind of a copout to me.
Or how about that old lady's monologue which goes on for hours? Movies are movies because they provide a cinematic treatment of life processes. People do indeed ramble in real life but a movie's purpose is to sift through the rambling and turn it into poetry or at least into something engaging. There are of course movies with long dialogue/monologue scenes but they work only if the words or situations are worth the indulgence. I didn't think neither were worth it in this picture. It really felt like an artificial attempt to stretch out a thin premise to a feature length. The movie even frames itself as an episode of a sci-fi anthology and, well, I thought the episode went on for a bit too long.
I did appreciate the ambition though and I have a very soft spot for grounded alien tales, having imagined a small-scale alien invasion film myself a number of times. But I can promise you it'd be more interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Feb 15, 2021 0:52:05 GMT
I, for one, loved the opening twenty minutes! Who knew that I'd watch such a charming little romantic comedy on Valentine's Day? And then the story proper begins, and it's not bad at all, even if it is pretty generic. The two leads are so charming that I was invested anyway. But the more this abandoned the leads - namely, for the two gigantic fucking monologues from Billy and Mabel - the more it hamstringed itself. Why deprive yourself of your greatest asset for these rambling info dumps? Especially Mabel, oh my goodness woman shut the hell up and get an editor for goodness' sakes!
But whenever Fay and Everett are allowed to move the narrative, there is a loving charm to the film. Primarily because they're written with a screwball comedy charm, but also because the actors perfectly sell that charm without overdoing it. There is enough of them to keep the movie exciting for me, even though it loses sight of them at the end.
Oh yeah, obligatory mention of the tracking shot: Sure was... a tracking shot. Yup. Could have cut it completely and saved three minutes of my time. Stop showing off your tracking shots and focus on doing an action scene without shoving your camera up someone's dark armpit.
|
|
|
Post by dadsburgers on Feb 15, 2021 20:35:54 GMT
I loved all of it, including the old lady's monologue!
|
|