MovieChat Forums > The Whistleblower (2011) Discussion > Terrible movie

Terrible movie

posted 14 years ago by The Guy-2
42 replies | jump to latest

I saw it earlier today at the AMC Empire in NYC. What a waste of time. From a technical standpoint, the movie was TERRIBLE. Some of the worst lighting, and cinematography I've ever seen in my life.

Some scenes you could barely see one of the actors, in any scene featuring 2 people talking. Other scenes, they show exterior shots of buildings, and you can't really see the building.

To top it off, you have Rachel Weisz and Monica Bellucci, 2 of the most beautiful women in the world, and the DP managed to make them look horrible. Exposing every blemish in their face, and using every unflattering angle imaginable.

The movie looks very amateurish.

As for the story, it had a been there done that feel to it, and I found it quite boring, poorly executed, especially the scene with Rachel Weisz and her daughter. It all felt really corny and tired within 30 minutes. This is a straight to DVD caliber film.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The Guy-2 14 years ago

I could barely SEE her performance cuz the lighting was so bad.

[–] mikeyflatley 14 years ago

bec it wuz so dark, i tripped over at da stairz and my popcorn and soda splattered all over da floor

[–] Hancockenstein 14 years ago

i think it's time to lower your standards if "2 of the most beautiful women in the world" need movie magic to be appealing. scratch that your standards are irrelevant, don't see them asking you on a date any time soon

[–] The Guy-2 14 years ago

lol dude you are very ignorant. Everyone knows that good lighting and makeup is an actress' best friend. And FYI, I date models half their age dude, so I don't need them to "ask me out anytime soon." LMAO.

[–] Hancockenstein 14 years ago

yea I'm not disputing that, I'm saying you got ridiculous expectations if 2 of the most beautiful women in the world(you said it i didn't) look horrible without makeup and lighting.

and congrats on dating models half their age, charming young naive model types isn't hard when you're as shallow as they are. do you hire someone to follow you guys around with lighting apparatus so they don't embarrass you? make them sit in the one spot in the room that doesn't expose an unflattering angle?

as if you're not lying anyway LOL

[–] The Guy-2 14 years ago

@stopsaying

That's right we hire lighting people to follow us around. It's quite expensive. I'm gonna be sure to refer my people to the makers of THE WHISTLE BLOWER.

[–] noonenever 13 years ago

you are a stupid *beep* d!ckhe@d

[–] andro21 14 years ago

youve missed the point entirely...

first off, this was based on a true story. its not meant to be a transformers style of movie, where everyone has blemish-free skin or amazing lighting. the point of the movie is to see how marred the UN and the world is. the makeup and lighting were chosen purposely to be done in this way, due to the very nature of the film. it played very well off of the point this movie was TRYING to bring to people who have no idea what is going on. unfortunately for the movie makers, people like you watch the movie and give it a low rating because you think pretty girls in movies should always look pretty.

secondly, i watched the movie and missed absolutely nothing in the dark scenes (which were purposely shot dark to, once again, emphasis the darkness of the plot and the gritty nature of the story).

thirdly, id advise you to stop watching movies for just the glamor of it all and start watching them for what they are meant to be-- especially these kinds of movies, where the point is to show the world how far we need to go as a race. i can already hear you typing some sort of reply about how youre right and im wrong and the movie is terrible, blah blah blah. to whatever it is you think you need to say: just know youre wrong on every single point and that youre missing the truth of the movie. take a step back and think about how story telling is done and how the CHOICE to make scenes dark and to use very little makeup can tie into plots and emphasize the overall feel of the film.

if after reading this you still think the movie is terrible, than its obvious you have a requirement of movies that, at this point in your life, will not ever be changed and that you probably watch them for kicks and thrills. this movie is not for you.

[–] leolecal 14 years ago

if i could transfer my thoughts into a text, would come out something like @andro21 described.

pls stick to blockbusters and romantic comedies and leave the dense movies to the grown ups.

[–] The Guy-2 14 years ago

@leolecal

You're an ignorant fool. Please take your ignorance and foolishness elsewhere.

[–] The Guy-2 14 years ago

@ andro21 I work in the film industry genius. I know what a competently made film is supposed to look like. Regardless of the budget or the subject matter. There are plenty of films that have been made, 100x better than this for less money.

