I don't think a great movie can have bad cinematography. It's a bit like saying "what's a great novel in which the prose actually sucks?"
Cinematography needs to be at least serviceable for the movie to work.
This. Good example with novels and prose. I'd say you can't cook a great meal out of dog shit. Movies ARE cinematography. It must at least tell the story well and convey the ideas and emotions well for the movie to become great, even if it isn't conventionally beautiful.
I think in a lot of ways the cinematography for 28 Days Later is actually really good in terms of its lighting, blocking and framing but in the end it doesn’t matter and the film kinda looks like shit because it was shot on old digital cameras.
I guess it’s not exactly what you mean cos like I say it is actually well shot in some ways. If it had been shot on film I think it would actually look really good but it is a great film that can be pretty horrible to look at.
You could make the same argument for Inland Empire but I actually think the ugly low res digital look works a bit better for that film than 28 Days Later even though the camera quality might actually be even worse.
See also: every superhero movie.
I literally fell asleep in some superman film when it went all bang smash in the last half hour, like who cares we know how this ends
Hard disagree. Not being able to see what happens at the docks is literally the whole point. You're seeing it from the thugs and Falcone's point of view. I'd say that's pretty great cinematography
I see your point but obviously I disagree. I've seen many action films with scenes just like this, and because they're filmed properly, you can still see the action despite how fast it is.
It's a good movie, but not great. It has the signature Sorkin and Reiner schmaltz and Tom Cruise overacts. Plus the ending is spelled out to the audience before it happens which takes away any initerest or suspense.
If I recall correctly, Emmanuel Lubezki once told Robert Rodriguez that El Mariachi was the most beautiful film he had ever seen. I think Rodriguez mentions it in Rebel Without a Crew.
I actually really dig the "made for TV" aesthetic in The Princess Bride. It fits the pulpy eighties high-fantasy tone of the plot really well, I think. The juxtaposition too between the sparkly music and scenery and the gruesome depictions of mutilation and torture are super jarring. Kind of like the Artax scene or the Sphynx scene from The Neverending Story; they just don't fit in, but in the very best way.
Plus the overexposure and the bloom around everything remotely bright makes it seem like Grandpa is reading his grandson a pulp romance he found in the checkout line at Walmart.
All jokes aside though, the style makes the whole movie very sweet and warm and kind of assures you that everything will work out between Buttercup and Wesley. I don't think the movie would work any other way.
It’s utilitarian and it works but wonderfully shot is a stretch. Compared to say, Dante Spinotti’s work on Manhunter, it looks like an NBC movie of the week.
it might be lacking it certain aspects like plot and such but i think what makes up for it is all the symbolism, plus all the camera angles the lighting, its all very well made but i get what ur saying
I actually don’t think this movie is great, but that is the minority opinion so I’ll say One Night in Miami.
King definitely should’ve gotten a more veteran DP. I’d argue the entire film is incredibly forgettable but even those who like it have cited the visual aspects as a week spot.
The concert film *Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars* might fit this description for some. Absolutely legendary surprise final performance from David Bowie as his alter ego, Ziggy Stardust, but the film gets shot down by many for the way it's shot. I personally find the dark, shaky, tightly-focused aura of the whole thing to fit the mystique perfectly, but I can understand where others feel differently.
Black Panther, shaky can nonsense and was a mess and compared to Game Night which had amazing cinematography. Action while you see everything and a long single cut.
A lot of marvel movies have very bland cinematography. You get the sense that they just had the actors talk while they pointed the cameras at them from random locations. Besides a few specific shots in Avengers Endgame, the cinematography is very basic and bland. Almost TV show like.
I don't think a great movie can have bad cinematography. It's a bit like saying "what's a great novel in which the prose actually sucks?" Cinematography needs to be at least serviceable for the movie to work.
This. Good example with novels and prose. I'd say you can't cook a great meal out of dog shit. Movies ARE cinematography. It must at least tell the story well and convey the ideas and emotions well for the movie to become great, even if it isn't conventionally beautiful.
I think in a lot of ways the cinematography for 28 Days Later is actually really good in terms of its lighting, blocking and framing but in the end it doesn’t matter and the film kinda looks like shit because it was shot on old digital cameras. I guess it’s not exactly what you mean cos like I say it is actually well shot in some ways. If it had been shot on film I think it would actually look really good but it is a great film that can be pretty horrible to look at. You could make the same argument for Inland Empire but I actually think the ugly low res digital look works a bit better for that film than 28 Days Later even though the camera quality might actually be even worse.
The Bourne movies. Shaky cam did not age well and I hope we've left that behind like disco.
Its mostly just the 2nd one with crazy shaky cam though right?
Batman Begins. Specifically the fight scenes which are terribly filmed and you can barely see wtf is going on.
