MovieChat Forums > Scream 4 (2011) Discussion > Why is this film so ugly?

Why is this film so ugly?

posted 3 years ago by [deleted]
12 replies | jump to latest

I don't mean the content or anyone in the cast but the visual look of it. It looks nothing like the first three, which had bright clear cinematography and crisp visuals. Scream 4 has a perpetual soft focus with dark lighting and a hazy sheen throughout. Pale-skinned actors like Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox look completely blown out by this hideous camerawork. Is this considered "the modern look"? I despise it, and it's one of the reasons I have never been able to complete this film.

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 3 years ago

I know what you mean. I don't remember what I was watching, but they basically said it was like the lens of the camera was just smeared with Vaseline.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Usually in the past when vaseline was smeared on the lens, it was in an effort to make actors (especially women) look younger than they are, but it's not like Neve and Courtney were crones when Scream 4 came out in 2011. The camerawork isn't flattering to any of them. Peter Deming did the cinematography. It is hard to believe this man had worked with David Lynch. Scream 4 looks like amateur hour.

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 3 years ago

I didn't realize Vaseline was something that was actually put on a camera lens.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I assume a sheet of glass held in front of the camera

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 3 years ago

I just meant more of the effect in general of using Vaseline to make actors look younger. It's definitely an interesting bit of knowledge.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Years ago I was in film school and we were watching Vincente Minnelli's "Meet Me in St. Louis". There was a jarring cut from a group of people to a sudden close-up on Judy Garland which looked blurry and out of focus. All of us laughed because it was so obvious. Garland was only in her early 20's then. I think it was an old Hollywood trick not just to make actresses look younger, but also to suggest "glamor".

[–] TommyJarvis82 (2480) 2 years ago

That kind of cinematography was pretty common in the 70s and early 80s.

[–] Dainty (1863) 2 years ago

Scream 5 looks even worse

[–] agaete2305 (366) 2 years ago

I was to post THE SAME THING!!! It looks so weird, like some kind of instagran filter all over the movie. It was a terrible photography choice

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

If you think that was bad, try sitting through Aaron Sorkin's "Being the Ricardos"---one of the worst-looking films I've ever seen. Apparently, these days it isn't hip to be able to see the faces of the actors.

[–] Dainty (1863) 2 years ago

I think it's a similar filter that they use in some soap opera shows.

[–] ADBruno1985 (3307) 2 years ago

It's because it was filmed in Michigan.