Does a more visually striking film exist?

Does a more visually striking film exist?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pn83z339XWw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Captain America: Civil War

Isn't the sky pink because it was a bad scan?

Fast 8

His other films are visually as nice.

Fucking retard.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

barry lyndon

Smokin' Aces (2006)

I haven't read anything about it. I know Stalker's scan has been shit for a long time prior to the recent Mosfilm restoration, but I don't know if there's anything similarly wrong with The Mirror.

Who cares your image looks comparatively worse

>Batman v. Superman

thats 100% CGI. fuck off

kino to end all kino

La planète Sauvage

close but no cigar.

Unsurpassed.

and 2001
and The Shining
Kubrick is peerless as a visualist

>Tree of life
>Knight of cups
Easy

stills look really good.

one of the rare circumstances where stunning visuals can't save a fucking shitty movie, and one of the rare circumstances where the book is better than the movie

Days of Heaven

When you think about it is pretty awesome that the diretor actually got his massive lens by NASA itself to shoot the movie.

Also Picnic at Hanging Rock

Maybe but It looks better that way

>rare circumstances where the book is better than the movie
>rare
you really belong here

No you absolute yotta-retard. Sky looks pink because it was made to look pink intentionally or shot in pink/red skylight

>Have to click through 15 captchas on average to post

Fuck you fucking faggot Kimmo fag

...

Maybe The Night of the Hunter

settings -> legacy captcha
Fucking faggot.

Probably the best looking found footage movie. Not a hard thing to do, though. I haven't watched The Mirror yet, but Stalker is a beautiful movie.

...

...

In The Mood For Love looks fantastic

Samsara and Baraka are visually some of the best things I've ever seen.

no
are you retarded?
no
no
no
weeb
only offret

yeah i'd say plenty of films challenge and surpass zerkalo's visual challenges, but none of them have been posted so far itt

So many plebes in this thread. Ozu was the master of framing. His visuals are second to none. Dreyer comes next.

literally who.

Literally most boring images I've ever seen

But are the movies actually worth watching or is he just making moving postcards?

Suspiria?

not in the least comparable to tarkovskys visual poetry and mise-en-scene
yes ozu is the essential silent japanese filmmaker

( )

Yea, his early ones like Tokyo Story get all the press, but his later movies (in colour) are still quite interesting.

>silent
So I guessed correctly. Moving postcards.

Excalibur

nah
unless you categorize all silent films as "moving postcards", if you do so you are a retard

Il deserto rosso is pretty incredible visually

He made 20 or so talkies in his career.

finally someone posts an actual contender, antonioni

I don't know. The way the red jackets pop out against everything else in this is pretty stunning though.

You could probably nominate most Antonioni films desu

>no chem trails

t. pleb

>Calling it zerkalo to try to impress people

*Tips fedora*

t.has only seen 1000 films

The vistas in this remain unbeaten.

>mfw watching the 8k scan at 4k in 10bit colour
Looks like it was shot yesterday.

Came here to post this.

if only stuff shot yesterday looked as good m8

quite possibly the greatest few frames shot in colour ever.

This looks like a terrible vhs quality with those colors.

agreed, it looks like it was reshot through a bottle of 7-UP.

>he doesn't like the vintage warmth of VHS

kill yourself capefag

>Children now think VHS is "vintage" and somehow isn't complete shit
Kill yourself. Apart from film all analogue video tech looks like garbage.

It is vintage now, you retard. I grew up on VHS and didn't watch a DVD until I was 13, but it's vintage now.

DVD is for capeshit. VHS is for kino.

>muh rule of thirds is good cinematography

yuck

"Vintage" actually means a time when something of high quality was produced. So no, retard, VHS isn't and will never be "vintage".

>muh shakey cam and atom bomb whites and green hue is so progressive and modern and really is the highest quality aesthetic in cinematography and everything other than this is totally "dated" and "cheesy" and "campy" and is just wrong

get over it dude

It is you retard.

Digital film will never look as good as analog. Go back to watching your grown men in spandex you pleb.

I think the word you are struggling to seek is "retro".

Rule of thirds cinematography is the best cinematography. Name a better style.

grand budapest hotel

/thread

I bet you enjoy the films of Wes Anderson

just moonrise kingdon tbqh

Offret's the best I can think of when it comes to visuals, but there's a lot of really good ones. Kar Wai Wong films are another amazing one, but that's more for the camera movement than any single shot.

