sfetkos

Netflix's "The King" (2019) exemplifies many of the issues plaguing modern filmography, particularly its overreliance on heavy color grading and CGI. This film's visual presentation, intended to evoke a historical ambiance, instead falls short, producing an artificial and unconvincing aesthetic that distracts from the narrative.

One of the most glaring issues is the color grading. Rather than enhancing the film's atmosphere, the exaggerated use of color manipulation results in scenes that feel unnatural and detached from reality. The characters often appear as though they have been superimposed onto the backgrounds, creating a jarring effect that breaks the immersion. This is akin to the amateur use of flash in photography, where the subject is illuminated too harshly against a dim background, killing the scene's natural vibe. In "The King," this technique is overused to the point where it undermines the film's historical setting.

The inconsistency in lighting and shadows is particularly noticeable in outdoor scenes. When attempting to blend characters into vast fields or battle scenes, the color grading fails to maintain a cohesive look. The backgrounds are often bathed in an unnatural hue that doesn't match the lighting on the actors, leading to a disjointed visual experience. This discrepancy draws attention away from the story and highlights the artificiality of the production. In a historical drama, where authenticity is crucial, this lack of visual cohesion is a significant drawback.

Furthermore, the heavy reliance on CGI to create expansive landscapes and battle scenes further exacerbates the problem. Instead of adding to the epic scope of the film, the CGI elements often look flat and unconvincing. The digital enhancements are so pronounced that they detract from the film's realism, making it difficult for viewers to fully engage with the narrative. The contrast between the overly polished CGI and the intended gritty, medieval atmosphere results in a visual clash that undermines the film's intended tone.

In comparison to historical dramas like "Braveheart" or "Gladiator," which effectively utilized practical effects and natural lighting to create immersive environments, "The King" feels sterile and artificial. Those films succeeded in creating a sense of place and time that "The King" struggles to replicate. The difference lies in the approach to cinematography and production design, where practical effects and real locations were favored over digital shortcuts.

Netflix has destroyed modern filmography. Bland scenes, CGI looking with heavy color grading and young actors that look all the same in the recent film industry. Where is the acting, the scenario, the quality, and the depth in modern movies? They are built cheap and you can tell.

In conclusion, "The King" is a prime example of how modern filmmaking techniques, particularly overused color grading and CGI, can detract from a film's authenticity and emotional impact. The unnatural visuals break the immersion and highlight the artificiality of the production. To achieve a more genuine and engaging cinematic experience, filmmakers should prioritize practical effects and natural lighting, ensuring that the visual presentation enhances rather than distracts from the story. This shift would bring back the depth, quality, and immersive power that many viewers find lacking in contemporary films like "The King"

3 hours is long. This movie should NOT be that long. Robert Pattinson was ok as a batman. Paul Dano was terrible as the "bad guy" riddler. I never liked this actor. I like that they showed the other side of batman, vulnerable with phycological issues and some super creamy bokeh night scenes. Zoë Kravitz as Catwoman, SUPER meh! Also there where too many mumbo-jumbo scenes that favored the scenario of the movie that didn't make any sense. Skip this movie. Christian Bale was the best Batman ever and the The Dark Knight (2008) was the best batman movie ever.