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.

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/filmandvi...ssue/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.

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...