There is absolutely nothing wrong with the cinematography on this film.

Here, here. Exactly my thoughts.

I thought it worked pretty well for something that was intended to evoke the style of a 1950's B movie.

Tell that to some haters ^^.

I don't know why I never realized it before, but after I saw KOTCS with my wife and I mentioned the look that Kaminski brought to it, she said it might have had to do with minimizing the age of Ford! This makes perfect sense, because the softer lighting does reduce the wrinkles and age lines on Ford while knocking off a few years. I'm sure Spielberg's comraderie with Kaminski is the real reason, but still I thought this was interesting.

What I'll be curious to see, is if they do make a 5th will Kaminski be back?

Slocombe's look:

Kaminski's look:

Spielberg is one of the greatest American filmmakers of all time, and Kaminski is a brilliant cinematographer, that's what's up with them. And they just made a really fun summer movie, "Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

I'm a fan of KOTCS, an even bigger fan of Spielberg, and I appreciate Kaminski's talents! But can you honestly say that you don't see a big difference between those two pics? There were certain scenes and entire sequences where it wasn't so noticeable, but at other times it was just glaringly obvious!

I just would like to see Spielberg switch things up a bit, and not have the same look to all of his films!

So do Steven and George pay you by the hour to come in here and be a drone? I'm sure they'd be honored if you jumped off a bridge for them. Please consider it. :)

Film stocks and cameras are different than they were 20 years ago. There's a lot of stuff in the film that looks like it could be pulled out of TOD or LC. It's a hard thing to match when you have a cinematographer who's style is a complete 180. This was probably a real challenge for Kaminski.

I agree with both camps - alot of the movie looks like the Trilogy, alot of it looks new. Personally, I really love the 'new look'. It is incredibly vivid. Real pulp magazine colors. Also reminded me of classic jungle flics like "Hatari!", "The African Queen" and "King Solomon's Mines".

I think there are parts that do look "quite like" the original films. I do know, I like how rich and clear the quality is on the intro, (after the gopher) when we get to see the blue sky and landscape as "Hound Dog" comes on. That reminds me of LC a bit - probably helped by the LC credit style. I think that bits nice.

Yeah, just the way the camera moves, it's pure Spielberg. That took my breath away the first time. The golden color of the valley definitely resembles the N.C. Wyeth palette of the LC opening shots.

It's true some shots are great and emulate the look of the old films. But in my opinion for every shot that's great and extends the continuity of the films, there's several jarring out of place shots that just feel off!
Screenshot that keep the look of the original films:



Screenshots that dont:

I know what you mean by 'feeling off' if you consider the 'look' of the Trilogy to be canon. But I think one of the themes of KSC is that change is inevitable, and it's healthier to accept change than cling to the past. Opening up the 'look' is part of that, I think. And intentional. I think they kept it as close as possible, but in other parts wanted to bring something fresh & new to the series. Which jives with the themes of change.

I get your point, my only issue is that Spielberg made some of his greatest films with different cinematographers. Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., and The Indy series were all made over a 15 year period with different people behind the lens(Indy being the only exception because it was a series). Then from 1993 to 2008 Spielberg has exclusively used Kaminski, who has a very distinct visual style(brand) that never changes. I just don't understand why Spielberg would make so many great films with various artists, then become locked into this partnership for a huge portion of his career.

Spielberg's films with Kaminski that all look extremely similar:






Spielberg's films with various cinematographers:

If it aint broke, don't fix it. I love those five movies you posted(well, I loved three of them, Catch me if you Can and War of the Worlds were really good), and one of the main reasons is the cinematography.

Probably the same reason SS uses John Williams for ever score - these are folks he doesn't have to explain things to - they already know what he wants. And he's not like David Lean - who would fire key people in the middle of production 'cause they weren't doing exactly what he wanted. SS is a collaborator.

>>Catch me if you Can and War of the Worlds were really good<<
Yeah, both those movie (and A.I.) got me back into SS. He lost me in the 1990's - I thought Jurassic Park was too polished and not scary (I like it now). I felt that Schindler's List got really lost & bogged down in the second half, and then just ended (still do). And I really couldn't get into "Saving Private Ryan" - it's a film that feels really shallow to me. And "Lost World" seemed to put me outside the gates forever.

Then A.I. piqued my interest again. Flawed by compellingly watchable. I didn't like "Minority Report" (the end just ruins it for me - and it's far too long), but "Catch Me" I loved, "War of the Worlds" really surprised me - much darker and epic than I was expecting, and I think "Munich" is the best movie he's ever made. And I Loved KSC. So I'm back on board for SS.

