Looks like thru the whole movie, the camera is shaky all the time. I know it might not be actual hand held cameras that were shooting, could be simulated shakiness, but the result is the same.
My wife said it made her dizzy....
so I wonder: is it really a new trend to shoot action movies?

She's not alone - I can't stand it either. Maybe I'm too old to this new stuff... "24" for example (to me) would be a good drama if they would not film it the same way...

Yes, it seems to be the new way of trying to make you feel like "you're right there", part of the action. Everything seems to speed up around us, from transportation to music, to movies, and so on. The man of this 21st century wants exitement, more and more of it... it's like drugs. We're probably not too far from what a movie pictured a while back (I forgot the name), sort of a reality show where people were killing each other for real and a TV crew was filming them.

These are the "new kids on the block"... oh well, I'm really getting old I think...

We're probably not too far from what a movie pictured a while back (I forgot the name), sort of a reality show where people were killing each other for real and a TV crew was filming them.

You're probably thinking of Series 7: The Contenders. Not to get sidetracked, but if anyone gets the chance to see the movie, do it.

For me, the shaky camera wasn't as much of a problem as the quick edited. For example, in the one fight scene involving Damon, Julia Stiles, and the character whose name escapes me at the moment, it was near impossible to absorb who was attacking who, blocking what, etc. It was just a series of close ups on body parts with cuts every five frames.

It's funny. My parents said the same thing but I love the way Bourne is filmed and have not problem whatsoever following the fight scenes. For all movies this wouldn't be a good choice, but the style through all three films has been the same and I love it.

even the static scenes are shaky, when 2 people are talking, the camera shakes like an amateurish shot. Does that mean we are going to dump our tripods in trash pretty soon? :-)

But dont get me wrong, i love this movie, and I will try to do this style when time comes

The "technique" works for some movies and it has it's place. Couldn't imagine "Saving Private Ryan" shot entirely from sticks. It would have had a completely different feel if it was. I am a fan of the Bourne movies, I like the way they are shot and edited, it's a welcomed change of pace.

I am a fan of the Bourne movies, I like the way they are shot and edited, it's a welcomed change of pace.

You sure are a fan, they are YOUR movies... or are they not?

:)

LOL...Like I haven't heard that before...Grocery store...Best Buy...pretty much anywhere I show ID. OK so I'm a "little" biased. Admit it, they are entertaining movies. The Ironic thing is my sister-in-law is friends with his wife Luciana. So yes I do have the Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of seperation.

LOL...Like I haven't heard that before...Grocery store...Best Buy...pretty much anywhere I show ID. OK so I'm a "little" biased. Admit it, they are entertaining movies.
I never said they are boring, and I never said I'm not watching this kind of movies or TV series. The "handheld style", as you said, is welcome as long as it's in line with the style of the whole movie... it's just not my style. But again, I'm probably the age of your parents...

Well I'm 37, so I'm not sure if you're that old. Obviously you get my point. It can be overwhelming, just like "24." There was a recent cop show on ABC, can't remember the name, that did the camera movement in just about every shot, but I found it was moving for the sake of moving. Kind of annoying actually.

OK, I'm a bit younger than your parents... I'm 48. And yes, I share your point of view, we're on the same page: it wouldn't be appropriate to film a police chase off of tripods, or to film a royal wedding in a solemn Catholic cathedral using handheld small/shaky cameras.

Just to add my 2 cents... I got there late and had to watch from the front row. With all the shaky camera work, I had to close my eyes a lot to keep from getting dizzy. Maybe if I'd been further back I would've liked it better. Anyway, I want to see it again, on the small screen when the DVD comes out. Until then, I'm withholding judgement.

Mark

You're probably thinking of Series 7: The Contenders. Not to get sidetracked, but if anyone gets the chance to see the movie, do it.

For me, the shaky camera wasn't as much of a problem as the quick edited. For example, in the one fight scene involving Damon, Julia Stiles, and the character whose name escapes me at the moment, it was near impossible to absorb who was attacking who, blocking what, etc. It was just a series of close ups on body parts with cuts every five frames.

I'm with you. I got used to the shaky cam, but did not like the fight scene edits. I have to disagree that they were the same in the preceeding films, these were cut tighter and faster, and there was less focus on the body movements as a whole, and more on the joints, elbow, shoulder etc in tighter CU. I prefer a wider shot where I can admire the artistry of both the martial and filmic aspects.

