Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

cinswan Christopher Kenneally, along with host Keanu Reeves and a myriad of directors and cinematographers interviewed for this film have done all of us in the creative arts, who find our tools and mediums altered by technology, a great service: they have described for us the benefits, detriments, and possible melding of past technologies with the new in the quest for achieving our goals of telling a story.As a writer, I do rely upon technology – the computer, the internet – in order to publish my works as e-books. Do I disdain Microsoft's default font as Times New Roman? (as a former phototypesetter who used Times English 49, yes, I do; and even that wasn't my preferred font – Palatino was the most beautiful font family to my eye). Spell and Grammar Check in Microsoft? It's my comedy explosion…the descent of standard American English into the realm of not knowing when to use "who" or "that" astounds me still. But I digress.This documentary, geeky and nerdy as it can be (and I love those things myself), shows how technology evolves to meet a creative need, is exploited to further meet a creative need, and how it also can fall short of the desired creative vision of those who use it. The film also serves as a history of how celluloid has been handled (and for a writer, this is so inspiring for me in terms of how to write), and how digital allows for visualizing people and events that otherwise would be difficult to achieve.From Scorsese's description of fingers being sliced in the process of physically splicing (cutting) celluloid to achieve the desired result, to the cinematographer on "Laurence of Arabia" describing how a celluloid film cut created a dramatic transition that no writer, director, or actor could have done alone gives great credit to a medium that is around a century old – and argues for the fact that because there is new digital technology, it doesn't render it obsolete. Quite the contrary: one director points out that, without a knowledge about how film photography renders a finished (in the rough) project, digital film photography can fall short of what the cinematic experience in full requires – the intuitive sensitivity of the eye, which is, at the core of it, a subjective interpretation of experience. And isn't all creativity that?The exploration of how digital technology expands ability to film at all (in difficult location circumstances) and in creating unknown worlds is just as fruitful to understand as the "10 minute cut" that the celluloid film canister requires. Actors and everyone else get to take a breath and come back to a scene anew, a great asset to the creative process. On the other hand, being able to continuously "film" someone in a challenging location without cuts also has advantages.In the final analysis, the title "Side by Side" says it all: both media are essential to the creative process when it comes to storytelling through a "film" media. Reeves' project underscores this by showing many examples of films shot on a variety of cameras. The cameras, back to geekdom, get center stage, as they should – the technology any of us use to create our work is vital to getting our work out to others.This film needs to be in the library of anyone in creative arts who finds that technology is impacting how they do what they do. On the one hand, "the better is the enemy of the good". On the other – new and old can walk forward side by side and expand the creative output of us all. As a writer contemplating having my work adapted for cable/streaming, I know that both technologies, and knowledge of them, will be essential to storytelling that will make the work memorable to all viewers.Isabeau Vollhardt, Author, The Casebook of Elisha Grey series

