Actually, you can follow the action in "Ultimatum"...

[floydtheater07]

Yet again, I must post another rant inspired by the contributors to the IMDB message boards.


This time, it is in regards to "The Bourne Ultimatum". Despite the fact that the film has a very high score on that site, there has been an unbearable amount of posts there complaining about the style of director Paul Greengrass. He prefers hand-held cameras and fast editing when making the two Bourne films he has helmed ("Identity" was directed by Doug Liman).


Apparently, most of the people on those boards are half-blind, because they continue to cry about not being able to see the action...


...are you freaking kidding me? No one honestly believes that it was difficult to follow the action in "Ultimatum", right? I mean, I interpret sensory info slower than the average person. I ask people to repeat what they said, only to then realize that I heard them, I just needed a moment to intrepret it in my brain. I also get disoriented in loud and crowded places. But c'mon, even I had no problems with the kinetic and incredible style of Greengrass. He makes everything look so gritty and spontaneous.


I really don't believe some people. An amazing director comes along with a fresh and exciting way of shooting action, and they just have to cry because it isn't the typical, slow-motion Michael Bay steadicam crap that almost ruined the action genre for me. Fortunately, directors like Greengrass keep me interested in these types of movies. I hope he revolutionizes the genre.

[ilovemovies]

Speaking of Michael Bay, I couldn't follow the action in Transformers AT ALL! Yet people love that movie and yet the bitch about the shaky cam in The Bourne Ultimatum. That perplexes me. The shaky cam is actually very well used here and unlike in Transformers, I could actually follow the action. Wasn't hard to see for me at all. I can understand the complaints from Supremacy. But not for this movie. It was much better handled here.

[miguel_montes]

I also had a little bit of trouble following action in Transformers. That problem went away when I saw it for a second time.

I haven't seen Ultimatum yet, but Supremacy has nice action pieces.

[Duke Nukem]

You are, in my opinion, wrong. I saw this, sat down in one of the back rows and found myself constantly wincing my eyes during the action scenes. I'm sorry, quick-cutting editing can be done well, but it wasn't here.

In my opinion, Paul Greengrass prefers this style of filmmaking in order to avoid dragging around tripods/whatever-holds-cameras-steady and to save budget money. He had his camera guys everywhere! It can't possibly be fun to film this way, so why go through the trouble of editing it this way too? It's extra work and extra hours being wasted by them and on the movie-goers.

Many will say, "quick-cutting is meant to simulate gritty action, blah, blah, blah..."...Um, no. Quick-cutting is meant simulate nausea and the effect of lack of effort by the lazy filmmakers.

Two other particular movies guilty of this: "Resident Evil 2: Apocypse" and "The Bourne Supremacy." And to a lesser effect, "Transformers." I'm aware of other movies like "28 Weeks Later" doing this as well. This is why I avoided it altogether.

[Le_Big_Mac]

I've complained a lot about the direction in The Bourne Ultimatum, and The Bourne Supremacy for that matter. The more I think about it, it's not the direction of Paul Greengrass - as unprofessional and mentally retarded as the man is - that ruined both. It was the lack of anything vaguely interesting going on on screen. Practically everything was either a boring, overtly complicated conversation in the place with the big computer (that wording is how little I cared) or a scene where the screenwriter decided to throw in some pointless fight or chase scene just so the audience can see a character nobody has been allowed to know anything about or sympathize for. Even if they were all based on books, both sequels to the much superior Identity are appallingly commercialistic vehicles for Matt Damon where all he does is kick ass after ass with no actual plot to support it other than that he's trying to reach somewhere. It's like LOTR if those films had been Frodo just walking further and further towards Mt. Doom. It's the antithesis of Hitchcock's theory. The McGuffin (sp?) is the entire fucking plot!

Thusly, there's no intensity or tension that the shakey-cam and fast editing help improve (as if there weren't much more sophisticated ways to do that). For example, with the opening scene of 28 Weeks Later when the infected are breaking into the house, the whole sequence would have looked ridiculous if they were edited into longer shots and the camera stood back on a tripod and taped. However, in the state I find The Bourne Ultimatum to be in, the film and the action would have been more tolerable and fun to watch if they did pull back and have longer and steady shots. At least maybe that way, I could actually see and understand why the fist fight with that guy in the apartment is being hailed as one of the greatest ever.

