FirstLoveMovies

I found an interesting video on youtube, also sorta, kinda related to FLM as it's primary example is 1998 Parent Trap starring Lindsay Lohan. He talks about how films looking worse is less about the film equipment used, and more the intentionality of the directors in their lighting, framing, set design, color choices, and how thousands of VFX shots have drowned out the ability for directors to even make these choices as they often have little idea what the final shot will even look like until the VFX are done. I think I mostly agree, I had thought about this a lot lately after watching this video and three films immediately sprang to mind. One I've watched numerous times, one I've recently found that I love and one I haven't yet watched:

In order:

[Image]
[Image]


1995's A Little Princess. This movie is just striking. Absolutely beautiful to look at from beginning to end, and the director (alfonso cuarón) went onto direct the (imo) best looking Harry Potter film: The Prisoner of Azkaban(and also the only one I liked, don't kill me but I have never really clicked with Harry Potter.) and one of my favorite movies ever: Children of Men. I'd also argue his directing elevates the film significantly from a kind of bad script...wikipedia says it's "loosely" based on the children's literary classic by Frances Hodsgon Burnett, but I'd argue it's pretty beat for beat the same story, but what it does change makes it a significantly less impactful story, overall.

FLM link: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=999&hilit=a+little+princess+1995

[Image]



1984's Poison for the Fairies / Veneno para las hadas. I'm so glad I found this movie here! Hadn't found anything new that connected with me for awhile, but I absolutely loved this movie! I have many of the same feelings about this as I did about A Little Princess so won't belabor the point, but it's worth pointing out how nice this movie looks while not being a Hollywood film, and releasing over a decade earlier. I watched this movie without subtitles the first time, and couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I also appreciated the opening, felt like an homage to the italian giallo films visually, and the cut from the red blood to the red fabric case.

FLM link: viewtopic.php?t=1470&hilit=poison+for+the+fairies

[Image]

Das Eismeer ruft (1983) is the last one. To be honest, I know almost nothing about this movie. I haven't watched it, but I have kept it on my HD for 2 years because it looks so nice I think I'd feel guilty to not eventually watch it. I can scroll to any moment in the film and it looks like it could be authentic photography from WWII era Europe.

example: [Image]
link to the article with the color WWII photography: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-ar ... color.html

If anyone has watched this one, let me know if I should check it out, please!

FILM link: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=843&hilit=Das+Eismeer+ruft

It kind of goes without saying, but I know people here also take time to upscale these films and make them look as good as they possibly can, which I greatly appreciate. Many of these movies I'd never discovered without the hard work a lot people do here.

Anyway, does anyone else have any examples of particularly striking films they've found on here? I'd def be interested to check them out.

Here's the youtube video I mentioned at the start if anyone is interested: https://youtu.be/EwTUM9cFeSo

No. What's his basis of comparison? Maybe he's just watching bad movies. (I'm not going to watch his video). Movies have become increasingly better looking in all those regards.

Pretty much anything produced by A24 looks amazing. You could throw a dart at their filmography and it would hit a visually stunning movie.

Among others I've seen recently was Aronovsky's Mother! (2017) and I was really taken aback by it. In my opinion that's his best film.

Bliss (2019) is another impressive work of cinematic eye-candy.

I could go on with better examples than those (and maybe some OT movies) but you get the idea. There are so many movies being made every day all over the world, it would be silly to say without a doubt our generation's movies suck, when he's seen less than %1 of them.

Re: Do old movies look better?

Yes.

marvingray wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 3:35 am Das Eismeer ruft (1983) is the last one.
...
If anyone has watched this one, let me know if I should check it out, please!

Yes.

(But I do not think it is necessarily a visual stunner.)

...Sorry if I can not express anything that will "sell" it for you, as I don't think the thread for it is much help. I tried to find online reviews that would express FOR me something better but failed.

I can only manage a rather subdued criticism of digital and modern movies in the Spoiler.

Spoiler: The synchronicity of the timing of your thread startled me, because I had just been thinking about your thread title question immediately before logging in to FLM! Actually I had been questioning my own automatic response. I reluctantly admit that digital CAN look great in the right hands. I think that its comparative ease and inexpensiveness allows talentless hacks to make their movies also, which might give the wrong impression about the capabilities of digital. With time the bad-looking or just-plain-bad movies on celluloid film get forgotten while what is new and shiny is in our faces right now and that includes a lot of crap. I have seen huge numbers of old movies and let me tell you: there is a lot of crap there too! Ultimately what matters to me is the types of stories and characters I get to see rather than the exact technology used to record them. The movies I like just happen to mostly be older which means they just happen to be on film. When I encounter a 21st century movie that I actually really enjoy I am pleasantly surprised. EDIT: I have to agree with guava98 that it is very easy to see only bad movies and get the wrong idea. The really good movies are in the minority. No matter what era a movie was made in, the trick is to watch the ones that DO NOT suck, and in their best condition. Watching an old movie on a TV-telecine from a scratched-up and faded print will not do it justice; watching new movies from a compressed YouTube video on an iPhone will not make those look good either.

Thank you for the WWII color photos and the YT video.

EDIT: Watched video. YouTuber clearly does not hate modern movies like some gumpy old guys do. I appreciated his insights into the problems that can sometimes come with the newer technology.

I think night457 probably has a good point. If we're watching an old movie we are probably generally selecting for the best of the best and not the mountains of trash that also existed. I think part of the videos point, and why they chose Parent Trap was to show "hey even general audience mainstream films made an effort to look great" vs comparing it to mainstream films today. Marvel often have giant budgets and look so dull and lifeless, as an obvious example.

