Alex Lindblom

The Devil's Rejects Babel -- The Brad Pitt Marocco parts

10. The Prestige Yes Nolan's best of the decade. First you think that Christian bale is a bit of his game, before you realize that this is one hell of a performance. 9.Amelie from Montmartre One of those uplifting life affirming films, that just makes you happy. 8.The Incredibles Well this is how entertainment is done. Contrary to everybody else I'm not on the PIXAR fanboy wagon, but Brad Bird once more shows that he is the king of animation, also one of the best edited movies ever. 7.The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford Worst title of the decade, but what a beauty. Hats off to Deakins and Andrew Dominik for bringing us this slow burning picture card of an era long gone. 6.Dark water (Japanese original) A haunting beautifully and extremely creepy j-horror. They don't make them like this anymore. 5.Million Dollar Baby Yes I'm a sucker for old school simple storytelling and no one does it better then Clint. The cinematography is also very gutsy and dark. 4.There Will Be Blood This film is far from perfect there are couple of story beats that's just feels tacked on and not true to the story at all, but the share power of Daniel Plainview will hold generations to come clued to there tv sets. 3.Bridge to Terabithia A very mis marketed movie, and some of the CGI is so so I wished they had made it the old school with practical effects. But this film did something very few films can do today, it actually moved me and in a big way, thumbs up way up. 2.In the mood for love This movie so simple and so complex at the same time, if anybody has missed it there is no excuses absolutely fantastic. 1.Mulholland Dr. It's hard to tell why this so god but somehow Lynch manage to make simple conversation between to men at Winkie's ominous and haunting, and Naomi Watts should have had an Oscar for her performance. So David please stop painting and go back to work. A special mention to Charlie Kaufman who is the screenwriter of the decade, none of his films are on this list but they where all close. The industry needs more individual voices like him.

Yes 1999 was a great year for cinematography but it was also the year that started the era of the CGI blockbusters, with The Mummy. The Mummy is not often mention and easily forgotten in the year of bullet time. But I think this movie was responsible the start of the CGI Blockbuster era, and the beginning of a new dawn. The Mummy is the exact opposite of The Matrix. In The Matrix the effects still supports the story, in The Mummy the effects (so called since they are obvious effects ) are the story, and if you look at the staggering world wide gross for this movie $416 millions, it was apparently just what the doctor ordered. And people have just kept on ordering, and there seems to be no end in sight. For me this has been the biggest change of the decade, the move from special/visual effects to what’s essentially animation. And for me at least a lot of the magic has gone, I hope that these eleven years just have been a stopgap and that we can go back to making films magic again, good the way they used to. The talent and technology is certainly out there and I see no conflict between commerce and art. So why not go back to making good blockbusters, that way the people who pays $416 millions to see The Mummy will be happy, and so will I. So in the future I see more box office and better films, now if that’s not magic I don’t know what is. By the way great post David.

First of all F-900 records in HDCAM which is 1440x1080 in 8bit 3:1:1 at bitrate of 144Mbit/s. Personally I never cared for this look, it was the camera that started this so called revolution but it has always looked like video to me, no matter how good it’s lit. Now when it comes to the choice of camera it’s always down to your vision, the truth is video ( in it’s current state ) will not look like film and especially not in a low budget situation. It’s very hard to make a camera recommendation since I don’t know anything about your film. But since you don’t seem to have much of a budget I mean the F-900 are not that expensive to rent these days of course everything is relative. If you are going down the rental road I would go for a RED, it’s not exactly film but it’s pretty darn close, the only drawback is that you have to read up a bit on the post process but there is not a big deal. It’s also not the best in low light. Another option is to actually buy a Canon 7D, despite it’s flaws ( aliasing, low measured resolution, high compression etc) the actual images that comes out if these cameras are fantastic for it’s price, and if you are shooting guerrilla style in cites, people will just assume you are taking snapshots and not shooting a film, it’s also very good in low light.

There you go again Tom, defending red when you don't need to, for it's price it's fantastic. And if you prefer digital that's great for you. I sincerely wish, I would feel the same way you do. Personally I am not a fan of VistaVision since I don't like the cropping needed to get it to any usable form of widescreen. Now give me full frame with 1.5 anamorphic aah Technirama. This is the same reason I don't like imax too square for me, I am a cinemascope junkie.

