Why the handheld camera ? Why ?

I dont mind the camera work. Lethal Weapon used it in the final fight scene with Gibson and Busey. I thought it work well here too. I did not like it in LW at first. This was the first time I seen it used. Any of you who have been in a chaotic experience, like a fight, may get it better.

For me the movie is completely unwatchable so I cannot give it any rating other than a 1. It may have been a fantastic movie in every other respect but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and the unbearable camera work, at least in my case, was the weakest link that destroyed the whole thing. Even a truly awful movie like Plan 9 from outer space is more enjoyable even if it is just from laughing at how truly awful it is.

I wrote the following in another thread but since it is relevant for this discussion I'll post it here too:

The camera work wasn't only annoying but also amateurish. Trying to use zooms for added effect is an absolute no no.

As for the oft cited "realism", what a load of rubbish. What is real to me is what I see out of my own two eyes when I look at the real world and it never ever shakes and wobbles around and zooms in and out. Regardless of the intensity of whatever I might be doing, the world through my two eyes remains rock solid. I can't speak for other people but I believe that I am probably not unique in this respect and that this is normal. It makes sense that our eyes and brains work this way because otherwise we wouldn't be able to make sense of anything when we play sports or if we're fighting for our lives.

The "realism" here is about making it look like a documentary, perhaps filmed by a reporter and his cameraman while under fire or whatever. Ok I can accept that however when I watch a documentary it is not me that is in the middle of the action, it is me watching something real that someone else filmed. But when I watch a movie I don't want to feel this way, I want to suspend my disbelief and believe that I'm in the middle of it all. So in other words the moment the camera shakes or wobbles or zooms then it rips me out of the movie experience and reminds me that it's just a movie and isn't real.

[deleted]

[deleted]

The Bourne Ultimatum

the third Jason Bourne novel written by Robert Ludlum
and a sequel to The Bourne Supremacy (1986).
First published in 1990,

The novel follows David Webb, alias Jason Bourne,
as he works to find his old enemy, Carlos the Jackal
who is trying to kill him
As the Jackal enters old age and his infamy fades

he decides that he will do two things before he dies:
kill Webb/Bourne,
and destroy the KGB facility of Novgorod,
where the Jackal was trained
and was turned away for being a maniac.

The first Bourne movie was good. Bourne 2 and 3 were not that good. To bad.

I think you're completely wrong. Realism isn't reality, it's a style, like any other style. And it works brilliantly in this, the greatest action film ever.

I don't get it, first you say it's the perfect movie, the best in the trilogy, then you bitch about the hand-held camera? Make up your mind.

1, 2) Realism wasn't necessarily the goal... at least not always. The shakiness often corresponds to how the scene is supposed to feel. It adds to the kinetic nature of the movie. Like the soundtrack, and the editing. It's all meant to give you a frenetic, exciting pace.
3) True. But it's again not really meant to be realistic. To a certain degree, perhaps, but IMHO the movie doesn't feel like it wants to be particularly realistic.
4) It's engaging. After a movie like this you shouldn't be totally relaxed. It is exhausting, just like what is happening in the movie.

Greengrass movies do use a lot of handheld camera, fast editing etc., but Greengrass, and sometimes Bay, are the main directors who are able to do this while keeping the audience with them. At least I can follow the action. In the hands of lesser directors this technique is often overused to the point of what the *beep* is happening?! I almost never feel that way with Greengrass. He holds the shot just long enough to follow, he pans the camera accordingly to guide the viewer, uses relatively long takes at times, with zooms, pans, running around, ... . There is just enough continuity in the whole thing, and I don't notice mistakes, movements from left to right that turn to right to left without an explanation. As a viewer we do get to keep a sense of the locations. (Compare that to Nolan, where it at times turns into a quickly edited mess, no continuity, shots don't match up, ...). Everything seems beautifully planned, every single movement... how the camera operator holds the camera, then follows Bourne, and then starts running after him while zooming out so that we get to keep just enough stability to understand what is happening. All the shots are designed to keep us in the know enough, without any excess fat. It's just enough.

Please, do criticize other directors who can't do it, and who shouldn't. Just not Greengrass. He might be the best action director alive.

Basically, I love pretty much everything about how the movies are shot. The zooms, quick pans, shaky cam, everything. Everything about how it is edited. And I usually dislike such fast editing, shaky cam, etc.