I enjoyed it, the action was good, Damon was good, the plot was fast paced, and it was never boring.
But seriously, the camera work was just awful. Seriously, as well as the horrible grain in the night scenes we had this jerky movements going on all the time. Someone should tell Greengrass that the time to experiment with new cameras is not on a $100million movie.
Comments?
well, thats part of the style. See the discussion fora for 'bourne identity' for endless rages on this camera style. I'm no fan of it either.
As for the grain, guess my tv filtered it, because it looked fine (on 42").
It was nothing like the "Bourne Identity" as Greengrass didn't direct that, Doug Liman did. Greengrass did "Supremacy" and "Ultimatum".
And the shaky cam was a lot worse on this, as you had the grain on top, making it virtually impossible.
The grain was only visible during the night scenes. Your TV must have filtered it. Lucky you. It was painfully obvious in the cinema and again on the small screen.
It was nothing like the "Bourne Identity" as Greengrass didn't direct that, Doug Liman did. Greengrass did "Supremacy" and "Ultimatum".
Even though I dislike the style, I do love the fight in "The Bourne Supremacy". The fight itself was pretty good, but what made it memorable for me was the build up, just Bourne and Jarda talking, sussing each other out. The tension just builds for about 3-4 minutes before the fight actually starts. No score, just dialogue, it gave it an almost uncomfortable feeling. I loved it.
shareThe jerky handy-cam is Greengrass's bread and butter, you had to know that it was going to be that way before you chose to see it. Unless you've never seen a Greengrass movie before, it's a bit like you're complaining that a Michael Bay Movie has a lot of explosions. Well, duh, that's basically what you signed up for when you sat down to watch the movie.
I hope I didn't come off as being rude, I'm just curious as to why you even bothered to watch Green Zone if you don't like that camera style.
Movies I've seen in 2010: http://www.flixster.com/movie-list/2010-movies-6
No no no, I think you misunderstood my post, I'm trying to give out more about the grain style more than anything. I do like the hand held style when it is used to good effect, like what I said in my previous post about The Bourne Supremacy.
It just got a bit too much, even for Greengrass' standards.
I was responding to your comments about the jerky camera movements. The Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum were shot the same way. The jerkiness was about the same. I won't comment on the graininess of the movie, as I didn't really notice it when I was watching it, and I don't have it right now to watch it again and get an idea if what you're referring to.
Movies I've seen in 2010: http://www.flixster.com/movie-list/2010-movies-6
Yeah Craig I understand what your talking about, Awesome film, But the grain and noise problems were horrendous in the night scenes, Now was this part of the style? What camera systems were they using Video or Film, Seemed like video, Video cant bring in light very-well, The movement of the camera's in the action scenes were like you were on boat or something. Which seems to be the norm these day, Why not use steady-cams, it seem like Hand-held to me. apart from that well made film.
shareI thought the grain, quick cuts, and shaky cam were okay in Green Zone and United 93 and brought out the tension more. However in the Bourne films, Greengrass just couldn't make it work as well. Maybe it's because the Bourne films had way more hyperactive action and cars could actually lift off the ground. The action itself was too much for a shaky cam to capture well, unlike Green Zone and United 93.
Plus the tone of those movies were more grittier than the Bourne films which is better suited for Greengrass's style.
The shaky camera work is especially amplified when the movie is watched in Blu-ray in the living room on a 62" HD screen. I'm no fan of it either because it makes it almost impossible to follow the visual action. Maybe this directors's "thing" will pass in time and we can all go back to actually seeing what is going on in the story.
Back in the early seventies directors were 'flashing' the film prior to using it in the camera. This gave the picture a hazy look which some directors found very desirable, but made movie fans think they were developing cataracs. Thank Heaven's that fad passed.
Seeking other cinmetic innovation Spielberg started to put smoke all over his sets so the light would diffuse and interesting backlights could result. Not as bad as jerky camera work, but still a noticable director "thing". Looked like the sets were burning down.
Hell, why don't the directors just study the works of John Ford and George Stevenson? A movie on the screen is a visual thing. Sight with the added benefit of sound. Let the fans see what is going on, for crying out loud!
Then all the movies would look exactly the same. Look, I'm not endorsing or knocking anybody's visual style here. End of the day, it's what the director wanted to put on the screen, it's his or her artistic right. Sure, sometimes a little restraint could go a long way, but I'd rather have a few who go to the extremes than everyone hop on the same bandwagon.
shareSure, sometimes a little restraint could go a long way, but I'd rather have a few who go to the extremes than everyone hop on the same bandwagon.
