Customer Reviews

Project Greenlight 2 (The Complete Second Series Plus Film The Battle of Shaker Heights)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I must say that the second season of Project Greenlight was some of the most engrossing viewing I've enjoyed in years.I'm not a person who watches much television at all so for me to actually purchase the dvd set is saying much.

As an aspiring filmmaker I felt this dvd set was the next best thing to an actual internship.A really educational and insp
iring television series.

I wasn't crazy about the film and thought it was actually mediocre.I don't blame the directors for this and if you watch the episodes detailing the day to day process you'll understand why.

I can't recommend this product highly enough.A must for aspiring filmmakers.

The time and budgets are shortened and the stress levels are high on all of the winners of the PGL contest. But let's face it. that makes for some good reality TV.

The Battle of Shaker Heights has as much class as any movie in it's genre. It has heart and humor, well balanced and does the three project winners proud. The DVD, yes I actually bought and watched it BEFORE writing my review, has a little more of a glimpse into what really went on behind the scenes and not just the good for Reality TV stuff. These are some great talents that were put in a situation to make them look bad. It is good TV but not good business for the PGL Executives.

I recommend you get the DVD, watch the movie with commentary, and see a glimpse of some of the stuff that was cut from the series. These items shed a little more light on the fun the cast and crew had making the film and the dedication that was much more dramatic than blowing a few conflicts out of proportion.

To all the players in PGL, I commend the effort, and hope that those who put the show together can try not to use shock value in the future and show us why these people really do have a reason to love their work.

As with the first PROJECT GREENLIGHT the series is great but the movie produced by the series is a peice of [...]. I loved both seasons of PGL but the second was more insteresting. I liked the bonus section with the submitted films much better than the SHAKER HEIGHTS film. There's a film maker named OTTING who made a creepy film about a man with a cross in a mental hospital. I thought that film rocked. If I had been the judge they would have had him as the film maker instead the two guys they picked and the screenplay would have been PRISONER which was written by the weird guy who sat on a couch for five days and did nothing but stare. I don't know anything about the PRISONER script but I figure if the guy's that strange then the screenplay was probably much better than shaker heights. I fill bad saying that the movie sucked because the girl who wrote it seemed nice but she was a bit over emotional. What's funny is they finally made a descent movie with a great director in PGL3 (FEAST with JOHN G.) and PGL3 was the best of the three seasons and it hasn't been released. It almost makes me think that PGL was a Hollywood conspiracy meant to make it look to the rest of the world like people outside of the Hollywood system could only make crappy movies. When some guy showed up and made a good film they didn't release it.

Here's why:

1)From the beginning, they set up the filmmakers to fail by allotting a comparitively meager budget and ridiculously short timeframe to produce a "Hollywood" feature. They go way over-budget by spending most of the dough on bloated production costs for a supposedly low-budget picture. It's a big enough crew to work on Braveheart. If they are going to have that kind of staff, they should increase the production costs so that the movie can compete with multi-million dollar blockbusters. Otherwise, get rid of half the staff, and spend more time and money working on the script.

Watch the "making of" featurette on the Citizen Toxie bonus dvd. THAT'S low-budget filmaking. And Toxie is a movie that's watchable, too.

2)The producers constantly bad-mouth their last Project Greenlight film, Stolen Summer. "It's a REAL MOVIE this year," says Affleck.

3)The directors show their dismay for allowing Chris Balis, the awful producer of the last project, to produce their movie. Cut to Balis wolfing down a bagel. Its obvious Chris Moore brought him on so he could have someone under his thumb. When Balis wisely suggests that there should be another editor on the movie other than the directors, to allow for a diffent point of view, Moore responds,"I see producing as supporting the directors' process, not subverting it!". Balis is left impotent for the rest of the production. (Balis was right. The directors end up cutting the film and the movie is awful.).

4)Moore blames everyone else for the faults of the movie, yet its his hands-off approach (read: he's never there), allowing the directors to do whatever they want, that in large part is what's responsible for the movie's failure. When he asks the writer on the set how she could allow the directors to run roughshod over her script, after giving her no power at all to prevent it, she rightly responds,"F-You, Dude!"

5)The only time EXECUTIVE PRODUCER Ben Affleck arrives on the set, its with superstar girlfriend J-Lo. Not too disruptive to a production, is it? Reminds me of when Elizabeth Taylor would show up to Richard Burton's set with her whole entourage.

6)We see Good ol' Matt Damon at the beginning of the series, when they choose the winners, and then at the end, when filming is finished. He doesn't even show up at the premeire, but cuts a ten second closing comment for the series from another location. However, he's wearing a Project Greenlight hat, so he must have been deeply involved. HAW!! I want to be an EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, too!

