Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

David Mullen's "Jennifer's Body"

She's street-smart -- you realize when talking to her that she has a naturally sharp mind but she hasn't had the time yet in pursuing subjects that could broaden her knowledge. I think that's why in interviews you don't see a lot of perspective or scope in her comments, they tend to be about other people she knows, etc. But I think she'll catch-up academically, she's too bright not to eventually. She's not a wild party animal or a flake, she's quite serious about her work and her life, and somewhat reserved and private, which I can respect.

The male lead in the movie, Johnny Simmons (Even Almighty, Hotel for Dogs, The Spirit), really impressed me -- he was raised right by his parents in Texas, full of old-school manners, and was always taking suggestions from people about good movies or documentaries to check out, which he did. He asked me a lot about cinematography too. I suspect he will become a filmmaker in his own right.

And Amanda Seyfried is always a joy to work with -- she's a bundle of goofy energy, a sweetheart with big, expressive eyes and great comic timing. When you see the movie, she'll be the one you can't take your eyes off of (something the post people have commented on, timers, colorists, etc.) She's the girl-next-door type compared to Megan's supermodel type -- which worked well for the movie.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
She's street-smart -- you realize when talking to her that she has a naturally sharp mind but she hasn't had the time yet in pursuing subjects that could broaden her knowledge. I think that's why in interviews you don't see a lot of perspective or scope in her comments, they tend to be about other people she knows, etc. But I think she'll catch-up academically, she's too bright not to eventually. She's not a wild party animal or a flake, she's quite serious about her work and her life, and somewhat reserved and private, which I can respect.

The male lead in the movie, Johnny Simmons (Even Almighty, Hotel for Dogs, The Spirit), really impressed me -- he was raised right by his parents in Texas, full of old-school manners, and was always taking suggestions from people about good movies or documentaries to check out, which he did. He asked me a lot about cinematography too. I suspect he will become a filmmaker in his own right.

And Amanda Seyfried is always a joy to work with -- she's a bundle of goofy energy, a sweetheart with big, expressive eyes and great comic timing. When you see the movie, she'll be the one you can't take your eyes off of (something the post people have commented on, timers, colorists, etc.) She's the girl-next-door type compared to Megan's supermodel type -- which worked well for the movie.
Click to expand...
What great insight. It's funny how people can strike you a certain way from the way you see them in media, then hear that they're completely different. However, I had a sneaking suspicion that Amanda Seyfried was totally cool :-)
 
You can check out Megan's comments/quotes on IMDB. Along with David's comments, they make you reconsider those first impressions that many of us have had about her.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
She's street-smart -- you realize when talking to her that she has a naturally sharp mind but she hasn't had the time yet in pursuing subjects that could broaden her knowledge. I think that's why in interviews you don't see a lot of perspective or scope in her comments, they tend to be about other people she knows, etc. But I think she'll catch-up academically, she's too bright not to eventually. She's not a wild party animal or a flake, she's quite serious about her work and her life, and somewhat reserved and private, which I can respect.

The male lead in the movie, Johnny Simmons (Even Almighty, Hotel for Dogs, The Spirit), really impressed me -- he was raised right by his parents in Texas, full of old-school manners, and was always taking suggestions from people about good movies or documentaries to check out, which he did. He asked me a lot about cinematography too. I suspect he will become a filmmaker in his own right.

And Amanda Seyfried is always a joy to work with -- she's a bundle of goofy energy, a sweetheart with big, expressive eyes and great comic timing. When you see the movie, she'll be the one you can't take your eyes off of (something the post people have commented on, timers, colorists, etc.) She's the girl-next-door type compared to Megan's supermodel type -- which worked well for the movie.
Click to expand...

I was fortunate enough to shoot a pitch-reel for a horror film with Johnny Simmons in late 2005. A fantastic kid. He really impressed me with his grace and ability to deliver a line so naturally. And I hear he's begun shooting a documentary about homeless people. It's been fun keeping an eye on his career.
 
strange industry yours in US.. you should test your art in Europe Mr Mullen
and yes you can bring that girl

- the gang
 
David Mullen - RED ONE - MEGAN FOX - And Lots of blood ??

can it get better than this ? im excited to see this movie :)))
Click to expand...
Oh yea, i'm with you man! :biggrin5::001_tt1::001_tt1:

alan
 
Yes, I think someone is confused with that Megan Fox / Esquire shoot done on the Red One.

