Bad cinematography

Just off the top of my head I thought Superbad was shot all wrong. All those handheld shaky shots belong in police or crime genre, they don't work for comedy outside of mocumentaries.

Though I've been told not many share my view on this.

That works fine for SUPERBAD, and it's not like the whole film is shot handheld.

TENNAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES. The worst-lit major film of all-time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

That works fine for SUPERBAD, and it's not like the whole film is shot handheld.

 

TENNAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES. The worst-lit major film of all-time.

Alien vs Predator: Requiem is a lot worse. Even the daytimes scenes look nighttime. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

TENNAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES. The worst-lit major film of all-time.

Intentionally so. It gives the city and the sewers a griminess you kinda don't see again until The Crow. Cases can be made for the sequels, though, which trade grimy for garish.

THE KING'S SPEECH. The odd, distracting framing, strange griminess and needless Steadicam shots all took me out of the film. An interesting story that I found to be terribly directed. Naturally, the director won an Oscar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

Intentionally so. It gives the city and the sewers a griminess you kinda don't see again until The Crow. Cases can be made for the sequels, though, which trade grimy for garish.

It works in some parts, but that flashback to the gang's origin looks like it was lit with a match. You can barely see a thing.

Madness on THE KING'S SPEECH. I don't thinnk Hooper deserved the Oscar, but is framing and shot choice there really helped to elevate the material.

I'm just going to come out and say it.  I thought the digital cinematography in Public Enemies was terrible.  Not a dig on digital cinematography at all, since we've seen how beautiful it can look.  But rather than 'terrible,' I just think it was miscalculated.  Mann was obviously going for something different.  I appreciate that fact, but hated the end result for the most part.  

Maybe I just wasn't ready.

I'm with you Nooj. PE looked like it was shot on an iPhone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

It works in some parts, but that flashback to the gang's origin looks like it was lit with a match. You can barely see a thing.

 

Again, intentional. The editing and jump cuts in the flashbacks are aping 70s kung fu flicks. Weird choice, but it's an attempt at a style.
 

His choices took me out of the film, especially the strange blocking of shots in the therapist's office. He may have been striving for a disorienting effect, but I'm still not clear as to why.

Agreed on Public Enemies. What's odd is that I thought the use of digital in Collateral and Miami Vice was terrific. Maybe because those were shot primarily at night?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I'm just going to come out and say it.  I thought the digital cinematography in Public Enemies was terrible.  Not a dig on digital cinematography at all, since we've seen how beautiful it can look.  But rather than 'terrible,' I just think it was miscalculated.  Mann was obviously going for something different.  I appreciate that fact, but hated the end result for the most part.  

 

Maybe I just wasn't ready.

Hell, I'll double down on that and ask for some dogpiling by saying Mann's MIAMI VICE looked terrible. Bad lighting, ridiculously grainy image quality.

And yeah, I understand he wanted some sort of immediate, "live" feel to it. Didn't work. At times I felt like Mann care tons more about the canvas of the film than any of the characters or its plot.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by raptors661 

Alien vs Predator: Requiem is a lot worse. Even the daytimes scenes look nighttime. 

Seconded.  I couldn't see a damned thing in that movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

Again, intentional. The editing and jump cuts in the flashbacks are aping 70s kung fu flicks. Weird choice, but it's an attempt at a style.
 

 

Intent doesn't negate awfulness, though. Stylistic choice or not, it doesn't work.

On Public Enemies... maybe, Mangy.

I do admit that there is a disconnect with the modern digital look with the film's period setting.  It's a somewhat artificial standard most people hold when it comes to cinematography of period films, but a standard nonetheless.  It's something that I do think is worth weaning ourselves off of, but Mann may have pushed too early in this case.  

Interesting that you bring up The King's Speech along with this though.  I thought that was a film that did a great job of changing up the type of composition and camerawork that we usually find in period films. It certainly drew my attention, but not in a bad way.  Hooper pushed juuuuuuust right in my case.

Agreed on Public Enemies as well, nooj. The look of the film even took away from my enjoyment of the much-lauded shootout in the woods.

How has this not turned into a Kevin Smith / Dave Klein bash-fest? He's the two-shot guy the internet loves to hate!

I'm only mucking about, but it does surprise me. Unless it's one of those "don't count the obvious ones" kind of things. To be fair, Cop Out is one of the most lifeless looking films I've seen in a long time. It's not even about it being the "wrong style" as such. It just feels flat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

Hell, I'll double down on that and ask for some dogpiling by saying Mann's MIAMI VICE looked terrible. Bad lighting, ridiculously grainy image quality.

 

And yeah, I understand he wanted some sort of immediate, "live" feel to it. Didn't work. At times I felt like Mann care tons more about the canvas of the film than any of the characters or its plot.
 

