Films like 'Timecode', 'Russian Ark', and 'Victoria' are notable for being filmed in a single take without a single cut whatsoever (films like 'Birdman' had cuts that were hidden).

Should this kind of filmmaking be more common? Why or why not?

What if somebody who replies rated Frozen a 4/10 and Ghost Rider a 7/10? Should you ever bother, king of all mongoloids?

First of all, I'm an Asian, so calling me a Mongoloid could come off as highly racist.

Second, that's not relevant to this topic AT ALL.

^Sees the world in widescreen.

It is a very risky type of filmmaking, and I'm a fan of risks in cinema, so I would like to see more one single take films.

Certainly. I've always been fascinated by single take movies, they tend to be risky, but generally they usually turn out good.

No. It should only be used if absolutely necessary, and not just as a gimmick.

I'm not entirely sure, but I do like the "effect" of a single take even if it truly isn't one.

I do highly recommend Magicians (2005) in its uncut form - a 96-minute single take that is very cool and very interesting. It does not feel gimmicky at all.

'Magicians' (2005)? Do you have a link for that film?

Why are you still on /tele/? Shouldn't you be out studying for your medical degree? You're bringing dishonor to your family!

I purchased it on R3 DVD on YesAsia. It's also available for online viewing on Cinflix, but that site requires a monthly subscription.

I'd rather just watch a play than something that tries to be one.

This.

no

Can you think of more stories that need to be told and need to be told in one-take?

If the film has no need to be shot in one take no. But if it creates a deeper level to the film and adds something to the experience sure.

It shouldnt be common, as a technical achievment it has already been done a few times now and therefore the only reason to do it now should be if there is a truly artistic reasoning for it.

Yes, I wish every film was like that or had some hidden cuts like Birdman. They feel so smooth