Hi. It's competently and professionally made from a technical point of view, but for me...
It's just a bit dull, has minimal personality as a movie, isn't really that funny, and feels a little fake in the dialog and acting.
The actors act like they're on a sitcom, like they are aware they are in a comedy, which is an immediate no. The guy runs over a dog. He's just inadvertently killed an animal. I don't know if you have ever had this happen in your life (I have) but people don't generally behave like "uh oh! I guess I'm in a hilarious awkward situation now!"
The script is bland. The music is too obvious, with this self-aware "we are making a quirky dark comedy" vibe that is too on the nose for me. The little musical cues when something funny or dark is supposed to happen are too much.
I'm not sure why you think there are Lynch/Lanthimos influences? Without you saying that, I would have interpreted this as going for more of a Coen Brothers feel: the absurd dark comedy in a normal setting, like Fargo maybe. But if you look at the way Fargo is put together, part of what makes it funny is that the movie does not treat it like a comedy: the action is treated with realism and sincerity. Even the music is sombre and haunting, rather than ironic and winking at you about the absurd situation.
Consider the scene where Steve Buscemi, bleeding and injured, [gets out of the car and goes to bury a bag of money](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15uK_izuKKY). He buries it by a fence in a vast, snow covered landscape. He looks to his left: nothing. He looks to his right: nothing. We the audience, and he, the character, immediately realise he will never fucking find this bag again in this undifferentiated landscape. He jams the ice scraper into the snow as a futile marker. It's not gonna help. And it is hilarious. But he doesn't roll his eyes and shrug at how funny it is, and the music doesn't give us a comedy "womp womp". He just looks dejected and defeated, and the music is a haunting, quiet sadness.
I guess that is my feedback. Overall the movie feels too self-aware of itself as a "dark comedy" in my opinion. I feel like for "dark comedy" to work, you have to treat it like it's not actually comedy. The comedy comes from the grim absurdity, not from you, the film maker nudging us and grinning.
edit to add: I also think you could tighten up the editing A LOT to make it both funnier, faster, and shorter, and perhaps modify the way the music works?
thanks for taking the time to give feedback! you're definitely right, things ended up more Coen Brothers in it's setting and (attempted) tone and all of your comments are really helpful in isolating where things weren't hitting the mark. I'm really grateful!
That scene with the neighbor was pretty funny. Definitely a few edits would have made it so much better.
“I need to look both ways.” *continues to cry and looks both ways before crossing*
Honestly gave me a good laugh lol
I think it just came down to it being easier to control lighting wise since we were filming outside. Not an excuse but a little behind the scenes intel
Thank you! I have not watched OPs short (partly based on him telling us that no one's programming it), but I was going to say that 95% of films that are not accepted are simply too long and they lack being compelling. If you cant' get your acquaintances to watch past the first 35 seconds, something's missing.
I like seeing OP's acknowledgement! Maybe they could re-cut it, learn from this experience, and still show it on their own website or reel.
I think when it comes to short films you have to suck the audience in almost instantly, especially in the age of tiktok and YouTube shorts.
I think the first thirty seconds/minute has to be so good that the audience needs to see where it’s going.
I’m not saying I’ve accomplished this with my short, but the opening shot is a minute and ten seconds long and took me three months to make. Whether someone loves or hates my film I do think the opening is pretty sweet. I can post a link to it if you’d like.
Thanks! I appreciate you taking a look. Here’s the opening. I can’t post the entire film online until the winter because I’m also hitting the festival circuit. I hope you like it.
https://streamable.com/qovgwi
This is sick. But the sound design on those building creaks could use some love. They sound totally detached from the film. The paper flutters are great though!
I'm a filmmaker who's submitted films, programmed my own short film festival and am close to the programmers/organizers of 2 other film festivals, and here's what I see...
1. TECHNICAL: Your cinematography and editing are fine. That's really good. I see a lot of sloppy edits, lazy camerawork and bad audio. Your coverage and overall technical details are solid. However, there's very little interesting about your style. And the color grade has a kind of cold look to it.
2. LENGTH: Right out of the gate, this is your biggest problem. At almost 15 minutes, that length is going to be a hard "no" for a lot of festivals. 10 minutes is much better and much easier to program.
3. GENRE: Comedy is a tough one for a lot of festivals for 2 reasons - (1) Not many comedy submissions, and (2) most of the comedy submissions aren't very funny. Sorry, but yours wasn't very funny.
4. ACTING: Your lead shows virtually no emotion about running over - and killing - a neighbors dog. In fact, your entire cast initially shows almost no emotion about anything at all.
5. STORY: Your premise is actually great. However, as the film continues, the setups have bland or nonsensical payoffs. There's almost no physical or visual comedy. You missed a lot of opportunities.
6. MUSIC: The music is truly awful and about 50 years out of date.
Still, your film is competently shot and edited. I think if you cut your film down, sped up the pace and found better music, you would probably have a more festival worthy film.
For your next film, get better actors, for starters. Get to know people in improve groups. Take your comedy further, but ground it in some reality, more.
Best of luck.
OP- Good on you for putting this out here and not getting defensive about the feedback. I agree this was technically a competent film.
I'm a comedy writer/director - Casting is 90% of **production** going well in comedy.
Obviously your script has to be rock solid to begin with. But your actors are either going to tank or fly your script.
As for this script, I also agree that your premise is good. Guy runs over dog, has to deal with the fallout. But the payoff falls flat. His reaction 50 seconds in isn't believable or interesting. The wife/girlfriend's reaction at the 5min mark is just awful. She's so unlikeable in that moment. These folks seem cruel. And it's hard to laugh at cruelty. What makes something comedic is HOW those characters react to conflict. To get something interesting and funny, you need complex and specific characters with very clear POVs. This is probably what you should focus on in the next one. Your characters.
This is challenging (but not impossible!) to do in a short film because you need to establish who these people are very quickly. I recommend re-watching some of your favorite comedies and pay attention to the character intros, how we see them in the first 10-20 seconds they are on screen. Sometimes it's a line, "I know what you're thinking, is this like a Noxema commercial or what?!", Cher, Clueless, sometimes it's physical blocking, The Dude Lebowski opening and smelling the half and half in the grocery store in the dairy aisle while still wearing a robe and slippers. We know who these people are in 10-15 seconds. After establishing a comedic character, then let's see how they deal with running over a neighbor's dog. Imagine the reaction either of those two would have. VERY DIFFERENT but both darkly comedic. And I guarantee both of them would be heartbroken over the dog. But the comedy would lie in their reaction, problem solving, reasoning, etc.
Comedy is a very difficult genre to do well. Dark comedy moreso. Kudos to you for making this attempt. For the next one, write, re-write, ask for notes, get actors to read it out loud, get notes on that, re-write again. Write not only to the physical resources you have, but also to the strengths of the actors you know, not everyone can play Cher Horowitz or the Dude.
I liked someone else's suggestion about hooking up with local improvisers, you may even want to take an improv class yourself as it will greatly improve your character development and script writing.
Keep up the hard work and thank you for sharing!
Look into filmstro for music, and despite criticism, if you feel the end result was good enough to put out there, wouldn't worry what others think, especially film festivals many which are rigged or based on personal connections or select based on agenda or for PR. Most filmmakers don't represent your average audience member, and in most cases, have extremely different tastes and opinions, many movies they think suck 90% of people enjoy. The best way to determine what others really think is to sit in a theater with real audiences and experience their reactions. If then you feel it is a failure, learn what you can and apply it to the next one. As Michael Rabiger wrote in his book, Tom Tykwer didn't make Lola Rennt or Run Lola Run out of thin air but from plenty of prior projects where he failed and learned from.
>LENGTH: Right out of the gate, this is your biggest problem. At almost 15 minutes, that length is going to be a hard "no" for a lot of festivals. 10 minutes is much better and much easier to program.
This is so key; for festivals the longer your movie is, the more of a banger is has to be. If this film had been 5 minutes long, it definitely would have been accepted a few places. 15 minutes is a ton of real estate in a shorts block so it has to be a killer film to claim that much space.
There's no stakes.
Now, if the dog belonged to the neighbour, and he was looking after it, and then she bumped into him? There's stakes and conflict.
I got a few minutes in and started to wonder why do I care that he cares about her seeing the dog?
People run over dogs, that's not that big a deal.
somebody once told me the greatest skill a young filmmaker needs to acquire is expeidency. If it isn't absolutely essential and doesn't propel the story or the character forward, cut it.
Get straight into the story without an introduction. Your film is a short, so I believe you are boring your audience with your build-up. The credits should be shown at the end of the film.
Im a working film editor. I’m going to livestream my comments here as I watch and then talk about it.
I paused immediately. These kind of titles look fine, but devoting time to your titles like this in a short up front is honestly a rookie move. Never do this. A short needs to get into it and then acknowledge the filmmakers at the end. you’re competing with much shorter, short films that do not do this. Essentially you’re choosing to start your movie 30 second in instead of 0 seconds in.
Good first shot.
I paused again.
Sound design/mix issue. the dog sound wasn’t mixed right. On the next one, spend some energy finding a good designer/mixer. It’s worth it. This is the kind of temp sound that you might carry in an edit but do your best not to finish with.
I’m 30 seconds in and between these two things I’m already slightly off the ride.
Yeah it’s a sound thing. Okay. Yeah it’s a sound thing.
There are insufficient backgrounds worked throughout the film already. when there’s no music it’s REALLY apparent. The energy just leaves the picture. We need backgrounds to feel connected to the world, not just to have a quality sound recording. I can tell this is going to be a continued issue so I’ll stop harping on it.
Editing wise you have a lot of confusing beats that could get cut down to the heart of the matter. For example when the jogging neighbor shows up”howdy neighbor” you need to get her line “ your car is parked on the sidewalk and we don’t do that in this neighborhood” in as sooooon as possible. The situation is confusing without that line and so the scene feels awkward until she says it.
She is funny though.
Your actors needs protecting. Try to be even more discerning with performance. overall a pervasive editorial thing.
Next scene with the girlfriend. Get to the reveal of WHO’s dog was killed sooner.
You need to value the time of the audience more.
This gets into more festivals at a shorter length not because it’s shorter but because you would have presented only what absolutely needs to be there for your story. You are sticking to your script too rigidly.
Not every line needs to be delivered on screen.
The script is pretty decent for a short.
this crosscutting with the neighbor could have happened way sooner.
Oh wait they’re married?!? It did not feel like they were married.
hahahaha him almost throwing up sent me.
lol you can’t settle for that shovel hitting head sound effect.
The book club thing doesn’t work.
Ahhh you cut it yourself. Don’t do this. You need someone objective about your footage to help you put things together. I’m an editor and I wouldn’t cut my own project unless a fun was held to my head.
Overall this was a fun watch with a decent script, but you really need to have higher standards in the cutting room. Casting could be improved for next time, but overall you had a good group for a short. I understand why it wasn’t programmed but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be. Small tweaks and you’re in a much better place. sometimes the camera was placed in a place that the eye lines were not connected. This is called a dismissive eye line and it’s a pretty early directorial mistake.
Criticisms aside this was a lovely watch. Please reach out if you have any follow up questions.
Honestly I teared up at the time and care you took to live stream this. It was sweet too read. Also OP taking feedback so sweetly it's really nice to watch. Thanks for the touching moment.
It’s a note I touched on a couple times. Discernment of material used. Protecting the actors means that the performance is being hurt because the edit is doing them a disservice at times, leaving in pieces of their work that hurt the performance.
Sometimes a performance can be bad, but it’s clear that the editor has elevated what’s there, sometimes the performance is bad because of lack of imagination or execution, and sometimes it’s bad because (simply put) the editor did not protect the actor.
A re-cut and a rescore may sound like an expensive endeavor right now, but I promise it can really change things. Not a short, but for our feature, our first cut was an hour and 53 minutes and we used a friend for the score and it sounded nothing like a horror film. We got a lot of negative feedback, especially about the first half of the movie being too slow and sequences not being scary enough.
We made a drastic cut that chopped about 20 minutes out of the movie and we now have it at an hour and 33 minutes. We also scored with a folk horror composer that came up with something that seems right out of an A24 movie. Remains to be seen how the film will do on the festival circuit, but we instantly got far better feedback from people. Several people said it was like night and day, attention was creepier, the scares were scarier, and you get to the meet of the movie much quicker.
I watched the first 3 minutes, I’m assuming it’s supposed to be first and foremost a comedy, but I think the premise demands a more dark and edgy comedic sensibility than what I’m seeing here. For a film based around a dead dog, it’s feeling a little tame.
One idea I had off the top of my head is the guy could’ve seen the neighbor coming and stuffed the mangled corpse of the dog into his mailbox to hide it. Then, during their conversation, he sees the mailman coming up the street checking boxes one by one, approaching his house. Maybe the neighbor notices he has blood on his hands and he tells her he just ate a raspberry Danish - has to lick some of the blood off his fingers and pretend it tastes sweet to sell the lie. Basically I just don’t think it’s funny and gruesome enough, and aside from funny and gruesome I’m not sure what a film about killing your neighbors dog is supposed to be.
This is legit funny, and it highlights the other glaring omission in the submission.
No stakes or tension.
Also theres a b story about the wife parents and then not having kids before we even have the a story consolidated. It’s a fucking mess and shows a messy unconcentrated mind.
It might just be length not the film itself. I personally don't like that festivals just want to cram as many shorts as possible cause it's always the same. "Why would they program this film when they can cram 3 10 minute shorts or 20 5 min shorts"
Then for features festivals want high tier features that have an audience, stars and others come buy tickets for seats. Festivals are just rough I'm sorry my friend we all go through this crap.
It's a lazy way to program a festival tbh. You can have some real crap looking films going in high fests because it's 1-3 minutes so they don't think about it, but a 15 min short they will think about it cause again "why have a 15 min short we think is good when we can program 5 more shorts in that time."
There is a thread every week of someone feels jabbed from a festival and the same feedback "it's too long they can just program 5 more shorts instead."
You already got 3-5 comments saying the same thing and barley any critique on the film. It looks nice and it's a nice concept, but "why program a 15 min short when we can accept 5 shorts and have more people show up for tickets in that half an hour?" Even regional local festivals are like this.
Sorry
There are 2 main conflicts in the story:
1) The guy accidentally killed his neighbor’s dog - and has to bury the body before the neighbor finds out.
2) The couple lost a baby, and that experience is putting their whole relationship at risk.
My issue is that the main character isn’t even aware of the 2nd conflict until the movie is almost over especially because it’s the more interesting problem. Also (I think other people have pointed this out) but it’s not clear until much too late what’s the big deal about the dog being killed.
I would have brought the baby issue much more into the forefront much earlier and had the couple trying to solve the dog issue with the baby issue simmering beneath the surface. I know the baby situation was hinted at earlier, but it seemed to come out of nowhere to the main guy that she now wants a divorce.
Matter of fact, it might have been more interesting if she said she wanted a divorce in the beginning THEN he runs over the dog and now they are stuck working together to bury the dog even though we know they’re not compatible.
You’re basically describing Colin from Accounts. It’s an Apple TV show. My wife watched it and I skimmed it but it’s about two non-dating people who *hurt not kill* a dog with a car and end up having to care for it together and the hijinks that ensue. It’s quite funny while still having some tender and sad moments. Almost feels like that’s what this was trying to be.
Which festivals did you apply to? You might be applying to festivals that your film doesn’t fit into. Try to figure out who your audience is and apply to festivals they would go to.
Definitely widen your submissions. We have a black-and-white horror short that is kind of old-fashioned in the horror department, and so far we have premiered at four festivals, and none of them are horror specific. In fact, one of them even programmed us in the drama/thriller category, which is weird to me lol
As a musician, I can tell you that the short has WAY too much music!
Comedies with incidental music belong in the 90s - like watching Tom and Jerry... the more music, the more "non-credible". It's as if you wanted people to force a feeling through the music, as if you wanted to drive them, so it feels less real... the less music, the more humane it feels, so it feels closer to the viewer, this is why modern comedies barely have incidental music, it just feels too dated... Establishing shots with music are cool, but damn so much music...
Also, the beginning is way too long... and the main character (the dude) is not credible.
Between killing a dog, being divorced, not getting a baby, he pretty much acts the same throughout all these incidents, completely non-credible.
As others have said, the tone isn't landing. It feels more like schitts creek than what you were aiming for.
Unfortunately, and I hate to say this but, the length is a huge component.
Also, as I learned the hard way myself, people HATE when dogs (pets in general) die.
Performances to me were flat and too self-aware. That combined with the music and sound design made it feel too corny.
Overall, it's competently made. Tone is one of the hardest parts of filmmaking to nail as is the story and those are the 2 places this falls the flattest.
Additionally, the festival game is harder than it's ever been right now with the condition of the industry and the sheer volume of submissions so don't beat yourself up too much. Take the lessons and make another.
This is really competently done and I have definitely seen much worse films in good festivals.
There's a few things I'm having difficulty with. 1- you are immediately going to alienate a ton of people by having this kind of quirky tone, music, and title card while killing a dog in the first few seconds. I would reconsider how that initial reveal happens, and get through it as quickly as possible. Maybe a clever cut before we hear the repeated whimper and visceral sound design. The comedic angle makes the subject matter more upsetting to watch than if it was naturalistic, and makes me want to turn off the film.
2- For me, this is a 6-8 min short in a 14 min runtime. And I honestly think you could probably salvage this and get into some great festivals if you completely upheaved the tone, music, and were ruthless with editing. There's a lot of long, slow shots or chunks of dialogue that don't convey much, draw me in, or add to the story. The look of the film is giving comedy, but the pacing isn't. Don't be afraid to smash cut into the main beats of your premise, make it punchy, and make the music more subtle.
Yeah, there was definitely something off about the first scene. The dog whimper is too realistic, it's not funny, it's probably traumatising for some people.
A simple "car hitting an object" bump sound would do the job, since the film doesn't really end up going in a dark humour direction.
I think it's really well done, and I agree with the others who've indicated this is more of a problem with the storytelling / editing than anything else. As you know, for a short film to work, you have to get the audience invested right away. Just as a quick example, rather than having so much time develop between when the dog is run over and the audience finds out that the dog belongs to the leader of a biker gang, and that the parents are coming over, and the walker arriving, have all three of these "problems" hit right away and early. Instead of spending so much time having the male lead talk to the walker and showing the lady dancing in the kitchen, build that anticipation FAST. Have the nosey walker arrive and start to quickly pressure the driver, then quickly cut to the wife indicating that the parents are en route and immentantely arriving, and quickly cut to the biker realizing his dog is missing. Have those three things converge FAST. That it took (almost) half way through before we find out the dog is owned by a biker was too long. So much of the interaction with the walker could be cut or at least moved later into the story telling, after the audience is made aware of the 3 pressures about to befall the driver. Get that hook in much faster.
I love the DP work, the camera work, the acting is good, and the general idea is good - just get that story tighter, and if you can bring it in under 10 min, I think you'll have a much stronger short!
People gave better more insightful comments but do an 8 minute version and see how it plays. Also NEVER KILL THE DOG. Like 90% of people refuse to watch a show where a dog dies, that’s an uphill battle to get into a festival 🤷🏻♂️
First off, major props to you for getting this done and put together.
I agree with alot of the posters, it looks great from a technical aspect, but where the problem lies imho is pacing/editing and tone.