 

I think the DV look works on VICE because it's era-appropriate - handheld footage of drug busts and late-night shootouts would absolutely look like that in this day and age. With PUBLIC ENEMIES it's a disaster, though.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Intent doesn't negate awfulness, though. Stylistic choice or not, it doesn't work.

 

I point more to the "big dramatic" moment when Raphael screams when they discover Splinter's been taken. Instead of being in the moment, all I see is that they apparently lit the thing with two construction lights from Home Depot through a grate. It's flat, ugly composition, and if they were actually thinking forward enough to even intend a style, it still doesn't work. But I'm also one of the few who thinks that the film itself isn't nearly as good or as "dark" as most, so I'm a little grumpy about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

I think the DV look works on VICE because it's era-appropriate - handheld footage of drug busts and late-night shootouts would absolutely look like that in this day and age. With PUBLIC ENEMIES it's a disaster, though.
 

Yeah, I get why Mann went that route. As said above, though, I just don't think it works. But I'm in the CHUD minority that thinks MV didn't work as a whole, either, so there ya go.
 

There was some fucking trailer in from of Rise of the Planet of the Apes that looked so laughably bad, both from a ridiculous storytelling perspective and from having shite camerawork, for a movie being released in theaters that I thought it was a trailer for a television show. Its name utterly escapes me right now.

SCOTT PILGRIM, BLACK SWAN and MIAMI VICE? You truly are history's greatest monster.

The Timothy Dalton Bond follow-up License To Kill is a virtual 2 hour thesis on how not to shoot & light a picture. Interior scenes are lit like a dayglo Vestron teen movie without any sense of depth or character. The tunelessly bland cinematography negates pretty much everything of interest that has to do with the characters & story. Inexcusably lazy cinematography.

CRYSTAL SKULL is shot totally wrong for what it should be. WATCHMEN is too. Oh and the prequels... Gah!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin 

There was some fucking trailer in from of Rise of the Planet of the Apes that looked so laughably bad, both from a ridiculous storytelling perspective and from having shite camerawork, for a movie being released in theaters that I thought it was a trailer for a television show. Its name utterly escapes me right now.

Was it that futuristic Justin Timberlake action/thriller?  Because I thought that movie looked really flat and cheap in terms of visuals.

IN TIME? The trailer doesn't look great but it's written and directed by Andrew Niccol so i have faith.

No, no, In Time looks fabulous because I'm totally gay for JT. No, it was some...horror movie? Cop thriller? God, it looked fucking terrrrrrible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evi 

IN TIME? The trailer doesn't look great but it's written and directed by Andrew Niccol so i have faith.

Oh wait, really!?  I had no idea.  His name didn't get pushed in the trailer AT ALL.  Now I'm interested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evi 

CRYSTAL SKULL is shot totally wrong for what it should be. WATCHMEN is too. Oh and the prequels... Gah!!

My ambivalence toward Watchmen is based entirely on the fact that I really like the style for what it is, but what it is is all wrong for what's actually in it.

It's the reason WATCHMEN got off on such a bad foot with me. The shots were stunning but kind of made it feel like Snyder misunderstood it on a very basic level.

But it's not bad cinematography, per se.  It's actually very impressive, just inappropriate.

True, but from how I understood it, that's what Virtanen is looking for...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtanen 

I'm writing a thesis on cinematography. We all know examples on brilliant cinematography by Pfister, Deakins, Wexler, etc but what I need are examples of films with bad cinematography. I don't necessarily mean out of focus or murky images, but films that have been photographed in a completely wrong style for the film. The only examples I can come up with is HANCOCK which is one of the ugliest Hollywood films I've seen and SEX AND THE CITY which has been photographed to look like a dark, serious drama. Any others?

Not to derail, but i hope you include Nestor Almendros in the thesis; his work on "Days of Heaven" alone is stunning.

And i agree with AVP:R being the best example of the worst here; its downright unwatchable visually at some points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Bear 

 

 

How has this not turned into a Kevin Smith / Dave Klein bash-fest? He's the two-shot guy the internet loves to hate!

Smith is a must-be-named filmmaker for this category. Maybe he ought to just write radio plays, and forget film?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

SCOTT PILGRIM, BLACK SWAN and MIAMI VICE? You truly are history's greatest monster.

I assume you mean me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtanen 

I'm using a book called "Masters of light" which contains in-depth interviews of guys like Vilmos Zsigmond, Almendros, Laszlo Kovacs, Bill Butler and Storaro. A must-read for anyone interested in cinematography and film-making. And it features a lot of talk about DAYS OF HEAVEN. 

If you want to see amazing black and white cinematography, check the works of Carl T. Dreyer (i reccomend the criterios editions of Vampyr, Ordet and The Passion of Jean De Arc); the use of light and shadow  in those three films is downright amazing.

Back to the main subject...heres a couple bullet points:

-The "lens flare" in JJ Abram's "Star Trek"; good or bad?

