well these guys disagree you... grabbed some quotes from their youtube channel
..here's what Bob Hall, first camera man of Dark Knight and Inception, had to say "In the latest work that I have seen from Aaron Schoenke he shows mature filmmaking techniques and a knack for action movie direction."
...here's what Kevin Smith had to say about Bat in the Sun's films "This is some good ****!"
...here's what Tom Desanto, producer of the Transformer movies and the first two X-Men movies had to say "Aaron Schoenke has reached into the head of every fanboy and made those dreams a reality."
"Watch this film" - LA Times
"Masterpiece" - G4TV
I personally think the film is fantastic and looks better than most things on regular TV.
Heh, that has nothing to do with what's been said. This movie has flaws, notably concerning the acting, and maybe they could have been avoided had the director been behind the camera. His filmmaker's skills are not at stake here. It's probably a small budget film anyway, so no one's going to seriously complain about the camera work or the quality of the sound and lighting.
You know, first of all, so that we're all clear on that, my opinion is worth that of anybody else, whether they've produced X-Men or never seen a movie in their lives. So posting a couple of praises from people from the business does not make the movie good to me.
Secondly, the point of our messages was : "it's bloody hard, nigh impossible, to act in your film and make it as good as it could be."
Four reasons for that :
- As far as the acting is concerned, you may not be as good as you like to think you are.
- As far as the directing is concerned, being in front of the camera means not seeing what goes on behind it. You have to concentrate on the acting, and have to trust your crew, and especially your DP, to achieve what you want them to achieve without you. All you can do is review what's already been shot (even if it's on the spot- and ask for "more of this, less of that". If you're behind the camera, you check everything in real time and are able to call "Action" only when everything seems top notch to you. Gain of time, gain of money.
- Three, when it goes into post-production, especially in the editing suite, seeing yourself on the screen will sometimes prevent you to see the flaws of the takes you're selecting. Having such a level of implication, it's extremely hard to retain the objectiveness that's necessary to edit a film properly.
- Four, when the credits will roll and people will see your name in the cast and the crew, some will call you an egomaniac and will see more flaws than there really are in your film when they'll watch it again. I'm only talking about a minority of people here sure. But you've got to be prepared for it.
Now these points apply to anyone in general, and I don't know Aaron Schoenke personally, so he may very well be good at it.
I still think this movie has flaws as far as the pacing's concerned -editing : see, I'm enclined to think that's because the director lacked proper objectiveness to make it good-
Lastly, let's be serious. The acting is probably the most important thing in a film. Why? Your film can have beautiful cinematography, perfect editing, perfect sound, color-grading whatever... If the acting is overdone, or bad in general, the result won't be believable, and worse, could be laughable.
That actress playing Poison Ivy? She wasn't good at all. Didn't make me believe in the character for a second. That kind of detail will ruin the film and make it look amateur no matter what technology, budget, or crew you have working with/for you.
Acually better as it doesn't have this Batman Inc/RIP nonsense 
