pouët.net

I just want to say that Appocalypse Now (Redux) has the best photography in a movie ever!

I watched that movie recently too. It was quite cool.

As for photography.. If you want to see impressive cinematography, I'd have to recommend Baraka. It also has the benefit of those kinds of environments, but focuses on the photography even more heavily.

xernobyl: you better check Seven Years in Tibet before you say that :]
(Apocalypse Now has great photography this said)

I watched Heart of Darkness followed by Apocalypse Now (Redux) in the cinema in a double bill extravaganza, people were awestruck at the finish, that movie ...

what I mean to say is, watch Heart of Darkness, the 'making of' documentary of one of the hardest and longest films to shoot, including actors tripping their ass off and choppers being used in live combat a couple of miles away by the army to fly back on to the set and continue shooting this glorious mess of an hallucination

bigcheese: It's on my to watch list. It's like Koyaanisqatsi, right? I think this was the one that rob recomended to me some day.
But it has nothing to do with AN. AN has those lights, and use of different films (some with Infrared sensitivity and that stuff), and it's all "manmade", with the explosions made to impress... I can only imagine the time it took for Brando's head to glow like that. The other movie is just like "conventional photography". It's different.



I've only read those things about Appocalypse now

I just want to say that Lifeforce (ASD) has the best effects in a movie ever!

What? It's NOT a movie?

I can't tell, because I snoozed away after two hours or three. The redux version turns a long, chilling war flick into a tedious, hardly bearable movie marathon, full of stuff that didn't make it into the final theatrical cut for a reason. I much prefer the original version.

Terrence Malick ftw!



The Thin Red Line, the most beautiful war movie ever, its photography is just awesome :)

(no ribbon joke intended)

I love that movie!

I hate that movie! Seriously :|

xernobyl:
Yeah, Baraka is like Koyaanisqatsi. In fact, I had almost decided to mention both Baraka and Koyaanisqatsi instead of just Baraka. But then I decided that Koyaanisqatsi is basically more memorable for the combination of the visuals and the soundtrack (Philip Glass had been determined not to do any movie soundtracks.. but he made an exception for Koyaanisqatsi because it was a very different kind of movie, and did a somewhat brilliant job).

One of the best movie ever, and for sure THJE BEST war-related movie ever, far superior also of Full Metal Jacket.

And Kurz was an amazing carachter!

Bullshit, I bet you can suck a golf ball through a garden hose!

how about 300?

src: 300 shows no photographic skills. i mean that movie was produced about 90% digital ;)

Who cares?
And why are all the mercury members writing bullshit here?! SHOULDN'T WE DO A DEMO?! DEMO OR DIE

I dislike "Full Metal Jacket" too. It doesn't touch me. I even prefer Platoon to Full Metal Jacket. Nothing happens in Full Metal Jacket. I feel it has almost no conections between the scenes.

I'm watching Seven Years in Tibet.
It's nothing special in the photography department. Everyone can do it with those sets.

go watch Planet Terror instead ...

well, in that case the movie has failed abominably. War movies, for my understanding, aren't supposed to be beautiful
If you want good photography in a movie:
• Stalker (Tarkovskij)
• Letters Of A Dead Man (Lopushanskij)

and..yes Apocalypse Now had indeed great pictures besides the enomous content.

in case anybody missed d0DgE's point, then it bears saying again -
< RUSSIAN CINEMA YO! >

Tarkovskij seemed to kick start a good thing in russian cinema. recent films like Zvyagintsev's "the return" develop that style heavily, and feature cinematography to blow your socks of by default

< HOORAY FOR RUSSIAN ALTERNATIVES TO WESTERN FILM! >