MovieChat Forums > The Town That Dreaded Sundown (2014) Discussion > worst editing i have seen in a while...

worst editing i have seen in a while...


what is up with the editing in this movie? i'd like to see a different cut of it from a different editor, i think it'd be a better film...the way it constantly is cutting around all over the place is really distracting, pointless, and doesn't give the viewer any time to build any suspense of what is going on. it also cuts off action a lot of the time when it should have just followed through...yikes. when i went to film school, i was told over and over again that editing can make or break a movie...i think in this film it broke it for sure...i'd like to hear others' thoughts.

also, i thought the cinematography was pretty strange too...too many close-up shots, not enough establishing shots, sometimes i didn't even know where the scene was taking place because of the unnecessarily rapid editing combined with the close-ups and medium closeups that seemed to dominate most of the film...definitely think that it made the actors' performances very weak, when in reality they were probably pretty good. especially seeing as a lot of actors in this film have been very great in other features.

reply

That's funny because I also took note of the editing and visuals in the film while watching it, but not for the same reason. I feel like the film had plenty of lingering shots to point out red herrings, but also jumped around a bit to get you to pay attention to things you may miss. I don't see where it cut any of the action short unless you wanted a longer sex scene in the hotel, everything else played out fully.

As for the cinematography, I think it was also beautifully shot. The day scenes were almost surreal with how beautiful the lighting was and I enjoyed that they managed to do that in shots where characters are having conversations or physically doing things. Films that usually take place in rural settings like this typically do those kind of shots of landscapes and scenes that hold no significance to the plot in order to make the film longer.

And I don't know what you're talking about with the performances, I feel like most of the acting came across as pretty solid even with some of the weaker performances. I don't know why different angles would have anything to do with an actor's performance, but I guess that's just your opinion.

reply

Hmmm...I agree with you that the shots themselves LOOKED beautiful and surreal - dreamy, even. But the angles were very odd and in my opinion didn't serve the dialogue or story very well. The close ups were overused at the wrong times, where a wider shot would have served a lot of the action more suitably...especially moments where there's a lot of characters on screen, like in the meeting scenes. Having so many closeups kinda disoriented me and I sometimes didn't even know where they were.

As far as the editing goes, I just feel like the rhythm was off. It cut around at an odd pace and didn't really feel like it was helping build tension, but rather breaking and taking away from tension. And no, I was not implying the sex scene should have been longer. There are a few parts where it literally just cuts to the next scene very abruptly and doesn't seem like a clean cut. It seems to me that the person editing this film wanted to cut it like an action film, when it is supposed to be cut like a thriller/horror movie.

reply

I feel like the things you're saying may have made things look a bit odd, but I don't think it hurt the film. The director did several episodes of American Horror Story that I enjoyed and I think his style is just a bit less stereotypical and expected. Which I'm sure seems out of place in a slasher film since most of them seem to have a shot sequence manual.

All in all, it's one of the more entertaining and interesting slashers I've seen lately, so I guess it all comes down to what you wanted out of the film.

reply

The worst cut in the film is in the finale, when the final girl shoots the Phantom killer as he's on top of her. There is no shot of her turning her body around. It's like, shot 1: her face down on the ground. shot 2: him on top of her, pinning her down on her face. shot 3: she is now suddenly face UP and can blast him away. WTF? Really sloppy editing.

reply

[Quote] "The worst cut in the film is in the finale, when the final girl shoots the Phantom killer as he's on top of her. There is no shot of her turning her body around. It's like, shot 1: her face down on the ground. shot 2: him on top of her, pinning her down on her face. shot 3: she is now suddenly face UP and can blast him away. WTF?"


Exactly this. I usually don't notice such things if the movie is good but since this one wasn't, this scene stood out to me. I even rewound it on Netflix (which is a PITA because it takes forever to restart) just to make sure I saw it right and to show my wife.

reply

THANK YOU. I can't believe people are defending the sloppy editing of this film. Like, seriously? LOL It isn't "artistic" it is just lazy! I almost feel like they fed all of the raw footage into a program and set an algorithm to randomly splice it together. ROFL

reply

Someone took a film class.... hah

I dig it.

reply

Did you actually have a point or did you just come here to make a lame insult? Yeah, I went to film school. Does that mean I can't talk about movies now?

reply

Yeah, I agree with you on the sloppy editing. Sometimes it felt like the editor had just watched Requiem for a Dream. This feeling came to mind in one particular scene, can't remember it exactly, even though I just finished watching it. But I think it had something with a coffee machine in it.

