At no point did I think 'wow, this looks good', and in some places it looked rather mediocre, so I was surprised to see RD's name in the credits
I have a feeling it was the Directors choice, to make it look and feel natural. It had a Michael Mann feel to it. I'm sure there was discussions about not making it artsy because real life isn't artsy people are!
shareYou will find all of your answers here. :D
http://nofilmschool.com/2015/09/cinematographers-job-not-to-create-amazing-images-roger-deakins-sicario
🐢 I take pride as the king of illiterature
I completely disagree. The look was dry and often times claustrophobic and felt like NCFOM (his best film). The finale (which is always Deakins' visual highlight of any film) is so clever and shocking in night vision- it perfectly captures the emotion of the confusion- black is white and white is black.
shareI was really impressed by the visuals actually. It was some stunning photography artistically even if not beautiful in the traditional sense. It's a movie about the bleak war on drugs after all.
shareThe scene as they rode to and from the border was fantastic.
And beyond that there was some good photography, but I wasn't sitting there analyzing.
But on my immediate impression from one viewing I'm going to say 'wrong'.
I hope you absolutely blasted American Sniper. That looked like a tv movie for the most part.
The scene as they rode to and from the border was fantastic.+1 share
I put that down the absence of Jake Gyllenhaal's face.
shareI think there were quite a few aerial shots that were pretty cool and had me wondering who the DoP was (didn't know until the end).
As for the film in general, I would be willing to bet that Deakins and crew were likely given the charter/mandate from the director to make it gritty, do lot's of hand-held (but not too shaky) cam work to help place the audience in the action, etc.
It was still well done, even if not the kind of gosh-wow cinephotography that Deakin's is better known for.
The only thing I wondered about, not that it bothered me, was what the black and white photography was supposed to represent during the dark raid on the tunnel, which came here and there in between the grainy green footage from the night-scopes. It was certainly of a higher resolution / fidelity than the night-scopes ...
Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out
The only thing I wondered about, not that it bothered me, was what the black and white photography was supposed to represent during the dark raid on the tunnel, which came here and there in between the grainy green footage from the night-scopes. It was certainly of a higher resolution / fidelity than the night-scopes ...
Do you mean the thermal cam shots showed from ego perspective as well as aerial drone recording?
Lighter = warmer, darker = colder.
Black and white part:
- Filmed with infrared technology - representing pov. of Alejandro (Benicio del Toro)
Green part:
- Made with use of a thermal imaging camera - representing pov. of everyone else.
Cool. That will help on the next viewing, thanks.
Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out
I go with those who think the opposite of what you experienced.
Some scenery shots I was like 'wow, how pretty' esp the skies, obviously enhanced, looked often great, with a dynamic clouding (in a too saturated blue).
Personally I like to take such pictures too. While I enhance the dynamics and contrast of such clouding to point out the texture and lighting better, I rarely over-saturate them.
I also like the aerial shots from the mission in Mexico and the border.
Et cetera
---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!