Eye of the beholder I suppose, but Dune 2 is one of the most gorgeous movies I've ever seen.
idk what's supposed to be so great looking about that random 1950s western
did you notice the cool shadows? or the rich colors? how the camera captures the enormity and terror of the new frontier?no
Anything looks good with a talented director and cinematographer regardless of what era it's filmed in, let's cut the bullshit here.Yeah, I really enjoy it when films have that level of art put into them.
no
Are you sure thats not one of those older films remastered in HD or something? Its kinda trippy when they do that, seeing an old film that looks like it was filmed in the past 5 years.
I find that films from the mid-2000s have more noticeable mixed quality
Methinks you just don't have an eye for cinematography.ok
Anything looks good with a talented director and cinematographer regardless of what era it's filmed in, let's cut the bullshit here.
are you suggesting talent has gotten worse?
are you suggesting talent has gotten worse? has anyone here even HEARD of hugo fregonese? apparently an argentine expat. also this was apparently val lewton's last production before he passed at the young age of 46 :o
Yup, its all computer stuff. Why comedies, among other reasons, are still the best.
i can't even remember the last great studio comedy... game night?Hangover series was pretty good I thought.
dune 2 does the same thing a lot of modern stuff does and that's medium closeups with shallow focus when people are talking. this is demonic and not maximizing the potential of what you can put in the frame, especially in a sci fi movie with otherworldly sets/costumes. bit of a waste. it's an acceptable blockbuster overall tho.
Because no CGI.Bingo.
Without trying to be offensive: its always nostalgia goggles combined with limited horizons and survivor bias. You dont know about the massive amounts of shite from the past and you dont know about the good stuff from nowadays.
Bingo.
Because no CGI.Yup
the movie in the OP was part of the back end of a double feature and has less than 1,500 views on letterboxdIt also doesn't look particularly special. A movie like The Batman has quite a few wonderfully composed shots that annihilate the ones you've shown up there.
the movie in the OP was part of the back end of a double feature and has less than 1,500 views on letterboxd (interstellar for example has over 3,000,000). this isn't survivorship bias lmfao this is a random quota quickie western that looks better than any movie to come out in 2023.I will bet a fat ass cheeseburger you have never heard of Onyx the fortuitous.
This is a weird gimmick.He's the kind of guy who loses it over basic set lighting and wide camera angles in old movies, but won't respect modern movies which do the same things but better.
I will bet a fat ass cheeseburger you have never heard of Onyx the fortuitous.
Watch any of theses:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls564569703/
Movies shot on film that haven't been run through a thousand digital filters and had layers of CGI added look better?
I guess we'll never solve this mystery....
This is a weird gimmick.
looks like one of those soyface 80s/90s nostalgia fan movies. going to have to pass on learning more about it.*gets recommended a fully practical effect labor of love*
flower moon, asteroid city, and the dahl shorts all looked good... past lives and oppenheimer were not well directed which is a huge waste of film. oh well.
its crazy bro. i can't believe it.
thinking older movies looked better is not a gimmick. i think.
*gets recommended a fully practical effect labor of love*
*NOOO its soy for no reason*
You dont like movies, you just use old movies as a reason to say the past was better. Oh well, miss out I guess.
I do tend to find the cinematography of past movies to be more appealing, but for me it might just be because I haven't seen a ton of them.That's a thing, too.
That's a thing, too.
You don't see screen fades or freeze frames anymore. You're lucky if you even see dolly shots.
Somewhere people got this notion that certain arbitrary things are immersive and certain other arbitrary things are not. Like, having cuts at all. If freeze frames "remind the viewer they're watching a movie" why the bleep doesn't having your perspective change radically instantly every 1-5 seconds?
This, of course, all hinges from the beginning on the idea that immersion is always the goal, which is also psychotic.
Recent stand out movies IMO:
Dunes (parts one and two)
Avatar: Way of Water
Top Gun: Maverick
These recent releases look amazing.