-Is it me, or is "Ultraviolet" too damn bright? I swear, it seems like the opposite of AVP:R at points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evi 

True, but from how I understood it, that's what Virtanen is looking for...

 

 

That is what he described, but I think the title implies something else.  Not a big deal.
 

The first X-Men is shot in a relatively stagnant way, with a camera that can't keep up with the action. 

For instance, the scene when Wolverine pops two claws around the dude in the bar's neck is completely confusing. The shot of the claws from the side, the close-up of the middle claw slowly extending, and the sliced in half shotgun spilling buckshot moments are nearly incomprehensible. The fight at the end between Wolverine and Sabretooth is also very sloppy. There's a shot when the camera moves behind one of the Statue of Liberty's spikes, completely obscuring the action for several seconds.

Batman '89 looks like ass, and is quite evident when compared with Batman Returns.

Recently? AVP:R is so underlit, even brightening my tv didn't help. And the film's so bad, you don't even really care.

And INDY 4? Personally I blame that more on the use of CG over practical locations, but even the few practical locales looked glossed over with BS. The campus chase is the only thing that looks decent and real in that movie.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned one of the worst offenders in cinematography history. 'Twas a film called Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen. Now, I'm not saying the whole movie was unwatchable due to the cinematography. It was actually nigh unwatchable due to its content. But the worst parts photographically were in the scenes where they used IMAX cameras. Apparently, Michael Bay felt it was a good idea to have the IMAX cameras there just for certain individual shots instead of just shooting whole sequences with the IMAX cameras (like Christopher Nolan did for The Dark Knight). Therefore, if you watch the film on a flat screen TV (and I have. Inebriated of course.), the widescreen aspect ratio switches back and forth from 1.85 to 2.40 FUCKING CONSTANTLY. It's like being constantly shot in the eyes with a compressed air can by a junkie. Because I like to punish myself, on a subsequent viewing, I just used the zoom so there were no widescreen bars at all. Thankfully there is that option on widescreen TV otherwise who knows what would happen.

And I'm glad to see so many people bringing up AVP-R. Talk about a movie where you can't appreciate even a single second of action, gore, blood, slime, attack, horror or anything else.

I know filmmakers or fans when they say things about a movie like, say, Aliens, they tend to say that James Cameron never gave you a clear view of the Aliens and that that was part of its strength. And that's pretty true. The cinematography in Aliens never kept you comfortable because you couldn't quite tell what things were, but they were at least lit to give you good hints of what you were looking at and later full views as the film went on. AVP-R, by comparison, is a movie without a cent in its light budget and ultimately with no money shots. Requiem, indeed.

You know, I saw AVP-R in theaters and I don't remember any bad cinematography.

Oh yeah... I fell asleep for nearly all of it.

I hate to be that guy, but how has no one has mentioned the Prequels yet? Cartoony backgrounds, ADD-action, and the most stagnant blocking possible.

I like Kenneth Branah, but I've never liked his cinematography. I didn't see Thor, but I heard it's atrocious on this front, and just filled to the brim with needless Dutch angles.

Boondock Saints definitley deserves a mention. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

I fully agree with mentions of Watchmen and the King's Speech (though I thought the whole movie was awful, so my judgment might be clouded).

After bashing Tim Burton in a different thread a second ago, I'm reminded of another example:

Alice In Wonderland.

I only watched the end (b/c I heard it so awful that it had to be seen), but man...what the fuck was that shit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

I assume you mean me?

 

Yup. You must be stopped.

(kidding, obviously)

I've no idea if the actual movie always looks like this, but the only time I can remember a trailer putting me off because it made the movie literally look terrible was Wonderland. All bleached and sepia...yecch.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/wonderland/trailer

Like I said, the trailer chased me away so I haven't seen the actual film, which for all I know might rival Douglas Slocombe. Can anyone confirm?

More on topic, my pick for most annoyingly inappropriate cinematography is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Which is weird because the same guy (Daniel Pearl) shot the original, brilliantly. Which pretty much means it's Marcus Nispel's fault. Then again, everything is Marcus Nispel's fault.

Thor is as Dutch Angle-y as you've heard. Another offender on the Dutch angle front: The John Adams miniseries on HBO. I remember watching it and saying aloud, "WHY DO THEY KEEP DOING THAT?"

In the "wrong cinematography for the content" area, I recall the 1995 Christian Slater/Kevin Bacon movie Murder In The First, which featured wobbly handheld, insanely swirling steadicam and needless crane shots. One of the few films whose camera work made me kind of nauseous, and the film was a damn courtroom drama!

Do people have inner-ear problems or something that makes canted angles that big of a deal? I didn't especially like Thor, but it wasn't filmed sideways for chrissakes. Severely overblown issue. And the John Adams miniseries is gorgeous. Beautiful show.