Matt Collazo

I’m really happy to have read about this fresh take on an old story. Still a lot to learn from it! Thanks!

Hi Julia. Thank you for reaching out to me! I would definitely be interested in working with you and providing any insight I can to help your project. I am unable to see any contact information, so please view my profile page (click on my name) and contact me via email. I’m looking forward to where this may lead. Thank you.

Yeah. Just realized that I completely Biffed it on the director. Wow, it’s late. Apologies to the film community. I must have been thinking Dial M For Murder somehow. How embarrassing.

I learned that Hitchcock walked onto almost every one of his film sets with a completely finished film; being on set was where the translation occurred, as he had every bit of his film on paper. I wonder what effect that had on this film in particular, especially after you mentioned the clues hidden in the image and how the aspect ratio was utilized to in ways to help hide the clues. I love that you mentioned so much about how the camera, and likely the film as well focused on the observational technique, and how that plays into not only the plot of the film, but engaged the viewer on a whole different level. I haven’t seen the film yet but I intend to, but this made me want to watch is much sooner that I originally intended.

I absolutely loved 12 Angry Men. If that’s the case, I’ll have to move this film up on my watchlist!

Supporting characters are too often overlooked. In some cases, they can provide critical insight into the mind and world of the main character. In other cases, the supporting character is absolutely crucial in developing a main character, sometimes to the point of being the only reason we are able to care for the star. In any case, this article provides a very well-constructed insight into a subject that is too often left underrated and overlooked. Thanks for this!

That’s a very valid point. I’m figuring out more recently that Robin Williams had a huge spectrum of acting personas, and very confidently could play to comedy, thriller, horror, mystery, and in this case, psychological dramas. He quickly has become one of my favorite actors, not just because he was great in a few really good movies, but the fact that he was great in a great amount of movies. In others words, when I heard about him playing a leading role in this film, I was very interested to see it because I had already discovered his talents in multiple genres. Had someone only seen him act in comedy such as in Mrs. Doubtfire, I could see why some people would stray away from a film like this. However, they are mislead, and would benefit greatly from seeing this film.

I would say that most of the above comments are justifiable. It’s tough to analyze CGI in films (and especially in Hollywood) simply because of the reasons you listed above. It spans the range of necessary (in the sense that some films couldn’t exist without it) to excessive. I agree that Hollywood has been on the side of excessive CGI for some time now, and I wonder if it has something to do simply with cost. It would make sense that its cheaper to CGI an exploding city as opposed to practically destroying a small town in the boonies. Similarly, some directors stand behind CGI as vigorously as they stand behind the digital vs. film debate. Depending on the pull of a director/producer relationship, they may be able to override a practical budget with the creative choice to use CGI instead. However, whatever the case, it definitely needs to be something that adds to the film is chosen to be used, and is done convincingly and correct, and not something that a child would laugh at in a horror film.