Can't wait for Season Three!!

Project Greenlight season two was very entertaining, unlike the movie that resulted from it. I think it is a wonderful idea, and applaud Ben And Matt for sponsoring it. Bottom line, the problem with the project results may be the frustrating process.

What I believe from watching the DVDs was that Project Greenlight and Miramax need to choose the director(s) and then let him/her/them have a large part in selecting the script. The group selecting the script now, including Ben and Matt, either do not know how to choose a good script, or have too much politics involved in the process. After watching the comments on the scripts, you still have no idea what they will ultimately pick.

In my opinion, the "Battle of Shaker Heights" was a lame story, and had no hope of making a profit regardless of who directed it, because there was nothing novel about it on top of being a very contrived (unrealistic) plot. The casting process also was a political process driven by Miramax which seemed to almost force actors on the directors, but even great actors cannot fix a story that is not very interesting, funny, or believable.

If the directors were chosen and given a large input into the script selection process, this could be a huge step forward in the quality of the project. I felt it was unfair for the directors to have to produce a script that really had nothing new to offer other than a showcase for the actor Shia.

It somewhat killed my desire to compete in Project Greenlight again, but the support by Chris Moore and others gives great insight to the difficulties and challenges in making a low budget movie even with the best crew and equipment. I hope they have more financial success in the future and let the directors have more input into the script in the future. The director does not have to be the writer, which may have been a season 3 mistake, but at least be in tune with the script chosen.

I'm interested in what goes behind the scenes of a motion picture. Turns out there is a lot more to the process than one might expect.

Project Greenlight lasted a mere three seasons, the first two on HBO, the last on Bravo. Only the first two seasons are available. I enjoyed the first year with Pete Jones, so I ponied up the bucks for the second.

The second season features a change from the first season. This time, there were to be a writer whose script was chosen, and a different director to direct the film. There was still a competition that narrowed down the list from the thousands of scripts submitted, and the hundreds of potential directors.

The format was similar in the competition. Each screenwriter and director had to make a pitch to a team of studio executives as well as Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Once the screenplay and the director was chosen, then the team had a short period of time to do pre-production.

The main problem this year was casting. The directors wanted certain actors/actresses, but Miramax (who was funding the film) had final say. This caused a LOT of friction. The final casting was not done until the film was underway (!).

All-in-all, a superb entry in the short series. I enjoyed it immensely, and felt it was as good as, or even a bit better than, the first season.

Highly recommended if you have even a passing curiosity about the filmmaking process. As Affleck and Damon comment, it's a lot harder than it looks. And infused with a lot more drama, arguments and strife than you'd think. Probably more so than some of the films that result!

First let me say I was disappointed in the show which was project Greenlight 1, but liked the movie by the winning writer/director Pete Jones, STOLEN SUMMER very much. I would watch STOLEN SUMMER again. The show, on the other hand, with what seemed to me phony senseless bickering between producers Jeff Balis and Chris Moore seemed to lack the insight into the movie making I would have liked. Come on, Chris Moore fussing because Jeff and Pete postponed the lake swim because the water was too cold for the child stars, made Moore look like an idiot. And made careful thinking about what you'll need to get the movie done seem bad. I do want to point out that Jones went on to make other movies.

Project Greenlight 2, was an inversion. I loved the show, and found the movie, BATTLE OF SHAKER HEIGHTS lacking.

Now I have made a feature film. I made my feature KNAPTID for $6,000 and wrote about how in my How to Make a Low-Budget Digital Movie short. Even though I had some bad actors I think Knaptid--4 Days After The First Abduction is a better movie than BATTLE OF SHAKER HEIGHTS. So my comments here are those of an experienced low-budget filmmaker.

Project Greenlight 2 does give you some real insight into how a Hollywood film is made, and what all happens. The way in which the parent company tried to change the movie after it went before a test audience is a lesson by itself for the would-be filmmaker. The casting problems which I experienced myself--though not with stars, struck home, and the list goes on. What might really be of value to the independent filmmaker here is watching the problems develop.

