Bourne Supremacy = How NOT to film a movie

[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?

 

[Zebo]

I call it the "witchcraft project" infulence... drives me nuts....they all do it today.

 

[dbk]

Is that why you're Queasy?

Back to your question, I think directors do this to put the audience feel like they're in the scene. I'm looking forward to seeing this movie.

 

[gUEv]

ok

in the future, please do not say a film was ruined by "the filmography"

you are trying to give tips to future filmmakers (lol) and you cannot even get basic terms across.


handheld camerawork is usually employed by the director to increase tension, and to give kinetic energy to a scene. this can be very effective (war scenes, an argument), but it is also very easy to abuse.

american handheld work is not the pinnacle in it's field. In fact, its some of the worst in the world.

not too long ago i was quite against handheld shots, but after watching more international fare I have learned to love it, but still reserve its use for situations few and far between.


some great examples of handheld camerawork are

Amores Perros
Man Bites Dog (french translation)


that said, i didnt see the movie you speak of. Im sure it was terrible though anyways

 

[pulse8]

It's called cinematography, not filmography.

 

[Wahsapa]

nono, the scene where hes at the german guys house kicking his a$$... you cant even tell whos hitting who, it was very bad camera work. the chase scene in russia was alright but i really expected more gun fighting, especially between the two main super soilders or whatever they are. in the blair witch project the camera work was ok but in a movie with a budget this big they should have got somebody better or somebody to think 'maybe we should let them see each other fight'. this is after all an action movie that unfocus' every time action comes around.

i wish i would have waited for dvd

 

[cronos]

this is all NYPD Blue's fault!

 

[Linflas]

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?

Isn't that one of those things that was started by MTV? They were doing that a lot in TV for a while as well.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: gUEv
ok

in the future, please do not say a film was ruined by "the filmography"

you are trying to give tips to future filmmakers (lol) and you cannot even get basic terms across.

No, I don't know all the film-making terms. I don't need to have attended film school or know all the film-making terms to be able to say that, IMO, a film was turned to crap because the camera work sucked. When things are bouncing around to the point that you can't tell what the heck is going on during an action scene, that's just bad. When the camera is bouncing around on close-ups of actors faces during talking scenes disctracting the viewer from the dialogue, that's just bad.

handheld camerawork is usually employed by the director to increase tension, and to give kinetic energy to a scene. this can be very effective (war scenes, an argument), but it is also very easy to abuse.

Some of the best hand-held camera work I've seen was with Saving Private Ryan. Bourne Supremacy ranks up there with the worst.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: pulse8
It's called cinematography, not filmography.

I knew I had the term wrong but filmography got stuck in my head for some reason and I couldn't recall the correct name. So, I tried my luck.

 

[PatboyX]

filmography is my new favorite word.
did you see the trailer for "open water"
its all that garbage. its supposed to help make it suspenseful and make you feel on edge.
which works...but...is annoying as well.

 

[Turkish]

I liked it.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
filmography is my new favorite word.

I'm absolving myself of all responsibility and saying that I was so disoriented by the cinematography of the movie that I was forced to use incorrect terminology.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: gUEv
ok

in the future, please do not say a film was ruined by "the filmography"

you are trying to give tips to future filmmakers (lol) and you cannot even get basic terms across.


handheld camerawork is usually employed by the director to increase tension, and to give kinetic energy to a scene. this can be very effective (war scenes, an argument), but it is also very easy to abuse.

american handheld work is not the pinnacle in it's field. In fact, its some of the worst in the world.

not too long ago i was quite against handheld shots, but after watching more international fare I have learned to love it, but still reserve its use for situations few and far between.


some great examples of handheld camerawork are

Amores Perros
Man Bites Dog (french translation)


that said, i didnt see the movie you speak of. Im sure it was terrible though anyways

What ever happend to just telling a good story to "increase tension"? Why resort to trickery?

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

 

[Zebo]

By the way in 1996 I graduated with a M.M. degree in Music Education.
----------------
Do you have a job yet?

 

[NFS4]

I knew what this thread would be about before I even clicked on it. I too have heard a lot of complaints about the camerawork. I'm still going to see it though

 

[MegaWorks]

excellent movie! the story was better then the first one I guess

 

[dsfunk]

Originally posted by: gUEv
ok

in the future, please do not say a film was ruined by "the filmography"

you are trying to give tips to future filmmakers (lol) and you cannot even get basic terms across.


handheld camerawork is usually employed by the director to increase tension, and to give kinetic energy to a scene. this can be very effective (war scenes, an argument), but it is also very easy to abuse.

american handheld work is not the pinnacle in it's field. In fact, its some of the worst in the world.

not too long ago i was quite against handheld shots, but after watching more international fare I have learned to love it, but still reserve its use for situations few and far between.


some great examples of handheld camerawork are

Amores Perros
Man Bites Dog (french translation)


that said, i didnt see the movie you speak of. Im sure it was terrible though anyways

:disgust:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: gUEv
ok

in the future, please do not say a film was ruined by "the filmography"

you are trying to give tips to future filmmakers (lol) and you cannot even get basic terms across.

Ok he does not have to know every fricken term to complain about the film. If the camera work is annoying (wich i agree it is) and distracts you from the film then something is wrong.


After blair witch came out everyone started doing it. It annoyes the crap out of me. They do it the whole movie. There are times when a hand held look is great. such as in a war movie.

I get tired of the jumpin garound and them trying to get it to look like a documentry or something. It ruins a good movie.

 

[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

 

[brunswickite]

supremacy, from the trailer looks very simliar to the first movie

 

[Amorphus]

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

The fact that they were not alive does not matter - they still managed to use steady shots effectively. If they could do it, why can't we, years later?

 

[Amorphus]

btw - I'm generally not distracted by shaky camerawork - I can follow things pretty well. I haven't seen the movie, though, so I'm witholding judgment.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: saxguy
this is all NYPD Blue's fault!

I think you mean The Shield.

I agree, the camera work was a little overboard. I liked the movie, but it was distracting.

 

[lokiju]

I liked the movie but agree, that sh!t is getting pretty annoying now days how soooo many movies keep doing that shake the camera sh!t, really pisses me off, its like this is supposed to be the action part and I want to be able to tell what the hell is going on so I can fully enjoy it.