[LordSimen]

In regards to the Bourne Ultimatum and Supremacy, I cannot comment on Ultimatum as I have yet to see it, but Supremacy was easy as hell to follow and never once did I feel disoriented or unable to tell what was going on. Everything is given to you clearly.


In regards to Michael Bay, I sat in the second row of a large theater for Transformers. I also had a cold that day and was not feeling well- And I STILL had NO PROBLEM telling what was going on at any time, nor did I have any trouble telling any of the robots apart or telling which robot was doing what at any given time. I have NO idea why people complained about that with this movie, it wasn't that hard at all. I've also never had a problem with Bay's work in the past, everything has seemed clear to me.


However, one movie (and a great movie at that) that I did have trouble following the action in was Batman Begins, and honestly I think that was the point of some of the action: To put you in the shoes of the villains. So it worked. But other than that, can't think of many big blockbusters I have trouble following.

[Duke Nukem]

Now that you mention it, yes, "Batman Begins" was also guilty of this. I don't recall all the action being tough to follow, but dammit, that opening fight scene in the prison could have been great! Great! Instead, it had my head spinning...and it wasn't supposed to be! Really, I did not expect Christopher Nolan to rely on this tactic and he better not in the next "Batman" movie.

Quick-cutting editing/shaky cam does NOT put you in the middle of the fight, put yourselves in the point of view of the characters in action, and nor does it "simulate grittiness." All it does is send your eyes wincing and others a case of nausia.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
Now that you mention it, yes, "Batman Begins" was also guilty of this. I don't recall all the action being tough to follow, but dammit, that opening fight scene in the prison could have been great! Great! Instead, it had my head spinning...and it wasn't supposed to be! Really, I did not expect Christopher Nolan to rely on this tactic and he better not in the next "Batman" movie.

In Nolan's defense, he isn't exactly known as an action director. :p

[Le_Big_Mac]

Originally posted by LordSimen
In regards to the Bourne Ultimatum and Supremacy, I cannot comment on Ultimatum as I have yet to see it, but Supremacy was easy as hell to follow and never once did I feel disoriented or unable to tell what was going on. Everything is given to you clearly.

While I can only guess that some people are more easily annoyed and distracted by shakey-cam, I should probably revoke my statement that the films were complicated, rather confusing, since they failed to grab my attention to the point that I just wanted action and neither of them satisfied on that level.

[Tweek]

I have astigmatism. (And am also reminded of the contact lense commercials) So you could probably imagine my position on shaky cam or whatnot

[bigred760]

Originally posted by floydtheater07
Yet again, I must post another rant inspired by the contributors to the IMDB message boards.

I don't know why you keep going over there. ;)


I loved The Bourne Ultimatum and I had no problem with Greengrass' direction of the action. I had no trouble following it and I can't wait to see it again (probably on DVD); though I have heard people complaining about it at work and other places.

[floydtheater07]

Originally posted by Tweek
I have astigmatism. (And am also reminded of the contact lense commercials) So you could probably imagine my position on shaky cam or whatnot


As do I, although mine is just a minor case. I love the so-called "shaky cam" (although I never really found the camera to shake all that much...just move).

[floydtheater07]

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
Paul Greengrass - as unprofessional and mentally retarded as the man is - that ruined both.


On what do you base this assertion? In my opinion, the man is one of the most skilled and informed manstream directors working today. EVERYTHING I have seen him make was pitch-perfect, hitting every right note and exceeding not only my expectations but my imagination.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by floydtheater07
On what do you base this assertion? In my opinion, the man is one of the most skilled and informed manstream directors working today. EVERYTHING I have seen him make was pitch-perfect, hitting every right note and exceeding not only my expectations but my imagination.

I agree with you, that comment by Mac strikes me as very strange. Seems like a very mature, professional man who takes every piece of work he gets seriously.

[Tweek]

Originally posted by floydtheater07
As do I, although mine is just a minor case. I love the so-called "shaky cam" (although I never really found the camera to shake all that much...just move).

I haven't seen the entire "Supremacy" let alone "Ultimatum". I was just putting my two cents in!

[floydtheater07]

Originally posted by Tweek
I haven't seen the entire "Supremacy" let alone "Ultimatum". I was just putting my two cents in!

That's cool. Hope I didn't come off the wrong way.

[Jim H]

An amazing director comes along with a fresh and exciting way of shooting action, and they just have to cry because it isn't the typical, slow-motion Michael Bay steadicam crap that almost ruined the action genre for me.