When I grew up, for me film was something magic (still is) those 24 frames flickering by in the darkness. The fantastic vistas of John Ford ,Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood (bit of western freak) it was images from these people and many more that drew me to film making. It was not images from NTSC soap operas or sitcoms, not that there is anything g wrong with any of those. And I guess that the same is true for most people on these boards, the names and genres above will certainly change but the love for cinema is what brings us together here. Now there is nothing wrong about being pro digital, it's cheaper, "it's faster", "it's easier", and if it's suits somebody's story needs there is no reason not to use it, and one day it will probably match film, it's getting pretty close already. What I don't get is when the pro digital crowd turns into the "I hate film crowd". 100% of the films that made me wane go into film making was shot on celluloid 100%. I guess that number or very close to it is true for most people here. So my question is, what are you "I hate film crowd", guys doing on these boards if you hate film so much. I can not for the life of me figure it out, why do you want to be in the biz in the first place, when there seems to be no love for it anyway? Film is passion not pixels. Personally I think it's fantastic what RED have done. They have a great product, but even more important is that they have forced everybody else to raise there game, hello 7D on the low and and the new ARRI's on the high. And I'll admit that I'll be the first to shot digital when the quality is the same as film, film in it self has no value, only the images it' produce.

You also have to remember, that Dogs was shot with S35 and Bastards in anamorphic.

Hi Michelle do you have any similar deals on 16mm, and if so, what's the price? Also do you offer any HD telecine (scans) or are you strictlly an SD house?

From the millimeter article. (you may have to sign up to see it.) "and then we used a film camera for one slow-motion sequence.” That sequence comes in the movie’s climax: the shooting death of Dillinger at the hands of FBI agents outside the Biograph Theatre in Chicago. The scene was shot at the exact site of the real Dillinger shooting, and Mann wanted to greatly ramp speeds to stylize Dillinger’s fall. After testing various digital slo-mo options, he and Spinotti opted to shoot film for the sequence. “We tested [the Phantom camera from Vision Research], but for as much slow-motion as we wanted to do, at 160fps, we decided it made more sense to use film,” Carroll says. “You have to keep in mind how Michael Mann wants to work. We must have done 50 to 60 takes from multiple different angles [of Dillinger’s death] during the shoot, and the workflow of those other cameras, to download from the cache, takes many minutes, and asking Michael to repeatedly wait just wasn’t the best way to work.”

So there seems to be something in the air. Over at io9 they are asking the same question. But considering the low response count on this tread, the whole issue actually seems to be a none issue for most people. So I guess I just have to get on with the program as they say. I heard somewhere that the US networks has not shown a foreign language film in over 40 years, can some one confirm this for me, or is it only an urban myth? It would also be interesting to hear if there are any Koreans and/or Japanese members on these boards, to hear about how much foreign content there is over there, since I have minimum knowledge about the subject. There Is also a saying "the public wants what you give them" I am sure the US audience would warm to "foreign" films if they just where given the chance.

I can understand if someone has a new take on a classic story. I can understand if you want to remake a movie that did not quite work. I can understand if you want to reboot a franchise to make some money. I don't understand why you need to remake Bayona's excellent 2007 film El Orfanato, a very visual horror a film that can play anywhere if the powers to be gave it the chance. so we have to remake it because it's in Spanish! -- It's simply ludicrous. I have immense respect for Spielberg, the thing is I love Harvey and I can't remember there was anything wrong with that movie. Sure the original will always be there, and I am sure Spielberg's version will be fine probably even great. But still the "Imaginary friend idea" could have been taken in lots of different directions without directly remaking Harvey, I'll be happy to write an original for him, for free. So is it just me? Or are my fellow cinematography.comers also as tired as I'm, of the current remake craze?

I saw it on the big screen a couple of years ago the "4h" cut, and it's absolutely gorgeous the photo the music it stays with you, moves you. Sure the pacing may not be what we call "normal" but just when you are on your way out, it pulls you right back in. I would not call it a masterpiece but at least it tries, and who knows with all the footage shot, maybe it's hiding in there somewhere, if Cimino ever went back to it. As it stands now it's still a towering piece of cinema. And great show piece of production design and cinematography. Thank you Stephen for the link it was great to see. Now if he only could make a come back...

Good Luck, and keep up the posting when you can spare the time.

The original Spirit's uses a Perkin Elmer 300w xenon lamp, they are easy to get hold of but I guess they are to big for your rig. The need for a reasonably priced film scanner is huge, so keep up the good work.

Over at Back By Midnight. There are two great audio interviews, first with Owen Roizman and then Bill Friedkin about the new French connection transfer (starts about 31 min in the Roizman interview and 23 min in the Friedkin one) To recap Roizman says he is appalled by the new transfer and want nothing to do with it. Friedkin seems a bit heated on the subject and basically says he is the director and this is the way he want it to look. He also says that Roizman won't be invited to oversee the Exorcist Blu-ray transfer. I have not seen the Blu-ray version yet, but I have watched and enjoyed the DVD more times then I can remember.