>only offret
Nostalghia is VERY underrated and I don't really know why.

My choices would be El Sur and Welles' Process. Ming Liang's last film is also fantastic.

the book was awful
the movie is a masterpiece (critical consensus)

>not in the least comparable to tarkovskys visual poetry and mise-en-scene
no, just better

Barry Lyndon is shit. Atrocious. A completely emotionless series of still paintings. All the characters are robots and the narrator tells us what will happen before it happens. Kubrick is a better photographer than a filmmaker.

Their approach is diametrically opposite. They're not comparable at all.

Curiously, it's Kubrick's most emotional film besides A.I. :^); and I kind of see your point, though its use of narration is more interesting to me, since it gives quite some nuance to the "period of grace" shown in the film. It's also not as prevalent as you paint it.

Hard To Be A God.
youtube.com/watch?v=pn83z339XWw

>shitting on silent movies

literally no reason to listen to your opinion now. thank you.

>ozu is the essential silent japanese filmmaker
Yet his style is at its peak in sound.

Yes, plenty
Antonioni's alienation trilogy and deserto rosso
Hitchcock's vertigo
Ozu's color films (and late spring)
Douglas Sirk's melodramas (all that heaven allows, imitation of life, written on the wind)
John Ford's the searchers, stagecoach, how green was my valley and plenty more
Ophüls' madame de...
All the good Dreyer's
Kubrick's Barry Lyndon and Visconti's the leopard
Fellini's dolce vita and 8 and a half
The Archers' the red shoes and black narcissus
the night of the hunter, the man with the movie camera and dozens more

>Yet his style is at its peak in sound.
how does that affect the previous assertion?

...

Ah, nothing, just a bit of nuance. I don't think his mute era is as good, to be frank.

What's the reasoning behind omitting the Satyricon within your list?

Pardon my plebbiness but I have a question. How much of a films visuals can be credited to the director and how much goes to the cinematographer? Is it 50/50? Could a shitty director make a good looking film if he had an amazing cinematographer? Could an amazing director still make a good looking film with shitty cinematographer?

Colossal Youth

>Could a shitty director make a good looking film if he had an amazing cinematographer?
Yes, but they wouldn't have anything behind it. Lubezki is a master of making pretty shots for shitheads haha

Now, in all seriousness, the director and cinematographer usually work closely together and discuss everything regarding the film's process into form. More closely than with scriptwriters and editors, which are as essential to the film, even.

>video length is 18 seconds
>loops after 4 seconds

A good cinematographer definitely helps a director convey his vision. But a good director can still make use of a mediocre or even bad cinematographer if they know what they're doing.

A bad director has far more of an impact. Look at Lubezki's work with Inarritu. A fantastic cinematographer, particularly with Malick, but wasted on Inarritu's schlock and beauty-less movies. He has no eye for visual poetry or beauty beyond the "Windows HD Background" kind of images.

why is Sup Forums so pleb?

whats this?

>Could a shitty director make a good looking film if he had an amazing cinematographer?

Of course, the entire filmography of
Robert Richardson for instance

Also Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks

>Does a more visually striking film exist?
>striking
not really. they are beautiful but not bold.
striking implies they are dynamic which is kind of anti-tarkovsky.
striking visuals, i'd say was any eisenstein film and maybe most of kubricks films.

inb4 i dont like tarkovsky.
nope.

>Hugo
>Shutter Island
>Hateful Eight
>Inglorious Bastards
>Django
Ohhh, that explains some things

In a best-case scenario, the director & cinematographer have common taste in what looks good and what fits the project, and every shot is a conversation/collaboration between them.

In a textbook sort of way, the director is responsible for the "vision" and the cinematographer is responsible for the execution. As in, the cinematographer takes charge of the camera & lighting crew to find the best way to get the director's ideas across with the space & equipment given. But of course, the specifics of this relationship can vary from one film shoot to the next, from one day to the next

Dunno if this is considered plebbish here or not, but I really love Ran. True masterpiece of color and frame.

>Torrent fag
>Calling others plebs

LMAO

what happened in that scene?

What is this? Looks like a Malick film

what's torrent got to do with it? you're still a pleb