This is some of the worst cinematography I've ever seen!!!
Oh my gosh. I started watching it to see how it was... but Oh, my goodness. This is some of the worst camera work I've ever seen.
"Where did you get the coconuts?"
"We found them!"
[deleted]
Okay dude. Did you see anything of the shots of characters during dialogue. Half of their head was cut off and they had no headroom. Yeah, I like retro but this was awful dude. The movie sucked in general.
"Where did you get the coconuts?"
"We found them!"
Now how old are you anyway? What movies do you enjoy? Because I really wanna know.
"Where did you get the coconuts?"
"We found them!"
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why don't you just stop being a dude and be a man, admit you got owned, and bow out gracefully while you still have a tiny shred of not looking like a complete jackass left.
Jesus, calm the fock down. share
[deleted]
[deleted]
Wow, you are annoying. Do you have to write a paper whenever someone criticizes this POS "movie"?
share[deleted]
This catfight is fun to watch but just so you know, it's "then", not "than". You might want to get that right before you correct his grammar (which was appalling though). :P
shareWow, you're a really angry person. You throw a massive hissy fit over someone not liking the cinematography (I think lack of headroom is an ok reason for not liking the cinematography). Just because they used some common effects to convey moods etc., it does not validate the cinematography as good.
By the way, you might want to learn how to spell "then" before you criticise other people's English.
Chill the heck out before you bust an artery.
No such thing as a troll topic when the movie is as abhorrent and atrocious as this one. In fact, I'd say a topic praising this movie would be a troll topic.
http://www.arresteddevelopment2009.com
Arrested Development. Help it come back!
[deleted]
Ha ha...? I can't tell if Hypermecha is joking or not (I hope he/she is). But I felt I had to my put two cents in since I'm watching this movie right now.
And the answer is - yes, this movie has horrible cinematography.
The lighting is pretty bad - numerous shots have the highlights blown out. A lot of the light is uneven and flat. The party scenes look muddy - and not in a "this is live, real tv" sort of way, but rather in a "we didn't light this properly" sort of way. Watch when they open the microwave to puke into (?) The interior of the microwave is way over exposed to the point of being a giant white blob, and then suddenly snaps into exposure as if the camera operator switched f-stops during the shot. Or the camera was set to auto-iris. Also, watch the scene after the party, when Judy comes to his house. The top of her hair is so blown out by the outside light it loses all definition and is lost in the background (which is also over exposed). In fact most scenes outside are way over exposed.
Another thing I noticed, and this has to do with the uneven lighting, is that numerous times a light would hit only part of an actor's face or body. Like they would move under a light, but the light would only hit their ear and the side of their hair, creating an awefull highlight.
The composition of the shots are pretty bad - some shots are so unbalanced it's ridiculous. Same with the framing - like the OP mentioned. Not just cutting off the head, but cutting off at the ankles and sides of the body.
The focus was pretty bad too. There were numerous times where I could see an actor moving in and out of the focal range, without a focus pull to follow them. And it wasn't done for artistic or motivated purposes.
One more thing I feel like mentioning, although the editing can be partially blamed for this - there were numerous times the camera broke the 180 rule. A few times it was motivated, and worked. But most of the time it was not motivated, and did not work at all.
So to sum up, the cinematography was pretty bad. The worst ever? No. But still bad. I know it does sound pretentious to be critiquing this movie this way, since pretty much everything about it was bad (I did laugh a couple of times though). Critiquing this movie is like bringing a grenade launcher to a pea-shooter fight. BUT, I just wanted to tell hypermecha that he/she is wrong in every way. All these cinematography mistakes are avoided at all costs on every other movie, and to see them in a movie defines it as BAD CINEMATOGRAPHY! And just to let you know, I hate Fred, but I love movies, and can appreciate any movie, regardless of the subject matter, from a filmmaking perspective, so I'm not letting my opinion of Fred alter my opinion of the craft.
ROFLMAO.....it's a friggin KIDS MOVIE, for F's sake! Could you get any more anal about it?! I don't know how old you are, SinGin, but it boggles my mind that you:
1) bothered to watch it all
2) bothered to watch the entire thing, apparently, since you know it front to back and many details
3) spent what looks like a lot of thought & time on a critique of a kid/teen movie that is simply meant to exist for a few giggles, not an attempt at an Academy Award. And all for a rather old topic that no one is particularly concerned about anymore.
Jesus Christ, get a hobby.
¸«¤º°»«ëÕ|{¥(V)°º¤»¸
I can't understand your crazy moon language.
I'm not really sure why it would boggle your mind that I would watch it at all...
It's not like I only watch Oscar worthy films... I enjoy all movies, big and small. And yes, once I start a movie, I usually finish it through, which is why I watched this beginning to end.
But I only watched it once, and then immediately gave my critique. I don't lambast this movie for being a childrens movie. I understand it was meant for kids. What I'm critiquing is the cinematographer who was hired and put in charge of filming this movie. Because these movies cost a lot of time and money to make, and I can only assume they hired a professional cinematographer... and if so, then I'll judge the movie's look according to cinematic standards.
And for the record, I enjoy talking about these things, which is why I am talking about an old topic. You, however, are complaining about an old topic. Which is worse?
It was a made-for-TV kid's movie. They weren't out to win awards for cinematography (or acting, or anything else). It was cute & funny, period; the equivalent of a Monkees episode.
What's even more humorous is that people still are going on & on about the supposed multitudes of lighting & framing errors. **shrug**
»«ëÕ|{¥(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language.
I understand it was just a kids movie and they weren't attempting to make a quality one, but... oh wait, I guess I just answered my own question.
But in all seriousness, as someone else said, cinematography is a pretty darn important aspect of making a movie. Regardless of the target audience, you still want the picture to at least look good and not hinder the story telling. I mean the ultimate goal is to ADD something to the story through lighting, camera angles, and so forth. But even if you ignore all of that, at the very least, just make the picture look OK so that it's watchable. I guess the cinematographer didn't care, since it was just a kids movie or whatever.
http://www.majhost.com/gallery/HYPERMECHA/Humor/ohhi.jpg
"Everybody's got something to hide, except for meat and my monkey!" ~Rocko
>"ROFLMAO"
>"friggin KIDS MOVIE, for F's sake!"
>"Jesus Christ"
>goes on to imply someone else is taking this too seriously
>lulz irony
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"
Cinematography is one of the defining criteria of cinema.
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"