Dan Hudgins has a great web site on this topic Dancad3D. The layout of the page may not be the best, but the info is great.

Hi Paul. Let me first state that I am not an art expert in any way shape or form. I just brought up Mona as she was the first thing that popped in to my mind. So after your comment Paul , I did some digging on the net and this is what I found... The speculations that have floated around about the cropped side pillar in the painting, seemed to have been debunked with the latest big research project on the painting that started in 2004. With the new pictures taken of the Mona Lisa with the frame removed you can clearly see the edges of the painting, now the team says that these are the original edges and not caused by any restoration or cropping efforts. This is a link to an enhanced color picture from the project Mona Lisa original color with the borders clearly visible. Another link Mona History. I quote from the page Historical fact No.4 that refers to the same investigation. "Under Napoleon Leonardo's masterpiece had been reduced by about 10 cm on both the left and right side to fit it into a special and expensive frame. Thereby the columns on the left and right side got lost (Fig. 12). After that the measurements were 77 x 53 cm. In 2005 a team of 39 international experts proved that the painting, which we now find at the Louvre, has not been trimmed. Where is the version of "Mona Lisa", which had been trimmed and which decorated Napoleon's bedroom?" Now this has nothing to do with Blu ray so sorry for the high jack.

Now Karl I have to disagree with you about the DVD comment. The DVD format has contributed two very important things to the world of film... 1. Correct aspect ratios to the small screen. This was a very important change, for years we had been watching horrible butchered films in pan and scan. I mean it should have been illegal, nobody would ever get the idea the to crop Mona Lisa just showing her eyes and not her smile. But for years this was exactly what we did with films. Now granted most release where in 2.35 or 1.78. But now with the event of Blu Ray we seem to have taken a step even further. With more correct aspect ratios like Sleeping Beauty in it's original 2.55:1 this is an enormous progress from a pan and scan 4:3 version. Of course I agree with you, that this is just common sense and should have been done a long time ago. 2. Availability Availability Availability... Availability. I can't stress this point enough. For the film buff to have access to the large library of films available on DVD that was something I could not even dream about as a kid. Now days I can particularity track down anything I want to see. But even more important is what DVD did for the none film buff. I used to track down and own Beta and VHS tapes, very few of my friends did, a none of there parents. Today the same people all have a DVD players and all owns at least one DVD, in short DVD has increased the audience for film, and that can only be a good thing in my book.

It was just a normal straight crop. Link to PDF Kodak - The Wrestler

Tim makes some very good points here, and I concur in every thing he says except.... "I don't think there's any way you can put a 15-foot tall beast man that moves at 50 km/h on screen without it looking "fake". " I believe you can do anything with cinema if done right. And I think the above example actual was pulled off, to a pretty good effect 21 years ago. In 1987 a film that's not much mention anymore came out -- Harry and the Hendersons. This is for all sense an purposes the same movie as the Hulk. ( At least for this discussion) You know a big guy, one of them is green and scary and the other one is brown and hairy. Both have their heart in the right place but manage to smash things up due to their size. We have two comic book villains in Blonsky and David Suchet as La Fleur who is also very comic bookish in his manners. And both these movies takes place in some sort of "real reality." Now granted we all know that there are no Bigfoots, well at least not one that's a member of SAG anyway. So therefore on a intellectual level we know that it has to be a FX just like the Hulk. But and this is the big but that also connects to what Jim is saying, for some reason the brain buys the guy in a suit trick, even though we know it's a just a guy in a suit. The same way we just seem to accept Kermit. Granted this seems to work better in entertainment movies, I mean nobody is scared of the creature from the black lagoon. Sure it works in Alien but there they have gone to great lengths to work around the guy in a suit problem. It's not like in Harry or Hulk where they are both shown in full frame in full daylight. You can see that on behind the scenes from Alien and there it just looks like a guy in a suit. So what is my point? Well to be honest I don't know. But to me it seems like when a digital effect is pulled of right, set extension wire removal and so on, it's absolutely flawless and you buy it. But if it's done just a tiny bit wrong there seems to be no leeway there, it's just pulls you straight out of the movie. With an FX which is done in camera there just seems to be more leverage there, even if the effect isn't pulled off perfect, say the visible rods with puppets, the acceptances just seem higher for some reason.