By squinting during one sequence I was able to isolate a mid-chest, shoulder, jacket, shirt CU that cut to lower body motion. Between the motion blur, CU and fast cuts, we were practically looking at the outtakes from it's predecessor. Not a hand or face in sight.

On the other hand, I really liked the film, and the others in the series. Reminds me of a more active, up-tempo Jack Ryan, thinking approach, contrasted with the cartoonish Bond and MI flicks, though Bond took a good turn in the last version. Minor carping, major enjoyment.

iPaul

You know it's sad because the first Bourne movie had such great choreography within static shots. It was such a wondeful way to show how dangerous Bourne is. Can't for the life of me why they would abandon that for the nauseating quick moves/ fast edits routine.

On the other hand I really enjoyed this third movie.

Well I'm 37, so I'm not sure if you're that old. Obviously you get my point. There was a recent cop show on ABC, can't remember the name, that did the camera movement in just about every shot, but I found it was moving for the sake of moving. Kind of annoying actually.

First let me say I have a kid that's older than you so I could be your father-SON Get off that damned computer NOW!!!! ;-)


The program you refer to was NYPD Blue and after a while the camera movement did get annoying, so I always remind myself when shooting a job, 'No NYPD Blue swish pans!'

Son get off the computer, you mother needs to use it!!!!! ;-O
Don

LOL...Thanks I couldn't remember NYPD Blue. BTW, you're close it's not my mom yelling at me to get off the computer, it's my other mom (wife).

All 3 movies are good and I like the fact that they tried something diffrerent with the 3rd one. It gives us all something to talk about.

so I wonder: is it really a new trend to shoot action movies?
I think it is, I've seen more action packed movies which look like they have been shot with small handycams. As long as it doesn"t start to get annoying (Like with NYPD Blue or 24) I can live with it.

It is all subjective; I personally find the camera work on 24 to be masterful and unmatched by any other show on television. I'm not a fan of the way the camera work was performed on Bourne movies two and three (I still love the movies, though) but I think that 24 is excellent.

I think it's a very cheap way to shoot action films. I guess the shaky camera style is to make it look intense... but in my mind it looks like trash. I would preffer to actually see whats going on instead of a blur of hands and feet and cell phone clacking. Yeah yeah, let filmmakers explore other means of presenting ideas, but shaky camera technique isn't exactly new. Just look at the hundreds of cheap action films over the past decade, chances are 70% will use this 'shaky camera' technique during an action sequence.

This is why films like 'House of the Flying Daggers', '300', 'Kill Bill V1 & 2' and 'the Matrix' are so sucessful. They actually show what is going on, smoothly and precisely. Even in slow motion, so you can see that the action taking place is actually happening, not a blur of random stuff.

I totally dislike this 'new age' filmmaking technique and will avoid at all costs in my own films.

That said, I still enjoyed the film. Even if it was confusing, and if I remember, much much more fast paced than the first one.

I'd rather see more 300 style action.. slow motion is better then a mass blurr of fast cuts... sometimes it makes sense, other times it's annoying... I haven't seen ultimatum yet though, so I'll find out soon enough...

I'm interested to see how Ultimatum turned out. I quite enjoyed the first film, but after seeing the second one (Supremacy?) I walked out of the theatre with a headache and without actually knowing how the film ended - it's the only time I can think of that watching a movie has actually affected me physically (and I was only 18 at the time so I don't think age has anything to do with it!).

I read in a review that they've toned down the shakiness a bit for Ultimatum, I certainly hope so, because I'm not sitting through a movie that gives me headache again.

I'm interested to see how Ultimatum turned out. I quite enjoyed the first film, but after seeing the second one (Supremacy?) I walked out of the theatre with a headache and without actually knowing how the film ended - it's the only time I can think of that watching a movie has actually affected me physically (and I was only 18 at the time so I don't think age has anything to do with it!).

I read in a review that they've toned down the shakiness a bit for Ultimatum, I certainly hope so, because I'm not sitting through a movie that gives me headache again.

OOOH, take your seasick and headache medicine before you go see it. It's worse! Saw some people.walk out.

Mike

Believe it or not, that "shakey footage" was shot by a very
experienced steadicam operator. John Stewart had Matt Damon
on his show and Matt referred to their steadicam operator's work
being panned by the critics.

Like most things in the movies, it is harder than it looks.

Believe it or not, that "shakey footage" was shot by a very
experienced steadicam operator. John Stewart had Matt Damon
on his show and Matt referred to their steadicam operator's work
being panned by the critics.

