Worst cinematography in recent memory.
-
cldne2000 — 13 years ago(November 06, 2012 09:18 PM)
What?!? I really liked Dark Shadows, it was far far more enjoyable and entertaining than this boring pile of crap. This film sat in my download folder for 3 years because of the bad reviews Ive seen but finally I decided to watch it and it was just as bad as people had said. I couldn't even finish it it was so dreary, boring, and had cheap looking filming or camera work (a TV movie quality to it which ruined basically everything). It didnt matter how Depp acted, the film was already a total loss for me.
Dark Shadows on the other hand, incredible atmosphere, filming and style like most of Burton's films, a much better pace over-all to the film, Depp's acting was silly like back in the Scissorhands days. But can I fault him for that? No. Its perfect for the type of film it is. Dark Shadows was greatly enjoyable and an entertaining movie experience for me, an 8/10. This junk was basically unwatchable, a 3/10 at best. -
Sauvage_98 — 12 years ago(December 17, 2013 12:05 PM)
This film sat in my download folder for 3 years because of the bad reviews Ive seen
What bad reviews? This movie got positive to good reviews mostly.
"Tell yourself whatever you need to hear, you're the only one listening." -
fluffchop — 10 years ago(January 02, 2016 11:03 PM)
Dark Shadows, Depp's worst performance IMHO -_-
Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!
His worst performance was in A Nightmare on Elm Street, but even that wasn't really bad since he was just a kid.
BTW you're WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space. -
brian-hansen6 — 16 years ago(December 26, 2009 05:36 PM)
I agree the cinematography was awful. Being from Wisconsin and the Midwest where the film was primarily shot, this was really disappointing. It seemed they shot during the spring and early summer with everything dead. The structures and buildings seemed well done for the time period.
The story really never really went anywhere, it seemed to go from a "Catch me if you Can" to a "Bonnie and Clyde" (if Bonnie was lukewarm about Clyde and didn't partake in any criminal activity) with no real activity. Like the colors in the movie, all aspects of the film seemed dull (less the acting). -
-
Petronius Arbiter II — 16 years ago(December 26, 2009 10:31 PM)
I'm getting the impression that a whole lot of people out there in IMDb-land just don't understand that if you've only seen a movie on DVD or Blu-Ray, then you've seen a fundamentally
different
movie than people saw in the theaters. Producers and directors have almost no control over how the transfer from theater formatting to video formatting is done.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
BoardkilL — 16 years ago(December 29, 2009 01:44 AM)
You are completely correct, movies in a theater and on dvd or Blu-ray are quite different things. In this case however, the move was awful in the theaters. I watched it at a brand new theater with state of the art equipment, and it was god awful.
Granted I have not seen the dvd or Blu-ray versions of the movie (I simply don't want to put myself through that again), I doubt they can be much worse than the theater version. And if they are, people really need to demand a refund.
I might be extra picky, having a photography education, but the lighting in this movie was terrible. The whole movie looked like it had been shot with an old dv-cam from 2000, and lit with cheap construction lamps.
Had it not been for the fact that I watched it with friends, I probably would have left before it ended. It was far too long, the story didn't make much sense and felt very inconsistent, and the shoddy camera work and awful lighting just made it the complete package of stink. -
domdino — 16 years ago(January 20, 2010 10:33 AM)
I agree but i saw this movie in the theatres and it was truly the ugliest film i've ever been subjected to watching, which is a shame, it pulled me out of the plot.
Dull colours, basically no lighting, crappy grain everywhere and on top of that totally unnecessary jaunty hand held shots that frame for instance someones foot while in the middle of a conversation. How, exactly, does that help storytelling? -
Chelios24 — 16 years ago(March 23, 2010 08:59 PM)
My fiancee and I both noticed this film looked like it was made for TV. Very shoddy film making considering the stars involved in it. The lighting, "docu-feel" and crappy camera work really ruined it. And the script wasn't very strong.
-
saberdjedi — 15 years ago(July 17, 2010 04:42 AM)
Film "rules" are meant to be broken. Mann is simply continuing the legacy of the French new wave. There was a time where hand held and jump cuts were "wrong" too, but are no longer. It's ironic that people bring up Bonnie & Clyde without realizing that that film was just as unorthodox as Public Enemies, and was also heavily inspired by French new wave films.
-
flickfix — 13 years ago(August 28, 2012 02:18 PM)
It's not about that. In the shoot out scene, they could have parked a Toyota Prius outside the house, and I won't find it odd. I would actually find it fitting. It's that camcorder feel and look, that never existed till recent years.
It does not look more realistic as our eyes simply don't see things that way. Lighting choices also made the images very unnatural to our eyes.
He experimented, good for him. But he should have done more tests on it before diving in. I highly doubt he got the image results he was hoping for. -
chev_chelios-640-705566 — 15 years ago(September 18, 2010 04:29 AM)
If you look closely on your dvd you may see some certain scenes that have detail, which of course some parts are shot on 35mm film.
Cameras :
Arriflex 235 35mm
Arriflex 435 35mm
Sony F23 HD Camera
Sony HDC F950 HD Camera
Sony PMW EX1R HD Camera
Anything else do you need to know? Cheers:)