I can't even beging to tell you how disappointed I am at the shaky camera work. Like the fight in the kitchen, how hard did the actors and choreographers work to do that scene, only to have it completely ruined by unsteady, shaky camera work. it even seemed that when they had close ups of people talking, the background was all shaky.... this nearly made the movie unwatchable
shareYeah... the photography of this movie is a complete trainwreck. Greengrass should watch Frankenheimer's Ronin and learn how this kind of movie is really supposed to be shot in order to make it enjoyable for the audience.
The way Supremacy was shot I could just as well listen to an audio track of the kitchen fight while waving about two black gloves in front of my face. It would look exactly the same.
I'm all for giving disabled people jobs, but please... no Parkinson's patients at the cameras.
--------------------------------------------------------
~No matter where you go, there you are~
[deleted]
[deleted]
Are you insane??? This film was brilliantly shot and directed. And I'm not even a huge fan of the Bourne series.
"Stop calling me Muggeridge!"
You're nearly seven years too late. When this film came out in 2004 so many people made a thread because they wanted to moan about the filming style. Search through the topics people started many years ago. You'll find them at the bottom because nobody cares anymore. You're allowed your opinion, yes. I'm with the guy at the bottom, the work in this film is brilliant.
"Do I look like I play board games?"
<<You're nearly seven years too late. When this film came out in 2004 so many people made a thread because they wanted to moan about the filming style. Search through the topics people started many years ago. You'll find them at the bottom because nobody cares anymore.>>
Obviously people still care. Hopefully the early threads will prevent this no-talent hack method of camera work from ever being used so excessively in another film.
My opinion : This movie was ruined by the camera work.
Too much, too soon, too long, too strong, too many,
to fix.
[deleted]
I agree with the last two posters. The camerawork is amazing. As quick as some of the cuts were I was never left feeling like I had missed any of the action. Fast and frantic. It really puts the audience in Bourne's world. It may not be for everybody, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
"A winner is you!"
Really have to disagree with this. Bourne's world in a crisis is NEVER "fast and frantic." It's the opposite. Cool, calm and collected. Focused. Serene, clear and improvised like perfect jazz. "Fast and frantic" is reserved for when Bourne is surrounded by calm and normalcy...circumstances he is not conditioned for. This movie ignores all of the brilliant, dare I say subtle cinematography and observation of the first film in favor of action cliches. It might work for Jet Li movies, but not for something like this.
I think Greengrass had absolutely no comprehension of how to compose a shot, nevermind a film. If the CHARACTER doesn't guide your cinematography in a CHARACTER piece, then what does? The answer? Action. Greengrass just didn't get what makes Bourne so appealing...like Bond, it's the "cool under pressure", not the danger of his world.
I agree, especially to this
This movie ignores all of the brilliant, dare I say subtle cinematography and observation of the first film in favor of action cliches [...] Greengrass just didn't get what makes Bourne so appealing
Agreed, when Liman captured a sequence in Identity, it was like a ballad and when Bourne fought Clive Owen's character, it was two masters playing chess. It's all about rhythm.
shareI think both of you are trying to be smarter than you really are and an action scene should simply be filmed clearly for the viewer to enjoy. Putting any further reason for why a camera is shaking while you're trying to watch an action scene only means that you are trying to give reason for the scene being so poorly shot just because you want to defend the movie so badly.
The Bourne Identity was shot brilliantly, Supremacy and Ultimatum were shot hopelessly. Still enjoyable movies but I would've rathered them be directed by any director who doesn't use shaky cam to hide their own inability.
Has there been any worse usage of the shakey can? A few people left the theatre from seizures
Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega
I prefer the direction and camera work with Doug Lyman. Shaky with fast cuts is the annoying by product of MTV and now everyone thinks its a must have. I hope some new filmmakers ditch this for some slower less cuts action scenes. BTW, the action in Ultimatum was filmed the same annoying way. Especially the car scenes and the bathroom fight.
shareGreat film but the camera work is not up to par. I want to see the fight and appreciate the martial arts and the skill involved, not left frustrated.
