Why does the untouchables look like crap?
I'm no expert in cinematography but for such a critically acclaimed film it looks awful.
Am I the only one with this opinion?
This movie is corny af tbf
>>71748690
It has Costner. It can't help but look like and be shit
>>71748690
I wouldn't call it "acclaimed". De Palma has always made B-movie schlock.
>>71748690
It looks great. Its just that you got used to orange and teal coloring that every movie now has.
>>71748690
Cinematography is the best aspect of it senpai? I'm curious to know what film you consider has great cinematography
>>71751265
I'd have to think for a while about a film with good cinematography but this film just looks weird to me
>>71748690
you should read the book "a pound of flesh" by hollywood jew producer art linsom or w/e
the jew who produced that movie
>>71751460
Is about cinematography?
>>71751265
>>71751416
Something like Lawrence of Arabia maybe, beautifully lit massive vistas. A beautiful film
>>71751416
If you're speaking in terms of the monochromatic lighting that was commonplace for Paramount produced filMs of the mid to eighties. Blame the stock camera crew for that. But the framing is superb.
>>71748690
This movie was shit.
Also fuck that shit actor Kevin Costner.
>>71751850
Maybe it's that, look as this shit. Supposed to be the middle of the night here
>>71748690
>Why does the untouchables look like crap?
Funny, production design and cinematography is usually hailed along the score as the best qualities of The Untouchables
>>71752731
I dunno bro, just looks weird to me
>>71751629
um ok but are you expecting the beautiful spraling shots of the crowded chicago desert or what