In general, I agree there is too much doom and gloom about modern entertainment and things tend to trend toward increases in quality overall, but I probably personally prefer the older films visually when I compare my favorites old vs new. Not to say ill ever stop watching new films if they interest me. I think its a mistake to ever draw a hard line in the sand for your entertainment consumption when you could miss something really special.

The video is whatever, I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't watch it. I'm not familiar with the channel or the guys usual takes, just thought it was a somewhat interesting topic and also an excuse to throw out movies we've enjoyed visually. The older I get the more I find what I enjoy about my entertainment mediums shifting, the visual storytelling of a movie has increased for me while other aspects have decreased at least a little.

I should prob mention I'm colorblind so its entirely possible something I enjoy visually could look like shit to others.

marvingray wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:52 amThe older I get the more I find what I enjoy about my entertainment mediums shifting, the visual storytelling of a movie has increased for me while other aspects have decreased at least a little.

My own experience is the reverse in ONE aspect: I appreciate a great looking movie but it is much less important than engaging in the story and characters. This probably has something to do with my aging eyes -- it all looks a little blurry to me now anyway. I decided to stop pretending that *I* could actually see in 4k anymore, so 1080p is definitely good enough. I rewatch old DVDs with enjoyment even when I know that better quality is available free via torrent.

However... I do like a story to be told visually, including by body language and facial expressions. I can often happily watch and understand a movie in a language I do not know without the benefit of subtitles. (Depending on the type of movie of course.) The details of the PLOT are often just blah blah blah and unimportant and I am more interested in watching how a person reacts in a given situation. Sometimes I might need as much as a Wikipedia plot summary, and after that I do fine.

I'm colorblind so its entirely possible something I enjoy visually could look like shit to others.

Well... this can probably help you some of the time, avoiding the problems that bother others. One of the complaints I read often and can see myself to a certain extent is revisionist digital color-timing of old films. Sometimes it is because a director 30 or more years later has decided he likes a particularly color scheme and paints all his older movies in that color when it can be demonstated easily they were not that way originally. They often claim "That is how I intended it to be all along." Other times it is because a particular restoration house does a great job restoring a negative but has a tendency to color ALL its restorations a certain way. (Eclair does blue or teal, L’Immagine Ritrovata does yellow.) Directors and cinematographers often are called upon to "approve" or "supervise" these restorations, but no one can convince me that a man in his 80s has the same eyesight he had in his prime. Maybe there is something about old men that makes them like the look of watching movies through a jar of urine, or through one side of 3D glasses.

guava98 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 5:23 am There are so many movies being made every day all over the world, it would be silly to say without a doubt our generation's movies suck, when he's seen less than %1 of them.

I'm so shallow because I only watch movies because of a certain pretty actress and maybe I don't criticize if the plot is good or bad, I welcome all the movies that are published in FLM and that's why I wouldn't be a juror in any film festival or Oscar and even less in a food festival.

The last movie that I liked was "pueblo cenizas" and it was the first time in a long time and maybe I didn't like a movie, it only lacked OT to be perfect and I know that every year they make thousands of movies if all of them were good we wouldn't have enough time to watch them all.

Personally I'll watch movies for different reasons, but especially if I liked someone's past work or the subject matter sounds interesting (to me). I can't sit through it if the movie itself is bad or uninteresting. Most of the movies shared on this forum are not something I would ever watch, even when they have tons of cute girls in them. Doesn't hurt, but it's not the selling point.

I also watched his video against my better judgment, and he makes a lot of broad generalizations about the movie industry and the way modern movies are produced. It's nothing no one already knows, then he ends it with "we want movies to look like movies" (apparently we = everyone. Not that I disagree with that statement, but I hate it when people do that)

Don't overestimate what you think people already know about the movie industry. I know that I know next to nothing about the reasons they decide to light movies in different ways, except maybe for the contrasting light and dark in Film Noir. ("It looks cool, man.") I gave up trying to explain the term "aspect ratio" when so many people wanted to watch their TV screen with colors filling it up, and not necessarily the movie. But yeah, I have to agree that people in an audience are not necessarily a monolithic "WE" of unified opinions. I am not even sure what "movies to look like movies" really means. Tinted films from the Silent Era certainly look different, and they are movies. Making digital look like old plastic film is certainly a choice. I probably prefer older movies more, but I am at least ambivalent about the appearance of digital. I think I better appreciated digital when I stopped watching CGI blockbusters and instead went more toward what might be called "boring adult dramas".

(I did watch the video.)

Sully23, I guess you appreciate good visuals then! I admire those with the honesty to admit they like a pretty face. There is nothing wrong with that.

citronleaf wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 5:40 pm (I did watch the video.)
Sully23, I guess you appreciate good visuals then! I admire those with the honesty to admit they like a pretty face. There is nothing wrong with that.

Rich once said that when this forum was created, it was the metaphor of first love (if I'm wrong correct me) in my opinion these movies and their protagonists are like a first date, a crush, it's almost the same who watches an action movie with the same actor, I know that some people when they went to the theatre and saw the poster of a beautiful actress (that sells) and wanted to know more about that movie.

citronleaf wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 5:40 pm (I did watch the video.)

What are they talking about?

The video is not that long, so if you are really interested you could watch it and make up your own mind. Basically, it says that digital movies are sometimes/often shot using lighting that is flat and lacking any depth or texture, in order to allow for efficient use of CGI effects that would fail in shadows. So if that theory is correct then it should only be a problem for superhero/fantasy/scifi/action movies with CGI. I know plenty of people watch nothing BUT those genres, and I can not claim that I avoid them entirely either. Surely there are still "realistic" movies being made.