We shot 3-perf Super-35 Panavision, Kodak stocks, D.I. at Efilm. There are three shots near the end of the movie shot at 1000 fps on the Phantom though.
 
skin tones

skin tones

David Mullen ASC said:
Yes, I think someone is confused with that Megan Fox / Esquire shoot done on the Red One.

We shot 3-perf Super-35 Panavision, Kodak stocks, D.I. at Efilm. There are three shots near the end of the movie shot at 1000 fps on the Phantom though.
Click to expand...

Hi David, wonderful job!
David you process at technicolor and di at efilm
Do you think technicolor is better?
is there any special process lab in this film or is just telecine curves?
i see that the skin tones are very contrast look, very beautiful.
do you know how the colorist do for make that shiny contrast skin tones?
 
Jonathan Stevenson said:
that's great to know. I suppose it's unfair of me to assume Megan Fox is a bimbo, but it's hard considering the image she's created for herself. I would certainly hope she's smarter than she looks or sounds in interviews.
Click to expand...

The simple truth of the matter is that bombshell-type girls don't make it anywhere in Hollywood without a good business strategy for themselves; though degrading and trashy at times, the Fox's / Hilton's / Johannsen's / Jolie's came up with their business plans a long time ago, and they have been branded to catch attention with their flighty appearances, seemingly low IQs and overblown sex drives. While it can be real to some extent, the majority of this is a marketing ploy to extract money from 12-35 year old men.

We've been had, boys. Megan Fox is a lot smarter than all of us... if I looked like her and wanted to own tinseltown, I'd do just what she is: be the youngest of the bad girls and give'em just enough to keep the cogs in the brains spinning.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Yes, I think someone is confused with that Megan Fox / Esquire shoot done on the Red One.

We shot 3-perf Super-35 Panavision, Kodak stocks, D.I. at Efilm. There are three shots near the end of the movie shot at 1000 fps on the Phantom though.
Click to expand...

Hi David,

Sorry for my potential ignorance on the subject, but I was wondering why the film was shot on Super35mm if the final aspect ratio was to be 1.85:1? It has always been my understanding that Super 35 was generally used to create the 2.35:1 aspect ratio with the use of anamorphic lenses.

I suppose it's done to take advantage of the larger neg space for extracting the aspect ratio desired? Is this a common technique nowadays? Also, what is your personal preference towards different ratios? For instance, how did you decide that Jennifer's body should be a 1.85:1 type of film?

Thanks in advance!
 
If you are going to do a D.I., you might as well use the larger Super-35 area -- besides, we also shot in 3-perf to save money over 4-perf, and 3-perf is always Super.

As for why 1.85, that was a director's decision before I came on -- she had storyboarded much of the movie for 1.85 and I didn't see a reason to challenge that. The movie was made by the producers who made "Juno", which was also 1.85, and it's a mixed-genre movie, sort of a high school comedy-drama and a horror movie, so 1.85 seemed better suited to give the false impression up front that this was a typical "high school" movie before things go bad for the characters. It seemed more intimate, less "epic".

But I'm a big fan of 2.40 so this was one of the few 1.85 movies I've made in a while, which was another reason why I was willing to try the format again.
 
Just got out of Jennifer's Body and it was really amazing. I was totally impressed by the script, acting, everything. Exceeded my expectations in every way. Megan Fox proved that she has some serious acting chops. I was especially blown away by Mr. Mullen's cinematography. There was one point during the Fox/Seyfried makeout scene where it was an ECU on their lips kissing and I was thinking "oh, that's a really nice bokeh right there in between their mouths" haha! Also, when the band sacrifices Jennifer in the forest, it was some of my favorite night-exterior-forest lighting I've seen to date.

David, question for you. There was a shot near the beginning where the football player is standing in the middle of the football field and the camera goes hyper-fast towards him in a very long take. Can you explain how you guys achieved this? It was incredibly cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top