I was reading Roger Ebert's review of 'Act of Valor' and found this passage very interesting:
Yet the movie can be discussed on another level. In the same week I saw "Act of Valor," I also saw an extraordinary film named "Hell and Back Again." It's one of this year's Oscar nominees for best documentary feature, and will open in many markets on the same day as "Act of Valor." It is about a real man, Marine Sgt. Nathan Harris, and his real wife, Ashley. Harris led men in combat in Afghanistan. Shortly before the scheduled end of his six-month tour, a sniper's bullet entered his right buttock, shattered his hip socket and bounced back to destroy leg bones. He's quite willing to show people the entry scar and describe how he has two rods filling in for bones.
I know both of these films history well as I have owned a Canon 5d Mark II for a few years. 'Act of Valor' uses the 5D extensively. Dafung Denis was a still photographer embedded and he used the video capabilities of the camera in it's infancy. I only acknowledge this because I have conversations with industry people who fight back and forth over pixels and formats and resolution. What camera is better? The RED is so much better than the 5d. The Alexa is better than everything. 35mm is the king. Etc and so-on. Yet, Roger Ebert, a life-long critic of films doesn't bat an eye. 'Act of Valor' gets two and a half stars on the merit of story (he even mentions how good it looks). 'Hell and Back Again' is 'extraordinary'. Both films shot with the same camera that he doesn't even acknowledge and rightfully so. The camera doesn't make the a film bad or great. It's a tool and the content is king. Filmmakers need to focus more on story and less on technology. It will win out every time.