The constant whining about and bashing of handheld camera style makes me sick. The fact is that it's a stylistic device that works very well for immersion, suspense and a more realistic style of action. The problem with most people is that they are pampered by modern technology and the work that Hollywood constantly poured out for almost a century now - and therefore can't accept anything else or less because it has because a quasi-standard for filmmaking. If you can't deal with modern styles of filmmaking or something new and innovative, stick to your unoriginal, polished $250 million Michael Bay movies. As some people already mentioned here: it's Greengrass, you could expect something like that. And to be honest, this is one of the reasons why his films are so intense and great. Also, if you have seen Bloody Sunday for example, you might know that the director likes to work with natural light. And if you know just the slightest bit about filmmaking you would also know that when you use cameras at night (especially digital ones) you will most likely get grainy footage. This is the way Greengrass decides to shoot his films and I highly respect him for this. I'm also glad to see that there are film studios out there that allow such "experiments". Again, if you don't like it, just stay away from it. Not every movie in the world has to work on the same formula. I'm glad that there is some variety out there. Personally, I'm pretty bored by those multi-million, glossy, edited-to-death, unrealistic action flicks like Avatar or Transformers. It's good to see something that looks more like reality every now and then. There's a market for everything. And to be honest, if you have to criticize a movie by its level of grain, you really don't get the point about filmmaking or cinema at all.
share"The constant whining about and bashing of handheld camera style makes me SICK."
Really? Sick? I think you either have a very low gag tolerance or you need to get some perspective.
The fact is that for a lot of people the hand-held shaky camera style does get in the way of their enjoyment - in fact I would argue for some it does actually make them feel sick, as in motion sickness.
You claim this camera style portrays a "more realistic style of action". But unfortunately, it only TRIES to portray it realistically. In reality when you are running or fighting etc you do not get a sense of motion sickness. The human eyes and brain have a way of filtering out unnecessary scenery so that you can operate on a daily basis without feeling ill. However, no-one has managed to devise a camera or camera style that does the same thing. Therefore, using the hand-held camera style is a waste of time if you're trying to portray reality. So on that basis, you may as well stick with the "unoriginal, polished" movies because they at least allow everyone to watch the movie without feeling sick.
[deleted]
"The shaky camera work is especially amplified when the movie is watched in Blu-ray in the living room on a 62" HD screen. I'm no fan of it either because it makes it almost impossible to follow the visual action. Maybe this directors's "thing" will pass in time and we can all go back to actually seeing what is going on in the story.
Back in the early seventies directors were 'flashing' the film prior to using it in the camera. This gave the picture a hazy look which some directors found very desirable, but made movie fans think they were developing cataracs. Thank Heaven's that fad passed.
Seeking other cinmetic innovation Spielberg started to put smoke all over his sets so the light would diffuse and interesting backlights could result. Not as bad as jerky camera work, but still a noticable director "thing". Looked like the sets were burning down.
Hell, why don't the directors just study the works of John Ford and George Stevenson? A movie on the screen is a visual thing. Sight with the added benefit of sound. Let the fans see what is going on, for crying out loud!"
Interesting, what are some 70s movies with that flashing?
I saw it at the Empire Leicester Square and thought it looked GORGEOUS!
Enjoy your egg whites.
As one poster said...yeah its his film and his artistic right...Yet I also agree with the OP...awesome film, tight screenplay and the shaky camera ruined some moments for me...especially in the beginning when they are all called in to discuss what their plan of action would be for the next 48 hours...
shareThe camera was fine; it was steady. In fact I'd say it's the steadiest film he's done since United 93.
Enjoy your egg whites.
Couldn't agree more.
shareThank you for agreeing with me. Please see my post of July 31 titled "jerky photography."
shareEven though he's shake, he's straight shaky, as oppose to shaky shaky like Quantum of Solace, or The Expendables.
shareThis was a good movie.
I enjoyed it.
But of course,it is fictional.
Nothing in this film happened in real life.
So this is not a movie that someone can base upon what is truly happened and the current situation at Iraq.
Nothing in this film happened in real life. "
are you 100% sure?
ohhhhh i thought it was my copy of the movie that was broke or fake or something like that.. nice to see i´m not the only one who noticed the grain
Movie Collector 293/500