Bourne Supremacy = How NOT to film a movie

[RagingBITCH]

That was done totally on purpose.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: gUEv
"
People like hitchcock, hawks, Lean etc survived with LONG ass steady cam and had major tension... Ever see north by northwest? "

ok thats cool except....none of the directors you mentioned were alive or making films by the time the steadicam came out (mid 70s)


that MM thing is a quote from someone else...i thought it was kinda funny at the time...i dunno, i guess ill get rid of it.

and yes, saving private ryan owns in handheld work

Well I guess I don't have the terminology right either What I meant, was long shots..somtimes lasting minutes without switching to another camera and of course held steady... You know where the actors had to actually be good as well as the story to hold an audiance.

That's another thing that bugs me about modern movies...the flashing between camera's an/or edits real fast.. What you call that?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
That was done totally on purpose.

Sup captain obvious

 

[PoPPeR]

well maybe their filming techniques suck but rottentomatoes seems to like it

 

[Wahsapa]

but going from the first movie to the second. in the first you can see him kick every single a$$ on screen, in the second you cant see him even hit anybody, anybody important anyway. you go into the second moving expecting the same kind of camera work but the whole shaky-cam-cuz-its-action throws it off and just makes the first one better and the second one worse.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I noticed the same thing about the camera. I REALLY noticed it when he was in his home in India. I thinik this movie would look better on a smaller screen and the shaking wouldn't be quite as noticable.

 

[godspeedx]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Just got back from watching the Bourne Supremacy and, damn, what a way for a perfectly good spy thriller movie to get ruined by the filmography. It was like watching The Blair Witch Project for most of the movie. Just about every shot and definitely every action shot or close-up shot was extremely shaky. I could barely tell what the heck was going on during a fight scene early in the movie. And then I couldn't even tell what the heck was going on during the big car chase.

I really wanted to get into this film. I liked the Bourne Identity and both my wife and I were looking forward to Supremacy. But the camera work was just way too distracting. She ended up with a headache. I was just left shaking my head.

Why do directors think it is a good idea to completely obscure the movie by having the camera shake, roll, and fly around like some bad camcording of a child's birthday party?

No complaints here.

 

[weirdichi]

Wow.. i'm not the only one who got dizzy from watching it.

 

[Wuffsunie]

It's a good movie, no question about that. Just that, yeah, the cinematography was just about the most horrid thing I've seen in ages.

I blame MTV a lot for this. Every bloody action movie is directed like it's a music video with cuts every 3 seconds or less no matter if it's action or dialogue. What, do they think that people have zero attention span, so they have to keep things moving and flashing so that our eyes will be naturally drawn to it?

That drives me nuts and makes all involved look like hacks. It just doesn't seem too skillful to have a few sentences (at most) before a cut. Action sequences the past few years seem especially rampant with this crap, being 90% indistinguishable blur :| Bourne was probably the most recent worst offender, but there was another one recently (can't recall which) that had far too much of that kind of hackwork in it, too. Hell, I guess it beats teaching your actors to fight. That way you can have stunt people (if that) who bear mild resemblance (at best) to the actor do things for you.

While I can see how it's supposed to give "action" and "energy" to a sequence, I'm WAY more impressed by longer shots, as it actually lets you show how really skilled the people working are. The chase scenes in Ronin were WAY better than the ones in Supremacy for exactly that reason, IMO. And I don't think anyone will argue that fight sequences where you can see exactly who is doing what to who, preferably in long, well established shots (a la Jackie Chan and most other good Hong Kong flicks) are much cooler.

That whole thing is endemic of Hollywood catering to their most base crowd: the MTV generation, the ones with the the attention span of a cracked-out hamster. :thumbsdown:

 

[dr150]

You are soooo right! I was commenting that to my wife that the shaky dumbass camera movement lowered the overall good quality of this movie.

 

[Linux23]

good thing you guys are the minority. i love shaky camera work. draws you into the action. the sound fx should fill in the rest.

 

[bdjohnson]

I liked the hand camera work throughout the whole film but I'll admit that the fight scene with bourne and the german guy was really hard to follow.

 

[trmiv]

Good movie, but I agree, the shakey camera drove me NUTS!!! I had no clue what was going on during the fight scene with the german guy. It wasn't just shakey during that scene, it was impossible to watch. There is shakey camera work that draws you into the action, and then there is what was going on in that film. Big difference. During the car chase, I had to turn away a few times because I started to get motion sick. That is only the second time that has ever happened to me during a movie, the first was during The Blair Witch Project.

 

[ys]

I will keep away from movies directed by Paul Greengrass. The car chase scene is only saved by the soundtrack.