Like most things in the movies, it is harder than it looks.

I Never said that it was not what they intended, I'm sure it was. But, way overdone and if it was steadicam it must really be hard to shake it up that much. I guess you could just violate all the steadicam laws and just grab the camera.

M

I just don't understand why they take it so over the top in the Bourne films. Children of Men was shot entirely hand-held/steadicam and that worked brilliantly, you felt part of the action but were never made dizzy by it.

From a younger perspective (age 24) I really enjoy the Bourne movies, but the aforementioned quick edits/shaky cam made this last installment very hard to watch. Someone mentioned the fight scene between Bourne and Desh - the camera was no further than six inches from the actors the whole time so I could never tell what was going on outside of sounds of punching, kicking, breaking glass, and grunting.

Also, the editor seemed to be trying to outdo Michael Bay in record cuts per scene average.

This was by far the hardest movie on the eyes I've ever seen. And that's including Big Momma's House.

But of course, that is for an entirely different reason.

I just don't understand why they take it so over the top in the Bourne films. Children of Men was shot entirely hand-held/steadicam and that worked brilliantly, you felt part of the action but were never made dizzy by it.

I guess that's what I'm really trying to say - I don't mind the technique except in cases like this when it serves only to draw attention to itself.

Audience members should be leaving the theater talking about the movie's story or its characters, not "MY EYES! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!"

I coined the phrased "mechnique" for "mechanical techniuqe" ... when something is done cause it was done before. I first used it for music videos where it seemed every shot was black and white and in the rain no matter what the song was about.

Sam Peckinpah mastered the use of slo mo in action scenes to give us an extra moment to absorb what that violence actually just did to someone ... then it got ridiculous. Every movie had slo mo fight scenes even when they made no sense. Even Sam reverted to mechnique in movies like Osterman Weekend.

Same is true of quick cuts, hand held etc. Loved the first Bourne movie and enjoyed the second (mostly cause I thought Damon's performance was outstanding) and haven't checked out the new one. I like 24's look as well but man, there is mechnique of that all over the place ... there was some cop show about a special unit chasing down federal warrants that was so jerky and sloppily cut I never had an idea what the story was ... seemed to be 45 minutes of ECUs of rolling eyes, pumping legs and fists slamming into faces

When I see really tight shots in a fight sequence, makes me think some actor isn't up to the choreography ... so they shoot the stunt person in close up. David Carridine's fight scenes are shot like that (or from about a mile away) cause the man can't fight. Tony Jaa is usually framed wide so we can see what the man can do.

Don't worry, when the Bourne style becomes mechnique, someone will come up with something new. Just as Bourne and Ronin were the answer to schlocky Bond films, someone will shake the box and come up with something new

I understnad the concept - shaky to give an "edge" -- nothing is stable and the super closeup's of fists and feet and cars wrecking, but it left me wanting a little wider shot periodically as you lacked an appreciation for the space they were occupying and perhaps the reactions of others drawn into the scene, such as spectators. It was sometimes like standing too close to a painting.

Overall the best of the series though, great storyline.

Someonw I know said more or less the same thing aobut Bourne Ultimatum -overboard witrh shaky cam "docu" style. This is just a report i have got from a film enthusiast. And that is the important thing - he is a guy-off-the-street but witrh an avid interest in film etc.

So my conclusion (without yet, i admit having seen the Bourne.Ultimatam) is that the high amount of cam shake does apparently annoy some people.

I was very thankful for a reviewer who mentioned the shakiness factor in a review we read just as we were about to go see the movie. For me, it actually makes me feel really sick, and I decided not to go see the movie at all. Interesting that someone mentioned how it worked in "Saving Private Ryan". It made me queazy in that movie too, and I hated it, but was fine watching it on DVD, and really enjoyed the movie second time round.

Thing of it is, I feel the whole prinicipal is wrong. The idea with the shakiness is to make you feel like you are right there, running along with the action or whatever. But when you run, your eyes act much more like a steadi-cam, not a hand held camera. Your vision doesn't go wild and blurry just because you are running or your head is moving. But I should qualify all this by saying that the motion thing REALLY hits me hard, so I am probably ultra biased against it.

Well, one advantage to it isn't specifically making you feel like you are there, but that the whole frame is integrated. Having the world spin around you and, especially, any FX elements blend, it makes the whole location feel more realistic than just flat shots.
It's not so much that you feel as if the camera acts as your eyes, but that it simply must exist, with such integration.

it makes the whole location feel more realistic than just flat shots.


