There's a reason that Soderbergh doesn't want his name down as cinematographer, and instead lists the name "Peter Andrews." It's because Soderbergh's "cinematography" results in some of the ugliest movies ever made.
His movies are still compelling, however. Impressive since the guy's "retired." :-)
Too bad that his movies are so ugly to look at.
Did you know this movie was filmed entirely on a smartphone? I was quite surprised at how good the quality was, if not the aspect ratio.
I certainly didn't know.
I care more about an interesting story than cinematography, as the OP mentioned. I liked the story a lot.
I would have never guessed it was made on a smartphone!
I haven't seen this but the big draw here is that the entire movie was filmed with an iPhone. Soderbergh said this could be the future of moviemaking. Although I feel like they've been saying that for a while now. Still, I don't mind something this experimental. It's refreshing to me compared to all of the horror/psychological thriller-of-the-week we usually get.
I'm not rushing out to see this, but the fact that it was filmed on an iPhone definitely got my attention and I will try to check it out some time.
"Tangerine" was made three years ago entirely on phones. So, this has been done before.
shareThe way it was shot reminded me of “The Office” - in the beginning. Then I realized it was probably shot that way to show the “stalkers” POV.
I remember the first time I watched a widescreen movie, I hated it. Now with full screen it’s very 80-90’s-esque
it looked like crap but you usually know that going into a Soderbergh movie.
shareAgreed. This movie looks absolutely awful (just watched it) but I think you and I have the minority opinion. Let’s forget the fact that this film was shot with a smart phone. Leave that aside for now. Other movies — expensive movies — that were shot with the Red or the Alexxa also look like garbage. But aesthetic taste seems to be changing, even as we speak.
I can think of any number of motion pictures shot with digital equipment in the last few years that look considerably worse than even rudimentary 35 mm photography. But audiences don’t seem to mind.
Even people who should know better – – like Soderbergh, Cronenberg and Mann – – don’t seem to mind.
It’s really strange.
Soderbergh's movies usually look great, albeit very stylised... I'm looking forward to seeing this... Interesting concept...
shareI didn't look bad...
shareYou're always well dressed 👍
shareNicest thing I've heard all week.
Seriously, though: while the movie won't win fans due to a sleek pristine image, it was effectively stylized and an impressive showcase of what a skilled filmmaker can do with readily accessible equipment.
You're welcome!
Yes, it's on my 'to watch' list... I'll get to it after the World Cup...
I really liked it. I didn’t know it was iPhone filmed until after I watched .
shareThe colors glare garishly, and any white light blooms uncontrollably.
There’s no detail in the bright areas of the screen.
That said, the cinematography amazed me.
I have an iPhone 7+, and was constantly wondering, “It can do that?”
There are some shots that are so astonishing I want to see if I can duplicate them, as when the jogging woman comes into frame. Then there is a two-shot at the beginning — our hero in foreground, co-worker in background. They’re both in focus, yet it seems to shift to the co-worker when she speaks. They did all these shots with just the built-in autofocus? Wow.
Other handheld shots seem very smooth — more so than I would think possible just holding the phone. And I definitely see how much a simple tripod helps.