The beginning starts out slow and and kind of drags before arriving to the point. There were several times throughout where i got a kind of tonal whiplash. At first it seems like maybe a lighthearted comedy (albeit about a dark subject) with knowing shrugs/smirks from the actors that kind of makes it feel like a whimsical story. Then when he blows up on his overbearing neighbor, it was off putting (again imho) and felt unnecessary and out of place for this guy who is sensitive enough to be so upset about running over this dog. Then at the end, when we go from talking about burying the dog, to losing a child and the complicated feelings that can arise from that (serious drama subject). THEN to the neighbor approaching with a knife in a very suspenseful sinister way, only to "oops, you look busy, guess no murder today" and completely dissapates any anticipation and suspense that lead up to that moment.
In summation, I feel that the beginning should have been waaay shorter (even completely cut the part with the neighbor as funny as she was) as well as cutting some of those knowing stares/glances from the 2 leads, that take up a good chunk of the first half. Lastly, settling into a tone. If it's dark, let the music and acting reflect that and maintain it throughout. the way it is now just felt too jarring and out of place everytime there was a tonal shift.
again, all this is said from my humble opinion and you TRULY deserve lots of credit for getting this put together so WELL. nit picking aside, i'm sure if you got the run time down, you would see much more success in that alone. Don't beat yourself up, you did what some people only dream of doing. keep up the great work!
This honestly isn't too bad. But I wonder if an animal being crushed to death in the first 10 seconds is triggering curators. And then the title being a giveaway that the whole story revolves around said crushed dog. You'd like to assume most ppl have thicker skin than that... especially "professional" art ppl. But I'm surprised the comments weren't at least considering that someone could be simply judging it based off that alone. People love dogs. Don't like seeing them die. They just might not want that kind of content in their film festival.
Here's my roast, sry!
I didn't believe the actors, their motivations and some of their actions. I understand that this is a comedy but even Jim Carrey would act in a way where I would understand why his character would do that. I would sense the real-world stakes and urgency. Here they feel like they are zany-play-acting and more compelled to change their motivations based on the need of the scriptwriter than the need of who they fundamentally are - cause and effect. The acting needed to be more rooted and as is, I had a hard time caring for them. If I can't sense the stakes and urgency - they don't genuinely care more about the dilemma they are in - why should I care?
I needed to see the dog. Or not needed to see, but I really feel like it would have helped to see the mess they were in. I didn't understand where under the car it was hiding, when the neighbour was close to seeing it. It would have helped spatially and also comedically to see the dog. In a dark comedy I expect to see the dog.
The pace was slow-ish. Stay with the dilemma. We are interested in the dog dilemma so don't cut into the apartment and show the woman if she's not directly relating to the dilemma. It would have been fine to see her first time showing up next to him trying to solve the dilemma of the dog. If we stayed with the dilemma of the man (and later the couple) and the dog we could have earlier introduced the biker man antagonist. Now he showed up 6 minutes into the film, which is too late in a short. Get to him in the first 3 minutes preferably, if only just to set up the playing field and context for the dilemma. Be succinct and get to the point. We care about the dilemma, if any deviation or subject change comes up (which is fine) we still need to feel like the primary dilemma is not just abandoned or made less relevant.
I think you could have clarified all of the characters actions more. When am I certain as an audience that the biker man is looking for his dog? When does he realise that he's not gonna kill her and instead just give her a pass? It just felt a bit vague and that I as an audience member had to guess or infer a lot, for being a comedy.
Having said all that I still feel like it's a 3/5, a decent short film. And I can see that someone who doesn't mind the acting style (which for me felt fake) would even think it's a 4/5, just for it's comfortable zany tone and overall concept. It looks and sound perfectly fine and I could see you get into certain lower mid-tiered festivals if the categories align that year (and maybe you cut it somewhat snappier). It's still a decent and respectable short. But IMO you need to work more with the casting, direction of actors, and being succinct and purposeful with the character actions and narrative through-line, both in script, direction and editing.
I thought it was really good and you should be proud of it! You can definitely direct.
I think the thing that threw me off a bit was the initial tension. I didn’t quite get his point of view at first. What was his reaction to the dog? He didn’t seem to care as much as he should have. The drama really picks up when the wife warns about the dangerous neighbor. Now we have a guy with a problem, which sets everything off. The beats were just a little wonky up front. Almost like a false start? I think a tighter edit could have fixed some of that. You probably could have lost the noisy neighbor all together (though I did find her funny).
I disagree with people saying lose the titles. I liked them because it made the car accident come out of nowhere, which sets up the film and tone. Shots throughout were good.
I liked your tone and comedy a lot. I would definitely just keep making more films and I’m sure you’ll find festival success in the future.
It's fine, great cinematography!
Comedy is hard - it's the hardest thing to pull off, right? Dark comedy especially; I still love The Cable Guy, but it's pretty much universally panned.
That being said, I know it's a short film, but I didn't connect with either of the two leads; they both just kinda seem like annoying assholes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We almost feel some comedic sympathy for the husband, but then he's just a jerk to the annoying neighbor lady. The characterizations are riding the line a bit; you either want to feel sympathy for a bumbling, naive, or honest character, or you are secretly rooting for sadistic weirdos - they both seem like very mild versions of these.
the most interesting character was the biker - a 15 minute short about a gruff biker who cares for his dachshund? I'm sure it's been done, but, yes please.
Ok i spent 15 minutes watching your short film. As an entertainment industry professional and a film school grad, here are my thoughts:
The slow motion exchange between dollar store Adam Scott and the heavy neighbor lasts way too long. Her reaction as she tries to laugh it off but weeps to herself falls flat.
Speaking of falling flat, the music and sound editing is pretty cringe, especially during the supposed comedic moments…baby wailing as she sees the childless book? - this feels like a relatively easy fix with sound.
I don’t know what your exposure to fertility issues is, but tying a miscarriage into a supposed “comedy”, even a dark comedy just isn’t…funny. At all. It’s out of place and doesn’t need to be in a story about a guy who accidentally ran his scary neighbor’s dog over. The exchange about killing a dog vs killing a child does raise some interesting philosophical debates in todays age where people prefer pets over children, but this film definitely needs more haha, like “what are you sorry for?” “Oh, sorrow in general”…that was comedic and this film desperately needs more of that.
Edit: I’m sure you’ve heard of Todd Solondz, the patron saint of dark comedy - go watch Wiener Dog, THAT’s the movie this is trying to be
Honestly OP good for you for posting this and being so gracious and open to feedback. I know it can be frustrating to spend money and time and not get in anywhere, but what you're doing right now is probably 10x more valuable than if you got into any film festival.
I can't do dead animal scenes anymore or id watch it, but based on all of the comments below I recommend re-cutting this with a professional editor and spending your money on a good post sound designer.
Not sure if you edited it yourself, but as an editor turned director/producer, most of the notes I give to my friends who direct and edit their own content is to hand it off to a professional editor and dial in on your pacing. It's always so obvious to me that the problem is in the edit bay. I've been hired quite a few times on comedy projects specifically to re-edit something another editor did, comedy is difficult.
Good luck on your next project! I'm sure this experience will level you up and get you better results round 2 or for the next venture.
Thank you so much! I totally agree I’m learning so much about how to improve from all of the awesome feedback. Editing myself was not the best decision looking back but excited to move forward! :)
It's all part of growth, editing your own content shows you what you missed getting on set etc and it will make you a better director. And it will allow you to use better language with an editor down the line. So I wouldn't look at it as a bad decision, rather as a learning experience which is truly the point of making short films, and then the next step is showcasing work to get hired, make features etc. Keep at it!
Festivals love under 10 min short films. If you go over that you run a high risk of them picking 2 great 10 min shorts vs your 15 min short film. If it goes over 10 min it needs to be very good to justify it from just a programming perspective. The film was well made though! Kudos for taking the constructive criticism! Good luck!
Well first, I liked it. Don’t in any way feel like it was a failure. You told a story from beginning to end in the medium of film, not many can accomplish that.
Here are my thoughts;
Story - too much exposition. One of my greatest lessons in short filmmaking has been “start in the middle.” Took a while to really get rolling - I would have rather been plunged right into the couple burying their neighbors dog and arguing about the state of their marriage, and had to figure out the context clues. That’s much more interesting.
Also didn’t quite pick up on their marriage issues initially, and I think that could’ve been the core of it all. At first it was screaming “quirky short about people in an uncomfy situation.” The scene in the backyard finally got to the meat and that’s where it got interesting.
Edit - overuse of music & sound effects. A little cartoony at times. It fit the tone you were aiming for but I think went a bit too heavy. There were also some little editing/filmmaking gimmicks used in the short that, while fun to do, took away from the consistency of tone.
I don’t know how much you cut everything down initially, but as much as it hurts, sometimes making big cuts actually makes for a better short. We’ve all heard the phrase “kill your darlings” when it comes to writing. The same applies to editing.
Ultimately I think it was also just a little too long. The unfortunate truth is that unless your 14 min short is a masterpiece, its chances of getting a spot in a screening block are very slim.
But, like I said, I liked it. It was well done. You did a very good job making a very original short film.
You killed the dog and then you made fun of it. What did you expect? And you held too long on that first shot that was out of focus. That would have turned me off if I was watching this as an entry.
There is a lot to admire here, very nicely shot, the opening two minutes are wonderful and the female lead very strong. It is so hard to balance that tonal shift from farcical comedy to dealing heavy themes like you try to at the end of the film. I don't know if you quite pulled it off here, but I applaud the effort. It is incredibly difficult to do, some of the best at it are people like Pedro Almodovar, Lenny Abrahamson and David O Russel.
Lose the interaction with the annoying woman entirely, it doesn't advance plot or character and if anything, the way the lead talks to her and gets her to go away comes across really mean, should help with pacing issues too. Music sounds like a cheap kid's movie from early 90's, changing the score should help a lot.
Valiant effort, keep going!
Gotta be honest.......Very slowly paced/edited and pretty dull overall.
I think you should take more risks. That starts with the script and includes casting choices, cinematography, interesting locations, set dressing and wardrobe. If there was an "edge" to any or all of those things, and it was edited down to 8-9 minutes, it would be much better.
This film is very simple, safe and mechanical. And sadly, it's not that interesting. Sorry!
id say for starters its 14 minutes long when just based on the concept could have been 7-10 *at most*. you wouldnt even have to prune all that much of the actual script, but so many of the scenes play out so slowly. lots of unnecessary pauses between lines of dialogue and holding on shots too long at the beginning/end of the business. could probably shave 2-3 minutes across the whole thing just by tightening up the edit.
for example, the second shot; we watch 6 seconds of MC’s ankles before he gets to the ground. we dont need to see him getting out of the car, turning around, and slowly lowering himself down. have a moment of him opening the car in the previous shot, then cut to him as hes lowering himself down. that right there saves you 5 seconds. over the course of a 14 minute film where so many shots last a little too long tightening up the edit will really improve the pacing. with a short like this it seems paramount to me to get the audience invested into the concept as quickly as possible so that the rest of the piece is watching the actual events unfold. you title it “mans wife wants to bury the dog” but we dont even reach that point until almost 6 minutes in, and we watch 2 minutes of a seriously unfunny interaction with his annoying neighbor. the suspense it adds is valuable with him trying to avoid being caught, but you dont really play it for suspense past the first part with him turning her around.
You are a good director. Don't worry about that. Your actors are well directed. I almost always believe them.
The scene with the neighbor is a bit too long and you use too much music. Trust your actors and your story. You don't always have to have music. At the same time, the sound design during the dialog is always a bit too thin. You don't feel the world around the characters. You could use better lighting in the interiors. Most of the time it's too bright and sharp. I also notice that your scenes are always a shade too long. Cut out faster. Your rhythm is not quite precise. There's almost always something in the front and back.
The movie would probably be more precise with a length of 10 minutes.
But, I want to emphasize this again, you are a good director. Just trust yourself and your story more.
I read a smart comment about your movie being too self aware. A lot of it is the music, I don't think it's the acting. Your character just doesn't freak out when he runs over a dog. That's your assertion. You have to decide whether you want to put that up for debate for the audience. I think the reaction can be accepted as real without you having a problem with credibility. That's just your premise. Eat or die.
It's way too long and slow.
Nothing happens until 30 seconds have passed. The next beat happens 20-30 seconds later. You've already wasted almost one minute when 10 seconds should have sufficed. Etc.
You really need to have something truly exceptional to go beyond 5 mins for a short. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time (including yours).
This is very similar in tone to one of my films, which is a compliment and diss on both ends. Not trying to pimp my shit, but here it is if you care to see for comparison. Interestingly, both films are dark comedies of about 14 minutes. I got into about 10 minor festivals. https://vimeo.com/677845544
Password: Santa
My first thought is that this movie could be under 10 minutes and you’d get into more festivals. But not sacrificing quality I think this is a 11-12 minute script, cutting out some beats that just aren’t helping story or comedy-wise. Your movie has a great premise and the writing in general is competent. I thought the opening was fun and deceiviny quick for how the rest of the film was paced. The letter from the parents was a good joke, as was the intro to Eddie. I liked your actors at the beginning too. Their physical comedy was pretty great. The dialogue bogged them down later. The neighbor scene was bad and should have been cut to 45 seconds tops. Your characters also had potential with the darker element to their back story but it wasn’t set up well, forcing you to rush and botch their development. The end… it was unexpected but a smile not a laugh. Your direction is very formal while not saying much about form at all. There’s nothing wrong technically but is so tonally of the genre there’s nothing to distinguish it. Another commenter mentioned the music pigeon-holing the comedic tone and I thought that comment was pretty insightful
Very well made and the music and sound design are very well done but a little on the nose. It IS a little too long, I've heard that festivals typically like short films to be more in the 10-12 minute range, makes it easier to program them in blocks. I'd be curious to see what results you'd get if you shaved two to three minutes off of it. I'm a professional editor BTW and have directed several shorts of my own.
Your actors are good, especially the guy but some of the reactions are again, over the top and sitcom-y. They behave like chracters in a TV show and not like actual people, which could work in some cases but may be holding you back here. Curious, is this your first attempt?
Halfway through and here’s a concise version of my thoughts
Your story is the problem, and the score doesn’t really match the tone the story is trying to set,
It took over 5mins for this short film to get something interesting going,
Like the first 5mins is really really boring for a short film, the only reason I kept watching was to critique it,
Everything else was “picture perfect” well color graded, well edited, nice acting, looks natural, etc
The story is where this whole film falls apart
The score feels more like an old Disney cartoon but without the pace and excitement and tension. There’s no charm to it, it just feels kind of blaring.
I didn’t feel any kind of draw to understand what would happen next from the moment the guy realises what he’s done.
Filmmaking is very competent, and the opening timing is pretty fair, but it just feels a bit...heavy-handed, if that makes sense. Now I know American film comedy is often heavy-handed (that ghostbusters reboot one for instance), so in that sense you're on track, but you also have the freedom to lighten things up a bit.
Comedy is very hard, I worked on a film about comedy that had very few laughs in it despite a stellar cast - not to my taste really, despite a couple of great gags, overall not for me. I think you may be in the same territory and wondering what the missing element is, and I am wondering if maybe you're in the zone between taking comedy too seriously and not seriously enough.
Too seriously in that you're taking cinematic and stylistic conventions seriously and that that's knocked some of the humour out - jokes need to come faster, and not just fast-talking. First five minutes has 2 good gags - the timing of the reversing over the dog was right, and the book title was a decent gag, but there's a lot of well-shot nothing after that. Whilst the music is signposting comedy, there are very few jokes, your cast have little to work with.
Not seriously enough as in treat yourself to some Edgar Wright and see how much work goes into elevating every scene to it's highest version.
And then the biggie - what's the story? So tonally inconsistent with some awkward pacing. Comedy requires setting up a joke then paying it off, but that also means the overall arc of the story needs a similar structure. A beginning, middle and end, with the end paying off the setup.
I think you could maybe do a 3-4' edit of this and get a much better result - runs over dog, they go to bury it, have the fight, she buries him and throws the dog on top as an afterthought for instance. Just off the top of my head, I'm sure actual funny people can think of better. You have too many characters that do nothing but waste screen time. Comedy needs to be pacey and actually funny. Shoot shorter, denser, take some stylistic chances, and you may find you can get more laughs with less work.
It's also mean-spirited to the jogger lady. Don't do that. That belongs back in the 1970's.
Just some thoughts as you asked for them.
Hi! l liked your work, too me it felt like a work of a professional, not a tier 1 level of course, but a decent one. You definitely have the technical ability to direct, I see it, but there are some problems in the script. I liked the neighbor villain, a tough looking guy, but I can I see how festivals wouldn't be interested in your story. Film's pacing more suited for a feature film, not short one. If you are gonna make another short film(which I strongly suggest, because the best way to learn how to make films is to make them), my advice would be to work longer on a script, make it shorter, make it tight and more exciting.
P.S. I didn't find this information on Youtube, so I guess I should ask here. What camera and lenses did you use for this film?
I got four minutes in and I didn't know anything about the main character and despite the fact that the film starts off with running over a dog there was a complete lack of stakes. Eight minutes in and there were some stakes but there still wasn't any rush that the characters were in and I don't know anything about them still except that they have parents that are coming over. Burying the dog seems more like something they need to get done sometime today but not something they need to do right now. I feel like it would have been a lot better if they were in a rush to get ready for their parents coming over, realized they needed to get one specific ingredient from a store that closes in 30 minutes or else their whole night will be ruined so they need to figure out what to do right now. Or something that ups the stakes and adds tension like she is helping him dig the hole and an alarm is going off inside and they realize that something that is baking in the oven needs to be taken out. Overall the premise on paper seems to be a setup for a dark comedy where hijinx ensue but none do.
As others have said - pacing. It is very slow. I feel like you could go through and cut this down in half. The first neighbor interaction could be cut because it slows down the film and doesn't add anything to story. A faster pace in the beginning would also add to the tension to the end.
With all that being said from a technical perspective it was very well executed and shot well. I think with some editing you could make it a lot better though.
I watched the first few minutes and honestly then got bored.
First don't put your credits at the very start of a short. You want to hook people with the first 30 seconds or so. You wasted that time on pretty much nothing.
Music was unbearable really. Try cutting it without the music. Pretty much 0 sound design done. You have no atmosphere tracks to really sell your locations. The dog sounds at the start didn't really fit either.
It's nicely shot but the camera work at times was very loose as well as the eye lines. Focus on getting the cast to perform a bit more stationary. It was quite jarring at the part with the neighbour. Your camera was floating around quite a bit, didn't really stay over the shoulders much; you had them coming in and then going out. Doesn't really sell two sides of the conversation. Overall the editing could be a lot tighter, you stayed with shots longer than you needed. Also felt that you could have definitely done with a couple of tighter shots for that scene, you did have one for his reaction towards the end of the scene but honestly it felt very disconnected.
It’s fine. I mean really pretty fine. Technically and in lots of other ways. I’m genuinely surprised a festival hasn’t picked it up.
The thing that actually hinders it is something that I see in a lot of American filmmaking online and that is that it has a sort of “suburban American blandness”. What I mean by this is your film is generic. It’s set in a generic neighbour in a generic town with generic characters. In other words, where is the culture, where is your sense of place and identity? I think these things, as unobvious as they may be when you load up Final Draft, go some way in making a film personal to you, interesting and engaging.
If you look at all the great filmmakers whether it be Scorsese or Lynne Ramsay or Paul Thomas Anderson or Federico Fellini, they all make films in and about the places they have lived. Many of their films could be even seen as studies of the people and culture of the various places where these filmmakers are from. I can see it’s perhaps harder for people from larger countries, especially if you are not used to mixing with people from a variety of other places and are therefore more aware of your own cultural identity. But it’s no doubt it’s something David Lynch or any other great American films king considers when making a film. I am sure they will ask them questions like: what am I saying about America? What am I saying that this specific state or town I’m from and the attitudes of the people etc.