Good point, I agree, and I think that's probably exactly what they were aiming for in "Saving Private Ryan".

I enjoyed the filming style. It doesn't look at all like simple handheld video to me. It has an interesting combination of stills and strobes with movement and blurs. I liked the intensity, and I didn't feel seasick at all.

If you or someone you know manufactures paper shredders, perhaps you would like to sponsor this story on cutting "The Bourne Ultimatum":

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/8546.html

One of the subheadings is "Watching Movies from the Third Row." Perhaps the whole point of Bourne Ultimatum (there was no plot or character or milieu, etc. etc. etc.) was to give a 3rd row experience to the back row, like it or not.

(I haven't read the article yet. I'm afraid it will bring back tragic memories leading to nightmares.)

I saw the film again recently, and although its all moving, it's not all handheld - theres a lot of tracking shots and some crane shots, not to mention helecopter shots. But the thing I really noticed was how the sound design made it all hold together. For example, there's one bit where Bourne steals the keys to a scooter by bumping into a man and grabbing them from his hand. If there hadn't been the tinkle noise of a bunch of keys on the soundtrack, I wouldn't have known what just happened. It might be interesting to watch the film with the sound off, and see if you can understand what's going on then...

Bourne Supremacy I thought was very bad in the shaking departments. The fight in the house was horrible. Handheld action shots can be done right, but that was definitely not.

I mean, just compare the hand-held shaking in Saving Private Ryan to the mess that is Bourne Supremacy. There's a huge difference.

I found Cronenberg's take on violence in Bourne vs. his film Eastern Promises interesting ... very similar to the first Bourne movie with the wider static shots.“I knew I wasn’t going to do ‘Bourne Ultimatum’-type quick-cutting where you don’t really see anything,” ... “I used relatively wide lenses to see a lot of the bathhouse. I wanted to see full bodies, and it couldn’t be impressionistic, but linear." (click here for full article at NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/movies/16onst.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fCronenberg%2c%20David&oref=slogin))

Bourne Supremacy I thought was very bad in the shaking departments. The fight in the house was horrible. Handheld action shots can be done right, but that was definitely not.

That's funny, I thought it was one of the best fight scences I have ever seen on film. It was about half way through and I actually realised I was struggling for breath, maybe it was my brain trying to make some sense of what it was seeing.

I finally got out and saw it a few days ago. I sat in the 4th row knowing
that I would be enveloped by "shakey stedicam".
That fight scene was great imo and I too found myself a tensed up
and as if I were in that room with them.

Whenever one pushes the envelope, and the shakey POV
was really pushed in this movie, there will be
many who will hate it and others who will appreciate it.

My hat is off to the whole team who took a big chance on B.U.
knowing there would be blowback.

I saw Bourne Ultimatum last week and, whilst i realise why they did the shake-thing for the film, and i was expecting it (someone else commented on it before i went), i DID think that they overdid that effect and that, in my opinion, detracted a little from the film.

I'm not against the "documentary - youre there - shaky cam thing" per se, just that they went overboard with it.

My suspicion is that the director of the film (Paul Greengrass i think) is a Steve Soderbergh fan and liked 'Traffic' (Soderburgh shot ALL the camerawork in that film himself, handheld, as well as directing).

But in Traffic, i dont think Soderbergh *tried* to add in extra shake but clearly in Bourne Ult. they did.

Well finally yesterday I saw the third Bourne and did I like it? Don't know really what to think of it. It took me a while to get used to the overdone shaking in the beginning of the movie, I found the shakiness in the scenes were nothing really happened extremely annoying, especially because you would read the subtitles (We do have that in Belgium) and your eyes have to go back to the screen each time. It was like reading a book on a boat which was in a big storm.
Take the scene were Bourne meets the brother (I think it was her brother) of his girlfriend, they were having a simple chat and both were standing absolutely still but the camera was all over the place, just hated that.
But when it came to the action scenes I was really at the edge of my seat, especially the fighting scenes, even if you allmost couldn't see what was going on, were breathtaking.
Some scene's were also cut too fast to different camera angles, I somethimes felt like looking to a videoclip at MTV.

Bourne identity however is for me still the best of all 3 and I still remember the fightscene with that blonde guy (with the pen sticking in his hand) as if I saw the movie last week and I'm sure the fight scenes in Bourne 3 will be forgotten very soon...