Bearserk wrote:And low budget stories can be great movies as we both know
They sure can, and we've seen some dandies! But they can also suck hard when they dream bigger than their budgets allow, which is sadly too often the case. I predict Logan’s productions might be somewhere in between. Hopefully.
Bearserk wrote: one just have to go in with a lot of love and dedication and never loose sight of what one has to work with.
That's my problem with Logan’s continuing mission to stay in film. On the surface, it seems like he's motivated by love and dedication to his cherished Hong Kong cinema, but in reality (as evidenced by the quality of the footage in these trailers) he seems motivated by cash (fair enough) and the easy gratification that comes with cranking out undernourished exploitation fare to sell at Cannes to (a dwindling number of) direct-to-DVD and direct-to-cable distributors.
With the exception of BEACH SPIKE — which gets a pass because it has pseudo-models front and centre and appears to favour character over special effects and stunts
— its clear that he’s overreaching, just like so many cash-strapped filmmakers before him, trying to tell stories (even animated ones) that require more money and talent than he’s able to secure, and as a result they just look like cheap, poorly-written shot-on-video fare, made to be sheathed in a flashy slipcover that will sucker unwitting Wal-Mart shoppers on new release day. Maybe it’s just me daydreaming, but if he was truly in sync with Hong Kong and
all of its rich cinematic culture, he’d spend his low budgets on less would-be-grandiose genre fare like shot-in-English (!) Chanbara riffs and jungle action epics, and instead fund some indie-style dramas, straight-faced ghost stories (NOT the green-faced Helena Law Lan kind) or even short films that thoughtfully reflect the city that has provided him gainful employment for nearly 20 years (and which are very much still being made there), then work his way up from there, rather than falling back on the most easily-exploited elements of the city’s cinematic legacy, and doing them less justice than his idols did 25 to 30 years ago.
Bearserk wrote:And nothing wrong with sexploitation movies ;-) Keep bringing out those, but try to make them look as they are not shot on DV, getting the film look helps a lot for the mood.
Quite agreed! Unfortunately, the “film look” is a rare thing in Category III sex films, what few are even made any more! We can at least be thankful that serious attempts were made in movies like SEX & CHOPSTICKS and the new SEX & ZEN. On the other hand, I’ve seen plenty of DV movies wherein the quality of the framing, blocking and camerawork more than compensates for the lack of a filmic appearance because the filmmakers are able to demonstrate some remarkable technical skills and/or a knack for pulling strong performances from their actors despite meager financing. I’m just not seeing that in the trailers linked in previous posts. I’m reminded of all the DTV junk I used to review for the local daily newspaper — back in 1992!
My problem with the kinds of movies Bey Logan makes is that his hard-earned status
could allow him to do so much better, yet he’s making the kind of stuff any stereotypical “chopsocky” fan would try to make if they were given a few dollars and a film crew.