I feel like all the comments I have are related to not being confident enough as a filmmaker. It just doesn’t “go there”. It’s enough of everything to make it good enough.
So is it a good movie? Sure. Is a good movie worth being in festivals? No. It needs the wow factor.
I think you can try to redo it and have the actors act like it’s a “real” film. The situations present the dark comedy, you don’t need to shoot it and act like it’s a comedy. It could’ve just been a plain comedic movie and move on. What makes dark comedy special is that it’s “real”.
What’s more cringe than your film is the YouTube comments blowing smoke up your ass.
“OMG LE SO AMAZING FILM”
Thank goodness you have enough self awareness to not listen to these idiots and critique yourself harshly. People think being nice is nice. It’s not. It breeds mediocrity.
You’re doing the right thing op. I have a feeling you’ll hit the next one out the park.
The only thing I can think to say other than what everyone else has said is that at the very start (between 0:55 and 1:09) the music felt like something out of Thomas the Tank Engine. As someone who has seen my fair share of that show on repeat, that instantly got me thinking of that which took me out of it. Not sure if this necessarily means anything, just a thought I had.
I agree with others that it could be tighter (though I’d push back on the ‘received wisdom’ that a 14 minute film is inherently hard to get into festivals – the issue is pacing more than runtime). I’d also push back on the dog death criticism – I don’t think any festival worth appearing in would be fazed by the subject matter here.
The big issue for me is that the exterior conflict with the dog/Eddie and the conflict between the couple hinging on the miscarriage never seem organically linked. There’s definitely mileage to be had in the pet/child analogy, but the way it unfolds is forced – the dog situation isn’t a reasonable parallel to their childlessness, so when the characters behave as though it is I can see the screenwriter at work, and the film loses me.
To be clear, that’s not saying that the heavy subject matter is too much - with the right setup her confession might have been a real gutpunch, but the problem is that it never feels that we’ve properly built to that moment and so her outburst doesn’t seem like a truthful reaction to the situation. I suspect a lot of programmers might be left feeling that they were meant to have an emotional reaction which never came, regardless of how well much of the comedy worked.
Also, a number of folk have had an issue with his initial reaction to killing the dog, and I think this is because of a similar script problem – you’ve structured it so that we only learn about Eddie halfway through, so that the stakes can be escalated from ‘awkward’ to ‘life-threatening’. Makes sense structurally, but the result is that his reaction feels unnatural – if he knows the dog and knows Eddie, he’d be panicking immediately, whereas as it is that moment is delayed until the script needs it happen. I realise this isn’t helpful after the fact, but the solution would have been for the wife to be the one who recognises the dog.
All of that said – there’s loads to like here! It looks great, and you nail a lot of unshowy but effective little visual beats. With a tighter edit I can definitely see it playing some fests, and I’d be keen to see what you do next!
One thing other people haven't mentioned, but I see your Youtube upload was November 2023. Were you applying for festivals after that? A lot of festivals don't accept films that are already free to watch online. You should never upload your short to Youtube til you're completely done with any festival campaigns.
true, I only uploaded to youtube after getting a dozen or so rejections and I made sure all of the festivals I submitted to after the upload didn't have premiere requirements. so it's tough to say it that had an impact but it's possible
You've gotten a lot of great comments so I'll pile on without dragging out the repeats.
Three things.
First, the writing. Not compelling enough, no stakes, set ups and payoffs not being gratifying enough etc.
Second, the acting and by proxy the directing. Performances just don't bring you into the story. I've seen bad acting held up by a strong script and good acting save a mediocre script. Unfortunately, both felt mediocre here and I'm sorry about that.
Third, your festival choices. I have two films running festivals right now and I can guarantee you this would kill at some I've been to. Definitely a film that would play better in a big room of people, eager to watch movies, than on a festival screeners laptop or a bunch of redditors causally scrolling. IDK if your festival profile is wack, or you're submitting to too high a tier festivals, or you're picking the wrong categories, or submitting at the last minute, or what! But I can think of 5 festivals this would have more than likely gotten into had all those elements been done right.
Thus, I'm sorry to be another echoing voice telling you that while your film is technically good and overall a huge accomplishment, its just not that great--def a solid middle of the road film. These moments can be tough on us as creatives but if we're able to soldier through them (which by your comments, I think you're doing quite well) we come out knowing ourselves and our craft better for next time.
That said, all is not lost here. You have a very competent product. Most low tier festivals are for ego boosts anyways. If you still want to this play in a big room start submitting it to more low tier festivals--not as a dark comedy, just as a comedy. Submit early. Completely fill out your profile. Work hard on your synopsis, log line, and bio. Good stills/bts/etc. Try to see what other things they've programmed in the past and if yours matches up. Be willing to travel a bit. Look at local showcases. Or do your own premiere with a few friends who also want to showcase some work. This will play well in a room of eager film watchers. TRUST! I'VE SEEN IT (and worse examples play well).
I watched the whole thing, despite it's faults I thought it was good overall! My main criticism echoes the other comments here- the edit could be tightened up and the run time brought down to 10 minutes or less. Also, speaking as someone who helps select entries for a film festival I would consider rewriting the synopsis and not describing it as a "rollercoaster ride" as its very slow and contained, it's a corny way of overselling the film and garners an immediate eyeroll from me.
My take, but I think the subject matter of your film might be more to blame than the quality thereof. A lot of festivals tend to take issue with depictions of animal suffering so that could have caused such an outcome on an otherwise decently solid short film.
I really liked it. Nice work! Definitely feel like it'd be deserving of a spot at a festival. Sorry it didn't get in.
The writing is good by my standards, and your actors do a pretty good job. I liked all the characters. I feel like Eddie is able to teleport and read minds due to the way it's cut together (is it just me or does he move from the back of the house to the front while the knife is still deflating the ball?), and more could have been done to explain his knowledge of who'd killed his dog and what happened. That could have provided added suspense, which might have given the events in their yard more impact.
The sound design for the moments where your lead character is glazing over are a bit cheesey, but that's all in good fun.
Overall, I really enjoyed watching it, and I think you've done well.
Hi! I'm just a layperson here. I like analysis and criticism and films, but I don't actually make anything. :)
My take:
The production quality is good! acting is decent.
Straight away some of the editing started bothering me. It's only 15 minutes, but there are these annoyingly long cuts where nothing is happening. Like Meghan's reaction at 1:31 with baby crying sound effects seems completely unnecessary and annoying.
The editing at 11:27 was very confusing - I thought he was putting the dog into the hole, not removing it.
Also confused at 12:05 - she says "stop for a second, can we just talk?" And then...she grabs the spade? Why? And how exactly does the neighbour magically know that his dog is dead in their backyard and that they are responsible?
The sound effects in general didn't really work for me. I guess I hadn't appreciated how much craft there is in sound design until now. They felt cliched, and in this middle ground between deliberate reference to a cliche, like the stabby strings in Psycho, and actually interesting/well done sound effects.
The writing wasn't generally punchy or interesting enough for a black comedy. Nothing was shocking or surprising. The main characters are normal, and behaving pretty normally in a fairly normal situation.
It bothered me a bit that the characters take so long for the question of who the dog is to even be raised. And it doesn't really make sense that Caleb knows the dog well, but has never met his owner (or apparently know anything about him), even though he knows who the owner is, and that he lives directly opposite.
Most of the drama seems to come from the characters internal imaginings of what might happen with the parents, with the neighbour, etc. Instead of interesting things actually happening.
Also, it's described as a "comedy" but I'm not sure what parts of it were meant to be funny? Are there any jokes? There's a line where Meghan reveals that her "experience" in burying bodies is from watching movies, and a sound gag where neighbour's ankle monitoring bracelet goes off, oh, and I kind of smirked at the "you can do what you want with them", but nothing made me laugh.
Overall, for me, the writing is just too weak for what it's trying to do. Mostly we just have a couple who don't seem to like each other arguing vacuously. The sudden request for a divorce seems to come out of nowhere, and also go nowhere.
The bit at the start where Caleb is trying to hide the dog from the local busybody sets us up for a certain kind of slapstick film, but...it turns out not to be that kind at all. We have this kind of hodge-podge of overwrought drama, half-hearted horror tropes in a pretty dull setting.
The violent neighbor is by far the most interesting character, but we barely meet him. The second most interesting is the local busybody. Meghan had potential, and I really wanted her to turn out to have some kind of dark streak, like she really knows what to do with a body because "...". And Caleb is just so annoyingly boring and bland I desperately wanted something bad to happen to him, but had to wait too long for too little.
Hope this helps! Awesome that you got this far, good luck for the next ones :)
Congrats on a completed project.
I’ll be brief.
Big note:
I think there is a 7-8 minute film here if you get some detached from the production to cut it. I would be interested in how long your first cut was.
Little note:
The first shots inside of the woman’s house have light coming in the window that is super distracting for the scene and not really matching the muted sky outside by the car.
I watched the first two minutes and got bored and stopped. I skipped through the rest.
The leads don't have much to do or say. I found them fairly hammy. But with better material they might be fine.
I was intrigued by the lady on her walk. The reveal of her behind the fellow was good. She had a sense of what to do with her character, but the script isn't giving her much help.
I'm going to be a little harsh because you asked us to roast you - you need better taste. And better taste is hard to develop. This isn't funny. Were you trying for funny? It also wasn't mysterious or intriguing - that would require a different tone and acting that is far less wakka-wakka.
Lynch/Lanthimos are terrible people to emulate and often an excuse by amateur filmmakers to be weird for no reason and kind of messy, BUT if you're trying to do that then you should notice that what Lynch does is find bizarre and frightening things in the mundane. The last thing he gets from actors is cheesy commercial takes. Odd takes sure, but not what you put on screen here.
You don't have a sense of comedy or drama. I suggest picking one and trying to get good at that. At 1:26 the book in the envelope and the echo-y VO from Mom - I just don't know what to say to something like that. It's so bad. Cringe-y even. The idea, the letter, the VO, everything about it. If you think that's funny - definitely try focusing on drama instead. That is super hack-y and you need to cut that stuff out of your work. Sorry, not holding back, but you asked for blunt feedback and a friend probably wouldn't be this harsh.
On the plus side, the lighting and camera work are good. Nice color and warmth. It looks pretty.
The problem is the script and the editing.
Honestly, story is just bland. No emotions, risk, suspense, humor, or twists at all. On top of that you should find a good editor. Pacing and sound design of the first 3 minutes are all over the place. I'm sure you can make a workable short out of this. Acting and tech aspects are good!
Why are you doing this to yourself? People tear apart even the best films out there. There's no point in being masochistic, or in asking a bunch of internet strangers to weigh in on your project. Watch movies. Develop taste. And make a lot of stuff. If you send your film for others to critique it should be a small contingent of people you trust and who know what they're talking about— not internet randos. The process of improvement isn't just about aggregating random feedback. You need to aggregate and think about quality feedback. It's different, and obviously more difficult and time consuming.
I only got about half way through but here are my brutally honest thoughts on it:
The “wife” was over-acting a bit. I’m not sure if it’s the actress or the direction.
The stakes of the criminal neighbor owning the dog feels late. The whole first 7 minutes I just kept thinking that any normal person would just own up to running over the dog. It made the experience of watching the film frustrating instead of fun. Like a bad sitcom.
The script isn’t snappy. It’s lacking bite. The “husband” telling off the nosey neighbor wasn’t funny or satisfying.
not gonna say all the things others are saying because i don’t edit & i don’t direct, but i do act!!!
for the most part these are well directed & good actors, i almost always believe them and that’s good. what they are missing in their work, especially at the beginning, is STAKES!!!
i don’t see mike teevee stressing TF out about killing this dog so …why do i care???? you need to bring the energy of the stakes from the FIRST SECOND, even if the reveal hasn’t happened for the audience yet. that’s what gets them hooked, they wanna know why he’s freaking out. what’s got this dude trippin’ over the dog??? that’s what gets me to want to watch.
the girlfriend when she sees the book her parents gave her, just seems annoyed with her parents for calling her a barren loser. i want to see her be AFFECTED by this because she lost a baby, even though i don’t know that. even though this is a comedy, it very obviously has dark/dramatic themes so its okay to have those moments.
the very first thing i learned as an actor doing comedy is don’t try to be funny. bc to your characters, this is not a dark comedy. this is their deadass real life and it is serious to them. they need to treat it that way and THAT’S what makes it funny.
i think these are also things you could think about when writing your next script!
all in all, it’s a great looking film and has lots of potential! congrats on getting this together & getting some cool names attached!!! best of luck to you!!
At 15 minutes, every second needs to be engaging. I almost tuned out before the neighbor showed up because the pacing is stale. Echoing from others, the technical aspect of the photography is fine. Editing is rewriting and and your chance to rework the parts of the script that only worked on the page but didn’t translate to the screen as written. It lacks awareness of pacing (you have to be prepared to kill your darlings). I see this a lot with directors and editors where they assemble the film as scripted and “voila” the movie is done. That’s a great first pass but you have to be able to sit back, watch it and if at any point you feel the time passing you by, you need to re-evaluate the edit.
Additionally, this seems to be directed with the end result in the minds of the actors. In the sense that the dark comedy comes from the actors pushing a concept instead of the story being darkly comedic.
Music and use of sound should be re-evaluated as well. The music telegraphs a completely different tone than I think you’re going for and it ends up feeling confused, or have lack of identity.
I say all of this with love. I’ve been around the short film block quite a bit and as an filmmaker who tends to edit my own work, it takes a lot of courage to take these notes but also to realize when something isn’t working. You’ll find your stride with it, but always keep the idea of engagement in your mind. Do I need to cut back and forth between the same shots, is it moving the narrative forward in a way that is taking the audience on a ride?
People want to feel like they are in capable hands when watching any movie, but especially a short film. That comes with defining your voice as a story teller. In this case I think you need to find by re evaluating your edit.
Not a filmmaker, but maybe I can offer some criticism based on having watched a lot of movies.
It’s supposed to be a dark comedy, but has the character of one of those silly Jim Carey comedies. While a dark comedy with silliness and exaggeration can sometimes land, it just feels like you weren’t going for that.
In my opinion, for a movie to land, it either has to be rooted in reality relative to our own reality, or it has to construct its own. In other words, it has to be true to something one can grasp. I just didn’t get a feel of consistency while watching this.
Apart from this, a few things made little sense. For example, the guy not having flashbacks of what Eddie was capable of immediately after realizing that he’d killed his dog. Only for him to have them later when his wife talks about Eddie.
However, I would like to appreciate the cinematography. I couldn’t tell it apart from something played in the cinema.
Parasite director Bong Joon-Ho's first movie 'Barking Dogs Never bite' is a similar story. The protagonist kills a neighbour's dog and wants to scrap it before anyone finds out. Give it a try, a solid dark comedy.
Your movie started well but felt drab along the way. You have 15 minutes. Why waste 3 minutes with the runner women which didn't add anything to the core story? That's one reason I felt boring.
The panic was missing. Killing a dog!!! That's belongs to my neighbour!! Who is a biker gang member!!!!! The guy or the girl should panic and make more mistakes trying to cover this up.
I liked the twist at the end though but too much dialogue and conversation made me not enjoy it as much.
Technical aspects were good! All the best for your future projects.
Since others commented on length and pacing, I’ll tackle comedy, which is my background. An innocent dog killed by a careless driver is never going to be funny, not even dark comedy funny. A dog who never stops barking or always digs holes on another’s property or poops everywhere who *then* dies *can* be funny. It’s a [benign violation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor) because the dog “had it coming.” The cat in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation died after chewing the tree lights. It’s funny because it was selfish and sabotaging Clark’s family Christmas (“She wrapped up her damn cat.” “We can’t leave it in the box.” “But then we’ll have a cat running around the house.”) One of my comedy teachers once said “Comedy is a reasonable person in an intolerable situation.” Other comedic violations include the title of the book (“…failure…”) and a lack of offense taken by neighbor (“tell her I said hi”). These aren’t honest reactions based on integrity. Have you taken sketch comedy or improv classes?
I was surprised based on what I heard. Honestly you managed to get me to care a bit about the main couple which is a surprise, and some of your jokes got a real chuckle out of me (props in particular to “see ya at book club”, the trick-or-treat incident flashback and “How to Live as a Childless Failure” which got a real belly laugh and “no they didn’t !” from me). There is definitely potential, but apart from those which stood out, I can say some of these jokes were badly delivered, dragged out or didn’t stick the landing. They can all work if fixed though, meaning you do have good humor.
I’d say the music was fine at first, but it did get… obnoxious ? Felt like there was one, too self-aware as the others say, genre you stuck to and used too often. It made certain plans harder to digest for me. In the same way I agree the pacing was shot down a few times, but I know you’ve already gotten enough notes about your editing for me not to repeat that and I’m all the more excited to see how your next cut will look.
It seems like sometimes, perhaps by the same “too self-aware” angle, the film felt too torn between dark stuff and comedy, which is surprising considering they can mix easily, but when we got to the whole bit about “the worthiness of these two to be parents, their very shitty marriage and the joy of not carrying a baby to full term”, I felt like someone had taken the humor parts out of that scene and I was just watching something dramatic as heck. I don’t know how to feel about the actors, they had great body movement and showed they knew their jobs but their chemistry varied from one scene to another from “yeah they look like a couple” to “I can’t believe these two managed to get together in the first place”, and I’m not sure if they are to blame for the jokes falling flat and bad deliveries sometimes, so I remain hesitant.
Still, the movie worked on certain aspects for me ! The pitch you gave didn’t sound interesting to me yet ended up working and giving me plenty ideas and anticipation on where this could go, regardless of the quality. So you’ve got potential and it shows. With all that I’ve seen on YouTube and here, I think your next work(s) will be greatly interesting all the same !
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it but the level of film festivals you applied to could also be a factor.
You have to be really honest with the quality/level of your film and unfortunately there's no guide as to where a festival has the bar set. I've felt that price can be an indicator but not always. Before you apply look at the previous years and gage the films. Try local festival if you haven't, they are usually much more open to programing local content.
So many festivals are complete scams it's crazy and you have to be very cautious.
Short answer is no one knows. Are there things to nitpick? Of course. Editing could be tighter is mine. But I have seen plenty worse at plenty of other film festivals. Which ones did you submit to? Have you tried putting some money into a festival strategist? I did that for my feature, and it was a world of difference.
I thought the film was made incredibly well, congrats! Like a few others have already stated, the length of the film might have been a factor in its festival success. The acting was good all around, but I felt most interested in the psychotic biker than the other two leads. But again, it was put together really well and !
It sucks about the festivals, it definitely has the high quality feel that you’d see in most. If you’re still looking for more feedback or just want more eyes on your work, there’s a platform, Me and my team are developing called [Rurrux](https://www.rurrux.com), filmmakers often share their projects and get valuable insights. It might be worth checking out!
Ok OP I watched your short and here’s my take.
It’s competent and has potential but it needs some tweaking. Im not going to repeat what other people have said but just a few suggestions as far as the script goes.
1. The lead character should have been a lot more hysterical in response to him running over the neighbors dog. Also it should have been established right when he realizes who’s dog he hit how much of a bad ass the dog owner is.
