Feed back

 Our film received mixed reviews, people either loved it or hated it.

PROS: 

very interesting 

Makes me want to watch more

The blood looks real

Well shot 

Good colors

CONS: 

Its confusing 

Its a bit repetitive

NO DIALOUGE

We received a mixed reception of our experimental film, where audiences either loved the striking visuals or were confused by the lack of traditional structure, a common, and intended, response to our avant-garde film. We are taking the feedback at face value, recognizing that while the project succeeds in being "very interesting" and visually evocative, the absence of dialogue and a linear narrative created friction for some viewers. Experimental filmmaking is an ART of pushing boundaries, and a sentiment often echoed in the industry where such work is "worth watching," "interesting," and "a form of expression" that doesn't follow traditional rules. Our goal was never to create a conventional, easy-to-follow story. Instead, we aimed to create a visceral experience that draws the viewer in through atmosphere, color, and intense visual storytelling, much like how many artistic films choose to evoke emotion rather than narrate it. We are, however, reflecting on the feedback that the film can feel "a bit repetitive." This critique suggests we may have pushed the boundaries of abstraction, and it can test the audience’s patience. Regarding the criticism of "No Dialogue," we feel this is both a strength and a potential limitation. Silence forces the viewer to focus heavily on the visual elements: the lighting, composition, and the "real" look of the blood. It forces a return to the roots of cinema as a purely visual medium, which can be powerful. However, we understand that this artistic choice can make a film feel "boring fast" if the visual storytelling does not provide constant engagement to replace the absent dialogue, a challenge often cited in the critique of "quiet" films