Greenlight 2 makes producers Balis and Moore look good, and the winning directors look like idiots, while the writer, Erica Beeney is treated sympathetically. The question is: did the show treat Potelle and Rankin fairly or just make them look bad? (One does wonder after watching the show if the winner had been the director candidate who said she would only make SHAKER HEIGHTS or the one who actually did the best job on his directorial sample, the one with the crazy person in the psych ward, whether the end product would have been better. )

How bad are the directors? Here is an example. We see them filming at a church. They need the church for outside shots of Shia LaBeouf as Kelly at his best friend's sister's (Amy Smart) wedding. So what do the directors do. They spend way to much time filming LaBeouf in a Limo talking to Smart in a scene they never get right, and then have to set up lights to fake daylight in a scene that has to be outdoors. In the final movie there is a shot of LaBeouf riding away from the church before the daytime service starts, while cars on the street have their headlights on because it is actually dusk. They only had the church for a day. LaBeouf did okay, but Smart never got the 'in limo scene' right. We never get the idea that she is being confronted just before her wedding by a guy she may have made love to while on the outs with her fiance. (Want to see the surprised bride done right watch THE GRADUATE.) The thing is there was no background in focus, so they could have shot the 'in the limo shot' anywhere after spending a little time directing Smart.

When the movie making was beginning, I can't believe the directors didn't ask the casting director right up front 'who can we reasonably get? LaBeouf was a bad choice here for example. LaBeouf may be great in comedy, but he did not always deliver here. Example, the bully.

The bully picks on LaBeouf because LaBeouf harasses the bully's father who is a history teacher. But the bully's demeanor and LaBeouf's is cartoonish. The fact that the bully has motive to hate LaBeouf is important as LaBeouf later regrets the trick he pulls on the bully. The interaction of the two characters comprise some of the worst, most wooden acting in the movie. In fact, LaBeouf barely seems bothered by the bully, emotionally detached.

Speaking of emotion to really show it in a movie you need close-ups. This movie seems shot entirely in medium shots. In fact, one extreme close up is of a tiny doll held by LaBeouf's best friend's father. The problem is instead of a real character the friend's father is a caricature.

Directing the actors: Didn't these people ever rehearse? Kathleen Quinlan does this scene that ends where her saying 'because' she loves her husband. This is an emotional scene yet she doesn't seem real because she goes from smiling to serious without really being the character.

Some of the problems could be placed on Beeney the writer. But if you watch the show you'll see the directors tried to rewrite her. And the studio heads redid the movie edit. So who is to blame for some of the movie's problems is up in the air, for example: Why LaBeouf hates his father is not revealed until the end of the movie. Meanwhile we go through the movie finding his 'I hate you Dad' attitude unbelievable enough to make him unsympathetic.

Here the directors made mistakes, the writer may have, the studio heads obviously did, and so what was in Matt Damon and Ben Affleck's heads when they actually said the fiasco that was THE BATTLE OF SHAKER HEIGHTS was better than STOLEN SUMMER.

(By the way: The directors and the writer here have not gone on as Pete Jones has. At the time of this writing the SHAKER directing gang has one movie of their own they are working on. Beeney has no further credits. Pete Jones seems to have done a few things.)

This all makes for an educating show. They show these guys making mistakes people can learn from. So enjoy the show, endure the movie and learn.

This is a must have if you like Mr. LaBeouf. He wasn't hot back then (cute, I'll give you), but his personality shines through loud and clear, and sweet and funny.

Maybe, but without the Force. But, you can see his considerable ass break a rather sturdy chair. I agree that this show and the "contest" are pure scams, and are designed like a joke to catch decent, well-meaning contestants in a trap designed to humiliate them. It's painful to watch, unfair, and certainly not worth owning. Of course, this may be all Ben Affleck has left after his string of awful movies.

Watch out next year, you wannabe Players!

These two directors I cannot remember which one is which right now. The short one I think is Efram Potelle. He was a complete jerk throughout the entire series. He had people step down from the project he was so rude. He had a major attitude like so many short people trying to get respect he tried to demand it instead of earning it.

Chris Moore should have fired his butt several times. I am a major film buff. Although I have not made a movie in any way, I could tell these guys, right now, were extremely incompetent. One director would give the actor a specific direction, then the other director would give a different direction. Watching this was painful. Every wanna be director should be made to watch the PGL 1 and 2. Just like making the band is to music. They both show how not to do things. As for time and budget, these guys got a shot to make a movie!!!!! They are not owed anything else. Almost all movies have extreme deadlines and budgets. Only the Great Stanley Kubrick and ones like him get great flexibility on things like time and budget. Not to mention that Kubrick was almost always under budget.

As for these two previous reviews, they sound like they were written from the directors themselves. They are that pathetic of people that they would probably write them to keep people away from seeing them completely embarrass themselves on HBO and now on DVD.

The Directors are the equivalent of 2 Jerry's from survivor. They say that they are edited to look like incompetent jerks, but I say you will only look like a jerk on TV, you most likely are a JERK in real life.

Watch for yourself and see if you think these directors are that bad. This DVD is Truly an example of how not to direct a movie (and how to deal with people)