|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
|
|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
In Reply to: Re: superior cinematography or plot? (nt) posted by mkuller on March 2, 2004 at 13:30:23:
The cinematography in Mystic River was really pretty vanilla. Sweeping crane shots, otherwise the movie pretty much stayed in close-up mode. And the other material features of the film--lighting, quality of film--were just as nondescript and lacking in art.Meanwhile 21 Grams had a novel structure that worked well (for a change; most films that pull similar stunts don't quite succeed), and while the cinematography wasn't showy, it didn't need to be because the performances were so engrossing. Plus the lighting and film quality (digital) matched the texture of the film's content, which is important. I think 'Monster' would've been a much better film if it was grittier looking. As it was it looked too much like any other Hollywood film. Charlize Theron's performance was ill-served by the aesthetics of the film.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I'd say so. - rhizomatic 07:00:32 03/03/04 (3)
- Re: "close up mode" - rico 08:16:35 03/03/04 (2)
- Relentless close-ups aren't low key, - rhizomatic 09:05:49 03/03/04 (1)
- Re: Relentless close-ups aren't low key, - rico 09:59:56 03/03/04 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
