Well I'm a massive Nick Love and Danny Dyer fan so I was eager to see this film. After 30 minutes though, me and the girlfriend had to walk out due to the camera work. The other people around us were also complaining about it and I imagine they would of followed soon after. The girlfriend was getting a headache and I felt like I was getting permanent cross eyes from going in and out of focus and the constant moving about. It was obviously exagerated due to the screen size so hopefully it won't look so bad on dvd. The film from what I saw looked quite good so I will deffinately be attempting the dvd. I feel quite let down by it and for wasting my money, all because of the camerawork or editing.
Realistically, none of you should be watching the film if all you have to offer about it in terms of a critical view is the camera work. Saying the camera work and editing is shoddy is just unbelievable. I'll agree with some of the comments about the idea being very good but the execution being poor; however I feel you are ignorant to any sense of style that isn't locked off, smooth, steady-cam style film-making. I loved the camera shaking. Its a brilliant device to make the viewer feel uncomfortable and to convey the ever apparent tension within the characters of the film. It's to add a heightened state of anxiety. Which if you live in a rough area you can relate to when just walking down certain streets you can feel shaky and paranoid. Which I think was the goal to show the paranoid, fear driven Britain of contemporary society; an opposition to the Hollywood view of the UK. And also, I think its a directors right to experiment with different methods of story telling. Not his strongest film however it has its good elements and proves maybe as a vehicle to drive new ways of dealing with social realist contexts in a surrealist way. Also this method of story telling has been used in world-cinema and has gained high praise, however use it in the streets of the UK and people are repulsed. I think Nick Love has proved to take what Alan Clarke started many years ago into the new generation and bring something new to the foreground. Unfortunately the things that were covered in Love's previous films gained him a certain audience which are completely naive and ignorant to anything artistic which perhaps has served to be his downfall. But realistically if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen, therefore if you don't like the methods you see go back to watching Hugh Grant movies with your girlfriend, that way you'll both be satisfied...
Doucmentary and mobile style camera work has been used in drama since the the 1960s. It's having a popularity boom but I'm always surprised at these people who think it is some new fangled innovation or so radical they don't get it.
Camera shake is okay. But the cinematographer did a huge miscalculation by adding it in scenes that a low-key and dialogue driven. With the intention of making it more 'dynamic' it makes it difficult to focus into the story. Sorry, I've shot many short films myself, and understand there is a certain richness to having steady shots and allowing shakes when it's needed. When the character is just standing there, the camera doesn't slightly move but jarringly in a small quick motions. It's a technical failure which is a shame because Sean Bean is one of my fav actors.
Camera guy must have Parkinson's, so I give them credit for employing the disabled, but this movie should be shown in special theaters for the comatose