I'm watching Dante's Peak (1997), a volcano flick starring Pierce Brosnan.
The colours are just so wonderful -- it's like being outside in real nature.
Whereas with modern movies things seem really washed out. The filming is crisp, and the composition is usually good, but it feels like you're living in a claustrophobic world. Modern movies feel a lot like living in 1984.
Is this the difference between film/digital? Or are people choosing different colour palates?
From someone who likes to pick up 4K releases of older pre-digital movies, and who likes photography, well I think you're close to on to something with respect to it being film. More specifically, the level of artistry that existed when held back by the limitations of film.
I don't know the movie well, but the clips I looked at it seems like liked everything intentionally slightly underexposed, but that gives everything bright a bit more of a glow, it has more contrast. They use that a lot, the lights on the wall, the neon signs, the headlights, etc. You can tell the explosions are real too, they just have a different look to them. Compare something like Independence Day movie to modern Marvel drivel, the former is noted for being one of the last movies to use all practical effects.
Most modern "art" doesn't experiment at all. It's regurgitated mass market. Basic lighting, fancy CGI for flashy trailers, throw in a joke not even mature enough for Family Guy, etc. There's no funding for someone who tries outside of a few established directors.
Yeah, that sounds about right. I spend a lot of time in sunlit nature, and it's just so beautiful. But movies usually seem muted -- at least modern movies. The filming is crisp, but the colours don't... really exist, if that makes sense.
Even simple stuff like Magnum PI had pretty vibrant colours that I don't really see these days.
On the other hand, I'm struggling to think of a modern show that deals with normal people in normal environments...