Dude, have you seen any of Bay's more recent movies? They're filled with random shaky cam and crazy movements, even if they aren't hand held. I thought Ultimatum's action scenes were generally fine. More shakiness and rapid editing than I like, but it still worked. However, I thought the Supremacy went over the line, especially in the car chase.

[floydtheater07]

Originally posted by Jim H
Dude, have you seen any of Bay's more recent movies? They're filled with random shaky cam and crazy movements, even if they aren't hand held. I thought Ultimatum's action scenes were generally fine. More shakiness and rapid editing than I like, but it still worked. However, I thought the Supremacy went over the line, especially in the car chase.


Yeah, I can see that bay is giving the style a go. In my opinion, he doesn't pull if off quite as well. The frame becomes dominated with all this CGI debris and during "Transformers" I had difficult distinguishing the Autobots and the Decepticons. However, I thought it was still a cool way to shoot the movie, he just needs to learn how to do it right.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I agree with you, that comment by Mac strikes me as very strange. Seems like a very mature, professional man who takes every piece of work he gets seriously.

Alright, maybe I laid it on too heavy there, and I was of course exxagerating. I'm sure he takes whatever he gets seriously. I mean, shit, he made United 93. He just doesn't know how to work with them. So he takes the easy way out and tries to create intensity and voyeurism by shaking the camera a lot and making sure the audience sees as little clearly as the character does, if that is indeed his intent. His rapid editing also contributes to this. While it obviously seems to satisfy some viewers, it will endlessly annoy and torment others. There are better ways to create tension, but Greengrass chooses to use a technique that's barely fit for documentary filmmaking, and try to pass it off as artistic and stylish when all it does is make many members of the audience sick to their stomach. Since when did a filmmaker have to inject any art or a great amount of visual (but not physical) style into an action movie, in the first place?

[Jim H]

Originally posted by floydtheater07
Yeah, I can see that bay is giving the style a go. In my opinion, he doesn't pull if off quite as well. The frame becomes dominated with all this CGI debris and during "Transformers" I had difficult distinguishing the Autobots and the Decepticons. However, I thought it was still a cool way to shoot the movie, he just needs to learn how to do it right.

I would agree he didn't pull it off nearly as well, but even back in the mid 90s he made the Rock, which has a lot of that shaky cam and some busy editing. Transformers, a lot of its action was just poorly shot and framed. There isn't any excuse.

[Donnie_Darko]

"In regards to the original post"

Ahhh... :rolleyes: ... it's quite simple really.

You let the ACTION, be the ACTION... and NOT the fucking camera work and editing... it's really that simple.

Why put all that time and effort into choreographing a stunt or fight sequence, only to "shakycam" and "Schumacher-edit" the whole thing. When watching Supremacy and Ultimatum, I kept yelling (to myself, I'm not loud and rude) LOCK IT DOWN! LOCK IT DOWN!! It's like they had a bunch of epileptic monkeys running the cameras. Drove me nuts!

I'm not saying "don't like it", I'm just totally on board with everybody... like me... who despise this directing "style". For the record, I really dug the whole Bourne trilogy... with that exception... it really took me out of the movie, and I think the intent, was to "bring the audience into the action"... sorry, didn't work.

:cool:

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Donnie_Darko

I'm not saying "don't like it", I'm just totally on board with everybody... like me... who despise this directing "style". For the record, I really dug the whole Bourne trilogy... with that exception... it really took me out of the movie, and I think the intent, was to "bring the audience into the action"... sorry, didn't work.

:cool:

Worked fine for me.

[X-Nightcrawler]

I thought this horrible style was done fantastically well in "28 Weeks Later".

I haven't seen Ultimatum, but I fucking hated it in Supremacy. Couldn't tell what the hell was going on half the time.

[inglourious basterd]

Speaking for myself -- I literally felt sick trying to track the action in Supremacy. I thought that the shaky cam was shit. For this reason, I have no intention of trying to see Ultimatum.

Yes -- most of you WILL NOT experience this. But it happens.

[APzombie]

I thought I saw The Bourne Ultimatum last week.

Turns out it was my Nephew's home video.

Same damn thing.

[KyleG]

I didn't mind the shakey cam in Ultimatum, but I know people who actually got sick watching it, and I hadn't heard of that happening since Blair Witch

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Tweek
I have astigmatism. (And am also reminded of the contact lense commercials) So you could probably imagine my position on shaky cam or whatnot


I have astigmatism too - how does that affect you with shaky cams? It doesn't bother me at all. ....those Minds Eye and holograph posters on the other hand are physically impossible for me to see... at least that's what they say, but I'll see them one day damnit.



