Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Due to the fascinating commentary made by filmmakers, Keanu Reeves and Christopher Kenneally, Side by Side is a must-see documentary by anyone interested in producing or appreciating film. The topic is an all to relevant debate amongst the film community about the superior form of filmmaking between film and digital recording. Reeves and Kenneally provide an easily digestible and engaging film that documents the perspectives of many respected, contemporary, and practicing filmmakers. While some subjects are clearly still in preference of film as the greatest medium, like Christopher Nolan, and some heavily favor digital filmmaking as their tool, like Robert Rodriguez, there are other subjects who are the balance in between both styles, like Martin Scorsese. This diversity provides a multifaceted argument, and is informative of many points of view. One of Side by Side's strengths as a film is its ability to function as a multimodal form of documentary. The filmmakers present both sides of the film versus digital debate in an expository custom, yet is argumentative without showing allegiance to either side. Rather, the film allows the subjects to present their own subjective feelings, ideas, and experiences on what they consider to be the superior practice. The delivery of this film allows for the viewer to be compelled to form a perspective by the end of film, based on the presentation of multiple opinions.One could argue that there is an impossibility on part of the filmmakers to not impress their own outlooks into the exposition that they provide, as editing is often crucial and inevitable in the formation of creating specific thoughts and feelings. However, Side by Side maneuvers through its content and subjects without an impartial endowment of inclined ideas. The editing in Side by Side remains loyal to platforming an equal voice for each side. The power of editing techniques utilized by Reeves and Kenneally montages the varying perspectives in uniformed exhibition. The way the filmmakers present an idea is by one subject supplementing the topic presented by the previous subject, in a seemingly thematic match cut. Conversely, a segment is followed by a subject of a differing point of view. This dichotomy is presented by sandwiching views to an expository chronicle. For the linear narrative of the film, the filmmakers present a chronology of the debate through a history of film and digital filmmaking techniques. Whenever an innovation is discussed, it is followed by a barrage of subjects and there takes upon the matter and its impact. Reeves and Kenneally examine the effect of how digital filmmaking allowed for an instantaneous capability to view what is recorded. Many subjects, including directors, cinematographers, and actors, deliberate on how this change impacted their craft. Side by Side's equal and fashioned distribution of information and argumentation is presented by the subjects perfectly. The viewer can see such as great filmmakers like Bradford Young, Dick Pope, and Sandi Sissel as pro film supporters intertwined amongst like David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, and Robert Rodriguez as advocates of digital technology. The editing of the film creates a dialogue of understanding, by layering the arguments one after the other. From the subjects' discussion, the role of dailies is brought into the film versus digital debate and how effectual it is upon the cinematic process. The discussion begins introduced by Dick Pope, and his belief of how the development between the film date to the next day screening is a creative process that is entrusted upon the cinematographer. The next interview is of Martin Scorsese intermediating the virtues and drawbacks of dailies. Then the discussion is followed by Robert Rodriguez assertively affirming how instantaneous viewership of what is recorded allows for technical and artistic changes then and there. This quality of content with effective editing is one of the reasons the film so highly recommendable. The content provided by the interviews is not the only means in which Reeves and Kenneally present the film. One of the more tangible and easily comprehensible manners in which the filmmakers breakdown the history of film and digital, is the use of relevant examples. When examining major industrial changes such as the advancement of visual effects, the film includes sequences of many different films throughout the years as they have evolved.From this sequencing of popular films, Side by Side creates an understanding for its audience. Most of these films are ones that people remember watching as they were growing up. By not choosing esoteric films and referring to filmmaking in indiscernible jargon, the filmmakers are clear and make the history entertaining. This effect by the filmmakers is how they are able to connect their meanings to the audience through popular films.For viewers, more oblivious to the technical aspects of filmmaking, Reeves provides commentary to breakdown complexities. When discussing resolution, the filmmakers include graphics as points of comparison. In an overlapping chart of standard definition, high definition, and 2K pixels, the resolution problem is visually explicable. With more than just mere words, the filmmakers present information so that it is to be grasped and even remembered. These indelible thoughts offered by Side by Side shows the film to have a grander impetus than just an expository report concerning the film and digital debate. Unspoken calls to action favor both the film and digital mediums. A preservation of film production methodology is pleaded by subjects, and a never ceasing rise of innovation is made on behalf of those furthering the bounds of digital processes. More so, cinema is meant to be appreciated. Film is special and should not be lost upon due to its history and unique look. Yet, digital promises potentials to further the abilities of what can be shown on the silver screen. As stated from the beginning, Side by Side never definitively takes a stance on the preference of film and digital, but rather emphasizes the visual poetry that is significant of both.

As someone who appears in this film I can't help but feel that everyone posting here has missed an essential point. Archive. How do we deal with digital storage. It's the elephant in the room that is dismissed with a simple "oh technology will advance and solve this" Really? Just look at documentaries and TV news archives, there's far more available about events pre-1980 than there is about events afterwards. Why? because of the move away from film...Out-takes and rushes are stored from old films, this is not the case with digitally shot movies. The finished movie is all there is in most cases. The rushes have been recycled because nobody wanted to pay for the disk storage and the continuous copying to new formats that would have been required. I've been involved in digital shooting since the early 80's and there have been a huge amount of different formats in that time, how many of them can still be read even if the material had been stored? We live in an invisible age, there will be no trace of us in the not so distant future.

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.

I tend to read proper film critics for their opinions not only on specific films but also essays on themes, genres, movements and so on; I consider myself a total amateur on such subjects but I find it interested to listen to those who are not. Coming to Side by Side I wasn't sure if it would be too dry for me to get into or if it would be too simplistic for me to stay interested in for just under two hours. The film essentially looks at the transition from celluloid to digital in film making – from filming through to post through to projection in the cinema and the means of delivery to the viewer. It is an ambitious goal but it is one that it does very well and in a way that flows and is accessible.I guess that for those with a real good working knowledge of the technology and the process, it may be too simplistic but for the casual viewer and enjoyer of films, there is enough detail here to engage and interest, but not so much that I felt overwhelmed with technical detail that I wasn't interested in. The film is really made up of Reeves acting as interviewer with a range of people involved in all the various aspects of the process – directors, cinematographers, editors, camera manufacturers etc. and he does a decent job, but not a great job in this regard. Fortunately this is not really his main role because it certainly seems that as producer he has helped Kenneally get a lot of very famous people to agree to be in the film. This range of talent and opinion makes for an interesting film, so while we follow development of things over time, we tend to get both sides as the title suggests.Most of the contributors are interesting and their soundbites are well edited and the film itself is put together very well so that it covers time and technology in a way that makes sense, engages and never outstays its welcome. It probably won't do much for the technical enthusiast but for fans of film and cinema it is very much worth seeing as entertainment and education.