yes bro, same for me.
key example i always point out in the bourne supremacy is the streetside cafe scene where he is sitting with someone, can't remember who, at a small table beside the window and they are talking and as greengrass shoots each head talking the camera moves so much that the heads ACTUALLY GO OFF SCREEN during the shot. this is *utterly* uncalled for and purely LAZY filmmaking. that is what greengrass does imo, he hides lazy filmmaking behind shakicam and calls it 'style' and the simps applaud and give him awards for 'being bold, courageous enough to shake the camera' WTLF (what the literal fuck)
i have ranted and ranted about this for many years on his board and on the supremacy board, and some of his other films. the fan boys tell me i am stupid, or go back to disney, the usual barbs. but i know i am right so fuck them.
even i who hates shakicam can let it slide if it's in a shot where it can't be avoided, like the running scene in Tell No One. but even then, imo, if it CAN be done without shaking it should be accomodated. but again, even i can give a pass sometimes. BUT TWO PEOPLE SITTING STILL AT A TABLE HAVING A CONVERSATION? the dude is clearly giving the finger to traditional methods for some reason. he is just disgusting imo, and I meant it when i said if i ever see him in real llife i anm gonna cuss him out.
in the movie days of thunder there is an argument scene and randy quaid asks 'what is the one thing you MUST do to win a race?' and duval answers, 'finish the race'
i offer this: the number one basic requirement of a film frame is to communicate an image visibly. if i can't see what is happening on screen, the first and most vital goal has failed. this is greengrass. he obscures his OWN shots lol.
like i said he may as well just leave the lens cap on.
reply
share