Favorite cinematography?

[Tacit Ronin]

Cinematography isn't about standing out. It's about using light, color, contrast, framing, movement and composition to illuminate character, highlight themes/ideas and forward the story.

The aforementioned Unbreakable isn't a fancy looking movie by any stretch of the imagination. But it's a masterclass in cinematography. Especially in this genre.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Cinematography isn't about standing out. It's about using light, color, contrast, framing, movement and composition to illuminate character, highlight themes/ideas and forward the story.

The aforementioned Unbreakable isn't a fancy looking movie by any stretch of the imagination. But it's a masterclass in cinematography. Especially in this genre.

So it stands out as a masterclass?

But thanks for your unnecessary explanation of what cinematography is, when all I meant is that Marvel film cinematography doesn't stand out in the field.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

No. It doesn't 'stand out' as a masterclass. It never gets mentioned in the list of films fanboys gush over when they mention cinematography, which they tend to conflate as being the 'purdiest' film.

Its cinematography is usually only talked about by filmmakers and film professors.

I would argue that the Marvel films aren't any worse than most other films in the genre. Despite them favoring use of 'unmanly' stuff like color over desaturating the film to such a degree that their actors look like walking corpses.

 

[ThePhantasm]

So something only stands out if it stands out to fanboys, and not to filmmakers or film buffs? I feel like you're equivocating just to disagree.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I think fanboys tend to hue close to the 'more is better' philosophy. They tend to think a film has good cinematography because it has more cinematography. Everything is about the fancy shot. Not how well that shot is communicating the story. Generally, filmmakers and film scholars tend to be more insightful about what makes a good shot, yes.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Ok. "More is better" isn't my philosophy. Never said it was.

And you don't have to be a "filmmaker or film scholar" to understand what makes a good shot. The contribution of cinematography is not that inscrutable. Half of it you can pick up just by closely observing Kurosawa, Hitchcock, and Fincher.

 

[jihado86]

Winter Soldier
Age of Ultron
Guardians of the Galaxy
Iron Man


The worst, Avengers. Using 1.85:1 aspect ratio made it look like TV.


Civil War was generally good, but in many scenes the image looked very "digital", not "cinematic".

 

[Oscorp]

Guardians of the Galaxy takes the cake for me.

 

[Wildcard]

Was gonna say Ant-Man, but then I remembered GOTG. Definitely GOTG.

 

[DACrowe]

The cinematography is in general pretty flat in Marvel Studios movies. This is intentional so that they can all look relatively similar quite easily, no matter who's directing or lensing. In fact, the only Marvel based superhero movie off the top of my head that had really standout cinematography is Spider-Man 2. I suppose, Spider-Man 3 as well might count since it was the same aesthetic. It just that movie is so disappointing it is hard to give it such a compliment.

Of the Marvel Studios movies, Guardians of the Galaxy has the best cinematography by default since it is one of the few ones with any sense of flavor or personality that is desperately missing in most of the others.

 

[scarlet-witch]

Age of Ultron. The fight scenes were amazingly choreographed and looked great. They felt more amped up than the first Avengers, and that's how a sequel should be.

 

[batman44]

Guardians of the Galaxy followed by Thor for me.