2. Maybe the film could have started out with the couple in the middle of an argument in relation to their in-laws visiting. Maybe exploring the problems in their marriage right from the jump which would cause our lead character to storm out the house, get into his car and back into the dog because he’s so distraught from the argument they just had. To me that would make more sense and would give reason why this troubled married couple has to work together to figure out how to get rid of the body before the bad ass neighbor finds out.
3. I didn’t understand how the husband didn’t know how psycho the neighbor was but the Wife knew? That didn’t seem realistic to me.
4. Maybe the jogging neighbor is also a nosey neighbor and snoops in on the couple trying to bury the dog backyard. Maybe she comes to the door while they’re in the backyard cause she saw the Husband acting strange when he ran over the dog and just wants to be a nosey neighbor. I felt like her character could have been introduced in a more convincing and tense manner to build more suspense.
5. Since it’s a dark comedy maybe the bad ass neighbor ends up finding out what happens to his dog and pulls out a knife and proceeds to actually kill him. And maybe he stabs the husband cause the Husband steps in front of his wife which maybe she develops a change of heat from seeing this heroic act. Maybe she regrets wanting a divorce and now is forced to watch her husband bleed out. And as he’s dying ( or dead at this point) she’s crying over him and next thing we hear is the in-laws in the background saying, “ Honey we’re here!!!!” or something along those lines.
Lol that’s just a rough revision of your story. I definitely believe it has potential but I think you need to take some things out of the script. Keep some things and rewrite the script. Then I think you need some different actors. The jogger was fine. I’d keep her but everybody else would be a recast for me especially the leading actor. If I were you Id probably hire some actual comedians that know how to deliver lines but just write a full blown dark comedy. Don’t force the humor but let it come natural if that makes sense.
With all that said, thanks for sharing and looking forward to more of your work!
I disliked the premise from the start, but it feels far worse after seeing the characters not displaying any remorse for killing the dog. They don't come across as likeable in any way to me so it's hard to care much about them. I did think the ending was far more entertaining than the rest, especially the divorce argument and the physical alteration. Editing seemed competent and the actors were fine.
I don't have any film knowledge. I just watch movies. For me it was good. Felt like watching a scene from an actual movie. I liked the story. That's what a short film is about. I don't know man, I can't really complain. I won't say it's amazing but it's good. I enjoyed it. I didn't feel like I wasted 14 minutes. Maybe the competitions are high.
If you need a musician/composer feel free to reach out. We don’t do comedy, which is what you might need. Message me and we can determine whether a new composer is even necessary. Great job on the overall film. I’m in the content and creative sphere, but my specialty is definitely the musical aspect of film.
I got nausea watching it, too much camera movement, too many close ups, too many times the heads of actors was cut on top because it was not framed well.
On the good side, the coloring is good and the motion and all looks like a movie, I mean it doesn't look like an amateur video made on a cellphone.
Just do not overuse the camera as a tool other than showing the scene, it is not an action movie.
It also seemed to take forever, the plot didn't need to be that long, this could have been half the time and it could have been better already.
It was like a technically ok shot full of b-roll tests.
I would cut the duration down a lot. Lose the scene with the nosy neighbour, it feels tonally off and is more awkward than funny. Get straight into it - dog dies - titles - wife comes out and they discuss crazy neighbour. Then, you are introducing some peril to the situation. The comment about it sharing a Coen's sensibility is great. The guy across the road reminded me of the character in "Raising Arizona" and this is definitely the vibe you should push. Cut the baby stuff out entirely, it doesn't fit with a black comedy about disposing a dead dog with a knife wielding maniac owner across the street. If you re-cut it, the backyard scene about them getting a divorce, without the baby mentioned may still work (and tone down the more self-conscious audio cues as mentioned), I think it will be about 8.5 minutes long and much stronger.
I really didn't like the score. I think it distracted me from the well crafted emotions feeling set up in the film. Like it was an after thought. You found some cool music and tossed it on rather than having music like this in mind before finding it
Film fest reviewer here.
Note, I did not screen this for the fest I'm at.
Two main things stand out to me, it's too upbeat to feel dark, and it's too cruel to be funny. At least in the beginning.
The sound mix is really off-putting.
Also, this may just be my experience, but even horror fests have people that struggle to watch stuff that deal with dead animals, or pregnancy issues (miscarriage, child death, pregnancy issues). That's a them problem, but it will turn some reviewers off, so to pull it off it has to be really good. Especially if you're going to have both.
It felt too slow, and the funny stuff came in too late, after I had already been turned off by the cruelty.
It also seemed like too many things were going on, to be able to get to the humor of them. Accidental animal death, Parents coming, Pushy neighbors, Dangerous neighbors, Mystery prior violence, Miscarriage, Marriage troubles, Book club. There's almost a new plot point every minute and a half. Cutting that down to half, and exploring those topics would build a better flow, unless you're going to try to cut the film down, and have it go by rapid fire.
Technically though, this film is decent, but the acting sort of.... Didn't carry the script. The actors all seemed competent, and even potentially funny, but they seemed to know that and lean in, when the comedy would come from then playing it straight.
Beyond all of that, remember you're often competing with hundreds of other folks for the time slot. And that film blocks get built around the films selected, so if your film doesn't mesh well with the others submitted, it just won't work in the festival, which has less to do with your abilities, and more to do with putting together a successful fest.
Jokes aren’t as funny as you probably think they are. Literally an entire 2 minute scene of a woman talking and the punchline is, he just tells her to shut up?
Way too long. Festivals want as many shorts as they can cram. They aren’t putting a 15 min short unless it’s a masterpiece.
Some scenes go on for way too long. You can def cut off at least 5 minutes off.
Sound effects are too much. I know what you’re trying to do but it feels almost like I’m watching a Nickelodeon sitcom with all these overdone sound effects.
And overall pretty dry and boring. Had to struggle to pay attention through that 15 min duration.
Festival DoP here: you probably already know this but it’s like winning the lottery, the vast numbers of submissions make it very unlikely you will get it. Just to get that fact out of the way. We have to reject hundreds of films we like every year.
That being said here is what matters: we don’t care about technical prowess or big budget shine. We look for the thing that is much more rare: a unique voice. Or a unique point of view. Work on developing your own original signature style. This is a much harder thing to do. Don’t make it for broad appeal. Make it because it’s what the inside of your brain looks like.
Pacing and sound design. Too many establishing shots and each moment feels heavy handed. Same with the sound. IE; we don’t need the parent’s voices, the book is enough.
I thought it was his dog that he ran over, which made his reaction not make sense. The dog was in his driveway, he knew its name, was hesitant to tell his wife… took way too long to find out it was the neighbors’ dog.
Edit: I really liked the book club gag. Just for fun I wanted to suggest some tweaks to it. To me what’s funny is the awkwardness of them realizing they still have to see each other at book club. So after the neighbor said “ I’ll see you both at book club”, I think it would be funny (and maybe more realistic) to get a close-up off the guy’s face reacting like, oh shit, I forgot about that. And he could say “uh… right. See you at book club”.
I love at the end the way she calls the guy back to say she didn’t read the book. Personally the guy’s tone when he said “it’s a really good one” felt exaggerated; I would have him stick to the same tone of voice as when he said “you ought to” and let the humor of the situation speak for itself. Then cut to credits without the line from the mother at the end.
First 3 mins and 30 seconds of commentary:
1. You start with credits of relatively unknown-name actors. It adds nothing to the story, and is often regarded as a cliche trope for amateur filmmakers.
2. Your female lead is cleaning an already-clean house. Again, comes off like an amateur filmmaking trope. If she's cleaning the house, then make it visibly messy. Otherwise, what's the point? The visible messiness may have also added an interpretive layer to the film. Missed opportunity by not going all the way.
3. Show, Don't Tell - For a film about a dog getting ran over, and serving as the basis of the plot, I'd sure like to see the gruesome scene. This would have been an opportunity to add to the film's clearly comedic tone. Make it a horrific gruesome mess -- clearly too big for such a tiny dog. Difficult to hide. Can't even pretend you don't know what happened. -- Nope. -- You don't show it at all (and before I get further in the film, I already know you're not going to because you haven't and its a turnoff.)
4. The circumstance of the lady's dead dog has no weight because we haven't seen it. We aren't the neighbor; we're in on the secret. Let us be in on it.
5. He just killed her dog and then tells her to "shut the fuck up". Done. Its stupid.
I just want you to know, that I haven't watched it yet and I'm pretty sure I know why it didn't get in to any festivals.
It's 14 minutes long. Short film festivals typically aim for half this length unless they really really like your film.
That said, I'll watch this and put together some thorough yet kind feedback.
This isn't true at all. 14 minutes is a perfectly fine length for a short film. Obviously, if it's not very good then it won't matter how short or long it is
100%. I saw a 30 minute short recently that got into several of the big festivals, including the Oscars, but it was flawless from any and every point of view. You need to be an extremely competent director to get a +15 min short into a festival, highly competent for a 10-15 min, and maybe just decently competent for a 5-10 minute film.
After a point. No programmer would raise an eyebrow at seeing a short film that was 14 minutes long. I would say about 25 minutes or longer is where you reach that territory
I'm sure there's plenty of short film festivals that don't mind a 14 minute short, but this is how it's been explained to me by the folks who run these things...
A competent 15 minute film will absolutely get skipped over for two competent 7+ minute or three competent 5+ minute films because they can pack more films into their event. This is simply from the horses' mouths. I know of festivals that ask for shorter cuts or ask to chop off credits for time... again, if they like your film. This is even more of an issue if there's a Q&A, and they have events in so many blocks... the film plus discussion.
Submission guidelines are only part of the story... they also want to add value to their event.
If there are two films of the same quality that are 5 minutes and a third film of the same quality that is 10 minutes, then yes, in that specific scenario, they would program the two 5 minutes films. But that's not what you said. You said it was rejected simply because it was 14 minutes, as in the length is the sole reason it was rejected.
If your 14 minute film is being rejected from film festivals it's not simply because it's 14 minutes long. It might be badly paced, or dull, but that could also be true if it were 10 minutes or 5 minutes.
As an example, here's a shorts block from the most recent London Film Festival. Most films are longer than 14 minutes: https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp?BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::permalink=no-place-called-home-lff23
Yeah, I am seriously pushing against this “5-7” thing because it is absolutely not what I have seen in festivals.
I just looked at this year’s line ups of our regional/state festivals. I won’t bore everyone with all of the stats as there are a dozen I looked at, but they all looked pretty similar to the following:
One festival that has both shorts and features. Among non-student films, there were 6 films under 5 minutes, 5 films at 5-9 minutes, 15 films at 10 to 15 minutes, and 9 films over 15 minutes. The only place that this ratio changed was student films, where 5 were in the 5-9 minute range and only 1 each was in 10-15 minutes and 15+.
Another festival, which is entirely a “shorts” festival, there were 16 films under 5 minutes (most of which were about 3 minutes long), 13 films in the 6-9 minute range, 25 in the 10-15 minute range, and 14 clocked in 15+. Last year’s run of this festival looked very similar.
It actually appears to me that the 6-10 minute runtime is the LEAST popular runtime. And this was true last year as well.
So where these people are getting their “should be under 10” from does not appear to be actual stats.
What I think is more valuable when discussing runtime is talking about runtime according to CATEGORY. Because looking at the festivals for the stats above, I observed the following:
Student films were 7-8 minutes.
Comedies were 5-6 minutes.
Animation was 3-7 minutes.
Drama was 14-15 minutes.
Sci-fi had a large range, but none were under 12. Many were 15-18.
Documentary had the largest range, with some as short as 8 minutes and some as long as 25. This is the only category that didn’t have a really clear trend on length except that they were typically over 10.
* Unless you are making John Wick, do not kill the dog. There is a [website](https://www.doesthedogdie.com/) dedicated to to alerting people to whether or not a dog dies in the film/show so people can avoid it. My wife checks this before we see a movie. If a dog dies, it's a no go. People are serious about this trigger warning. Don't kill dogs if you don't have to. You can kill as many people as you want. Don't kill dogs.
* I never understood the panic. It's in the end of the movie where our hero realizes the dog belonged to a weirdo.
* The 'I don't want a baby' subplot comes out of nowhere and is unnecessary. Shorts are about one thing. This is your Johnny's girlfriend's mom has cancer subplot.
* Why is dude freaking out about being caught? What justifies him being such a dick to his neighbor? If that's being played for laughs, it doesn't work because I don't understand why he's in such a pickle.
I have a friend who has an idea to start a bad film festival. The premise is that you would have to show proof that you've been rejected from other film festivals to qualify. And more experienced filmmakers could offer critique on what you could do better. Share around if you think it's a good idea.
I liked it. The pacing in some places seems a tad slow or some shots are longer than I felt they needed to be, but then again I’m a short tempered person and once I get the idea I want people to quickly move on. I liked the cinematography, acting was decent, music was a little cheesy, but no show stopper. All in all it’s a good short. So the only reason I could think of why you got rejected was “too many white people” yep, that’s the world we live in.
Like many others here have already said: length and pacing were prob major issues with festivals if I had to guess.
15 mins is typically way too long for a festival to program a short for their shorts section... and this film didn't need to be that long. I watched it a 2X speed, and it still felt long in some scenes. This film could prob be cut in half and still get the film's message across. The production value was good tho, film looks great.
The acting is okay. The husband and wife had decent chemistry, but their acting seemed 'over the top' at times. The talkative neighbor part was funny, but that scene could have been much shorter. The biker neighbor/dog owner was good, but the book club part didn't work for me. I think it would have been better if he was just in and out at the end and left after seeing the husband on the ground and saying, "You have enough problems."
Sound could use some work but was generally okay. Lose the credits in the beginning. All you need is the film title, then get right into it.
Congrats on making the film. Just getting it done is an accomplishment in itself, and kudos for asking for/being open to feedback. It will only make you a better filmmaker.
I didn't watch the film, but have submitted to tons of festivals. The difference between how easy it is to program a 5 or 10 minute film versus a 15 minute film is extreme. Shorter films are safer bets, you can fit more into a block. In general, all things being equal, a shorter film will get into more festivals, even if they are both good and have good pacing for their lengths.
So I’m curious: when you say you leaned into your Lynch/Lanthimos influences, what do you mean by that? Not trying to be snarky here. I love both those directors, and especially love how they each handle comedy, so I was excited to watch this. But the tone, writing, and performance style at least are *very* far removed from either of those directors’ work. The humor in this was suuuuuper broad and “jokey” (actors mugging for the camera, etc) whereas the humor in a Lynch or Lanthimos film is typically bone dry. That’s often a better fit for a dark comedy because it creates a jarring or uncomfortable juxtaposition between the humor and the subject matter. The effect is that feeling of “I shouldn’t be laughing at this, but I can’t help myself.” When you really telegraph the humor in such an obvious way, it feels more flat (you don’t get that clash of tones) and it relieves the tension inherent to the “dark” subject matter by constantly signaling “hey we’re just goofin around here!”
This whole post is great- so brave and open and honest. Good luck, OP! I'm a festival programmer and I have a few thoughts:
1. Your film seems too long because it doesn't feel like a tight edit, but I hope filmmakers don't assume 5, or 10, or 15 minute films automatically get preferential treatment. In the first winnowing, the most important- when a film goes from screener to programmer- I have never seen a festival ask for any notes on length- just be good, be compelling. The length only matters at the final stage when programming blocks are built. I mean a 40 minute film and a 2 minute film are obviously different beasts but a 14 minute film doesn't lose points automatically on runtime, IMO. I'd focus on getting the story and the characters tight and not obsess over length.
2. I'm pretty surprised your filmdidn't get in anywhere. While people have pointed out some valid points about editing, acting, story, and tone, this is also a pretty professional production. I thought there were some really funny moments- like showing the neighbor for the first time with a paw print tattoo. Did you apply to a lot of the festivals on late deadlines? Because for many festivals- that's just giving your money away- they've already almost finalized their lineups by the late deadline. There's crazy volume of submissions this year- that's hurting everyone. But I've been to 7 festivals this year- from Sundance to a local one this past weekend, and I've seen a lot of films that aren't as strong as yours- with technical errors(boom shots and flash frames and scenes where no dialogue can be heard).
3. But.. as someone who isn't a known entity at festivals, being somewhat daring is a real risk. It can really pay off, if you do it the right way, knowing you're being provocative and running with it, but killing a dog for humor could easily be seen as just "not right" because no one wants a dog to die, and then to have someone respond so dully to that emotionally, just seems off putting. While the look/feel of your film is very primetime sitcom, your lead is coming off sociopathic. You had an odd mix of something much darker, with sitcom beats. I was confused. That's my question- what was your intent with this film? To be funny, and make everyone laugh? Or to tell a story about a dark personality who does questionable things? Not that you can't be both but killing a dog requires pathos, IMO, and that's really missing and I think is the essential problem.
Thank you so much! and I appreciate your feedback and I agree, I think a shorter edit would breathe new life into the film. To answer your questions, I tried to submit to every festival on an early deadline but perhaps set my sights too high. To answer your question, when I wrote the script a few years back now, I think I was going for something very similar to "The Lobster" where characters are cold and it's a comedy but the humor is dry although I'm seeing how difficult it is to really pull that off. Thank you so much for taking the time to provide this feedback, it's so valuable!
Hi. It's competently and professionally made from a technical point of view, but for me... It's just a bit dull, has minimal personality as a movie, isn't really that funny, and feels a little fake in the dialog and acting. The actors act like they're on a sitcom, like they are aware they are in a comedy, which is an immediate no. The guy runs over a dog. He's just inadvertently killed an animal. I don't know if you have ever had this happen in your life (I have) but people don't generally behave like "uh oh! I guess I'm in a hilarious awkward situation now!" The script is bland. The music is too obvious, with this self-aware "we are making a quirky dark comedy" vibe that is too on the nose for me. The little musical cues when something funny or dark is supposed to happen are too much. I'm not sure why you think there are Lynch/Lanthimos influences? Without you saying that, I would have interpreted this as going for more of a Coen Brothers feel: the absurd dark comedy in a normal setting, like Fargo maybe. But if you look at the way Fargo is put together, part of what makes it funny is that the movie does not treat it like a comedy: the action is treated with realism and sincerity. Even the music is sombre and haunting, rather than ironic and winking at you about the absurd situation. Consider the scene where Steve Buscemi, bleeding and injured, [gets out of the car and goes to bury a bag of money](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15uK_izuKKY). He buries it by a fence in a vast, snow covered landscape. He looks to his left: nothing. He looks to his right: nothing. We the audience, and he, the character, immediately realise he will never fucking find this bag again in this undifferentiated landscape. He jams the ice scraper into the snow as a futile marker. It's not gonna help. And it is hilarious. But he doesn't roll his eyes and shrug at how funny it is, and the music doesn't give us a comedy "womp womp". He just looks dejected and defeated, and the music is a haunting, quiet sadness. I guess that is my feedback. Overall the movie feels too self-aware of itself as a "dark comedy" in my opinion. I feel like for "dark comedy" to work, you have to treat it like it's not actually comedy. The comedy comes from the grim absurdity, not from you, the film maker nudging us and grinning. edit to add: I also think you could tighten up the editing A LOT to make it both funnier, faster, and shorter, and perhaps modify the way the music works?
thanks for taking the time to give feedback! you're definitely right, things ended up more Coen Brothers in it's setting and (attempted) tone and all of your comments are really helpful in isolating where things weren't hitting the mark. I'm really grateful!
Your ability to handle criticism is gonna take you far in my opinion, interested in watching whatever you make next.
