I know Greengrass isn't a favorite around here (I happen to like the shakiness, ok?!) and man, oh, man, he and Matt Damon just made the most intense action movie. Ever.
I was either pressed against my seat or leaning forward the whole time. I don't want to say anything specific yet, because I don't want to ruin it for the people who haven't seen it. I am amazed at how much it kept my attention.
________________________________ "If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are rotten, either write the things worth reading or do things worth the writing." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1932 | Location: Milkyway, the earth, USA, Arizona, Chandler | Registered: June 25, 2003
I will admit I'm a sucker for these kind of films anyways. Anyone else see it.
________________________________ "If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are rotten, either write the things worth reading or do things worth the writing." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1932 | Location: Milkyway, the earth, USA, Arizona, Chandler | Registered: June 25, 2003
This Greengrass hater did. I'll give him credit for at least including more action in this flick (the shakiness and the fact that there was only one fight scene sucked up the last movie.) My problem is still his choice of shaking the camera like a... oh hell, I'm tired of making analogies for this guy. I understand what he's going for, but there are better ways to create tension. If he had even toned it down a couple of notches, it might've worked. This one was better than the last, but that's not saying much, considering the fact that Greengrass is still directing the movies.
elliott (otiose)...
"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" --Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham
I got a box full of sh*tty movies from a Blockbuster employee a few days ago and have been watching them en masse--"Shooting Range," "The Cutter," "Connor's War," and "Edison Force"--all these low-budget, big-name B-movies that went straight to DVD because of intense suckage. I've found that all of them have the same two failures that made them so absolutely horrendous: they market themselves as action movies yet have too much talk and not enough action. And second, too much shaky camera movement. That's basically what was wrong with the second Bourne movie.
For those of you interested in watching horrible B-movie action/drama flicks, I highly recommend it, as you get to see that even good actors can't save a horrible script, and you learn exactly what not to do as a filmmaker, like suck.
A natural hand held look is good in action movies but when you TRY to make the shot shaky, in other words, go out of your way to shake the camera around, it just gets nauseating.
The film was so overly shaky that in calm dialog the camera was all over the place. While guns are firing it's okay to shake, but when some one is having coffee and asking how someones day has been LOCK THE DAMN CAMERA DOWN.
It was a great popcorn movie otherwise!
Posts: 20 | Location: Nashville | Registered: June 30, 2006