The only time camera tricks or editing REALLY grate me are when they are overused or used with no seeming reason - DOMINO did this, but ultimately I though it was an 'okay' film. But it's not the shaky cam, it's the use. I can make the same complaint as the OP about Michael Bay's use of steadycam and slow-mo in The Island --- I mean, for no reason at all, it would show someone walking through a humid haze, in slow-mo, with orchestra music... then they would like pay a parking meter or something... very unnecessary.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I can make the same complaint as the OP about Michael Bay's use of steadycam and slow-mo in The Island --- I mean, for no reason at all, it would show someone walking through a humid haze, in slow-mo, with orchestra music... then they would like pay a parking meter or something... very unnecessary.

Heh. I noticed Michael Mann pulling that kind of shit with The Insider. There would be all these slo-mo shots of Russell Crowe walking to and fro. The movie's about a 60 Minutes episode on a cigarette company, for God's sake...

[MISFITS_Fiend]

I hate to say it because I think the Bourne movies are some of the best to come out in years, but the shaky hand-cam thing was grating on me while watching Ultimatum. It was used a littlle bit too much. Some of the fight scenes could have been awesome to behold if the camera wasn't trying to get 15 different angles in 3 seconds. I knew of one person who refused to see this movie. They walked out of Supremacy due to the shaky cam thing and weren't going to see this one due to that. He's also an idiot...I've never walked out of a movie just because of the direction, but I can see why he wouldn't want to go through it again.

[corran horn]

Having seen the Bourne Ultimatum twice (with every intention of getting it on DVD as well), I barely noticed the shaky-cam either time. The first time, I sat fairly close to the screen, and I did notice some vibrating in the quieter scenes, but it wasn't enough to bug me. The second time, I sat further back, and didn't notice anything at all.

When I saw Supremacy on DVD, I didn't notice the shaky-cam at all.

LordSimen, I noticed that about BB as well, but I don't let it detract from my enjoyment of that movie. I attribute that to 2 factors: 1) BB was Nolan's first action movie, and thus was a little inexperienced with that kind of editing, 2) the editing had to be done fast in the later scenes b/c if they had shown more of Bale fighting in the suit, it probably would have looked ridiculous as the suit was extremely cumbersome and difficult to move in; there probably could have been a better way to do it, but I'd gladly take the current version over Bale blundering about.

[MISFITS_Fiend]

I just noticed the posts about astigmatism. I have that as well; does this really make it harder to see shaky-cam scenes? That would explain a lot.

[quoth_the_raven]

Just picking up on the two main culprits mentioned- I followed the action in Bourne and Transformers just fine. My gf has astigmatism and she coped as well.

Just my tuppence.

[Tweek]

Astigmatism isn't my only vision problem. Heh. Should've said that before. Astigmatism + Retinitis Pigmentosa= Not a good mix for watching some movies.

[KcMsterpce]

Sure, I might have been able to "follow" the action in Ultimatum, but I ended up getting a headache from all the shifting and shaking going on.

I would have enjoyed those action scenes a LOT more if shit was slowed down. I actually haven't had my head hurt from motion sickness that much since I saw THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT on the biggest movie screen I'd ever been to... sitting kinda close... and I had 4 margaritas before watching it.

I'm not exaggerating, either.

I did like the movie, but I didn't like the blurry action.

So, yeah, I guess I'll have to be a part of "those fucking assholes on the IMDB whose opinion is different, so they're fuckfaces" on this one.

[quoth_the_raven]

You know KC, I didnt have any trouble with the motion in BWP...though that could have something to do with the fact that I dozed off part way through lol...

[Jim H]

Transformers has a bigger problem than Shaky Cam. It's edited and framed in a way where you literally can't see some of what is going on, especially towards the end.

[JCPhoenix]

Bourne Supremacy was impossible to see in theatres for me. The car chase sequence was a nightmare as I had no idea what was going on.

That said, on DVD/a smaller screen, you can actually see everything relatively well.

I had NO problems whatsoever following Bourne Ultimatum - and I was sitting in the front rows and thought I was gonna have a hard time (after my unpleasant experience with Supremacy). I think Greengrass toned it down just right for Ultimatum and that if people have any problems with it now, those problems will probably be gone when they watch it on DVD (shaky-cam works WAY better on a smaller screen which is also why it doesn't bother me much in Friday Night Lights (the show))