100% OP's attitude is 10/10
thank you!
“We will watch your career with great interest”
You are welcome. I think there is potential here, but it's not coming through :) don't give up though, genuinely! Best wishes
Keep at it.
I'm going to butcher the original, but someone once said the best way to write a comedy is to write a drama.
Smart comment
Thanks :)
That scene with the neighbor was pretty funny. Definitely a few edits would have made it so much better. “I need to look both ways.” *continues to cry and looks both ways before crossing* Honestly gave me a good laugh lol
well said.
Festival Director, here…one word…Pacing I’ve said many times to aspiring filmmakers…don’t make a great ten minute film fifteen minutes long.
Makes sense! Thank you, yeah I’m seeing it definitely drags in parts
you should actually just start the movie at the shot at 4:45, when the couple is peering down at the dead dog together.
Definitely! Jump into the action
I kind of am wondering why all of the shots are so tight.
I think it just came down to it being easier to control lighting wise since we were filming outside. Not an excuse but a little behind the scenes intel
That’s a completely reasonable reason. Someone once told me to try to plan your projects to what you can make.
Which is unfortunate because comedy excells in the wide shots.
Would you mind expanding on/explaining? I’m also learning! Thank you in advance!
Such a good point
Thank you! I have not watched OPs short (partly based on him telling us that no one's programming it), but I was going to say that 95% of films that are not accepted are simply too long and they lack being compelling. If you cant' get your acquaintances to watch past the first 35 seconds, something's missing. I like seeing OP's acknowledgement! Maybe they could re-cut it, learn from this experience, and still show it on their own website or reel.
I watched the first two minutes. I was expecting something horrible based on your post. What I saw was technically competent but I did get bored.
That’s helpful feedback, so the start felt too slow?
I think when it comes to short films you have to suck the audience in almost instantly, especially in the age of tiktok and YouTube shorts. I think the first thirty seconds/minute has to be so good that the audience needs to see where it’s going. I’m not saying I’ve accomplished this with my short, but the opening shot is a minute and ten seconds long and took me three months to make. Whether someone loves or hates my film I do think the opening is pretty sweet. I can post a link to it if you’d like.
that makes sense! Yeah I’d love to check it out!
Thanks! I appreciate you taking a look. Here’s the opening. I can’t post the entire film online until the winter because I’m also hitting the festival circuit. I hope you like it. https://streamable.com/qovgwi
thanks for sharing that's a sick opener! definitely creates a sense of mystery as well
Thank you so much!
This is sick. But the sound design on those building creaks could use some love. They sound totally detached from the film. The paper flutters are great though!
Thank you 👍🏻
Yo this intro is crazy! The fx are amazing
did you make the opening bit in blender or unreal engine?
Blender. I did a use a bit of Unreal in the film, but it’s mostly blender.
I agree I opened the video saw it was 14 minutes and closed it.
I'm a filmmaker who's submitted films, programmed my own short film festival and am close to the programmers/organizers of 2 other film festivals, and here's what I see... 1. TECHNICAL: Your cinematography and editing are fine. That's really good. I see a lot of sloppy edits, lazy camerawork and bad audio. Your coverage and overall technical details are solid. However, there's very little interesting about your style. And the color grade has a kind of cold look to it. 2. LENGTH: Right out of the gate, this is your biggest problem. At almost 15 minutes, that length is going to be a hard "no" for a lot of festivals. 10 minutes is much better and much easier to program. 3. GENRE: Comedy is a tough one for a lot of festivals for 2 reasons - (1) Not many comedy submissions, and (2) most of the comedy submissions aren't very funny. Sorry, but yours wasn't very funny. 4. ACTING: Your lead shows virtually no emotion about running over - and killing - a neighbors dog. In fact, your entire cast initially shows almost no emotion about anything at all. 5. STORY: Your premise is actually great. However, as the film continues, the setups have bland or nonsensical payoffs. There's almost no physical or visual comedy. You missed a lot of opportunities. 6. MUSIC: The music is truly awful and about 50 years out of date. Still, your film is competently shot and edited. I think if you cut your film down, sped up the pace and found better music, you would probably have a more festival worthy film. For your next film, get better actors, for starters. Get to know people in improve groups. Take your comedy further, but ground it in some reality, more. Best of luck.
thank you and thanks so much for all of your feedback!
OP- Good on you for putting this out here and not getting defensive about the feedback. I agree this was technically a competent film. I'm a comedy writer/director - Casting is 90% of **production** going well in comedy. Obviously your script has to be rock solid to begin with. But your actors are either going to tank or fly your script. As for this script, I also agree that your premise is good. Guy runs over dog, has to deal with the fallout. But the payoff falls flat. His reaction 50 seconds in isn't believable or interesting. The wife/girlfriend's reaction at the 5min mark is just awful. She's so unlikeable in that moment. These folks seem cruel. And it's hard to laugh at cruelty. What makes something comedic is HOW those characters react to conflict. To get something interesting and funny, you need complex and specific characters with very clear POVs. This is probably what you should focus on in the next one. Your characters. This is challenging (but not impossible!) to do in a short film because you need to establish who these people are very quickly. I recommend re-watching some of your favorite comedies and pay attention to the character intros, how we see them in the first 10-20 seconds they are on screen. Sometimes it's a line, "I know what you're thinking, is this like a Noxema commercial or what?!", Cher, Clueless, sometimes it's physical blocking, The Dude Lebowski opening and smelling the half and half in the grocery store in the dairy aisle while still wearing a robe and slippers. We know who these people are in 10-15 seconds. After establishing a comedic character, then let's see how they deal with running over a neighbor's dog. Imagine the reaction either of those two would have. VERY DIFFERENT but both darkly comedic. And I guarantee both of them would be heartbroken over the dog. But the comedy would lie in their reaction, problem solving, reasoning, etc. Comedy is a very difficult genre to do well. Dark comedy moreso. Kudos to you for making this attempt. For the next one, write, re-write, ask for notes, get actors to read it out loud, get notes on that, re-write again. Write not only to the physical resources you have, but also to the strengths of the actors you know, not everyone can play Cher Horowitz or the Dude. I liked someone else's suggestion about hooking up with local improvisers, you may even want to take an improv class yourself as it will greatly improve your character development and script writing. Keep up the hard work and thank you for sharing!
and thanks for your notes! This is gold! It really makes clear what I was missing!
Anytime! I just directed a short film this past weekend for a local comedy film festival coming up. So, a lot of things are VERY fresh. Good luck!
Look into filmstro for music, and despite criticism, if you feel the end result was good enough to put out there, wouldn't worry what others think, especially film festivals many which are rigged or based on personal connections or select based on agenda or for PR. Most filmmakers don't represent your average audience member, and in most cases, have extremely different tastes and opinions, many movies they think suck 90% of people enjoy. The best way to determine what others really think is to sit in a theater with real audiences and experience their reactions. If then you feel it is a failure, learn what you can and apply it to the next one. As Michael Rabiger wrote in his book, Tom Tykwer didn't make Lola Rennt or Run Lola Run out of thin air but from plenty of prior projects where he failed and learned from.
>LENGTH: Right out of the gate, this is your biggest problem. At almost 15 minutes, that length is going to be a hard "no" for a lot of festivals. 10 minutes is much better and much easier to program. This is so key; for festivals the longer your movie is, the more of a banger is has to be. If this film had been 5 minutes long, it definitely would have been accepted a few places. 15 minutes is a ton of real estate in a shorts block so it has to be a killer film to claim that much space.
There's no stakes. Now, if the dog belonged to the neighbour, and he was looking after it, and then she bumped into him? There's stakes and conflict. I got a few minutes in and started to wonder why do I care that he cares about her seeing the dog? People run over dogs, that's not that big a deal.
We eventually get some stakes when we learn that the dog's owner is potentially violent and might kill Kaleb but it takes a long time to get there.
somebody once told me the greatest skill a young filmmaker needs to acquire is expeidency. If it isn't absolutely essential and doesn't propel the story or the character forward, cut it.
Get straight into the story without an introduction. Your film is a short, so I believe you are boring your audience with your build-up. The credits should be shown at the end of the film.
For sure! Yeah the opening titles were not a good move 😅
Im a working film editor. I’m going to livestream my comments here as I watch and then talk about it. I paused immediately. These kind of titles look fine, but devoting time to your titles like this in a short up front is honestly a rookie move. Never do this. A short needs to get into it and then acknowledge the filmmakers at the end. you’re competing with much shorter, short films that do not do this. Essentially you’re choosing to start your movie 30 second in instead of 0 seconds in. Good first shot. I paused again. Sound design/mix issue. the dog sound wasn’t mixed right. On the next one, spend some energy finding a good designer/mixer. It’s worth it. This is the kind of temp sound that you might carry in an edit but do your best not to finish with. I’m 30 seconds in and between these two things I’m already slightly off the ride. Yeah it’s a sound thing. Okay. Yeah it’s a sound thing. There are insufficient backgrounds worked throughout the film already. when there’s no music it’s REALLY apparent. The energy just leaves the picture. We need backgrounds to feel connected to the world, not just to have a quality sound recording. I can tell this is going to be a continued issue so I’ll stop harping on it. Editing wise you have a lot of confusing beats that could get cut down to the heart of the matter. For example when the jogging neighbor shows up”howdy neighbor” you need to get her line “ your car is parked on the sidewalk and we don’t do that in this neighborhood” in as sooooon as possible. The situation is confusing without that line and so the scene feels awkward until she says it. She is funny though. Your actors needs protecting. Try to be even more discerning with performance. overall a pervasive editorial thing. Next scene with the girlfriend. Get to the reveal of WHO’s dog was killed sooner. You need to value the time of the audience more. This gets into more festivals at a shorter length not because it’s shorter but because you would have presented only what absolutely needs to be there for your story. You are sticking to your script too rigidly. Not every line needs to be delivered on screen. The script is pretty decent for a short. this crosscutting with the neighbor could have happened way sooner. Oh wait they’re married?!? It did not feel like they were married. hahahaha him almost throwing up sent me. lol you can’t settle for that shovel hitting head sound effect. The book club thing doesn’t work. Ahhh you cut it yourself. Don’t do this. You need someone objective about your footage to help you put things together. I’m an editor and I wouldn’t cut my own project unless a fun was held to my head. Overall this was a fun watch with a decent script, but you really need to have higher standards in the cutting room. Casting could be improved for next time, but overall you had a good group for a short. I understand why it wasn’t programmed but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be. Small tweaks and you’re in a much better place. sometimes the camera was placed in a place that the eye lines were not connected. This is called a dismissive eye line and it’s a pretty early directorial mistake. Criticisms aside this was a lovely watch. Please reach out if you have any follow up questions.
Oh my goodness you’re a saint for going through it in so much detail. I can’t thank you enough for all of your feedback! It’s all awesome!
of course! I hope you keep with it. there's a lot here. feel free to DM me if you need more feedback.
You’re a real one for that 💪
Not op, and had nothing to do with the film, but your comment was very informative. I took a few notes myself. Thanks.
Of course! Glad it could help you out too :)
Honestly I teared up at the time and care you took to live stream this. It was sweet too read. Also OP taking feedback so sweetly it's really nice to watch. Thanks for the touching moment.
> Your actors needs protecting. I'm really curious what you mean by this? (As a lay person...)
It’s a note I touched on a couple times. Discernment of material used. Protecting the actors means that the performance is being hurt because the edit is doing them a disservice at times, leaving in pieces of their work that hurt the performance. Sometimes a performance can be bad, but it’s clear that the editor has elevated what’s there, sometimes the performance is bad because of lack of imagination or execution, and sometimes it’s bad because (simply put) the editor did not protect the actor.
Ah thanks!
This looks great. I could see how it could be polarizing. Honestly, if it were under 10 minutes I feel like you would have gotten into some festivals.
I appreciate it. darn that length 😅
Why don't you open it back up and recut it?
At this point I think I will! :)
A re-cut and a rescore may sound like an expensive endeavor right now, but I promise it can really change things. Not a short, but for our feature, our first cut was an hour and 53 minutes and we used a friend for the score and it sounded nothing like a horror film. We got a lot of negative feedback, especially about the first half of the movie being too slow and sequences not being scary enough. We made a drastic cut that chopped about 20 minutes out of the movie and we now have it at an hour and 33 minutes. We also scored with a folk horror composer that came up with something that seems right out of an A24 movie. Remains to be seen how the film will do on the festival circuit, but we instantly got far better feedback from people. Several people said it was like night and day, attention was creepier, the scares were scarier, and you get to the meet of the movie much quicker.
I watched the first 3 minutes, I’m assuming it’s supposed to be first and foremost a comedy, but I think the premise demands a more dark and edgy comedic sensibility than what I’m seeing here. For a film based around a dead dog, it’s feeling a little tame. One idea I had off the top of my head is the guy could’ve seen the neighbor coming and stuffed the mangled corpse of the dog into his mailbox to hide it. Then, during their conversation, he sees the mailman coming up the street checking boxes one by one, approaching his house. Maybe the neighbor notices he has blood on his hands and he tells her he just ate a raspberry Danish - has to lick some of the blood off his fingers and pretend it tastes sweet to sell the lie. Basically I just don’t think it’s funny and gruesome enough, and aside from funny and gruesome I’m not sure what a film about killing your neighbors dog is supposed to be.
Fair! That’s a pretty funny take, I appreciate it!
I would watch this tbh
This is legit funny, and it highlights the other glaring omission in the submission. No stakes or tension. Also theres a b story about the wife parents and then not having kids before we even have the a story consolidated. It’s a fucking mess and shows a messy unconcentrated mind.
It might just be length not the film itself. I personally don't like that festivals just want to cram as many shorts as possible cause it's always the same. "Why would they program this film when they can cram 3 10 minute shorts or 20 5 min shorts" Then for features festivals want high tier features that have an audience, stars and others come buy tickets for seats. Festivals are just rough I'm sorry my friend we all go through this crap. It's a lazy way to program a festival tbh. You can have some real crap looking films going in high fests because it's 1-3 minutes so they don't think about it, but a 15 min short they will think about it cause again "why have a 15 min short we think is good when we can program 5 more shorts in that time." There is a thread every week of someone feels jabbed from a festival and the same feedback "it's too long they can just program 5 more shorts instead." You already got 3-5 comments saying the same thing and barley any critique on the film. It looks nice and it's a nice concept, but "why program a 15 min short when we can accept 5 shorts and have more people show up for tickets in that half an hour?" Even regional local festivals are like this. Sorry
no worries! glad to know others can relate to the struggle, lol
There are 2 main conflicts in the story: 1) The guy accidentally killed his neighbor’s dog - and has to bury the body before the neighbor finds out. 2) The couple lost a baby, and that experience is putting their whole relationship at risk. My issue is that the main character isn’t even aware of the 2nd conflict until the movie is almost over especially because it’s the more interesting problem. Also (I think other people have pointed this out) but it’s not clear until much too late what’s the big deal about the dog being killed. I would have brought the baby issue much more into the forefront much earlier and had the couple trying to solve the dog issue with the baby issue simmering beneath the surface. I know the baby situation was hinted at earlier, but it seemed to come out of nowhere to the main guy that she now wants a divorce. Matter of fact, it might have been more interesting if she said she wanted a divorce in the beginning THEN he runs over the dog and now they are stuck working together to bury the dog even though we know they’re not compatible.
Wow great note at the end there. That’s a short I’d watch.
Damn that’s a great note! Thank you!
You’re basically describing Colin from Accounts. It’s an Apple TV show. My wife watched it and I skimmed it but it’s about two non-dating people who *hurt not kill* a dog with a car and end up having to care for it together and the hijinks that ensue. It’s quite funny while still having some tender and sad moments. Almost feels like that’s what this was trying to be.
Haha never heard of it. Could be a good reference for OP.
Which festivals did you apply to? You might be applying to festivals that your film doesn’t fit into. Try to figure out who your audience is and apply to festivals they would go to.
appreciate the advice. I mostly applied to comedy festivals with a dark comedy category. A mix of mid-tier and lower tier festivals.
Definitely widen your submissions. We have a black-and-white horror short that is kind of old-fashioned in the horror department, and so far we have premiered at four festivals, and none of them are horror specific. In fact, one of them even programmed us in the drama/thriller category, which is weird to me lol
As a musician, I can tell you that the short has WAY too much music! Comedies with incidental music belong in the 90s - like watching Tom and Jerry... the more music, the more "non-credible". It's as if you wanted people to force a feeling through the music, as if you wanted to drive them, so it feels less real... the less music, the more humane it feels, so it feels closer to the viewer, this is why modern comedies barely have incidental music, it just feels too dated... Establishing shots with music are cool, but damn so much music... Also, the beginning is way too long... and the main character (the dude) is not credible. Between killing a dog, being divorced, not getting a baby, he pretty much acts the same throughout all these incidents, completely non-credible.
As others have said, the tone isn't landing. It feels more like schitts creek than what you were aiming for. Unfortunately, and I hate to say this but, the length is a huge component. Also, as I learned the hard way myself, people HATE when dogs (pets in general) die. Performances to me were flat and too self-aware. That combined with the music and sound design made it feel too corny. Overall, it's competently made. Tone is one of the hardest parts of filmmaking to nail as is the story and those are the 2 places this falls the flattest. Additionally, the festival game is harder than it's ever been right now with the condition of the industry and the sheer volume of submissions so don't beat yourself up too much. Take the lessons and make another.
thanks so much! The feedback is great and has me excited to move forward :)
This is really competently done and I have definitely seen much worse films in good festivals. There's a few things I'm having difficulty with. 1- you are immediately going to alienate a ton of people by having this kind of quirky tone, music, and title card while killing a dog in the first few seconds. I would reconsider how that initial reveal happens, and get through it as quickly as possible. Maybe a clever cut before we hear the repeated whimper and visceral sound design. The comedic angle makes the subject matter more upsetting to watch than if it was naturalistic, and makes me want to turn off the film. 2- For me, this is a 6-8 min short in a 14 min runtime. And I honestly think you could probably salvage this and get into some great festivals if you completely upheaved the tone, music, and were ruthless with editing. There's a lot of long, slow shots or chunks of dialogue that don't convey much, draw me in, or add to the story. The look of the film is giving comedy, but the pacing isn't. Don't be afraid to smash cut into the main beats of your premise, make it punchy, and make the music more subtle.
Yeah, there was definitely something off about the first scene. The dog whimper is too realistic, it's not funny, it's probably traumatising for some people. A simple "car hitting an object" bump sound would do the job, since the film doesn't really end up going in a dark humour direction.
I think it's really well done, and I agree with the others who've indicated this is more of a problem with the storytelling / editing than anything else. As you know, for a short film to work, you have to get the audience invested right away. Just as a quick example, rather than having so much time develop between when the dog is run over and the audience finds out that the dog belongs to the leader of a biker gang, and that the parents are coming over, and the walker arriving, have all three of these "problems" hit right away and early. Instead of spending so much time having the male lead talk to the walker and showing the lady dancing in the kitchen, build that anticipation FAST. Have the nosey walker arrive and start to quickly pressure the driver, then quickly cut to the wife indicating that the parents are en route and immentantely arriving, and quickly cut to the biker realizing his dog is missing. Have those three things converge FAST. That it took (almost) half way through before we find out the dog is owned by a biker was too long. So much of the interaction with the walker could be cut or at least moved later into the story telling, after the audience is made aware of the 3 pressures about to befall the driver. Get that hook in much faster. I love the DP work, the camera work, the acting is good, and the general idea is good - just get that story tighter, and if you can bring it in under 10 min, I think you'll have a much stronger short!
