All hand-held in Bourne Ultimatum?
 

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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