[Kris P Lettus]

Originally Posted by Fox It's a low budget 1984 picture that is shot almost entirely with existing lighting. It heavily mixes color temperatures (mainly because they had no choice) and has a very distinct look to it. It's debated whether the lighting adds to the picture or detracts from it, and I was just curious as to your take.

I'll check it out.. All lighting doesn't have to be natural.. Look at Sin City or 300.. I loved both those movies and they didn't look natural at all.. The Hellboy movies also (any Guillermo Del Torro movies for that matter).. But it can def take away from the feel of a movie just as much as it can add to it.. Lighting can add mood and tone, when done right.. In this case, it took away from the gritty, organic feel of what made the first 3 amazing.. I look at it like Michael Scott's assessment of the Die Hard movies..

Michael: You know what, here's the thing about Die Hard 4. Die Hard one, the original, John McClane was just this normal guy. You know, he's just a normal New York City cop, who gets his feet cut, and gets beat up. But he's an everyday guy. In Die Hard 4, he is jumping a motorcycle into a helicopter. In air. You know? He's invincible. It just sort of lost what Die Hard was. It's not Terminator.

It took away from what it was, IMO.. Also, the super cheesy parts didn't help either..