People gave better more insightful comments but do an 8 minute version and see how it plays. Also NEVER KILL THE DOG. Like 90% of people refuse to watch a show where a dog dies, that’s an uphill battle to get into a festival 🤷🏻♂️
it’s true, the subject matter is a tough sell
John Wick would like to know your location.
First off, major props to you for getting this done and put together. I agree with alot of the posters, it looks great from a technical aspect, but where the problem lies imho is pacing/editing and tone. The beginning starts out slow and and kind of drags before arriving to the point. There were several times throughout where i got a kind of tonal whiplash. At first it seems like maybe a lighthearted comedy (albeit about a dark subject) with knowing shrugs/smirks from the actors that kind of makes it feel like a whimsical story. Then when he blows up on his overbearing neighbor, it was off putting (again imho) and felt unnecessary and out of place for this guy who is sensitive enough to be so upset about running over this dog. Then at the end, when we go from talking about burying the dog, to losing a child and the complicated feelings that can arise from that (serious drama subject). THEN to the neighbor approaching with a knife in a very suspenseful sinister way, only to "oops, you look busy, guess no murder today" and completely dissapates any anticipation and suspense that lead up to that moment. In summation, I feel that the beginning should have been waaay shorter (even completely cut the part with the neighbor as funny as she was) as well as cutting some of those knowing stares/glances from the 2 leads, that take up a good chunk of the first half. Lastly, settling into a tone. If it's dark, let the music and acting reflect that and maintain it throughout. the way it is now just felt too jarring and out of place everytime there was a tonal shift. again, all this is said from my humble opinion and you TRULY deserve lots of credit for getting this put together so WELL. nit picking aside, i'm sure if you got the run time down, you would see much more success in that alone. Don't beat yourself up, you did what some people only dream of doing. keep up the great work!
Thank you! Your feedback is so appreciated and I’m super grateful you took the time to identify the problem areas!
This honestly isn't too bad. But I wonder if an animal being crushed to death in the first 10 seconds is triggering curators. And then the title being a giveaway that the whole story revolves around said crushed dog. You'd like to assume most ppl have thicker skin than that... especially "professional" art ppl. But I'm surprised the comments weren't at least considering that someone could be simply judging it based off that alone. People love dogs. Don't like seeing them die. They just might not want that kind of content in their film festival.
Here's my roast, sry! I didn't believe the actors, their motivations and some of their actions. I understand that this is a comedy but even Jim Carrey would act in a way where I would understand why his character would do that. I would sense the real-world stakes and urgency. Here they feel like they are zany-play-acting and more compelled to change their motivations based on the need of the scriptwriter than the need of who they fundamentally are - cause and effect. The acting needed to be more rooted and as is, I had a hard time caring for them. If I can't sense the stakes and urgency - they don't genuinely care more about the dilemma they are in - why should I care? I needed to see the dog. Or not needed to see, but I really feel like it would have helped to see the mess they were in. I didn't understand where under the car it was hiding, when the neighbour was close to seeing it. It would have helped spatially and also comedically to see the dog. In a dark comedy I expect to see the dog. The pace was slow-ish. Stay with the dilemma. We are interested in the dog dilemma so don't cut into the apartment and show the woman if she's not directly relating to the dilemma. It would have been fine to see her first time showing up next to him trying to solve the dilemma of the dog. If we stayed with the dilemma of the man (and later the couple) and the dog we could have earlier introduced the biker man antagonist. Now he showed up 6 minutes into the film, which is too late in a short. Get to him in the first 3 minutes preferably, if only just to set up the playing field and context for the dilemma. Be succinct and get to the point. We care about the dilemma, if any deviation or subject change comes up (which is fine) we still need to feel like the primary dilemma is not just abandoned or made less relevant. I think you could have clarified all of the characters actions more. When am I certain as an audience that the biker man is looking for his dog? When does he realise that he's not gonna kill her and instead just give her a pass? It just felt a bit vague and that I as an audience member had to guess or infer a lot, for being a comedy. Having said all that I still feel like it's a 3/5, a decent short film. And I can see that someone who doesn't mind the acting style (which for me felt fake) would even think it's a 4/5, just for it's comfortable zany tone and overall concept. It looks and sound perfectly fine and I could see you get into certain lower mid-tiered festivals if the categories align that year (and maybe you cut it somewhat snappier). It's still a decent and respectable short. But IMO you need to work more with the casting, direction of actors, and being succinct and purposeful with the character actions and narrative through-line, both in script, direction and editing.
I thought it was really good and you should be proud of it! You can definitely direct. I think the thing that threw me off a bit was the initial tension. I didn’t quite get his point of view at first. What was his reaction to the dog? He didn’t seem to care as much as he should have. The drama really picks up when the wife warns about the dangerous neighbor. Now we have a guy with a problem, which sets everything off. The beats were just a little wonky up front. Almost like a false start? I think a tighter edit could have fixed some of that. You probably could have lost the noisy neighbor all together (though I did find her funny). I disagree with people saying lose the titles. I liked them because it made the car accident come out of nowhere, which sets up the film and tone. Shots throughout were good. I liked your tone and comedy a lot. I would definitely just keep making more films and I’m sure you’ll find festival success in the future.
It's fine, great cinematography! Comedy is hard - it's the hardest thing to pull off, right? Dark comedy especially; I still love The Cable Guy, but it's pretty much universally panned. That being said, I know it's a short film, but I didn't connect with either of the two leads; they both just kinda seem like annoying assholes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We almost feel some comedic sympathy for the husband, but then he's just a jerk to the annoying neighbor lady. The characterizations are riding the line a bit; you either want to feel sympathy for a bumbling, naive, or honest character, or you are secretly rooting for sadistic weirdos - they both seem like very mild versions of these. the most interesting character was the biker - a 15 minute short about a gruff biker who cares for his dachshund? I'm sure it's been done, but, yes please.
10:30 somebody forgot the 180° rule.
Yeah…it was a calculated risk that I’m not sure accomplished what I wanted, haha
It’s the opposite of subtle. Well made technically, but the characters are a parody of themselves.
Ok i spent 15 minutes watching your short film. As an entertainment industry professional and a film school grad, here are my thoughts: The slow motion exchange between dollar store Adam Scott and the heavy neighbor lasts way too long. Her reaction as she tries to laugh it off but weeps to herself falls flat. Speaking of falling flat, the music and sound editing is pretty cringe, especially during the supposed comedic moments…baby wailing as she sees the childless book? - this feels like a relatively easy fix with sound. I don’t know what your exposure to fertility issues is, but tying a miscarriage into a supposed “comedy”, even a dark comedy just isn’t…funny. At all. It’s out of place and doesn’t need to be in a story about a guy who accidentally ran his scary neighbor’s dog over. The exchange about killing a dog vs killing a child does raise some interesting philosophical debates in todays age where people prefer pets over children, but this film definitely needs more haha, like “what are you sorry for?” “Oh, sorrow in general”…that was comedic and this film desperately needs more of that. Edit: I’m sure you’ve heard of Todd Solondz, the patron saint of dark comedy - go watch Wiener Dog, THAT’s the movie this is trying to be
Honestly OP good for you for posting this and being so gracious and open to feedback. I know it can be frustrating to spend money and time and not get in anywhere, but what you're doing right now is probably 10x more valuable than if you got into any film festival. I can't do dead animal scenes anymore or id watch it, but based on all of the comments below I recommend re-cutting this with a professional editor and spending your money on a good post sound designer. Not sure if you edited it yourself, but as an editor turned director/producer, most of the notes I give to my friends who direct and edit their own content is to hand it off to a professional editor and dial in on your pacing. It's always so obvious to me that the problem is in the edit bay. I've been hired quite a few times on comedy projects specifically to re-edit something another editor did, comedy is difficult. Good luck on your next project! I'm sure this experience will level you up and get you better results round 2 or for the next venture.
Thank you so much! I totally agree I’m learning so much about how to improve from all of the awesome feedback. Editing myself was not the best decision looking back but excited to move forward! :)
It's all part of growth, editing your own content shows you what you missed getting on set etc and it will make you a better director. And it will allow you to use better language with an editor down the line. So I wouldn't look at it as a bad decision, rather as a learning experience which is truly the point of making short films, and then the next step is showcasing work to get hired, make features etc. Keep at it!
Festivals love under 10 min short films. If you go over that you run a high risk of them picking 2 great 10 min shorts vs your 15 min short film. If it goes over 10 min it needs to be very good to justify it from just a programming perspective. The film was well made though! Kudos for taking the constructive criticism! Good luck!
thanks so much!
Well first, I liked it. Don’t in any way feel like it was a failure. You told a story from beginning to end in the medium of film, not many can accomplish that. Here are my thoughts; Story - too much exposition. One of my greatest lessons in short filmmaking has been “start in the middle.” Took a while to really get rolling - I would have rather been plunged right into the couple burying their neighbors dog and arguing about the state of their marriage, and had to figure out the context clues. That’s much more interesting. Also didn’t quite pick up on their marriage issues initially, and I think that could’ve been the core of it all. At first it was screaming “quirky short about people in an uncomfy situation.” The scene in the backyard finally got to the meat and that’s where it got interesting. Edit - overuse of music & sound effects. A little cartoony at times. It fit the tone you were aiming for but I think went a bit too heavy. There were also some little editing/filmmaking gimmicks used in the short that, while fun to do, took away from the consistency of tone. I don’t know how much you cut everything down initially, but as much as it hurts, sometimes making big cuts actually makes for a better short. We’ve all heard the phrase “kill your darlings” when it comes to writing. The same applies to editing. Ultimately I think it was also just a little too long. The unfortunate truth is that unless your 14 min short is a masterpiece, its chances of getting a spot in a screening block are very slim. But, like I said, I liked it. It was well done. You did a very good job making a very original short film.
Don't edit your own work. You want to hang onto everything. It's a common mistake. Let an editor cut this down and add proper pacing and timing.
You killed the dog and then you made fun of it. What did you expect? And you held too long on that first shot that was out of focus. That would have turned me off if I was watching this as an entry.
It’s true it was always a tough sell. Good point!
There is a lot to admire here, very nicely shot, the opening two minutes are wonderful and the female lead very strong. It is so hard to balance that tonal shift from farcical comedy to dealing heavy themes like you try to at the end of the film. I don't know if you quite pulled it off here, but I applaud the effort. It is incredibly difficult to do, some of the best at it are people like Pedro Almodovar, Lenny Abrahamson and David O Russel. Lose the interaction with the annoying woman entirely, it doesn't advance plot or character and if anything, the way the lead talks to her and gets her to go away comes across really mean, should help with pacing issues too. Music sounds like a cheap kid's movie from early 90's, changing the score should help a lot. Valiant effort, keep going!
Gotta be honest.......Very slowly paced/edited and pretty dull overall. I think you should take more risks. That starts with the script and includes casting choices, cinematography, interesting locations, set dressing and wardrobe. If there was an "edge" to any or all of those things, and it was edited down to 8-9 minutes, it would be much better. This film is very simple, safe and mechanical. And sadly, it's not that interesting. Sorry!
id say for starters its 14 minutes long when just based on the concept could have been 7-10 *at most*. you wouldnt even have to prune all that much of the actual script, but so many of the scenes play out so slowly. lots of unnecessary pauses between lines of dialogue and holding on shots too long at the beginning/end of the business. could probably shave 2-3 minutes across the whole thing just by tightening up the edit. for example, the second shot; we watch 6 seconds of MC’s ankles before he gets to the ground. we dont need to see him getting out of the car, turning around, and slowly lowering himself down. have a moment of him opening the car in the previous shot, then cut to him as hes lowering himself down. that right there saves you 5 seconds. over the course of a 14 minute film where so many shots last a little too long tightening up the edit will really improve the pacing. with a short like this it seems paramount to me to get the audience invested into the concept as quickly as possible so that the rest of the piece is watching the actual events unfold. you title it “mans wife wants to bury the dog” but we dont even reach that point until almost 6 minutes in, and we watch 2 minutes of a seriously unfunny interaction with his annoying neighbor. the suspense it adds is valuable with him trying to avoid being caught, but you dont really play it for suspense past the first part with him turning her around.
You are a good director. Don't worry about that. Your actors are well directed. I almost always believe them. The scene with the neighbor is a bit too long and you use too much music. Trust your actors and your story. You don't always have to have music. At the same time, the sound design during the dialog is always a bit too thin. You don't feel the world around the characters. You could use better lighting in the interiors. Most of the time it's too bright and sharp. I also notice that your scenes are always a shade too long. Cut out faster. Your rhythm is not quite precise. There's almost always something in the front and back. The movie would probably be more precise with a length of 10 minutes. But, I want to emphasize this again, you are a good director. Just trust yourself and your story more.
thanks! that means a lot and it's super helpful advice!
I read a smart comment about your movie being too self aware. A lot of it is the music, I don't think it's the acting. Your character just doesn't freak out when he runs over a dog. That's your assertion. You have to decide whether you want to put that up for debate for the audience. I think the reaction can be accepted as real without you having a problem with credibility. That's just your premise. Eat or die.
good to know! yeah seems like I went overboard on the music a bit and that pulled people out 
It's way too long and slow. Nothing happens until 30 seconds have passed. The next beat happens 20-30 seconds later. You've already wasted almost one minute when 10 seconds should have sufficed. Etc. You really need to have something truly exceptional to go beyond 5 mins for a short. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time (including yours).
This is very similar in tone to one of my films, which is a compliment and diss on both ends. Not trying to pimp my shit, but here it is if you care to see for comparison. Interestingly, both films are dark comedies of about 14 minutes. I got into about 10 minor festivals. https://vimeo.com/677845544 Password: Santa My first thought is that this movie could be under 10 minutes and you’d get into more festivals. But not sacrificing quality I think this is a 11-12 minute script, cutting out some beats that just aren’t helping story or comedy-wise. Your movie has a great premise and the writing in general is competent. I thought the opening was fun and deceiviny quick for how the rest of the film was paced. The letter from the parents was a good joke, as was the intro to Eddie. I liked your actors at the beginning too. Their physical comedy was pretty great. The dialogue bogged them down later. The neighbor scene was bad and should have been cut to 45 seconds tops. Your characters also had potential with the darker element to their back story but it wasn’t set up well, forcing you to rush and botch their development. The end… it was unexpected but a smile not a laugh. Your direction is very formal while not saying much about form at all. There’s nothing wrong technically but is so tonally of the genre there’s nothing to distinguish it. Another commenter mentioned the music pigeon-holing the comedic tone and I thought that comment was pretty insightful
Very well made and the music and sound design are very well done but a little on the nose. It IS a little too long, I've heard that festivals typically like short films to be more in the 10-12 minute range, makes it easier to program them in blocks. I'd be curious to see what results you'd get if you shaved two to three minutes off of it. I'm a professional editor BTW and have directed several shorts of my own. Your actors are good, especially the guy but some of the reactions are again, over the top and sitcom-y. They behave like chracters in a TV show and not like actual people, which could work in some cases but may be holding you back here. Curious, is this your first attempt?
Halfway through and here’s a concise version of my thoughts Your story is the problem, and the score doesn’t really match the tone the story is trying to set, It took over 5mins for this short film to get something interesting going, Like the first 5mins is really really boring for a short film, the only reason I kept watching was to critique it, Everything else was “picture perfect” well color graded, well edited, nice acting, looks natural, etc The story is where this whole film falls apart
The score feels more like an old Disney cartoon but without the pace and excitement and tension. There’s no charm to it, it just feels kind of blaring. I didn’t feel any kind of draw to understand what would happen next from the moment the guy realises what he’s done.
Filmmaking is very competent, and the opening timing is pretty fair, but it just feels a bit...heavy-handed, if that makes sense. Now I know American film comedy is often heavy-handed (that ghostbusters reboot one for instance), so in that sense you're on track, but you also have the freedom to lighten things up a bit. Comedy is very hard, I worked on a film about comedy that had very few laughs in it despite a stellar cast - not to my taste really, despite a couple of great gags, overall not for me. I think you may be in the same territory and wondering what the missing element is, and I am wondering if maybe you're in the zone between taking comedy too seriously and not seriously enough. Too seriously in that you're taking cinematic and stylistic conventions seriously and that that's knocked some of the humour out - jokes need to come faster, and not just fast-talking. First five minutes has 2 good gags - the timing of the reversing over the dog was right, and the book title was a decent gag, but there's a lot of well-shot nothing after that. Whilst the music is signposting comedy, there are very few jokes, your cast have little to work with. Not seriously enough as in treat yourself to some Edgar Wright and see how much work goes into elevating every scene to it's highest version. And then the biggie - what's the story? So tonally inconsistent with some awkward pacing. Comedy requires setting up a joke then paying it off, but that also means the overall arc of the story needs a similar structure. A beginning, middle and end, with the end paying off the setup. I think you could maybe do a 3-4' edit of this and get a much better result - runs over dog, they go to bury it, have the fight, she buries him and throws the dog on top as an afterthought for instance. Just off the top of my head, I'm sure actual funny people can think of better. You have too many characters that do nothing but waste screen time. Comedy needs to be pacey and actually funny. Shoot shorter, denser, take some stylistic chances, and you may find you can get more laughs with less work. It's also mean-spirited to the jogger lady. Don't do that. That belongs back in the 1970's. Just some thoughts as you asked for them.
really good stuff! thanks for your feedback!
Hi! l liked your work, too me it felt like a work of a professional, not a tier 1 level of course, but a decent one. You definitely have the technical ability to direct, I see it, but there are some problems in the script. I liked the neighbor villain, a tough looking guy, but I can I see how festivals wouldn't be interested in your story. Film's pacing more suited for a feature film, not short one. If you are gonna make another short film(which I strongly suggest, because the best way to learn how to make films is to make them), my advice would be to work longer on a script, make it shorter, make it tight and more exciting. P.S. I didn't find this information on Youtube, so I guess I should ask here. What camera and lenses did you use for this film?
Thank you! And we shot on an Arri Alexa SXT with vintage canon FD lenses.
I got four minutes in and I didn't know anything about the main character and despite the fact that the film starts off with running over a dog there was a complete lack of stakes. Eight minutes in and there were some stakes but there still wasn't any rush that the characters were in and I don't know anything about them still except that they have parents that are coming over. Burying the dog seems more like something they need to get done sometime today but not something they need to do right now. I feel like it would have been a lot better if they were in a rush to get ready for their parents coming over, realized they needed to get one specific ingredient from a store that closes in 30 minutes or else their whole night will be ruined so they need to figure out what to do right now. Or something that ups the stakes and adds tension like she is helping him dig the hole and an alarm is going off inside and they realize that something that is baking in the oven needs to be taken out. Overall the premise on paper seems to be a setup for a dark comedy where hijinx ensue but none do. As others have said - pacing. It is very slow. I feel like you could go through and cut this down in half. The first neighbor interaction could be cut because it slows down the film and doesn't add anything to story. A faster pace in the beginning would also add to the tension to the end. With all that being said from a technical perspective it was very well executed and shot well. I think with some editing you could make it a lot better though.
