I Hope There Will Be Unnecessary Camera Zooms! - Jeff, Who Lives at Home (2012) Discussion

[–] Thunderstruck283 14 years ago

I saw this movie last week at a screening and I must say that the camera zooms were extremely distracting and very unnecessary at certain times. But overall good movie.

My DVD Collection http://thunderstruck283.dvdaf.com/owned

reply

[–] schwinginbatman 14 years ago

I feel like these guys are capable of making really good movies if not for the abundance of camera zooms.

reply

[–] beatcamel 14 years ago

Agreed! I was totally vibing on Cyrus, but I turned it off 'cause the zooms were so disorienting and so unnecessary. I was liking the humor, I was liking the weirdness, but the zooms, man, they kill the flow and make no sense.

reply

[–] pennylane92 13 years ago

I watched the premiere of this film at TIFF last night, and sure enough there were TONS of camera zooms! I didn't mind it, but my boyfriend was really distracted by it! Was a great movie though!

reply

[–] bramb600 13 years ago

heheh. it was in like every wide shot.

i was sad more disappointed segel didn't show up to the premiere.

reply

[–] MoshiMoshiYoshi 13 years ago

The zooms really were unnecessary.

reply

[–] milrlite7 13 years ago

you guys SO dont understand the mumblecore movement

reply

[–] animaniac1 13 years ago

Just saw the preview and I came here to bitch about this. This adds NOTHING good to ANY movie! F@#$ing stop!

reply

[–] brianholder 13 years ago

No. Some mumblecore filmmakers have to realize how incongruous it is to have well known professional actors being shot amateurishly (or faux amateur if you wish). Shaky cameras in "Cloverfield": it's distracting, but it's an acceptable part of a found footage film. The main actors aren't well known and it's easier to let ourselves believe it's actually found footage. Here we just have a movie striving for authenticity while using actors everybody recognizes. It makes no sense. It adds nothing except distraction.

reply

[–] Wu_Tang_Clam 13 years ago

I watched the trailer and didn't really notice it. Then I came down to read some comments and saw yours. I then watched the 2nd trailer and now it drives me crazy as I notice every single zoom. Thanks for that! :P

reply

[–] MovieMan1975 13 years ago

the were more unnecessary camera zooms than you can shake a stick at!!!

reply

[–] notquitesane 13 years ago

Agreed. I saw a free screening of this the other night. The camera zooms were terribly distracting and added nothing at all to what was otherwise a very good movie and endearing story.

'Allo.
Did you say... hello?
No, I said "'allo," but that's close enough.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] itchyfriend9 13 years ago

You say that as if there's such a thing as a necessary camera zoom.

It's just their style. The zooms add punctuation to scenes, make them more visually interesting than standard two-shots. Hong Sang-Soo uses them, too, but more frequently and to more annoying effect, in my opinion.

reply

[–] Wu_Tang_Clam 13 years ago

As luck would have it I bought The Shield box set as I never watched it when it was on TV. There were a ton of weird camera zooms in that too. I wish I never read this thread, I think I'm always going to be looking for this now and I'm ruined for life!

reply

[–] Moon_and_New_York_City 13 years ago

I just saw the movie last night and the only zoom I really noticed was on the waffles with the strawberry and whipped cream. If there were others, they certainly were not distracting.

This was an odd, offbeat - but ultimately endearing and quite moving piece of art.

I loved it, 9 stars.

"the best that you can do is fall in love"

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funnyguyla 13 years ago

Just got back from seeing it. Yes, there were camera zooms but nowhere near as much as in Cyrus where it all but ruined the movie. They must have been told by someone to tone it down. Still loved the movie.

reply