Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was the cinematography really that great in Dark Knight Rises?! I mean I thought it was good, but I didn't find anything spectacular about it's cinematography as everyone suggests. I actually found the cinematography more interesting/better in Batman Begins.
I guess I'm asking because both movies will probably be considered the big blockbuster action movies of the year (even though Sherlock Holmes was released in 2011).
Really? I thought the storyline was a bit more difficult to follow in SH2, and that the dialogue was not quite as witty as it was in SH1, but the cinematography in this movie was superior. That forest scene focused on so many little elements--the pin hitting the cannon shell, the ensuing spark inside of the chamber, the force of the blast changing the shape of the soldier's face (in slow motion!), the wood exploding out of trees, the score slowing down at the precise moment the blast tosses them into the air (also in slow motion). That was a perfectly directed scene, imo.
From a story standpoint, I think they killed off Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) too early. And the story got a little bit slow when Holmes went to visit the gypsy lady. Otherwise, it was not too shabby. The cinematography really made this movie, imo. That makes it inferior to the first installment of Sherlock Holmes, which had the cinematography (not quite as good) but also tremendous writing.
Really? I thought the storyline was a bit more difficult to follow in SH2, and that the dialogue was not quite as witty as it was in SH1, but the cinematography in this movie was superior. That forest scene focused on so many little elements--the pin hitting the cannon shell, the ensuing spark inside of the chamber, the force of the blast changing the shape of the soldier's face (in slow motion!), the wood exploding out of trees, the score slowing down at the precise moment the blast tosses them into the air (also in slow motion). That was a perfectly directed scene, imo.
From a story standpoint, I think they killed off Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) too early. And the story got a little bit slow when Holmes went to visit the gypsy lady. Otherwise, it was not too shabby. The cinematography really made this movie, imo. That makes it inferior to the first installment of Sherlock Holmes, which had the cinematography (not quite as good) but also tremendous writing.
It was more difficult to follow for sure. It was also MUCH slower and had less action in it. I also agree the dialogue was not as witty. If the cinematography was better I missed it because I was probably trying to keep my eyes open.
Aside from the best cinematography I have ever seen, the movie is interesting. Slow but very interesting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
