• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bourne Supremacy --- does it suck?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I so wanted to like this movie, I loved the first one...but that shakey camera work really pissed me off. Maybe its not as bad on the small screen, but in the theatre when every action scene ended I just thought "Well, there was blurring and something happened...anything more I could not say". What really pissed me off is every once and awhile it would stop shaking just long enough for you to see that something cool was probably going on, then it went back to a blurred mess.

1) In the action...thats great. You know what...its a movie and I'm not Jason Bourne so guess what genius? I'm not even suppose to be in the action.
2) When I'm actually in the action, spatial and body awareness allows jarring motions made by the individual to be worked out easily while still maintaining their bearings. I do not have that luxury while staring at a large immobile screen that isn't attached to my face, thus the effect fails.
3) Shaking when we weren't in the action...like when he's reading a fvcking book or something. Ugh. It just jarred me back to reality, screaming "Its a movie! The camera man can't keep the camera straight!" Again, same reason as number 2 here...people can't keep there body steady...but the brain works out the differences. Can't do it on a movie screen!

It looked like a movie that was great, unfortunately it appears that the only camera man who remembered to take the lens cap off was the directors drunk nephew who was shooting a documentary film for his high school film making class. And they just used that footage.

WTF is the point of setting up great sets and scenes, training Matt Damon to look like a material arts master and paying high priced actors if you're going to shoot the whole mess with fisher price camcorder work that any hobo could do.

Blair Witch 4: The Borne Bluremecy
 
In the movie, action sequences aren't really action sequence, but they are just scenes where the camera guy's shaking uncontrollably. I liked the first one better, and it's not just for that reason.
 
It was unpleasant to watch in the theatres. Just way too much shaking and blur for a screen that big.

It might work better on smaller screens. I'm just not that anxious to give it a second shot.
 
Originally posted by: Ranger X
I thought the first one was better too. Overall, the movie wasn't too bad.
Click to expand...
I agree. The shaky cam didn't bug me too much, but everybody was just WAY too serious in the second movie. The first one had at least a LITTLE humor in it, which is necessary even in the darkest movies. Heck, Schindler's List made me laugh more than the Bourne Supremacy did.

 
So it seems the consensus is it will be okay on small screen. But a big screen tv might make one ill? Yikes.

Is the shaky-camera much like the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan ?
 
I really liked the movie. Don't remember any dark parts but yeah the shaky camera work got to me in the beginning. But as the movie went on and as I was really drawn in, I totally forgot about it or I got used to it.
 
Originally posted by: lancestorm
So it seems the consensus is it will be okay on small screen. But a big screen tv might make one ill? Yikes.

Is the shaky-camera much like the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan ?
Click to expand...

Probably more like Blair Bitch Project
 
the shaky cam is what hack directors use when they can't film a fight scene correctly. those fights could have been really cool if they didn't use michael j. fox as the cinematographer.
 
Originally posted by: poopaskoopa
In the movie, action sequences aren't really action sequence, but they are just scenes where the camera guy's shaking uncontrollably. I liked the first one better, and it's not just for that reason.
Click to expand...

Ya, that was the other thing, worse than the shaking actually. The depth of focus on the camera was WAAYYY the fvck too low-- they like to focus on only one person at a time, especially near the beginning of the film, with everything else in the scene too blurry.
 
Originally posted by: screw3d
I liked both movies, but the books are way better with hell a lot more depth
Click to expand...

Yeah, the movies were good in their own right but now I want to see a movie really built around the books. 😉
 
Originally posted by: screw3d
I liked both movies, but the books are way better with hell a lot more depth
Click to expand...

Agreed. I saw the movies before reading the trilogy and was surprised to find that the movie plots have nothing to do with their corresponding books.
 
llike it, but now that you guys mention it, I remember how I didn't like the car chase scene, couldn't see really well.

Julia stiles is very hot as usual. I even had dream about her the night before, what geekiness eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top