Reply to Topic
OK, this is a thread for cinematoghraphy fans.
Often the best photographers in the business work with the best directors, and so it's probably not surprising that one of the many ingredients to a truly great film is the cinematography. But every once in a while, the best lensers in the biz find themselves attached to projects that just don't work....except that their skills are still very much evident. What are some of your favorite examples of great cinematography in movies that just aren't any good?
Two of mine...
Darius Khondji's In Dreams (1999)
Neil Jordan struck out with this dumb attempt at a serial killer with a psychic twist flick, despite a good cast including Annette Bening and Robert Downey Jr. While the result is tedious, the photography is first-rate (as is the production design for that matter - the abandoned underwater town is perfect). As far as the look of the film, it's nearly the equal of Darius' best work with Caro & Jeunet (Delicatessen & City of Lost Children) and David Fincher (SE7EN & Panic Room). Too bad it's stuck in an otherwise forgettable movie.
Emmanuel Lubezki's Great Expectations (1998)
Alfonso Cuarón had a decent idea to work with, as modernizing Charles Dickens could have worked. Could have, but it didn't. It's a pretentious clunker that supposes Ethan Hawke's brooding, Gwyneth Paltrow's near nakedness and DeNiro and Anne Bancroft chewing up scenery is enough to forgive sloppy story telling of a pretty solid story. It isn't. BUT it is simply a BEAUTIFUL film to look at. Gorgeous. Lubezki suffered a similar fate with Meet Joe Black, also released the same year. But while that flick is just plain dull, Great Expectations is boring plus dumber than dirt and annoying too. Plus Expectations is the far prettier of the two.
So those are two movies I would recommend seeing for the cinematography alone (assuming they are at least letterboxed). What movies have you been blown away by the photography that otherwise you found almost a complete waste of time?
Often the best photographers in the business work with the best directors, and so it's probably not surprising that one of the many ingredients to a truly great film is the cinematography. But every once in a while, the best lensers in the biz find themselves attached to projects that just don't work....except that their skills are still very much evident. What are some of your favorite examples of great cinematography in movies that just aren't any good?
Two of mine...
Darius Khondji's In Dreams (1999)
Neil Jordan struck out with this dumb attempt at a serial killer with a psychic twist flick, despite a good cast including Annette Bening and Robert Downey Jr. While the result is tedious, the photography is first-rate (as is the production design for that matter - the abandoned underwater town is perfect). As far as the look of the film, it's nearly the equal of Darius' best work with Caro & Jeunet (Delicatessen & City of Lost Children) and David Fincher (SE7EN & Panic Room). Too bad it's stuck in an otherwise forgettable movie.
Emmanuel Lubezki's Great Expectations (1998)
Alfonso Cuarón had a decent idea to work with, as modernizing Charles Dickens could have worked. Could have, but it didn't. It's a pretentious clunker that supposes Ethan Hawke's brooding, Gwyneth Paltrow's near nakedness and DeNiro and Anne Bancroft chewing up scenery is enough to forgive sloppy story telling of a pretty solid story. It isn't. BUT it is simply a BEAUTIFUL film to look at. Gorgeous. Lubezki suffered a similar fate with Meet Joe Black, also released the same year. But while that flick is just plain dull, Great Expectations is boring plus dumber than dirt and annoying too. Plus Expectations is the far prettier of the two.
So those are two movies I would recommend seeing for the cinematography alone (assuming they are at least letterboxed). What movies have you been blown away by the photography that otherwise you found almost a complete waste of time?
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra
Last edited by Holden Pike; 01-21-05 at 11:18 AM.
Reason: *fixing broken image link
I have to thank you...I didn't realize he had directed Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen (2004). I think this can also be placed in this catagory. Again, I don't think it was crummy, but it was aimed at the teenage girl market so it won't be a classic. 
But I really think it was the way he did this movie that made it charming and funny instead of falling into the complete crap area like Sleepover was.