And another thing that was so abruptly cut was the way the cut the scene when she was about to tell Nick that she's leaving for California. It was like:

A) Get message "come over I have to tell you something and maybe I'll let you fck me"
B) Put on pants.
C) Get car keys)
D) Arrived at destination.

And I hated the scene where Nick was killed. That has to be the most lame ass death scene I've ever seen. The damn flickering, the sound of it all and then boom - DEAD. And how the hell did the two killers manage to go unnotice in a small town like Texarkana? Not that I know anything about Texarkana - but I got the feeling that everyone knew everyone and when Jami's boyfriend was killed and she was being called a slut by his mother at his funeral it just made the whole thing so dumb.

I have so many questions regarding this movie that I just might start a thread of my own on this matter. But all in all I agree with the editing part. Can't complain about the cinematography too much. I thought it was an interresting way of shooting a movie. But sometimes it got a little too weird. I was happily surprised when I saw that a Swedish guy did the music for this movie - since I myself is from Sweden.

reply

YES. Thank you so much. I think the one that comes to mind as being SUPER weirdly edited was one of the group scenes where the townspeople are having a meeting. That may be the same scene you're talking about because I think there was a coffee machine. Lol but the way that it cut around the group using exclusively close-ups and non-rhythmic cuts was extremely bizarre, and distracting from the dialogue.

AND YES, NICK's death was edited HORRIBLY. Suddenly he was dead, and that was it. It all happened so quickly and was edited so poorly that you could literally blink and miss it. Was that symbolic of anything? No, just bad editing, just like the other scenes in the film. Some of it was actually edited normally though, which leads me to believe that either the director or someone else added bad edits at the last minute, or maybe the person was trying for a particular style and just failed miserably. IDK

I do agree, the cinematography was beautiful, almost too beautiful to be a horror film. :P But I enjoyed it, it was a pity that a lot of it was lost in the sh*tty editing though. :( The acting wasn't bad either, but the editing made it look awkward a lot of times. A main issue the editor has I think, is dialogue editing. Many odd cuts when people are talking when it is very unmotivated.

reply

I think you should watch more movies, just not stupid movies that do the same things all over again and make you believe thats the way they should be. I am glad the editor and DOP know the rules and break them in such a beautiful way that is rarely seen in horror films these days. I loved it. I really really really think you just chose the wrong movie to show off you went to film school.

reply

LOL that's really funny. I have seen a LOT of movies, and I did NOT choose this film to "show off" that I went to film school.

I LOVE movies that "break the rules" as far as filmmaking is concerned - that being said, this movie didn't "break the rules" in order to serve a purpose. The editing "broke the rules" because the editor was either inexperienced, or just lacking any kind of knowledge of editing.

The editing was not beautiful, give me a break. The cinematography was beautiful, but it was marred by the seemingly random cuts that did not tie together well at all. If you are going to break the rules of editing, it still has to make sense. It did not make sense in this instance, whatsoever, and left me wondering WTF was going on a lot of the time. That is alright too, for the viewer to be wondering what is going on in a movie, and a sense of disassociation can be utilized for effect properly. AGAIN, it was not utilized correctly in this instance.