Amores Perros, City of God, Dirty Pretty Things, are just a few off the top of my head, that didn't look like they were made by a film student.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bing-57 13 years ago

> this was based on a true story.

Yet, as others have said, "so what?" The end of the movie makes it clear that no one was prosecuted and the trafficking described in the film just keeps going. The hero of the movie accomplished nothing other to make a few make a few commanders shuffle their people around a bit and be a little more careful in the future.

> the point of the movie is to see how marred the UN and the world is

I think everyone knows that already. The UN didn't do anything when al-Qaeda took down four of our airplanes and two buildings. And they haven't done anything much about all the dictators in Africa killing all their people. Why would you expect them to do anything about human trafficking?

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] antwanonfacebook 12 years ago

Thank you, thank you, thank you. The OP made me despair for human-kind. I am so relieved to see your post.

[–] Nova_UB313 12 years ago

Are some folks looking for Oscar worthy entertainment, or a depiction of heinous crimes that take place regularly on this planet that we all call home?

I wouldn't care if this was a film done with a hand-held, crappy quality, poor dialogue, unbelievably drawn out and boring, etc., the content is what matters to me. This film is a sad commentary of the world we live in today.

More science, less fiction.

I'm guilty of 'Z.' http://tinyurl.com/38ljacy

[–] Thomas Dunson 11 years ago

Nova_UB313, as if you couldn't have both, an interesting suject matter and a competently made film (which this is not, though certainly not because of the unflattering look of its star[s], but because of poor writing, pacing, staging, poor near-everything). You and the Transformers crowd are actually using the same kind of "argument" to excuse the poorest of filmmaking.

Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to (P. Green)

[–] spookyrat1 12 years ago

"youve missed the point entirely...

first off, this was based on a true story. its not meant to be a transformers style of movie,"

Thanks for stating the obvious Andro.

The film is designed to have a semi-documentary feel to it. It's not the sort of production where stars necessarily show off their best physical assets.

[–] Chrislowski 14 years ago

Every one of The Guy-2's post has been bashing the cinematography. Are you sure you saw an official release and not some dodgy bootleg? The lighting was very well done, yes it was dark but it was a dark story set in a war-torn gloomy place. The cinematographer was Kieran McGuigan, who has won an emmy for outstanding cinematography on Bleak House and I think also did a very good job on this film.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/30/vlcsnap2011081313h11m44.png/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/844/vlcsnap2011081313h12m03.png/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/231/vlcsnap2011081313h12m46.png/

Bad lighting? Really?

Life is a horizontal fall.

--Jean Cocteau

[–] AnonymousBoy 14 years ago

I didn't have any problem with the lighting. I thought the setting was done very well. My only complaint is that I couldn't hear/understand some of it. Some parts they're either talking in another language without subtitles or just in very thick accents with loud background noise, or they're just whispering incredibly quietly.

[–] coco-su 14 years ago

Yeah I think you should stick to watching american comedies and action movies. This kind of movie requires a brain and emotions.. don't bother. What a superficial ass, watching a movie about human rights, human trafficking, women being tortured and he is worrying about how the light shows blemishes on the actresses. Just shoot yourself and save the world. Idiot.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coco-su 14 years ago

yeah yeah thanks for the correction :D

[–] fortunate1 14 years ago

I saw it last night, also in NYC, and I couldn't disagree more with the OP.
I thought the cinematography was one of the greatest strengths of the film: respectful of dogma-standards and other vérité tropes, and perfectly synchronous with the storyline and the ethos of this subject: hurried, cloudy, and not always comprehensible to the ones who witness (or even commit) the crimes. To ask that the leads be shown as unblemished is too Holly/Bolly/Nolly-wood for me.

Clearly guy2 is looking for something else in his films, emanating from his need to control reality, I suspect. But I -having lived in Bosnia for the first two years of the war there, and working now on remedying child trafficking- think he's missed the point. It's very hard to control the crimes that this film so well documents; that it strikes him as "been there-done that" is baffling to me.

There are flaws in the production, to be sure, but g2's criticisms are finally secondary to the real issues so well dealt with in "The Whistleblower".