State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - - - - - Part 20

[Eddie Dean]

I'm so over Janusz Kamiński. Get a new DP Spielberg!

 

[Matt Mortem]

Edit: Link wasn't working

 

[Schlosser85]

I don't like the way Public Enemies was filmed. So distracting.

 

[DyeLorean]

I don't like the way Public Enemies was filmed. So distracting.

Yes. Awful. Just awful. Like most Michael Mann films.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

I enjoy the first Transformers and The Dark Knight Rises even if being to exhausting.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Michael Mann is one of the few people who is doing something interesting with digital photography. Instead of trying to make it look like film, he's embracing it completely.

 

[Schlosser85]

Michael Mann's only great movies were The Last of the Mohicans and Heat.

 

[Eddie Dean]

And Manhunter... and Thief... and The Insider... and...

 

[MrMaooz]

...Collateral.

 

[Travesty]

 

[weezerspider]

Cinematography's one of those things you only notice when it's really obvious (for better or worse), or you're into film. Of all the things I was paying attention to when I watched The Avengers, what the camera was doing was not one of them.

Completely disagree with you there, but I work in the industry and play with cameras all day, so I may be a bit bias. I come from the school of Welles and Ophuls, where the camera should practically be a character of its own. If not, what's the point of making a film? Do a play, or write a book/novel. Just my opinion, of course.

Also, bad pun warning, but Michael Mann is the man. Last Of Mohicans is one of his worst films. It's all about Heat, Thief, Collateral and Manhunter.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I like when he sings "Blinded by the Light."

 

[DarkSovereignty]

When who sings blinded by the light...?

 

[Eddie Dean]

Bruce Springsteen

 

[Doctor Jones]

Michael Mann is one of the few people who is doing something interesting with digital photography. Instead of trying to make it look like film, he's embracing it completely.

There's a difference between embracing digital cinematography and making your film look like an amateur. I was shocked by how horrible Public Enemies looked. Collateral even looked better. But Public Enemies has no excuse as to just how digital it looked. Digital has come a long way in the last ten years, but if Public Enemies became the standard, then I would be siding with Tarantino.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Bruce Springsteen

I must be missing a reference or he posted in the wrong thread, because I don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

[DyeLorean]

Michael Mann is one of the few people who is doing something interesting with digital photography. Instead of trying to make it look like film, he's embracing it completely.

Probably... but that doesn't mean it's good.

 

[gwynplaine]

Completely disagree with you there, but I work in the industry and play with cameras all day, so I may be a bit bias. I come from the school of Welles and Ophuls, where the camera should practically be a character of its own. If not, what's the point of making a film? Do a play, or write a book/novel. Just my opinion, of course.

Also, bad pun warning, but Michael Mann is the man. Last Of Mohicans is one of his worst films. It's all about Heat, Thief, Collateral and Manhunter.

I see what what you mean and I agree (you had me at Ophulst, but I also think that sometimes the camera shouldn't be too obtrusive, if you forget about the camera when you watch a film (especially if you work in the industry) it's a good sign, you just follow a story and are so captivated by it that you forget about the "inside cuisine" so to speak and for lack of a better termt: That said I love bravura shots like Touch of Evil intro, The Shining steadycam work, Ophuls Oeuvre in general etc...
Also The Insider, great Mann Film.

 

[weezerspider]

I see what what you mean and I agree (you had me at Ophulst, but I also think that sometimes the camera shouldn't be too obtrusive, if you forget about the camera when you watch a film (especially if you work in the industry) it's a good sign, you just follow a story and are so captivated by it that you forget about the "inside cuisine" so to speak and for lack of a better termt: That said I love bravura shots like Touch of Evil intro, The Shining steadycam work, Ophuls Oeuvre in general etc...
Also The Insider, great Mann Film.

I can see your point on the story being so good that you forget the camera but that can still happen with awesome cinematography. For example, first time I saw Children of Men, I did not realize how many long takes were in it because I was so into the story. Those are the things you pick up on multiple views. I watch films for more than just narrative, too, so I want some sweet visuals. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Matt Mortem]

A well done long take is the best thing cinema can offer. Children of Men is a great example. Steve McQueen does a lot of great long takes too.

 

[gwynplaine]

I can see your point on the story being so good that you forget the camera but that can still happen with awesome cinematography. For example, first time I saw Children of Men, I did not realize how many long takes were in it because I was so into the story. Those are the things you pick up on multiple views. I watch films for more than just narrative, too, so I want some sweet visuals. Again, just my opinion.

Once again, agreed, it is a visual medium and it's called motion picture for a reason

 

[gwynplaine]

A well done long take is the best thing cinema can offer. Children of Men is a great example. Steve McQueen does a lot of great long takes too.

 

[weezerspider]

A well done long take is the best thing cinema can offer. Children of Men is a great example. Steve McQueen does a lot of great long takes too.

Agreed.

 

[DyeLorean]

The camerawork and the cinematography also depends on each one, and how well developed and trained your eye is for that kind of stuff.
For example, I LOVE David Fincher's work in that regard. I notice it, but because I like the detail and how he films. Is distracting because I choose to. It moves me.

 

[Brother Jack]

Cinematography is usually a subliminal thing. There are flashy shots in your average Fincher movie (like Durden addressing the audience in Fight Club) but not every frame of the film is like that. I myself only really notice it when it is either really good or really bad. I can pick up on certain intricacies when I choose to look for them but if I'm engaged hopefully I won't. That isn't to say every movie looks the same of course, but I think they often look more similar than different. Fincher has one of the most distinctive styles out there. To the point that you could pick out the most anonymous frame out of one of his movies and you could probably tell it was a Fincher movie. Man loves his musty green hues.

What's craziest to me is when a cinematographer's style can be identified. I watched Prisoners recently and could tell it was shot by Roger Deakins just by how incredible it looked. That movie had some seriously outstanding cinematography, maybe some of the best I've ever seen.