Then again, this is my opinion, so you don't have to agree if you don't want to. But that's pretty presumptuous of you to assume that I just want to show off. I wanted to start a discussion and see what others had to say, which is the purpose of these boards.

reply

I am so sorry I read your mind, and I am so sorry you had to write an essay trying to explain yourself. I am sorry your dream that the House Bunny is at 8.5 has not been achieved, I am also sorry you think the ending of ¨The taking of Deborah Logan¨ is ¨profound and shocking¨. We need more establishing shots cos you know... ¨I went to film school¨
GG

reply

LMAO yeah I don't even know why I bothered "explaining myself" aka trying to have a discussion with an idiot like yourself. You seem like a very unhappy person, and now I just feel bad for you. You must be extremely bored if all you have to do is attack people who have a different opinion than you on IMDB boards and try and make them feel inadequate for whatever reason. Did you get rejected recently or something? LOL :P The only pretentious one in this situation is you, because you are making baseless attacks that are not even warranted. Have a good life and hopefully you stop being a pathetic prick one day. :)

reply

Nop, and your pretentious film school post will be on imdb for the rest to see. I guess ego beats shame.

reply

If by me just merely mentioning film school is pretentious to you then you are an idiot. THE. END. I was merely stating where I learned the whole "editing can make or break a film" statement. Get a life, dude.

reply

DiD I touch your heartstrings? Why u still here answering? U go get a life, they are selling them at wallmart x1, you need to go fast tho. Get some establishing shots not to get lost, that way you can go faster.

reply

Lol wow I feel extra bad for you now because that was just a sad attempt at insulting me. Hahaha thanks for the laugh. :)

reply

go away

reply

Are you like 15 years old? This is my thread. rofl

reply

Go home!

reply

LOL I am home! Why are you still here? STAHHHP.

reply

Just saw it and i have to agree with he O.P the editing was way too fast and the shots were far too short, it was like they just covered every scene from 20 different camera angles then tried to use them all as quickly as possible. I think it comes down to a problem of direction, the film had elements that worked but was completely unauthored like a tv episode would be- basically not directed at all. The scenes and shots were thrown at us at a breakneck pace that destroyed any potential for tension at all, thats fine for television(which is always tonally dead) but films require a much better control and authorship of the visual language. It's a shame because the art direction/production design and some of the cinematography(not the sloppy dutch angle shots for no reason), especially the longer takes that were nicely blocked at times were good.
The sheer number of pointless cuts and excessive camera angles almost felt like they were trying to make us conscious of the technique in some sort of Goddardian fashion at times. Come to think of it the film was also quite bound up in self reflexivity as well obviously. I wonder if they just got carried away with trying to make the form more post modern than the content...

reply

Also completely agree with the OP.

I really liked this film a lot. I rated it a 7/10. Would have easily given it an 8 or even a 9 but the editing caused me to lower my rating.

It had a great story (love the whole kind of a remake but takes place in the same world as the original movie angle), strong performances, beautiful cinematography, etc. But damn the editing in this was choppy as hell. It just jumped from scene to scene, shot to shot with zero pace or flow. I'd be watching one scene and then BAM now we are in a totally different scene.

The action was extremely hard to follow (especially at the end when Addison Timlin is being chased around the town.) They could have drawn out some of those shots and created an eerie scene, but it flew by so fast I couldn't even tell where she was or what has happening. In the span of the like 30 seconds she went from the gas station to some random building to the middle of the street and then to the woods. It didn't flow at all. So hectic and fast paced I couldn't keep up.

It's a real shame because had this been edited together more cohesively this would be a real gem of a slasher film. Unfortunately because it was so choppy and at times confusing to watch (due solely to the editing, not the script) this film was rated lower then it should be.

Still really enjoy the movie, but every time I watch it I can't help but be bummed out at how this good film could have been great if handled better.




reply

YES, I'm so glad that you agree! I agree 100% that the reason this has such a low rating has a lot to do with the extremely shoddy editing. Even if most viewers don't realize that the editing is choppy and awful, they at least know at a subconscious level that something is "off" with the film...and it certainly isn't the acting, cinematography, writing, tone, atmosphere, etc.! The cast should be kinda pissed that their work was cut up in such a haphazard manner!

I agree that the ending of the film was especially problematic - the chase scene was so weird, I didn't really know what was happening half of the time. You hit the nail on the head by saying they should have drawn out the suspense by making the shots last longer, rather than being so quick and jumpy. Not only did I not know where the characters were, but I had no concept of time. Very bizarre overall, and I cannot believe that the director let this slip by! Maybe there will be a director's cut in the near future and he can fix this mess!

reply