are you on drugs? :)
okay, in what way are we judging visual brilliance here? is this an holistic argument? or are we going to reduce "visual" to some kind of componentry? max suggests a separation between b&w and colour, this would seem necessary.
camera movement, in something like I AM CUBA, seems to be a visually intosicating/seductive apparatus, but flashiness in any respect CAN just be stylish with no form (vis a vis, MOULIN ROUGE or something similar - more with cutting, but the hyperkinaesthetics of "flashiness" entail more than one technique. . .)
so - i'm going to sway precisely the other way, for now, and suggest some of the most "visually stunning" films include the connected-to-strings techniques of Feuillade, Sjostrom's double exposures, Eisenstein's updside-down horse (not the one on the bridge) in OCTOBER, Ozu's low angles and rigid line, Carax's montage, Jancso's tracking shots, Hou Hsiao-hsien's ellipsises, Chris Doyle's variant light temperatures, and of course Toland's pan-focus.
It's time to get specific.