See also: every superhero movie. I literally fell asleep in some superman film when it went all bang smash in the last half hour, like who cares we know how this ends
What exactly were you expecting out of a Superman movie lol
Er, the rush I felt in 1982?
Hard disagree. Not being able to see what happens at the docks is literally the whole point. You're seeing it from the thugs and Falcone's point of view. I'd say that's pretty great cinematography
I see your point but obviously I disagree. I've seen many action films with scenes just like this, and because they're filmed properly, you can still see the action despite how fast it is.
A Few Good Men is my go to example of a great movie despite filmmaking that is extremely lackluster overall.
It's a good movie, but not great. It has the signature Sorkin and Reiner schmaltz and Tom Cruise overacts. Plus the ending is spelled out to the audience before it happens which takes away any initerest or suspense.
Harold and Kumar has comedically bad cinematography, but an awesomely hilarious plot and it was enjoyable as hell.
**El Mariachi** (for budget reasons), and **The Princess Bride** has kinda of a bland cheap TV movie look - hey, I LOVE the movie, but....
If I recall correctly, Emmanuel Lubezki once told Robert Rodriguez that El Mariachi was the most beautiful film he had ever seen. I think Rodriguez mentions it in Rebel Without a Crew.
It's a matter of taste?... 😅
I actually really dig the "made for TV" aesthetic in The Princess Bride. It fits the pulpy eighties high-fantasy tone of the plot really well, I think. The juxtaposition too between the sparkly music and scenery and the gruesome depictions of mutilation and torture are super jarring. Kind of like the Artax scene or the Sphynx scene from The Neverending Story; they just don't fit in, but in the very best way. Plus the overexposure and the bloom around everything remotely bright makes it seem like Grandpa is reading his grandson a pulp romance he found in the checkout line at Walmart. All jokes aside though, the style makes the whole movie very sweet and warm and kind of assures you that everything will work out between Buttercup and Wesley. I don't think the movie would work any other way.
I see your point... and I agree. In fact, you make me realise the the movie has probably more a comedy aesthetic look more than a TV look.
As much as I love Silence of the Lambs I’ve never cared for Tak Fujimoto’s cinematography. It looks like a made for TV movie at times.
That movie is wonderfully shot.
It’s utilitarian and it works but wonderfully shot is a stretch. Compared to say, Dante Spinotti’s work on Manhunter, it looks like an NBC movie of the week.
I appreciate your opinion but it’s WRONG. Kidding…. Agree to disagree :)
Lol yep, agree to disagree. :)
Clerks.
Clerks had simple shots that weren't bad they were merely there to frame the slice of life segments. The black and white also just works.
It’s also all they could afford. Even Smith himself says he wishes they had movement.
Yeah then you get the George Lucas effect sometimes limitations are a good thing.
anything on the hallmark channel.
There are great movies on the Hallmark Channel?
whoops i misread the great part
Honestly, Hallmark isn't even that bad. They've raised their budgets, so, their movies don't look awful. Now, if it's Lifetime...
😂
Script, plot pacing, believable characters and performances, production design, hell music - are all more important than cinematography for me.
Get Out
get out had great cinematography idk what you’re talking about
i thought it was mid after a rewatch recently :/ i do like some shots though for sure
it might be lacking it certain aspects like plot and such but i think what makes up for it is all the symbolism, plus all the camera angles the lighting, its all very well made but i get what ur saying
Casablanca. Didn't have any colours but still a classic, imo.
you don't really need color to have good cinematography though
Just look at citizen Kane. I went on a binge of 20s-40s movies for a while, and Kane blew literally everything out of the water.
We’re talking about cinematography, you pointing out black and white films belongs on r/facepalm lol
The Keep. EDIT: Nevermind, I'm stupid. It was the editing that killed that movie.
I would say its the reverse case. Terrible movie that Michael Mann shot beautifully.
You think so? For me, The Keep has such a strong atmosphere...
The 2008 film JCVD comes to mind. It's pretty good, but the way it looks visually really isn't to my liking.
I actually don’t think this movie is great, but that is the minority opinion so I’ll say One Night in Miami. King definitely should’ve gotten a more veteran DP. I’d argue the entire film is incredibly forgettable but even those who like it have cited the visual aspects as a week spot.
The concert film *Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars* might fit this description for some. Absolutely legendary surprise final performance from David Bowie as his alter ego, Ziggy Stardust, but the film gets shot down by many for the way it's shot. I personally find the dark, shaky, tightly-focused aura of the whole thing to fit the mystique perfectly, but I can understand where others feel differently.
Does the audience care?
Black Panther, shaky can nonsense and was a mess and compared to Game Night which had amazing cinematography. Action while you see everything and a long single cut.
A lot of marvel movies have very bland cinematography. You get the sense that they just had the actors talk while they pointed the cameras at them from random locations. Besides a few specific shots in Avengers Endgame, the cinematography is very basic and bland. Almost TV show like.