MovieChat Forums > Fucking Åmål (1998) Discussion > Image quality

Image quality

posted 13 years ago by nitratestock35
11 replies | jump to latest

Well I know this has been shot on Super 16mm film to cut costs by about 60%, but so has "Vera Drake", "The Hurt Locker", The Wrestler" and "Black Swan" and all these movies look way sharper and with better general image quality.

I am really distracted by the ridiculous amount of film grain. Like an ant colony crawling constantly over the screen. Did the filmmakers want to re-create a retro-documentary feel? I have seen a lot of documentaries and pseudo documentaries from the 70s, shot on regular 16mm (even less image area) - and they all look way better. What the heck went wrong????

reply

[–] willowdada 13 years ago

I noticed that as well but forgot about it after about 5mins. If you're that worried about the look of this film over the amazing quality of the acting and superb film-making and cinematography then go buy a Blu-ray player and watch transformers or something.

reply

[–] nitratestock35 13 years ago

Hey, a "connaisseur"! Or perhaps rather a "poseur"?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DreamfaII 12 years ago

Stop being a whiny dick. It helped capture the atmosphere, gray and monotomous, like the heart of a small town. I loved the gritty look of Fücking Åmål.

reply

[–] nitratestock35 12 years ago

O.K. perhaps the DVD I saw on my computer was a little too grainy for my taste. I agree with you: the grain adds a lot of gritty reality feel to the movie. As I said: it was way too much grain - to the point of being poor image quality, but it might have to do with the player I used to see the DVD.

P.S. I know when image grain ist intended and put to good use. I reckon you mistook me for a guy who doesn't know. Sorry if I came across as picky and whiny. I am not. I agree with you.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

You know, there are some of us who like to watch high quality cinematography on Blu-ray but aren't fans of Transformers. I for instance enjoy Baraka, Breaking Bad, the Godfather films, etc. Just sayin'.

reply

[–] NestOfNewts 12 years ago

I'm a big Moodysson fan and I like this fim a lot but I can see what the original poster means in that the picture quality is quite poor throughout. I don't find it to be too much of a problem and as someone else said you kind of don't notice it after five minutes or so but initially it is quite a shock to see how fuzzy it looks.

www.youtube.com/user/DawsonSpeaks85

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1084) 7 months ago

Yeah, I was initially so turned off by the poor cinematography that I almost stopped watching. I'm glad I didn't, though, as you get used to it as several people have said--and the writing and acting are top notch.

reply

[–] TheCineSinge 12 years ago

I just saw it on the big-screen at my local and I noticed the high grain from the off but it didn't distract me. I think it suited the film well.

reply

[–] Nephilim-6 8 years ago

Really you disliked the grainy look?
I love this raw look of the film. Gave it a nice punk look and added to the raw emotions of the characters/story.
I hate movies that look too clean. It loses some of the passion somehow.

Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved? - Bill Hicks

reply

[–] Prismark10 8 years ago

It does look very low budget.

It's that man again!!

reply