shawneofthedead Even the most ardent of movie-goers might be unaware of the extent to which seismic technological changes have swept through Hollywood in the past twenty years or so. Of course, they would likely be aware of the debate over film versus digital: the question of whether the trusty, treasured method of shooting movies on celluloid is slowly becoming a thing of the past, with digital technology improving in leaps and bounds every day. But cinema enthusiasts who aren't personally familiar with the workings of a movie set might not understand just how much the digital revolution has shaken things up in the industry, fundamentally altering the power dynamics, work flow and structure within any given director's creative team.Side By Side - a fascinating, insightful documentary facilitated and produced by Keanu Reeves - delves head-on into this knotty issue. Speaking to some of the world's top directors, from James Cameron through to Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorsese, Reeves teases out some of the untold joys and quiet tragedies of the seemingly inevitable shift from old-school film to new-fangled digital. He consults, too, some of the world's finest cinematographers - from Wally Pfister (Nolan's Director of Photography, or DP, of choice) to Anthony Dod Mantle (Danny Boyle's go-to guy) - as well as a host of other people affected by the change: editors, colourists, VFX artists, producers and camera manufacturers.For anyone who loves movies, this documentary is a delight. It's a treat to hear from the many people who have laboured in dark rooms and behind the scenes to bring us silver-screen magic (itself a term intricately tied up with the old-fashioned capturing of an image on celluloid). Boyle explains how he came around to the concept of manoeuvrable cameras; Cameron and George Lucas plump heavily down on the side of editable, instant 'immediatelies' (rather than the dailies of yore); Nolan maintains his commitment to shooting with film. Joel Schumacher, too, who hasn't made a film since 2011, has a few particularly resonant things to say about the role that technology can and must play in service of art (and vice versa).But, on top of finding out where each director stands on the issue, Side By Side also looks at how the digital revolution has affected the job of the cinematographer. Once in almost full control of the final image captured - one that had to be processed overnight and could only be viewed the next day, with minimal edits possible (barring reshoots) - the cinematographer had immense power on set. But, these days, feedback is instantaneous, and directors can tell right away if what they've shot with digital cameras is good enough. There's a lot of gentle heartache and nostalgia that can be found in the film as directors and cinematographers alike talk about cameras that can now capture more details than ever before and screens that can display images as they're being shot.If you're not a big fan of tech-speak and finding out the inner workings of Hollywood, Side By Side could prove to be a challenging watch. It's frequently quite dry, burrowing into technical details and minutiae that might puzzle or frustrate casual viewers. There are a few great tidbits sprinkled throughout - including an absolutely brilliant anecdote featuring Robert Downey Jr and his frustration at losing the downtime afforded by the changing of the magazines in film cameras - but these might not be enough to tide everyone over.Anyone who's ever been a tad confused about the film vs. digital debate will find plenty in Side By Side to think about. There are a few messages in the film: one of them, bleak though it may be, concerns the death knell that has apparently begun to ring for shooting on film. It's lamentable that this particular art form - difficult and frustrating though it may sometimes be - is slowly dying out, but it's inevitable and, as many of the directors here argue, necessary.But the core message - the one to take home with us - has to do with the power of cinema and the stories it tells us: everyone interviewed by Reeves participates precisely because they love the movies as much and as deeply as we do, and want to do right by them. In that sense, Side By Side celebrates as much as it mourns the advent of digital technology, while demonstrating that, even as the industry moves towards its future, it will always be inextricably linked to its past.

CinemaClown An immensely intriguing tour of the evolution of filmmaking process in the cinematic medium over the years, Side by Side is a side by side comparison of the two formats of crafting a motion picture that's available to filmmakers today; first is shooting on photochemical film which has been in use since the dawn of cinema while the other is shooting digitally which dominates the industry at present & has made the traditional film stock an endangered format.Directed by Christopher Kenneally, this documentary presents Keanu Reeves as the questioner discussing about the evolution, impact & innovations the film camera has made since its creation and joining him in the discussion are Hollywood's esteemed directors like Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, Richard Linklater, David Fincher, Christopher Nolan & many more plus it also asks the opinions of various cinematographers, editors, VFX supervisors & others as well.Side by Side provides a thorough examination of the history of 35mm print while also capturing the dawn, rise & revolution of digital format in the past two decades which as of today threatens the very existence of traditional filmmaking format. We get to see strong proponents for both formats, each presenting very valid arguments when it comes to the benefits & limitations of both film stock & digital recording in things like ease of use, economy, flexibility etc.On an overall scale, Side by Side beautifully covers the still ongoing battle of the superior format in the film industry today and my only gripe with it is that it's only 98 minutes long. Even though in my opinion digital cinema seems to be a valid choice in the long run, IMAX has given film stocks a fresh breathe of life, and if only both formats can mutually co-exist then it's a win-win situation for the industry. Extremely gripping, highly entertaining & downright informative, Side by Side is a must-watch for every cinema fan out there.

gavin6942 The documentary investigates the history, process and workflow of both digital and photochemical film creation.Keanu Reeves says that digital "could" replace traditional film. However, by 2012, I am fairly confident that there was no "could" -- digital had become the more common way to shoot a film. (Although, this may be more on the low budget end -- they offer plenty of big name films from the last five years that are still on film.) I appreciated learning that digital cameras not only affect the finished product, but actually the process, too -- even the actors. The natural breaks of switching rolls every ten or so minutes are removed, which results in Robert Downey's mason jars of urine.The rise of CGI is covered, which is both a good and bad thing. Bad CGI is far too common and a weak replacement for practical effects. But good CGI is a major boon, and as the industry progresses, this could result in some impressive things.Digital as a whole is growing and evolving -- we learn of David Fincher's role of making cameras lighter during "Social Network". We learn that "Slumdog Millionaire" was the first digital film to earn an Oscar for cinematography (but certainly not the last). George Lucas seems overly enthusiastic about the rise of the digital movie, and we all know how he has abused computer technology. But his overall point is right -- we are at the beginning of a new technology, and only by jumping aboard ship will it get better.I do love that everyone thinks 3-D will burn out, as it is a joke or a gimmick for money. Could not agree more.