solo2001 wrote:For some reason Tetro never got a wide release, but if you can find it, see it. It has my favorite cinematography of all time.
I'm suprised too, considering it's from 2009 and stuff like this usually takes time to be ranked, but it was truely a fantastic job! (Plus it's a Coppola movie so the opportunity for dissapointment should be low.)

Yeah I was really surprised by the subtlety of that one. And how unnoticed it was.

discoveringuy wrote:Surprised few of you mentioned Hitchcock's or Kubrick's films. Vertigo & Psycho are the best photographed Hitchcock films. While The Shining and 2001 are the best from Kubrick.

Malick's films all have gorgeous cinematography as well. (I especially like the look of Days of Heaven - wonderfully captured the Midwest & its people.)

As for the past ten years or so, Eternal Sunshine and the Spotless Mind, Children of Men , The Assassination of Jesse James, Amelie, The Dark Knight, True Grit, O Brother, Where Art Thou, Road to Perdition , In the Mood for Love and The Hurt Locker, are among the best, IMHO.

Me and one of my best friends had a long conversation about Deakins vs. Pfister the other night, and how neither compares to the cinematography of many of Kubrick's films. Hitchcock didn't come up, but I'm biased and don't care for his films, but you're right, they're beautifully photographed.

Quite surprised no one mentioned AMELIE

hoppity-kick wrote:Quite surprised no one mentioned AMELIE

OMG YES!!!!!!

Deakins vs. Pfister the other night, and how neither compares to the cinematography of many of Kubrick's films.

:neutral:

Don't get me wrong, 2001 was shot beautifully, and I'll give credit where credits due. The effects were marvelous even by todays standards, the editing was brilliant, the script even better, and the composition fantastic, but I don't think it's near the caliber in terms of pure cinematography and lighting beauty as Jesse James. The only other Kubrick film I've seen is The Shining which, has solid decent cinematography, but doesn't touch 2001 much less Jesse James, Insomnia, The Prestige, The Shawshank Redemption or The Dark Knight.

I'll assume you're are mainly alluding to 2001 because that's obviously Kubricks most visually reliant film. But I don't really know how you could say Deakin's and Pfister's body of work doesn't compare...

CITY OF GOD anyone?

Crazy Eight wrote:

Deakins vs. Pfister the other night, and how neither compares to the cinematography of many of Kubrick's films.

:neutral:

Don't get me wrong, 2001 was shot beautifully, and I'll give credit where credits due. The effects were marvelous even by todays standards, the editing was brilliant, the script even better, and the composition fantastic, but I don't think it's near the caliber in terms of pure cinematography and lighting beauty as Jesse James. The only other Kubrick film I've seen is The Shining which, has solid decent cinematography, but doesn't touch 2001 much less Jesse James, Insomnia, The Prestige, The Shawshank Redemption or The Dark Knight.

I'll assume you're are mainly alluding to 2001 because that's obviously Kubricks most visually reliant film. But I don't really know how you could say Deakin's and Pfister's body of work doesn't compare...

Crazy, AOJJ is the second film on my list (I think) (It should be), but 2001... the framing is just so perfect. What goes in the frame, how it was lit, how the color impacts everything, it was just so outrageously perfect. AOJJ's is too.. but still. I literally don't understand how the academy didn't recognize it.

hoppity-kick wrote:Quite surprised no one mentioned AMELIE

Uhmm.. I mentioned it.

No Country For Old Men.

No one mentioned Memento