Highlander and Blade Runner were good :)

My issues with modern cinema is that there seems to be a general lack of in understanding the langauge; Mis-en-scene mainly

I believe there are still plenty of artists working that get it; Tarantino, Gondry, Mangold, Paul Thomas Anderson and Wes Anderson (No relation), and undeniably the masters that continue to do it; Scorses, Spielberg, De Palma ...

I think film is in good shape, but there is too many working filmmakers that just doesn't have a grasp on the visual langauge; everything is staccato rapid fire cut and shaky cam

As much as I love the work of Alejandro Inarritu (his stories mainly), his style is nothing more than hand held, shaky, stlylized color correction madness.

-

I think the jist for me is that there are more directors in the mainstream making films that have become acceptable modern day movies when they'd best be served staying in the Music Video world.

Evolution of cinema ? Hopefully it will take a step back and calm down.

I noticed the change with the Matrix, where one tone is used inside the virtual world, and another outside, really set the mood, but since then there seems to be an trend for this sort of thing.

for me the 70's were more of the decade of the zoom...?

My brother-in-law got me to watch the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) the other day, and I noticed the look was very strange. Lots of neon blues, greens and reds, plus the way the film stock looked was very late 80s/early 90s.

heath

Highlander is a great example. Especially the part when he stabs the giant sword in the ground. IMO that shot was very dramatic and earthy.

It’s strange because alot of newer movies look odd like the curves are messed with and tones are missing or something. Alot of the older films that have trendy "look values" like the 1997 movie Alien Resurrection, look gorgeous.

I first noticed the modern color correction technique in Payback, with Mel Gibson. Not saying that's the first movie that did it, just that's when I first remember seeing it. . .I wasn't involved with filmmaking/video in any way back then, so I didn't look for those kinds of things.

Not talking about color correction here, but I was going to mention how they played with primary lighting back in the 90's, eventually moving to complementary lighting by the time they got to The Bourne Identity (near the end of the movie in the darkened CIA control sub-base).

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by those terms. . .the big most people comment on, to me,the look of the Matrix is how it's more or less neutral/normal-colored when he's in real world, and how the Matrix scenes have a slightly greenish cast.

Film has a much higher resolution today than it had 20 or 30 years ago. You can go from super fine grain to 50 or less speed film. It really depends on the look you are looking for. We shot some stuff on film that resembles the look of Hollywood in the golden (color) area where skin textures looked so smooth and colorfull and then on the other hand we shot stuff that looks really rought.

Todays S8mm Film outperforms 20 year old 16mm film. We shot stuff on S8mm and were amaze by the quality. Also S16 looks better than 32mm just 10 years ago.

What really matters is where do you see it. Picture quality on Broadcast Television looks like cr@p sometimes since we went digital. So do you compare a Fred Astare movie in the theater, projected, or on TV which is broadcasted, or from a DVD? I think the answer is more in this realm rather than the Film realm itself.

If you ever have a chance go and attend a seminar or workshop with Kodak, you'll be amazed where films was and where it's going in the future. Even with the development and introduction of 2k and 4k digital cameras, film will be around for a while. I compare Film to a Picasso and Digital to a still photo from a Digital Camera. Which one is better? It's 2 different mediums and its up to you how you want to tell your story.