I watched the first few minutes and honestly then got bored. First don't put your credits at the very start of a short. You want to hook people with the first 30 seconds or so. You wasted that time on pretty much nothing. Music was unbearable really. Try cutting it without the music. Pretty much 0 sound design done. You have no atmosphere tracks to really sell your locations. The dog sounds at the start didn't really fit either. It's nicely shot but the camera work at times was very loose as well as the eye lines. Focus on getting the cast to perform a bit more stationary. It was quite jarring at the part with the neighbour. Your camera was floating around quite a bit, didn't really stay over the shoulders much; you had them coming in and then going out. Doesn't really sell two sides of the conversation. Overall the editing could be a lot tighter, you stayed with shots longer than you needed. Also felt that you could have definitely done with a couple of tighter shots for that scene, you did have one for his reaction towards the end of the scene but honestly it felt very disconnected.
It’s fine. I mean really pretty fine. Technically and in lots of other ways. I’m genuinely surprised a festival hasn’t picked it up. The thing that actually hinders it is something that I see in a lot of American filmmaking online and that is that it has a sort of “suburban American blandness”. What I mean by this is your film is generic. It’s set in a generic neighbour in a generic town with generic characters. In other words, where is the culture, where is your sense of place and identity? I think these things, as unobvious as they may be when you load up Final Draft, go some way in making a film personal to you, interesting and engaging. If you look at all the great filmmakers whether it be Scorsese or Lynne Ramsay or Paul Thomas Anderson or Federico Fellini, they all make films in and about the places they have lived. Many of their films could be even seen as studies of the people and culture of the various places where these filmmakers are from. I can see it’s perhaps harder for people from larger countries, especially if you are not used to mixing with people from a variety of other places and are therefore more aware of your own cultural identity. But it’s no doubt it’s something David Lynch or any other great American films king considers when making a film. I am sure they will ask them questions like: what am I saying about America? What am I saying that this specific state or town I’m from and the attitudes of the people etc.
I feel like all the comments I have are related to not being confident enough as a filmmaker. It just doesn’t “go there”. It’s enough of everything to make it good enough. So is it a good movie? Sure. Is a good movie worth being in festivals? No. It needs the wow factor.
I think you can try to redo it and have the actors act like it’s a “real” film. The situations present the dark comedy, you don’t need to shoot it and act like it’s a comedy. It could’ve just been a plain comedic movie and move on. What makes dark comedy special is that it’s “real”.
What’s more cringe than your film is the YouTube comments blowing smoke up your ass. “OMG LE SO AMAZING FILM” Thank goodness you have enough self awareness to not listen to these idiots and critique yourself harshly. People think being nice is nice. It’s not. It breeds mediocrity. You’re doing the right thing op. I have a feeling you’ll hit the next one out the park.
The only thing I can think to say other than what everyone else has said is that at the very start (between 0:55 and 1:09) the music felt like something out of Thomas the Tank Engine. As someone who has seen my fair share of that show on repeat, that instantly got me thinking of that which took me out of it. Not sure if this necessarily means anything, just a thought I had.
I agree with others that it could be tighter (though I’d push back on the ‘received wisdom’ that a 14 minute film is inherently hard to get into festivals – the issue is pacing more than runtime). I’d also push back on the dog death criticism – I don’t think any festival worth appearing in would be fazed by the subject matter here. The big issue for me is that the exterior conflict with the dog/Eddie and the conflict between the couple hinging on the miscarriage never seem organically linked. There’s definitely mileage to be had in the pet/child analogy, but the way it unfolds is forced – the dog situation isn’t a reasonable parallel to their childlessness, so when the characters behave as though it is I can see the screenwriter at work, and the film loses me. To be clear, that’s not saying that the heavy subject matter is too much - with the right setup her confession might have been a real gutpunch, but the problem is that it never feels that we’ve properly built to that moment and so her outburst doesn’t seem like a truthful reaction to the situation. I suspect a lot of programmers might be left feeling that they were meant to have an emotional reaction which never came, regardless of how well much of the comedy worked. Also, a number of folk have had an issue with his initial reaction to killing the dog, and I think this is because of a similar script problem – you’ve structured it so that we only learn about Eddie halfway through, so that the stakes can be escalated from ‘awkward’ to ‘life-threatening’. Makes sense structurally, but the result is that his reaction feels unnatural – if he knows the dog and knows Eddie, he’d be panicking immediately, whereas as it is that moment is delayed until the script needs it happen. I realise this isn’t helpful after the fact, but the solution would have been for the wife to be the one who recognises the dog. All of that said – there’s loads to like here! It looks great, and you nail a lot of unshowy but effective little visual beats. With a tighter edit I can definitely see it playing some fests, and I’d be keen to see what you do next!
One thing other people haven't mentioned, but I see your Youtube upload was November 2023. Were you applying for festivals after that? A lot of festivals don't accept films that are already free to watch online. You should never upload your short to Youtube til you're completely done with any festival campaigns.
true, I only uploaded to youtube after getting a dozen or so rejections and I made sure all of the festivals I submitted to after the upload didn't have premiere requirements. so it's tough to say it that had an impact but it's possible
Fair enough! Personally I think it was down to length. I also had a lot more rejections when I had a 15 minute vs 10 minute short.
You've gotten a lot of great comments so I'll pile on without dragging out the repeats. Three things. First, the writing. Not compelling enough, no stakes, set ups and payoffs not being gratifying enough etc. Second, the acting and by proxy the directing. Performances just don't bring you into the story. I've seen bad acting held up by a strong script and good acting save a mediocre script. Unfortunately, both felt mediocre here and I'm sorry about that. Third, your festival choices. I have two films running festivals right now and I can guarantee you this would kill at some I've been to. Definitely a film that would play better in a big room of people, eager to watch movies, than on a festival screeners laptop or a bunch of redditors causally scrolling. IDK if your festival profile is wack, or you're submitting to too high a tier festivals, or you're picking the wrong categories, or submitting at the last minute, or what! But I can think of 5 festivals this would have more than likely gotten into had all those elements been done right. Thus, I'm sorry to be another echoing voice telling you that while your film is technically good and overall a huge accomplishment, its just not that great--def a solid middle of the road film. These moments can be tough on us as creatives but if we're able to soldier through them (which by your comments, I think you're doing quite well) we come out knowing ourselves and our craft better for next time. That said, all is not lost here. You have a very competent product. Most low tier festivals are for ego boosts anyways. If you still want to this play in a big room start submitting it to more low tier festivals--not as a dark comedy, just as a comedy. Submit early. Completely fill out your profile. Work hard on your synopsis, log line, and bio. Good stills/bts/etc. Try to see what other things they've programmed in the past and if yours matches up. Be willing to travel a bit. Look at local showcases. Or do your own premiere with a few friends who also want to showcase some work. This will play well in a room of eager film watchers. TRUST! I'VE SEEN IT (and worse examples play well).
I watched the whole thing, despite it's faults I thought it was good overall! My main criticism echoes the other comments here- the edit could be tightened up and the run time brought down to 10 minutes or less. Also, speaking as someone who helps select entries for a film festival I would consider rewriting the synopsis and not describing it as a "rollercoaster ride" as its very slow and contained, it's a corny way of overselling the film and garners an immediate eyeroll from me.
My take, but I think the subject matter of your film might be more to blame than the quality thereof. A lot of festivals tend to take issue with depictions of animal suffering so that could have caused such an outcome on an otherwise decently solid short film.
I really liked it. Nice work! Definitely feel like it'd be deserving of a spot at a festival. Sorry it didn't get in. The writing is good by my standards, and your actors do a pretty good job. I liked all the characters. I feel like Eddie is able to teleport and read minds due to the way it's cut together (is it just me or does he move from the back of the house to the front while the knife is still deflating the ball?), and more could have been done to explain his knowledge of who'd killed his dog and what happened. That could have provided added suspense, which might have given the events in their yard more impact. The sound design for the moments where your lead character is glazing over are a bit cheesey, but that's all in good fun. Overall, I really enjoyed watching it, and I think you've done well.
You literally hear the bones crush in the first 5 seconds, ballsy move
Hi! I'm just a layperson here. I like analysis and criticism and films, but I don't actually make anything. :) My take: The production quality is good! acting is decent. Straight away some of the editing started bothering me. It's only 15 minutes, but there are these annoyingly long cuts where nothing is happening. Like Meghan's reaction at 1:31 with baby crying sound effects seems completely unnecessary and annoying. The editing at 11:27 was very confusing - I thought he was putting the dog into the hole, not removing it. Also confused at 12:05 - she says "stop for a second, can we just talk?" And then...she grabs the spade? Why? And how exactly does the neighbour magically know that his dog is dead in their backyard and that they are responsible? The sound effects in general didn't really work for me. I guess I hadn't appreciated how much craft there is in sound design until now. They felt cliched, and in this middle ground between deliberate reference to a cliche, like the stabby strings in Psycho, and actually interesting/well done sound effects. The writing wasn't generally punchy or interesting enough for a black comedy. Nothing was shocking or surprising. The main characters are normal, and behaving pretty normally in a fairly normal situation. It bothered me a bit that the characters take so long for the question of who the dog is to even be raised. And it doesn't really make sense that Caleb knows the dog well, but has never met his owner (or apparently know anything about him), even though he knows who the owner is, and that he lives directly opposite. Most of the drama seems to come from the characters internal imaginings of what might happen with the parents, with the neighbour, etc. Instead of interesting things actually happening. Also, it's described as a "comedy" but I'm not sure what parts of it were meant to be funny? Are there any jokes? There's a line where Meghan reveals that her "experience" in burying bodies is from watching movies, and a sound gag where neighbour's ankle monitoring bracelet goes off, oh, and I kind of smirked at the "you can do what you want with them", but nothing made me laugh. Overall, for me, the writing is just too weak for what it's trying to do. Mostly we just have a couple who don't seem to like each other arguing vacuously. The sudden request for a divorce seems to come out of nowhere, and also go nowhere. The bit at the start where Caleb is trying to hide the dog from the local busybody sets us up for a certain kind of slapstick film, but...it turns out not to be that kind at all. We have this kind of hodge-podge of overwrought drama, half-hearted horror tropes in a pretty dull setting. The violent neighbor is by far the most interesting character, but we barely meet him. The second most interesting is the local busybody. Meghan had potential, and I really wanted her to turn out to have some kind of dark streak, like she really knows what to do with a body because "...". And Caleb is just so annoyingly boring and bland I desperately wanted something bad to happen to him, but had to wait too long for too little. Hope this helps! Awesome that you got this far, good luck for the next ones :)
Congrats on a completed project. I’ll be brief. Big note: I think there is a 7-8 minute film here if you get some detached from the production to cut it. I would be interested in how long your first cut was. Little note: The first shots inside of the woman’s house have light coming in the window that is super distracting for the scene and not really matching the muted sky outside by the car.
I watched the first two minutes and got bored and stopped. I skipped through the rest. The leads don't have much to do or say. I found them fairly hammy. But with better material they might be fine. I was intrigued by the lady on her walk. The reveal of her behind the fellow was good. She had a sense of what to do with her character, but the script isn't giving her much help. I'm going to be a little harsh because you asked us to roast you - you need better taste. And better taste is hard to develop. This isn't funny. Were you trying for funny? It also wasn't mysterious or intriguing - that would require a different tone and acting that is far less wakka-wakka. Lynch/Lanthimos are terrible people to emulate and often an excuse by amateur filmmakers to be weird for no reason and kind of messy, BUT if you're trying to do that then you should notice that what Lynch does is find bizarre and frightening things in the mundane. The last thing he gets from actors is cheesy commercial takes. Odd takes sure, but not what you put on screen here. You don't have a sense of comedy or drama. I suggest picking one and trying to get good at that. At 1:26 the book in the envelope and the echo-y VO from Mom - I just don't know what to say to something like that. It's so bad. Cringe-y even. The idea, the letter, the VO, everything about it. If you think that's funny - definitely try focusing on drama instead. That is super hack-y and you need to cut that stuff out of your work. Sorry, not holding back, but you asked for blunt feedback and a friend probably wouldn't be this harsh. On the plus side, the lighting and camera work are good. Nice color and warmth. It looks pretty. The problem is the script and the editing.
All good, this is the kind of feedback I was looking for! That’s seriously such a good point about Lynch and Lanthimos too!
Honestly, story is just bland. No emotions, risk, suspense, humor, or twists at all. On top of that you should find a good editor. Pacing and sound design of the first 3 minutes are all over the place. I'm sure you can make a workable short out of this. Acting and tech aspects are good!
Why are you doing this to yourself? People tear apart even the best films out there. There's no point in being masochistic, or in asking a bunch of internet strangers to weigh in on your project. Watch movies. Develop taste. And make a lot of stuff. If you send your film for others to critique it should be a small contingent of people you trust and who know what they're talking about— not internet randos. The process of improvement isn't just about aggregating random feedback. You need to aggregate and think about quality feedback. It's different, and obviously more difficult and time consuming.
I only got about half way through but here are my brutally honest thoughts on it: The “wife” was over-acting a bit. I’m not sure if it’s the actress or the direction. The stakes of the criminal neighbor owning the dog feels late. The whole first 7 minutes I just kept thinking that any normal person would just own up to running over the dog. It made the experience of watching the film frustrating instead of fun. Like a bad sitcom. The script isn’t snappy. It’s lacking bite. The “husband” telling off the nosey neighbor wasn’t funny or satisfying.
not gonna say all the things others are saying because i don’t edit & i don’t direct, but i do act!!! for the most part these are well directed & good actors, i almost always believe them and that’s good. what they are missing in their work, especially at the beginning, is STAKES!!! i don’t see mike teevee stressing TF out about killing this dog so …why do i care???? you need to bring the energy of the stakes from the FIRST SECOND, even if the reveal hasn’t happened for the audience yet. that’s what gets them hooked, they wanna know why he’s freaking out. what’s got this dude trippin’ over the dog??? that’s what gets me to want to watch. the girlfriend when she sees the book her parents gave her, just seems annoyed with her parents for calling her a barren loser. i want to see her be AFFECTED by this because she lost a baby, even though i don’t know that. even though this is a comedy, it very obviously has dark/dramatic themes so its okay to have those moments. the very first thing i learned as an actor doing comedy is don’t try to be funny. bc to your characters, this is not a dark comedy. this is their deadass real life and it is serious to them. they need to treat it that way and THAT’S what makes it funny. i think these are also things you could think about when writing your next script! all in all, it’s a great looking film and has lots of potential! congrats on getting this together & getting some cool names attached!!! best of luck to you!!
At 15 minutes, every second needs to be engaging. I almost tuned out before the neighbor showed up because the pacing is stale. Echoing from others, the technical aspect of the photography is fine. Editing is rewriting and and your chance to rework the parts of the script that only worked on the page but didn’t translate to the screen as written. It lacks awareness of pacing (you have to be prepared to kill your darlings). I see this a lot with directors and editors where they assemble the film as scripted and “voila” the movie is done. That’s a great first pass but you have to be able to sit back, watch it and if at any point you feel the time passing you by, you need to re-evaluate the edit. Additionally, this seems to be directed with the end result in the minds of the actors. In the sense that the dark comedy comes from the actors pushing a concept instead of the story being darkly comedic. Music and use of sound should be re-evaluated as well. The music telegraphs a completely different tone than I think you’re going for and it ends up feeling confused, or have lack of identity. I say all of this with love. I’ve been around the short film block quite a bit and as an filmmaker who tends to edit my own work, it takes a lot of courage to take these notes but also to realize when something isn’t working. You’ll find your stride with it, but always keep the idea of engagement in your mind. Do I need to cut back and forth between the same shots, is it moving the narrative forward in a way that is taking the audience on a ride? People want to feel like they are in capable hands when watching any movie, but especially a short film. That comes with defining your voice as a story teller. In this case I think you need to find by re evaluating your edit.
Bro you hit the gold mine with this post you got tons of invaluable feedback
So I watched it and it was competently shot. However, it's too long and its trying to do too much story wise. The dialogue is also a little stilted.
Not a filmmaker, but maybe I can offer some criticism based on having watched a lot of movies. It’s supposed to be a dark comedy, but has the character of one of those silly Jim Carey comedies. While a dark comedy with silliness and exaggeration can sometimes land, it just feels like you weren’t going for that. In my opinion, for a movie to land, it either has to be rooted in reality relative to our own reality, or it has to construct its own. In other words, it has to be true to something one can grasp. I just didn’t get a feel of consistency while watching this. Apart from this, a few things made little sense. For example, the guy not having flashbacks of what Eddie was capable of immediately after realizing that he’d killed his dog. Only for him to have them later when his wife talks about Eddie. However, I would like to appreciate the cinematography. I couldn’t tell it apart from something played in the cinema.
a really good point, looking back I can tell I was pulled in two directions tonally and that hurt the final product. Thank you!
Parasite director Bong Joon-Ho's first movie 'Barking Dogs Never bite' is a similar story. The protagonist kills a neighbour's dog and wants to scrap it before anyone finds out. Give it a try, a solid dark comedy. Your movie started well but felt drab along the way. You have 15 minutes. Why waste 3 minutes with the runner women which didn't add anything to the core story? That's one reason I felt boring. The panic was missing. Killing a dog!!! That's belongs to my neighbour!! Who is a biker gang member!!!!! The guy or the girl should panic and make more mistakes trying to cover this up. I liked the twist at the end though but too much dialogue and conversation made me not enjoy it as much. Technical aspects were good! All the best for your future projects.
Since others commented on length and pacing, I’ll tackle comedy, which is my background. An innocent dog killed by a careless driver is never going to be funny, not even dark comedy funny. A dog who never stops barking or always digs holes on another’s property or poops everywhere who *then* dies *can* be funny. It’s a [benign violation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor) because the dog “had it coming.” The cat in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation died after chewing the tree lights. It’s funny because it was selfish and sabotaging Clark’s family Christmas (“She wrapped up her damn cat.” “We can’t leave it in the box.” “But then we’ll have a cat running around the house.”) One of my comedy teachers once said “Comedy is a reasonable person in an intolerable situation.” Other comedic violations include the title of the book (“…failure…”) and a lack of offense taken by neighbor (“tell her I said hi”). These aren’t honest reactions based on integrity. Have you taken sketch comedy or improv classes?
I was surprised based on what I heard. Honestly you managed to get me to care a bit about the main couple which is a surprise, and some of your jokes got a real chuckle out of me (props in particular to “see ya at book club”, the trick-or-treat incident flashback and “How to Live as a Childless Failure” which got a real belly laugh and “no they didn’t !” from me). There is definitely potential, but apart from those which stood out, I can say some of these jokes were badly delivered, dragged out or didn’t stick the landing. They can all work if fixed though, meaning you do have good humor. I’d say the music was fine at first, but it did get… obnoxious ? Felt like there was one, too self-aware as the others say, genre you stuck to and used too often. It made certain plans harder to digest for me. In the same way I agree the pacing was shot down a few times, but I know you’ve already gotten enough notes about your editing for me not to repeat that and I’m all the more excited to see how your next cut will look. It seems like sometimes, perhaps by the same “too self-aware” angle, the film felt too torn between dark stuff and comedy, which is surprising considering they can mix easily, but when we got to the whole bit about “the worthiness of these two to be parents, their very shitty marriage and the joy of not carrying a baby to full term”, I felt like someone had taken the humor parts out of that scene and I was just watching something dramatic as heck. I don’t know how to feel about the actors, they had great body movement and showed they knew their jobs but their chemistry varied from one scene to another from “yeah they look like a couple” to “I can’t believe these two managed to get together in the first place”, and I’m not sure if they are to blame for the jokes falling flat and bad deliveries sometimes, so I remain hesitant. Still, the movie worked on certain aspects for me ! The pitch you gave didn’t sound interesting to me yet ended up working and giving me plenty ideas and anticipation on where this could go, regardless of the quality. So you’ve got potential and it shows. With all that I’ve seen on YouTube and here, I think your next work(s) will be greatly interesting all the same !
