Response to Metal Tears
METAL TEARS reviewed in AMAZING STORIES MAGAZINE
Metal Tears premiered at Noreascon Four, the World Science Fiction Convention, held at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston, MA on September 3, 2004.
Following are excerpts from reviews of the film by author Mike Resnick and Bob Faw.
"It was clear that the audience loved it. It's a wonderful effort, and stayed far closer to the original than I did when adapting SANTIAGO and THE WIDOWMAKER for Hollywood. The robot, the alien, and the older version of the narrator were excellent, and the younger version was at least adequate, and you can't get much better than that for a $6,000 film. (To give you an example: $6,000 buys approximately one-third of a -second- of VAN HELSING, the biggest turkey of the summer.) I hope they take it on the convention circuit and let people get a look at it. Believe me, it's worth the effort."
- Mike Resnick, author, Robots Don't Cry.
"John has a future as a director. The film is done with enormous sensitivity, and unlike most young directors, he is not influenced by MTV, in that he doesn't feel a need to cut away every 3 seconds. The pace is leisurely, as it should be, but never boring. You totally accept the actors as robots, and the bleakness of the world is almost palpable."
- Carol Resnick, author.
"It was much better than I expected--and I had pretty high expectations. The actor playing Sammy was superb. The lighting, set location, and limited--but appropriate--video effects were carefully and skillfully chosen for specific effects on the viewer--and worked marvelously. The lighting was over-exposed to graphically reinforce the hell-hole of a high-ultraviolet planet. The flashback videos were washed out and had "tears"--as one would expect from centuries-old equipment, no mater how well preserved. This did *not* detract from their viewability.
The film stuck closely to the original Resnick script, and the additional dialog and structural changes (such as the aging process) did not detract from the story. Using multiple actors to depict significant age differences in the same character was an excellent trade-off for what would have otherwise meant massive makeup requirements. The disease makeup tended to wash out in the added-brightness of the lighting, and probably should have been overstated to compensate. She just didn't *look* that tragically diseased. Fortunately, the dialog and other character's reactions sufficiently established that she *WAS*--and allowed us to look harder through the intense lighting to determine just how bad.
The "Younger Mike" actor could have been a bit more rehearsed to develop the irony that Resnick wrote in, but considering the level of recruiting, all of the actors were amazingly competent. My impression was, he probably didn't study the original story. My analysis was, the young Mike was doing Gary Busey fairly well, while the older Mike was doing Bruce Willis--doing Morgan Freeman--quite well. He was also an excellent casting choice, and reflected the author's sense of irony rather well. I'm pretty sure that *he* read the Resnick original.
The (alien) "partner," (Rezz) was well done--especially on such a small budget. Such creative efficiency on the part of the director, Jake, smacked of early Gene Rodenberry. The final effect under the closing credits was excellent--and fun to figure out how they did it. I'll leave it to future viewers to do so for themselves.
I saw only one true "technical glitch," and this was something that only film production people would notice--and it *glares* at them. Normal viewers would probably sense a little discomfort--but not know why. Technically speaking, he broke the "180-degree rule" in which the camera crosses the plane between characters in a single scene--resulting in characters who are talking to each other--but facing in the same direction in some of the close-ups. Fortunately the "problem" is easily fixed in post-production; needs no re-shooting; and only requires a couple of hours (or less) on the editing system to correct--so most of you will probably never see it.
The other minor "glitches" I spotted on my first viewing were either cleared up by a closer second viewing (I had missed where the mouse came from) or were so irrelevant that they could be easily attributed to directoral artistic license (such as a living tree in a high-UV world, and a minor viewpoint shift). All-in-all, I think this was an amazing film for a first effort, and considering the resources and budget available, must call it a magnificent success."
-Bob Faw, author and filmmaker.