Tears of Steel

I have to agree with those who talk about the amazing 3D graphics and the lack of real story. We are left to guess what happened and what the solutions are. I don't mean that everything needs to be spelled out, but there is a need to simply put before us the events leading up to this, other than the meeting on the Amsterdam bridge. I assume robot technology got out of hand, but there must have been something dramatic to get to this point.

I was very much intrigued by the opening shot of this . A young man stands on a bridge in Amsterdam and has to tell a young woman that the relationship is over . She is angry and hurt and cries is it because her robotic arm freaks him out ? Jump forward 40 years and there seems to be a robot apocalypse due to the woman making herself entirely cybernetic and building a conquering army of robots

At least I think that's what's happened because there's not much exposition as to what has happened in the 40 year gap and it's left for the audience to make up their own mind on the details . Obviously the opening scene is pivotal and all important and ties in with the plot later on but it is slightly frustrating to fill in the gaps for yourself . There might be a train of thought that states short film making should lend itself to ambigeuty and reading between the lines but I must argue when you've got a high concept plot genre that is science fiction you must explain what is happening and why even if it's not in so many words . Instead TEARS OF STEEL concentrates on action and visuals , except I couldn't help thinking there weren't done very well and I don't think it's trying to be sophisticated self knowing parody of Hollywood TRANSFOMER type movies . I have to admit I don't like science fiction blockbusters featuring humans battling giant robots and didn't even like TERMINATOR 2 JUDGEMENT DAY finding it flabby and overblown but I guess it's something of a back handed compliment to the makers of this short that it's no worse than something directed by Michael Bay or Guillermo Del Toro

Tears of Steel sounds like an interest concept. A young man and woman are on a bridge in Amsterdam; their relationship is not working out well perhaps because he has other dreams of being awesome in space whereas she believes he is just freaked out by her robot arm. We then jump forward to a near-future overrun by robots where, for some reason a man tries to recreate and resolve this original conflict with a large robot in the role of the girl. It appears early on that maybe there will be some interesting ideas in here and that ultimately the base of the film will be the relationship situation but it is not too long before you realize that this will not be the case.

You see, this is a film credited to the Blender Institute – Blender being an open-source piece of 3D animation software. This film primarily exists as a way of showing off what is capable and as such it is impressive. Large robots, impressive city views, large action sequences – they are all done much better than you would expect with such a low budget. It is a real shame then that it is hard to really enjoy what they have made because outside of the effects it is surprisingly weak. I understand it is a short and it should be applauded for what it did with the resources, but I am always a bit surprised to find some in the shorts community so caught up in the need to praise that they seem to extend that goodwill to everything while at the same time would go after a blockbuster for being the same (money on the screen but nothing else). The plot doesn't go anywhere or tell you anything and the same time the dialogue is really poor – indeed so bad that at several points I assumed it must be a deliberate thing.

Performances match the dialogue and are pretty weak throughout and all that remains are the effects. As I said, they are very impressive – not "for a short film" but just generally they are technically impressive. The problem is that they exist to show off Blender, not to make a film – if you really want to win over a community, it is better not just to show that you can animate complex things very effectively, but rather to show that Blender can serve as a tool for the low budget production of great shorts; this film shows the technology is there, but Tears of Steel offers nothing to suggest it helped make a good short film.

This is the kind of short film students make who really have very little experience of film making or directing... anyth8ng good that is. And what a waste as the production values are obviously way and above average. But this is THE CLAS#IC mistake of new film makers. The script and story suck. It's all about 'hey look at us and how clever we are with effects. Doesn't it look great', meanwhile there's no real story and at 10 mins this in unforgivable. It's also not well directed with hardly a decent camera shot or imaginative framing in the whole piece. I've no idea who these people are but ultimately this piece is a waste of time nd money. Maybe the computer designers will get a job but this does nothing for anyone else who gave up their time. And boy there were a ton of people who worked on this. However this project serves as THE PERFECT example to film students on not what to do with a year of your time. Instead concentrate on a good script, a great story and find a handful of great actors and film something in a basement on a mobile phone and trust me it will be infinitely better time spent than this. What a waste,

I Give this Shot Film a 10/10 because I consider it to be a revolution which showed the capabilities of an Open Source Software Blender, What they achieved back in 2012 with limited resources is just phenomenal. This is the classic example of the saying " It's the Artist holding the pencil that matters not the pencil itself ". Ian Hubert , Sebastian Konig ,Ton Rossendaal, Sean Kennedy are the Legends i admire for making this and inspiring .Thank You:)