Some people may prefer it, but some people will alway like what others don't.
[deleted]
Oh there are so many movies with shaky camera where you have not got ANY clue what the hell is going on. Greengrass and Bay are more or less the two only directors who do it really well. Yes, it's frantic, hectic, but I can (usually, Bay isn't that great) follow what is happening.
The 2nd and 3rd Bourne movies are the best example for how it is done.
The first time I saw the movie, I too hated the camera work. I said to myself 'How many cuts do you need to show a guy taking a sip of coffee?!'
Now I don't mind it. In fact, I like it and partly because of the director's reason for it. I forget which movie it is, the 2nd or 3rd, but watch the special features one these movies and you will see why it was shot the way it was shot. It makes sense.
I mean, you still don't have to like it but it wasn't just a bad camera operator or something like that. It was intentional.
I agree. I'm glad that the people who don't like the camera work in this movie aren't making movies. I suggest they go back to watching Bond movies where everything is shot locked down and methodical. Or, in other words... boring.
share@alancontact
"I'm glad that the people who don't like the camera work in this movie aren't making movies"
Idiots like you are why they keep getting away with shakycam. Do you always say "May I have another?" after getting slapped? Instead of asking why "we" don't go watch old films, why not ask yourself why you have a two second attention span and no knowledge of cinematography or taste whatsoever. If you like garbage, why not stick to TV where you belong?
"I'm - I'm hurt real bad. I think I'm dying"
"Continue dying"
alancontact - I suggest you pull your head out of your ass.
Listen! Do you smell something?
Absolutely correct jumar..."shaky cams" were interesting for about 5 minutes ten years ago and then became overused... I suppose if a director has to use a shaky cam they should try a little discrimination and study the shot or boredom quickly overtakes the story, it's difficult enough to follow an action movie with all the distorted audio and vague references..then add a shaky cam...and a painful headache follows...Why ruin a perfect scene after the actors practice to be coherent and have a meaningful impact and then alienate the viewer with scrambled eggs? If nothing else ..the shaky cam has become a cliche and been overexposed(pardon the pun)....In the future I'm sure a director with style will overcome the temptation of the "shakes" and present a more comprehensive camera expression... just my opinion.
shareI think the "shaky cams" are really effective in giving the audience a sense of chaos. It's like the camera is doing whatever it can just to catch up to the action as it is completely unable to predict what will happen next. This idea of confusion is central to the film. I completely understand how some viewers may find it annoying, but it seems pretty ignorant to assume that it is amateurish.
shareThe problem with this is there is already chaos happening onscreen...the camera doesn't need to replicate what's already present...if two guys are fighting, there is already enough chaotic movement in the frame from the characters to imply it...the camera is there to capture what's happening, not replicate it. as such, it becomes redundant and therefore overkill and visually overstimulated. The camera is supposed to suggest the subtext of the scene (what we don't see, but what is implied), not the text (what we do see)...if two guys are fighting, the subtext isn't chaos because it's already happening in front of us...it's text. On the other hand, if two people are just sitting down and talking and you want to imply tension or suspense, THEN it is appropriate to have a handheld camera, but it is implying the subtext (chaos), while the characters on screen are showing the text (stillness). The two styles are contrasting with each other creating a pleasing synthesis of ideas. The problem with Greengrass is he doesn't understand this basic effective rule of camera work...he was a drama director who applied his documentary techniques to a genre that did not need it. And people started copying his ridiculous methods and it became commonplace...it almost makes me sick to see such gross and egregious technique in an industry that proclaims it is the best in the world.
share[deleted]
You may have disliked the way the camera was used, but I, along with many others, enjoyed it. The "shaky" camera is used to arise a sense of chaos and irregularity; it's supposed to parallel the movie's direction itself.
shareThe 'shaky' camera technique is old school, but great. It really lends itself to the world of Bourne. It does not, however, lend well to films like Batman Begins and Casino Royale.
My strength is greater than my weakness