I think he's been pretty consistent over the years, 'cept for Lost World, which I thought was garbage, and Hook, which was just really too sappy, even for a Spielberg family film(yes, I know thats redundant).

I forgot about Hook!
It's some people's favorite!
That may be where I "jumped ship" ;)
I really don't like that one at all.
"Always" was weak too.
"Empire of the Sun" is up there with Munich for me.

Good point regarding John Williams, but once again he's been on board since day one as opposed to Kaminski! Kaminski has a great eye and a unique visual flair, but every film feels the same aesthetically and that bugs me! It's kind of like Tim Burton's movies, after the first couple it's like enough is enough, do something different. I think Kaminski's look is great for sci-fi films like Minority Report, and it worked fantastic for Munich capturing that 70's look. But the washed out, metallic grey/blue, hazy, dream sequence feel is just overused to me! 11 films plus 4 more to come over the next few years, just feels like a lot of time to me to spend making movies that all have a similar aesthetic feel yet vastly different storylines, time periods, and genres.

I agree with a lot of your opinions regarding his filmography, and I too was not a fan of Hook or Always. I haven't seen Saving Private Ryan since it came out, but I did like it. I enjoyed the first half of War of the Worlds a ton, but then it fell apart in the second half with a horrible cliche Hallmark reunion ending! I liked Minority Report, but I agree about the ending, A.I. I'm mixed on, Catch me if you Can was fun but forgettable, and Munich I agree is one of his best works by far!!

Say what? :eek:

To clarify, in it's entirety! I've seen bits and pieces on TV, but I haven't sat down to watch the whole thing in a while. Actually I've been meaning to considering I own it, and my Dad who's a vet has been asking to watch it.

>>I agree with a lot of your opinions regarding his filmography, and I too was not a fan of Hook or Always. I haven't seen Saving Private Ryan since it came out, but I did like it. I enjoyed the first half of War of the Worlds a ton, but then it fell apart in the second half with a horrible cliche Hallmark reunion ending! I liked Minority Report, but I agree about the ending, A.I. I'm mixed on, Catch me if you Can was fun but forgettable, and Munich I agree is one of his best works by far!!<<

I sympathize. I found the "digital grading" effect on Fellowship of the Ring & the Two Towers to be seriously grating - my eyes were screaming for mercy (and color) by the end of TTT. I was deeply relieved to see that King Kong had a very different, vibrant look to it.

My favorite films to look at (which is different from "watching"), of all time, are: Die Niblungen (Fritz Lang), The Wizard of Oz (1939), Barry Lyndon (Kubrick), Star Wars (1977), Raging Bull, Ran (Kurosawa), Dracula (1992), The Phantom Menace, and Youth Without Youth.

But I confess that I have become very attached to the comfort value of the familiar in movies - so Kaminski isn't bother me, it's nice to know that there is a visual continuity from one SS to another.

It's bad, but I used to know the names of all the DP's, but I've forgotten them. That was when I lived/breathed movies & all I wanted was to direct or write a feature film!

I agree, that the main character's son should have had his heroic death in WotW. But the end was ok for me - I was pretty stunned that SS took it as far as he did in that one, so I accepted the ending. AI is super-flawed, but for some irrational reason, it really intrigues me. I watch it every two years or so, and it works every time.

Kaminski makes all his outdoor location footage look like it was shot in a studio. For Indiana Jones that's all wrong. Indy movies should be bright and sunny.

But I guess Spielberg wanted that look for this one. Notice how in the beginning when Indy is pulled out of the trunk it looks like it was shot outdoors. Then when we see the first shot of Spalko, it switches to studio filming.

Hitchcock would do that sort of thing on purpose. Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant would be in an outdoors scene, then for a brief second or two we would see the character in an obvious rear screen studio shot, then it would be back outdoors again. I never fully understood why Hitch did that.

I wonder how much of a difference it is watching the original three on video, while having Crystal Skull only in the theater right now. I agree with color desaturation and other lighting techniques that have made most Spielberg/Kaminski films gritty, but in most cases it has also been due to the tone and subject matter of the films. Is it the same with Catch Me If You Can or The Terminal which are lighter in tone as opposed to Schindler's or Private Ryan?

Also, have changes in film stock and processing had any effect on their cinematic look? Unlike Spielberg's other homages to 50's films, I don't see any in regard to 50's films look in lighting or film stock. While it might not have been necessary to mimic the style, what they did choose doesn't seem to work either.

What I find most odd is that Spielberg made reference to the two of them reviewing the other three films and "Swallowing their pride a bit" to capture the same flavor of those films. I didn't see it in Crystal Skull.