Interesting rare and unknown cinematography movies

BurnetRhoades

Then let's call that his "crazy" period. I'm so glad he got over it.

Cde

I honestly think Mann wanted it to look like camcorder video and not like a slick feature film. He kept going for those looks with top of the line DPs who know what they're doing.

To each their own.

BurnetRhoades

I think Michael Mann's Miami Vice (and to a lesser extent Collateral) is an essential watch for anyone that likes shooting on cheap video cameras.

Um, no, not really. They're a lesson on how bad an expensive video camera can look. These were both shot on top-of-the-line digital cameras for their time. They only look bad for how they were used. I didn't mind it quite as much in Collateral but you never forgot you were looking at digital video. It never "looked like a movie" except for the isolated section shot on film.

This is the same camera that also shot David Fincher's Zodiac and part of Benjamin Button.

Michael Mann would go on to make an even more dreadful digital feature, again with expensive equipment, with Public Enemies which was extra distracting because it was a period drama. He did finally get a handle on shooting digitally with the HBO series Luck which was a beautiful show.

Cde

@jpbturbo

Yes, I know that, but Mann and Dion Beebe push the cameras in ways that draw out characteristics usually associated with 'cheapness', like high levels of noise in shadows. It has a very dirty look that forum guys pull their hair out and splash out on expensive bodies to avoid, but in it's way it actually looks really nice. Collateral has a fair bit of film, but for Miami Vice it was only used for a couple of scenes.

jpbturbo

I think Michael Mann's Miami Vice (and to a lesser extent Collateral) is an essential watch for anyone that likes shooting on cheap video cameras.

@Cde, The Thomson Viper and Sony F900 aren't really "cheap" video cameras, they also used Arri 235, 435 with Kodak 35mm.

Cde

I think Michael Mann's Miami Vice (and to a lesser extent Collateral) is an essential watch for anyone that likes shooting on cheap video cameras.

maxr

I found No a gem, not only the whole visual shibang but the very cynical, ironic and demagogic, thus truly current, message and the bizarre humor which was right, right on the limit taking in account all the people the fucking bastard burn in hell during a thousand millions years Pinochet killed. I laugh my luns out, but by the end I got, maybe as René, I bittersweet taste that wouldn't leave. cheers lolo, from manolo?

lolo

No (2012) Oscar nominated chilean film, they rebuild old U-matic sony cameras, to shoot this movie with a vintage look, the use of this ugly image contributes to a reppeling feel for the image, wich is much suited to the story of a plebiscite that turned down a dictator that violates human rights, also it is funny and interesting, the use of real history characters in the movie, like the former president Patricio Aylwin, that appears in his now old days for an interview, and when we see the interview, we see the real footage of that interview 20 years ago, there are more of these glympses here and there but probably only a chilean would tell who they are, but it is interesting as a concept to add into the fiction realm some recognizable history characters. This movie also use real footage of the propaganda for the Yes and the No on the referendum, and as this propaganda is the central element on the story, the use of U-matic´s is quite suited

maxr

if you dare...
michael snow's PRESENTS

lolo

Le cue de la girafe (2004), i remember watching this some years ago, and i really liked the use of soft lights, the soft shadows really gives this movie a more tender and warmer look, even when the color is cold, i find this contradiction really interesting and appealing... it is hard to find though, i tried to look at it again but i just couldnt find it anywhere :/

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9e0pd_le-cou-de-la-girafe-bande-annonce-f_shortfilms#.UZ7T65yt9js

Le Cou de la girafe