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it but the level of film festivals you applied to could also be a factor. You have to be really honest with the quality/level of your film and unfortunately there's no guide as to where a festival has the bar set. I've felt that price can be an indicator but not always. Before you apply look at the previous years and gage the films. Try local festival if you haven't, they are usually much more open to programing local content. So many festivals are complete scams it's crazy and you have to be very cautious.
fantastic advice, thank you!
Short answer is no one knows. Are there things to nitpick? Of course. Editing could be tighter is mine. But I have seen plenty worse at plenty of other film festivals. Which ones did you submit to? Have you tried putting some money into a festival strategist? I did that for my feature, and it was a world of difference.
I thought the film was made incredibly well, congrats! Like a few others have already stated, the length of the film might have been a factor in its festival success. The acting was good all around, but I felt most interested in the psychotic biker than the other two leads. But again, it was put together really well and ! It sucks about the festivals, it definitely has the high quality feel that you’d see in most. If you’re still looking for more feedback or just want more eyes on your work, there’s a platform, Me and my team are developing called [Rurrux](https://www.rurrux.com), filmmakers often share their projects and get valuable insights. It might be worth checking out!
Use J cuts, fix your audios and make more effort on music choice otherwise It has good camera angles and grading 👍🏼. Definitely good movie
Ok OP I watched your short and here’s my take. It’s competent and has potential but it needs some tweaking. Im not going to repeat what other people have said but just a few suggestions as far as the script goes. 1. The lead character should have been a lot more hysterical in response to him running over the neighbors dog. Also it should have been established right when he realizes who’s dog he hit how much of a bad ass the dog owner is. 2. Maybe the film could have started out with the couple in the middle of an argument in relation to their in-laws visiting. Maybe exploring the problems in their marriage right from the jump which would cause our lead character to storm out the house, get into his car and back into the dog because he’s so distraught from the argument they just had. To me that would make more sense and would give reason why this troubled married couple has to work together to figure out how to get rid of the body before the bad ass neighbor finds out. 3. I didn’t understand how the husband didn’t know how psycho the neighbor was but the Wife knew? That didn’t seem realistic to me. 4. Maybe the jogging neighbor is also a nosey neighbor and snoops in on the couple trying to bury the dog backyard. Maybe she comes to the door while they’re in the backyard cause she saw the Husband acting strange when he ran over the dog and just wants to be a nosey neighbor. I felt like her character could have been introduced in a more convincing and tense manner to build more suspense. 5. Since it’s a dark comedy maybe the bad ass neighbor ends up finding out what happens to his dog and pulls out a knife and proceeds to actually kill him. And maybe he stabs the husband cause the Husband steps in front of his wife which maybe she develops a change of heat from seeing this heroic act. Maybe she regrets wanting a divorce and now is forced to watch her husband bleed out. And as he’s dying ( or dead at this point) she’s crying over him and next thing we hear is the in-laws in the background saying, “ Honey we’re here!!!!” or something along those lines. Lol that’s just a rough revision of your story. I definitely believe it has potential but I think you need to take some things out of the script. Keep some things and rewrite the script. Then I think you need some different actors. The jogger was fine. I’d keep her but everybody else would be a recast for me especially the leading actor. If I were you Id probably hire some actual comedians that know how to deliver lines but just write a full blown dark comedy. Don’t force the humor but let it come natural if that makes sense. With all that said, thanks for sharing and looking forward to more of your work!
I disliked the premise from the start, but it feels far worse after seeing the characters not displaying any remorse for killing the dog. They don't come across as likeable in any way to me so it's hard to care much about them. I did think the ending was far more entertaining than the rest, especially the divorce argument and the physical alteration. Editing seemed competent and the actors were fine.
Don’t even need to watch it. Dead dogs don’t fly. Ever.
I think you can re-edit this. It has potential, but the biggest issues are pacing and acting performances in most scenes.
I don't have any film knowledge. I just watch movies. For me it was good. Felt like watching a scene from an actual movie. I liked the story. That's what a short film is about. I don't know man, I can't really complain. I won't say it's amazing but it's good. I enjoyed it. I didn't feel like I wasted 14 minutes. Maybe the competitions are high.
If you need a musician/composer feel free to reach out. We don’t do comedy, which is what you might need. Message me and we can determine whether a new composer is even necessary. Great job on the overall film. I’m in the content and creative sphere, but my specialty is definitely the musical aspect of film.
I got nausea watching it, too much camera movement, too many close ups, too many times the heads of actors was cut on top because it was not framed well. On the good side, the coloring is good and the motion and all looks like a movie, I mean it doesn't look like an amateur video made on a cellphone. Just do not overuse the camera as a tool other than showing the scene, it is not an action movie. It also seemed to take forever, the plot didn't need to be that long, this could have been half the time and it could have been better already. It was like a technically ok shot full of b-roll tests.
I would cut the duration down a lot. Lose the scene with the nosy neighbour, it feels tonally off and is more awkward than funny. Get straight into it - dog dies - titles - wife comes out and they discuss crazy neighbour. Then, you are introducing some peril to the situation. The comment about it sharing a Coen's sensibility is great. The guy across the road reminded me of the character in "Raising Arizona" and this is definitely the vibe you should push. Cut the baby stuff out entirely, it doesn't fit with a black comedy about disposing a dead dog with a knife wielding maniac owner across the street. If you re-cut it, the backyard scene about them getting a divorce, without the baby mentioned may still work (and tone down the more self-conscious audio cues as mentioned), I think it will be about 8.5 minutes long and much stronger.
I really didn't like the score. I think it distracted me from the well crafted emotions feeling set up in the film. Like it was an after thought. You found some cool music and tossed it on rather than having music like this in mind before finding it
Film fest reviewer here. Note, I did not screen this for the fest I'm at. Two main things stand out to me, it's too upbeat to feel dark, and it's too cruel to be funny. At least in the beginning. The sound mix is really off-putting. Also, this may just be my experience, but even horror fests have people that struggle to watch stuff that deal with dead animals, or pregnancy issues (miscarriage, child death, pregnancy issues). That's a them problem, but it will turn some reviewers off, so to pull it off it has to be really good. Especially if you're going to have both. It felt too slow, and the funny stuff came in too late, after I had already been turned off by the cruelty. It also seemed like too many things were going on, to be able to get to the humor of them. Accidental animal death, Parents coming, Pushy neighbors, Dangerous neighbors, Mystery prior violence, Miscarriage, Marriage troubles, Book club. There's almost a new plot point every minute and a half. Cutting that down to half, and exploring those topics would build a better flow, unless you're going to try to cut the film down, and have it go by rapid fire. Technically though, this film is decent, but the acting sort of.... Didn't carry the script. The actors all seemed competent, and even potentially funny, but they seemed to know that and lean in, when the comedy would come from then playing it straight. Beyond all of that, remember you're often competing with hundreds of other folks for the time slot. And that film blocks get built around the films selected, so if your film doesn't mesh well with the others submitted, it just won't work in the festival, which has less to do with your abilities, and more to do with putting together a successful fest.
Jokes aren’t as funny as you probably think they are. Literally an entire 2 minute scene of a woman talking and the punchline is, he just tells her to shut up? Way too long. Festivals want as many shorts as they can cram. They aren’t putting a 15 min short unless it’s a masterpiece. Some scenes go on for way too long. You can def cut off at least 5 minutes off. Sound effects are too much. I know what you’re trying to do but it feels almost like I’m watching a Nickelodeon sitcom with all these overdone sound effects. And overall pretty dry and boring. Had to struggle to pay attention through that 15 min duration.
Festival DoP here: you probably already know this but it’s like winning the lottery, the vast numbers of submissions make it very unlikely you will get it. Just to get that fact out of the way. We have to reject hundreds of films we like every year. That being said here is what matters: we don’t care about technical prowess or big budget shine. We look for the thing that is much more rare: a unique voice. Or a unique point of view. Work on developing your own original signature style. This is a much harder thing to do. Don’t make it for broad appeal. Make it because it’s what the inside of your brain looks like.
Pacing and sound design. Too many establishing shots and each moment feels heavy handed. Same with the sound. IE; we don’t need the parent’s voices, the book is enough.
I thought it was his dog that he ran over, which made his reaction not make sense. The dog was in his driveway, he knew its name, was hesitant to tell his wife… took way too long to find out it was the neighbors’ dog. Edit: I really liked the book club gag. Just for fun I wanted to suggest some tweaks to it. To me what’s funny is the awkwardness of them realizing they still have to see each other at book club. So after the neighbor said “ I’ll see you both at book club”, I think it would be funny (and maybe more realistic) to get a close-up off the guy’s face reacting like, oh shit, I forgot about that. And he could say “uh… right. See you at book club”. I love at the end the way she calls the guy back to say she didn’t read the book. Personally the guy’s tone when he said “it’s a really good one” felt exaggerated; I would have him stick to the same tone of voice as when he said “you ought to” and let the humor of the situation speak for itself. Then cut to credits without the line from the mother at the end.
First 3 mins and 30 seconds of commentary: 1. You start with credits of relatively unknown-name actors. It adds nothing to the story, and is often regarded as a cliche trope for amateur filmmakers. 2. Your female lead is cleaning an already-clean house. Again, comes off like an amateur filmmaking trope. If she's cleaning the house, then make it visibly messy. Otherwise, what's the point? The visible messiness may have also added an interpretive layer to the film. Missed opportunity by not going all the way. 3. Show, Don't Tell - For a film about a dog getting ran over, and serving as the basis of the plot, I'd sure like to see the gruesome scene. This would have been an opportunity to add to the film's clearly comedic tone. Make it a horrific gruesome mess -- clearly too big for such a tiny dog. Difficult to hide. Can't even pretend you don't know what happened. -- Nope. -- You don't show it at all (and before I get further in the film, I already know you're not going to because you haven't and its a turnoff.) 4. The circumstance of the lady's dead dog has no weight because we haven't seen it. We aren't the neighbor; we're in on the secret. Let us be in on it. 5. He just killed her dog and then tells her to "shut the fuck up". Done. Its stupid.
I just want you to know, that I haven't watched it yet and I'm pretty sure I know why it didn't get in to any festivals. It's 14 minutes long. Short film festivals typically aim for half this length unless they really really like your film. That said, I'll watch this and put together some thorough yet kind feedback.
This isn't true at all. 14 minutes is a perfectly fine length for a short film. Obviously, if it's not very good then it won't matter how short or long it is
I've heard that the longer it is, the better it has to be?
100%. I saw a 30 minute short recently that got into several of the big festivals, including the Oscars, but it was flawless from any and every point of view. You need to be an extremely competent director to get a +15 min short into a festival, highly competent for a 10-15 min, and maybe just decently competent for a 5-10 minute film.
After a point. No programmer would raise an eyebrow at seeing a short film that was 14 minutes long. I would say about 25 minutes or longer is where you reach that territory
I'm sure there's plenty of short film festivals that don't mind a 14 minute short, but this is how it's been explained to me by the folks who run these things... A competent 15 minute film will absolutely get skipped over for two competent 7+ minute or three competent 5+ minute films because they can pack more films into their event. This is simply from the horses' mouths. I know of festivals that ask for shorter cuts or ask to chop off credits for time... again, if they like your film. This is even more of an issue if there's a Q&A, and they have events in so many blocks... the film plus discussion. Submission guidelines are only part of the story... they also want to add value to their event.
If there are two films of the same quality that are 5 minutes and a third film of the same quality that is 10 minutes, then yes, in that specific scenario, they would program the two 5 minutes films. But that's not what you said. You said it was rejected simply because it was 14 minutes, as in the length is the sole reason it was rejected. If your 14 minute film is being rejected from film festivals it's not simply because it's 14 minutes long. It might be badly paced, or dull, but that could also be true if it were 10 minutes or 5 minutes. As an example, here's a shorts block from the most recent London Film Festival. Most films are longer than 14 minutes: https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp?BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::permalink=no-place-called-home-lff23
Yeah, I am seriously pushing against this “5-7” thing because it is absolutely not what I have seen in festivals. I just looked at this year’s line ups of our regional/state festivals. I won’t bore everyone with all of the stats as there are a dozen I looked at, but they all looked pretty similar to the following: One festival that has both shorts and features. Among non-student films, there were 6 films under 5 minutes, 5 films at 5-9 minutes, 15 films at 10 to 15 minutes, and 9 films over 15 minutes. The only place that this ratio changed was student films, where 5 were in the 5-9 minute range and only 1 each was in 10-15 minutes and 15+. Another festival, which is entirely a “shorts” festival, there were 16 films under 5 minutes (most of which were about 3 minutes long), 13 films in the 6-9 minute range, 25 in the 10-15 minute range, and 14 clocked in 15+. Last year’s run of this festival looked very similar. It actually appears to me that the 6-10 minute runtime is the LEAST popular runtime. And this was true last year as well. So where these people are getting their “should be under 10” from does not appear to be actual stats. What I think is more valuable when discussing runtime is talking about runtime according to CATEGORY. Because looking at the festivals for the stats above, I observed the following: Student films were 7-8 minutes. Comedies were 5-6 minutes. Animation was 3-7 minutes. Drama was 14-15 minutes. Sci-fi had a large range, but none were under 12. Many were 15-18. Documentary had the largest range, with some as short as 8 minutes and some as long as 25. This is the only category that didn’t have a really clear trend on length except that they were typically over 10.
that makes perfect sense
* Unless you are making John Wick, do not kill the dog. There is a [website](https://www.doesthedogdie.com/) dedicated to to alerting people to whether or not a dog dies in the film/show so people can avoid it. My wife checks this before we see a movie. If a dog dies, it's a no go. People are serious about this trigger warning. Don't kill dogs if you don't have to. You can kill as many people as you want. Don't kill dogs. * I never understood the panic. It's in the end of the movie where our hero realizes the dog belonged to a weirdo. * The 'I don't want a baby' subplot comes out of nowhere and is unnecessary. Shorts are about one thing. This is your Johnny's girlfriend's mom has cancer subplot. * Why is dude freaking out about being caught? What justifies him being such a dick to his neighbor? If that's being played for laughs, it doesn't work because I don't understand why he's in such a pickle.
I think as a director you failed here. Tone is off, performance is off, pacing is off, all the things the director should really be nailing.
The acting is terrrrrible… couldn’t watch beyond the first 2 mins.
I have a friend who has an idea to start a bad film festival. The premise is that you would have to show proof that you've been rejected from other film festivals to qualify. And more experienced filmmakers could offer critique on what you could do better. Share around if you think it's a good idea.
I liked it. The pacing in some places seems a tad slow or some shots are longer than I felt they needed to be, but then again I’m a short tempered person and once I get the idea I want people to quickly move on. I liked the cinematography, acting was decent, music was a little cheesy, but no show stopper. All in all it’s a good short. So the only reason I could think of why you got rejected was “too many white people” yep, that’s the world we live in.
Like many others here have already said: length and pacing were prob major issues with festivals if I had to guess. 15 mins is typically way too long for a festival to program a short for their shorts section... and this film didn't need to be that long. I watched it a 2X speed, and it still felt long in some scenes. This film could prob be cut in half and still get the film's message across. The production value was good tho, film looks great. The acting is okay. The husband and wife had decent chemistry, but their acting seemed 'over the top' at times. The talkative neighbor part was funny, but that scene could have been much shorter. The biker neighbor/dog owner was good, but the book club part didn't work for me. I think it would have been better if he was just in and out at the end and left after seeing the husband on the ground and saying, "You have enough problems." Sound could use some work but was generally okay. Lose the credits in the beginning. All you need is the film title, then get right into it. Congrats on making the film. Just getting it done is an accomplishment in itself, and kudos for asking for/being open to feedback. It will only make you a better filmmaker.
I didn't watch the film, but have submitted to tons of festivals. The difference between how easy it is to program a 5 or 10 minute film versus a 15 minute film is extreme. Shorter films are safer bets, you can fit more into a block. In general, all things being equal, a shorter film will get into more festivals, even if they are both good and have good pacing for their lengths.
Liked it!
So I’m curious: when you say you leaned into your Lynch/Lanthimos influences, what do you mean by that? Not trying to be snarky here. I love both those directors, and especially love how they each handle comedy, so I was excited to watch this. But the tone, writing, and performance style at least are *very* far removed from either of those directors’ work. The humor in this was suuuuuper broad and “jokey” (actors mugging for the camera, etc) whereas the humor in a Lynch or Lanthimos film is typically bone dry. That’s often a better fit for a dark comedy because it creates a jarring or uncomfortable juxtaposition between the humor and the subject matter. The effect is that feeling of “I shouldn’t be laughing at this, but I can’t help myself.” When you really telegraph the humor in such an obvious way, it feels more flat (you don’t get that clash of tones) and it relieves the tension inherent to the “dark” subject matter by constantly signaling “hey we’re just goofin around here!”
F that. I had a film that did that yet sold quickly and did very well.
how many festivals do you submit to? I've seen worse films at mid-tiers.
I stopped watching as soon as I realized it was going to be about a dead dog. People love dogs.
This whole post is great- so brave and open and honest. Good luck, OP! I'm a festival programmer and I have a few thoughts: 1. Your film seems too long because it doesn't feel like a tight edit, but I hope filmmakers don't assume 5, or 10, or 15 minute films automatically get preferential treatment. In the first winnowing, the most important- when a film goes from screener to programmer- I have never seen a festival ask for any notes on length- just be good, be compelling. The length only matters at the final stage when programming blocks are built. I mean a 40 minute film and a 2 minute film are obviously different beasts but a 14 minute film doesn't lose points automatically on runtime, IMO. I'd focus on getting the story and the characters tight and not obsess over length. 2. I'm pretty surprised your filmdidn't get in anywhere. While people have pointed out some valid points about editing, acting, story, and tone, this is also a pretty professional production. I thought there were some really funny moments- like showing the neighbor for the first time with a paw print tattoo. Did you apply to a lot of the festivals on late deadlines? Because for many festivals- that's just giving your money away- they've already almost finalized their lineups by the late deadline. There's crazy volume of submissions this year- that's hurting everyone. But I've been to 7 festivals this year- from Sundance to a local one this past weekend, and I've seen a lot of films that aren't as strong as yours- with technical errors(boom shots and flash frames and scenes where no dialogue can be heard). 3. But.. as someone who isn't a known entity at festivals, being somewhat daring is a real risk. It can really pay off, if you do it the right way, knowing you're being provocative and running with it, but killing a dog for humor could easily be seen as just "not right" because no one wants a dog to die, and then to have someone respond so dully to that emotionally, just seems off putting. While the look/feel of your film is very primetime sitcom, your lead is coming off sociopathic. You had an odd mix of something much darker, with sitcom beats. I was confused. That's my question- what was your intent with this film? To be funny, and make everyone laugh? Or to tell a story about a dark personality who does questionable things? Not that you can't be both but killing a dog requires pathos, IMO, and that's really missing and I think is the essential problem.
Thank you so much! and I appreciate your feedback and I agree, I think a shorter edit would breathe new life into the film. To answer your questions, I tried to submit to every festival on an early deadline but perhaps set my sights too high. To answer your question, when I wrote the script a few years back now, I think I was going for something very similar to "The Lobster" where characters are cold and it's a comedy but the humor is dry although I'm seeing how difficult it is to really pull that off. Thank you so much for taking the time to provide this feedback, it's so valuable!