RD1973

I'm really getting sick of this new trend toward the "home video" look. I'm not talking about higher-end cameras like the one used for Revenge of the Sith. I'm talking about the ones used for Apocalypto, Miami Vice, Public Enemies, and apparently, every single new Direct-to-video movie. Everytime I sit down to watch a movie and I realize its digital video, I just want to turn it off. I've seen DVD featurettes that look better!

I read a comment somewhere on this site that these movies look like pornos withouth the sex. I couldn't have put it better myself. I like the movies I listed above and I'd probably love them if they had been shot on film. I imagine it must be cheaper, but I don't care. Directors are ruining their own movies to save a buck! And if it makes the process easier, too bad. Earn your paycheck! This is a terrible new trend. Anyone else agree?

NoirFan

I thought shooting Cache on HDCAM only enhanced the sense of intimacy and realism, heightening the tension tremendously. Watching it on Blu-ray, I felt as if I were actually in the couple's living room.

AnonomusBob15

Mann wants it that way. Those are HIS films, and I think he uses the medium nicely

riotinmyskull

plus mann is known for doing take after take after take and i imagine film can be pretty expensive.

inri222

I liked Inland Empire & Dancer In The Dark

Blu Man

Yeah, I am. If the director wants to shoot digital he should at least shoot with Red so that he's no lossing any resolution. Digitla will catch up in the next few years, I think it already has in terms of projection.

RD1973

I've only enjoyed it on The Blair Witch Project and [REC]. But those were supposed to be home movies.

I was actually intrigued by Inland Empire, but the look of the movie was a constant distraction.

RD1973

He has every right to do what he wants. But me, I think I'm done with him if he's going to keep using Digital.

Tarantino

I haven't seen Miami Vice, but with Public Enemies, there were just some scenes that looked ridiculously out of place being shot digitally.

I'll agree...it only works with certain films.

NitroJMS

There's a lot of films shot digitally that look very film-like (such as Robert Rodriguez' work). It's really all in how you shoot it and how your DP is with digital photography. Just look at other digital films like Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Superman Returns, which all look pretty dang good.

RD1973

I'm referring specifically to movies than want to look like [REC] but really shouldn't. In particular, Public Enemies and Apocalypto. I liked both films, but the digital look destroys the illusion of being in the past. Also, whenever they whip the camera around quickly, the image completely falls apart.

To make matters worst, I've recently rented some direct-to-video movies which were horrible and just happened to be shot on digital. So I've begun to associate digital video with low-budget crap.

AVP77

I didn't realize Zodiac was shot digitally until I was reading about it after seeing it. And it's full of wonderful earth-tones that you usually don't associate with newfangled digital stuff, it looks great.

There's sometimes technical reasons for choosing digital, like the cold in Antarctica for Encounters at the End of the World, or using ambient lighting for the night scenes in Collateral. I would imagine shooting digitally in the jungle for Apocalypto gave Gibson a freedom to film what he otherwise wouldn't be able to.

Blu Man

Considering Public Enemies had a 80 million dollar budget, I doubt not having enough money is an issue.

DthRdrX

From what I've read Miami Vice was basically Mann's test with the digital cameras. The movie was supposedly a behind the scenes disastor though.

Labor

PUblic Ennemies looked terrible

Miami Vice on the other had did not

I'm not sure what went wrong with Mann when making PE

RD1973

I was dealing with the look of the movie at the beginning. But the indoor shots of the shoot-out at the cabin were REALLY bad. And I couldn't believe how bad the climax looked. When Johnny Depp was walking in slow motion, the image was just smearing all over the place.

RichC2

I thought it worked alright for Inland Empire, but Lynch has a way with stuff like that. (The scene where she walks in on herself doing auditions, or something of the sort, was far more effective this way for some reason.)

Also made: <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P6n3wnlq8jw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P6n3wnlq8jw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

more uncomfortable than it otherwise would be.

RD1973

Yes, Zodiac looks great and so does Revenge of the Sith, among others. But I'm talking about "lower-end" digital cameras I guess. The perfect example is [REC]. Although its perfectly appropriate in that case. But they went with digital specifically because it doesn't look like film.

I can only imagine how awesome Apocalypto and Public Enemies would have looked on film.

And again, I don't care if its cheaper or easier to use. It sucks!

Labor

Yeah, it was just god awful in the cabin shootout

I think its obvious that Mann wanted the movie to seem REAL, like it was something that could be happening "now" but unfortunately all he did was highlight how unreal it was imo.

Mann is one of my favorite directors, and PE is easily my most disappointing movie of the year

Solid Snake

let's not forget Sin City