MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Movies aesthetically unpleasant to the e...

Movies aesthetically unpleasant to the eye.


Whether it's ugly set design, visual effects or cinematography.

Super Mario Bros.
Popeye
Hook
Battlefield Earth
Yor, Hunter From the Future
Batman v Superman: Dan of Justice
Waterworld

reply

I thought Joker was one of the most visually unappealing films I have seen in many years. So grimy, I almost felt like I needed a shower after watching it.

reply

That was the intention.

reply

The use of lighting was great.

reply

It thought it was a butt ugly, depressing movie. If that was the intention they were aiming low.

reply

Tank Girl (1995)
Natural Born Killers (1994)

reply

I haven't thought about Tank Girl in years. Terrible film.

reply

Batman Returns had a crappy look and small Gotham, whereas the first Burton had a great look.

Batman Forever seemed fresh in comparison but Batman and Robin just seemed camp.

Hook is a mess of a picture as well.
The 2003 Peter Pan had a much nicer artistic approach.

Beverly Hills cop III was ugly compared to the highly stylised part II.

reply

I couldn't agree more with Hook. I saw it in the theatre when I was 8 or 9, and I absolutely hated the look of him. The set design was way too cluttered and confined.

reply

Star Wars Solo was filmed too dark, colors were muddy and little original art design.

reply

little Miss Sunshine was relentlessly ugly with a complete lack of visual imagination.

Tom Hooper’s endless close-ups do nothing for his films... particularly what should be a sweeping epic like Les Miserables.

reply

that's the only way a sweeping epic can be made for 61mil

reply

Well there was clearly a lot of cash poured into the sets and costumes... perhaps hiring a few better actors/singers might have helped cut costs. I've seen the show twice on stage and it's an overwhelming emotional experience which just sat there on screen... such a missed opportunity.

reply

"The Wiz".

As much as I, being a notorious dissenter about this issue, generally prefer it over the big snoozefest with Judy Garland, it is not a pretty movie to look at. It was clearly meant to mirror the reality of how most black people in New York lived, but it was also a G-rated fantasy movie. Thus, it was like they were trying to do two different movies at once. And as you probaby know, that is pretty much like begging for a failure.

reply

I've never seen it because it always looked like a mess for me.

reply

Partly, it is. But I just love Michael Jackson as Scarecrow, and I also like Diana Ross in this movie's alternative take on the Dorothy character.
It is also less boring than the 1939 snoozefest to me, and it has some groovy disco songs.
And it also follows the book closer than the 1939 movie on at least two details: both of the good witches appear, and the magic shoes are white and not ruby.
But it was trying to do too much at the same time and became a flop.

reply

The Wizard of Oz is magical as a child but slow as an adult.

reply

I'm happy to see that somebody agrees with me. The problem is that I never saw "The Wizard of Oz" as a child, so that is probably why I never could warm up to it.

reply

That's probably why, no rose tinted glasses.

reply

Edward Scissorhands

reply

Spun is really an ugly looking movie.

reply

Terrible editing.

reply