Posted 10 August 2007 - 02:15 AM
The cinematography was great, except for some strange candle flares that got distracting. Skarsgard was great, Portman was a tad ridiculous and Bardem was magical as ever. It was also interesting to see Randy Quaid in his role.
But, so much goes wrong in the editing of the film, that I'm wondering how much was cut out. It starts out so charming and intense with fantastic character development, and then "15 Years Later" everything goes haywire.
Did I mention the incredibly intrusive score?
Posted 10 August 2007 - 05:54 AM
The cinematography was great, except for some strange candle flares that got distracting.
There is an article in the August issue of AC. It's shot on Cooke S4s and an Optimo.
I think even Natalie Portman's presence isn't enough to entice me to go see this film.
Posted 10 August 2007 - 07:07 AM
I thought Javier Aguirresarobe -who is currently shooting for Woody Allen- has done better jobs in the past. I've read afterwards that he pulled the stock for certain scenes and I remember complaining about the overall lack of contrast, which made the images look too flat. I also felt that they relied too much on medium and close ups (lit by Kinos), probably because of budget restraints, and the whole production looked much cheaper than "Amadeus" of "Valmont" (both better films than "Goya's Ghosts" in every way).
Posted 10 August 2007 - 10:18 AM