Just to be clear I have nothing against CGI a good VFX is good no matter how it's achieved and and the same goes for a bad one, I also agree that there are some great work out there. When you say "I don't think the problem is CGI, I think it's how VFX are utilised these days by productions." I think that you are on to something. For me it seems like there has been shift in mindset, since VFX has become more of a "commodity" then it was before. It seems like productions now know, that they have too little money for certain shots, but instead of working around them or cutting them out they seem to say "it's good enough, the kids don't care." I don't know if this is true or not. It's just a felling I have. This is also a production issue and not an issue for VFX house as I understand that you guys do the best you can with the recourses you are given. But coming from a producing stand point I can not see the point of budgeting a shot that everybody knows is gone be impossible to do on a budget and therefor is going to be compromised. And that's the part I don't get. Why not make the things that you can afford right and work around the rest? There is always compromises in film making and there is no such thing as a perfect film, but the ambition should always be I believe, to make as good as film as you can, not just "good enough for the kids." And that's what I feel a lot of film these days ask you to do, to suspend your disbelieve a bit too much. Because when it's all said and done it's just a PG-13 you know -- just for the kids...

CGI -- Three small words that changed everything. The only question is, what the hell where they thinking? It all began about a hundred years ago, the art of the moving picture and with it came the special effects now known as VFX. Well come to think about it. The whole notion of cinema is built on VFX. The simple but yet brilliant principle that 24 still frames a second show in succession behind a shutter, creates the illusion of movement, it is brilliant idea -- almost magic. The whole foundation of cinema is built on deception, but it's important to remember that we use that deception to show a deeper truth, for whatever reason we chose to -- comical, tragically or just good old entertainment, it doesn't matter but good cinema always tells the "truth" at some deeper universal level. But to tell a story any story, we have to create the illusion, and an illusion is only works as long as you believe in it. One of my favorite movies of all time is The Terminator, a low budget production a think was under 2 million at time. If you look at that movie today it still holds up for most of the production you believe that Arnold is the Terminator. There is basically only two scenes in this movie where it do not work... 1. The full head shot on the eye operation scene. 2. The full stop motion endoskeleton. And yes the front projection scenes aren't perfect. But for the most part you buy it, the illusion. Yesterday I watched The incredible Hulk, a film i really like and respect I have to say, lush anamorphic cinematography and good attitude, but... There is not one single shot in this movie where I believe that the Hulk actually exists, not a single shot. I repeat not a single shot. And this is of course not good for the illusion and in it's extension, the story that's been told. Now I am not singling out Hulk, this problem applies to almost every VFX movie out there these days, and it's just that I can not get my head around it. I mean the money is there -- the talent is there -- the technology is there. But still our screens are filled not with magic dreams -- but with broken illusions... I just don't get it.

I have been following the different Dark Reprieve threads for a while, and I just wanted to give you big congrats for your achievement of pulling this whole thing off -- well done. And thanks for taking us on the journey.

A very sad day indeed. A great loss for special effects and for the art of cinema as a whole. His creations will be loved for many generations to come, and we thank him for his great contribution to the art form.

Well though day for all Finns today lost against Russia 4-0 in the ice hockey world championship last nigh, it always hurts. Now back to this lovely discussion. Max it's obvious that we have different point of views here. But lets not spoil the dinner. I agree with you that... 1. Good films have come out of both systems, and will continue to do so. And yes the lowest common Hollywood nominator seems very low indeed these days. The biggest damage state funding has done to the European industry is not the "ideology issue" it's just a small thing. The elephant in the room and the real issue is that it destroyed the investment climate, and the fund raising mindset, all things we associate with the commercial film industry. People have been so schooled ( my self included have fallen in to this trap), that the state founded way is the only way to do it. This has led to that all things we associate with the business, agents, managers, investors the whole climate we call Hollywood, is virtually none existent in Europe, and that is a lot of lost job opportunities. Personally i feel deeply saddened that we don't have that climate, that excitement in Europe right now. But as I said before the winds are changing, with the EU, open borders new studio buildings and so on, something is brewing in Europe it's just a matter of time. Max you see I really want a European Hollywood. I don't see any conflict between commercial interest and so called art. In a commercial system there is room for both POTC and Inland empire. Once upon a time in the west, one of the best "art movies ever" done on commercial grounds, and one of the biggest hits ever in France. And to reply to you Andy... It's not a statement grabbed from thin air. It's a fact. Up to 1963 when SFI was grounded Sweden had booming film industry, with several distributors and production companies. Fast forward 45 years and we now have a monopoly, SF (they are both production/distributor/and theater chain owner company ) the last man standing, one ring to rule them all...