Captain Phillips - another film ruined by shakey-cam

Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,805
Forum Member
✭✭✭
saw this last night , its actually a pretty good story , very good acting etc. but its ruined by excessive use of shakey camera work .

I'm really sick of this now , Bourne 3 was bad , this is even worse , must be 95% of the film shot in this ridiculous style , by the second hour I was mighty sick of it .

it can be a useful technique for some scenes , but some filmmakers like Greengrass think that the whole film needs it .

rant over .
«13

Comments

  • Matt DMatt D Posts: 13,153
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I hate shaky-cam.

    I thought something was wrong with the projection when I saw Man of Steel, until I realised it was intentional shaky-cam :rolleyes:
  • mal2poolmal2pool Posts: 5,690
    Forum Member
    Looking forward to seeing it. Has a fivestar review on Digital spy. Looks good. Hope its not all shaky!
  • Armagideon TimeArmagideon Time Posts: 2,412
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Crikey, didn't know there was a film about Princess Anne's ex-husband!:D:D
  • MrSuperMrSuper Posts: 18,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Supposed to be a phenomenal film with the one of Hanks best ever performances. Can't wait to see this. A cert for multiple Oscar nominations.
  • VerenceVerence Posts: 104,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Some of the crew on the boat have taken issue with the portrayal of Richard Phillips

    http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/captain-phillips--heroism-denied-by-crew-070629510.html
  • Thunder LipsThunder Lips Posts: 1,660
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lucky me, I rarely even notice this thing that seems to get so many people upset.
  • D. MorganD. Morgan Posts: 4,166
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I have to agree about the shakey cam at the start of the film. It did make me feel quite nauseous - but once the ship was hijacked I completely forgot all about it and didn't notice it again.

    Excellent film BTW. Tom Hanks was brilliant.
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    Excellent film with bags of non-stop tension. Over two hours long but rightly so. Felt rather like you were watching it in real time.
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    saw this last night , its actually a pretty good story , very good acting etc. but its ruined by excessive use of shakey camera work .

    I'm really sick of this now , Bourne 3 was bad , this is even worse , must be 95% of the film shot in this ridiculous style , by the second hour I was mighty sick of it .

    it can be a useful technique for some scenes , but some filmmakers like Greengrass think that the whole film needs it .

    rant over .

    Posted my opinion of the film before reading the other comments. To be totally honest I never noticed any "shakey camera work".
  • Callum_BrownCallum_Brown Posts: 745
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm sure Paul Greengrass will take your comments on board. :yawn:
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    I'm sure Paul Greengrass will take your comments on board. :yawn:

    Have you been to see the actual film or is your comment based a 30 second scan of the YouTube trailer :confused:
  • Callum_BrownCallum_Brown Posts: 745
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    heiker wrote: »
    Have you been to see the actual film or is your comment based a 30 second scan of the YouTube trailer :confused:

    Of course I've seen the film, I went to a preview on Monday and loved it. The best film of the year so far IMO (ask me again once I've seen Gravity!), ★★★★★. As the majority of the film is shot in very confined and claustrophobic spaces, I felt the shakey-cam quite necessary.

    It's hardly as if Greengrass is shaking the camera during the landscape shots of the ship(s). Perhaps it's one of Greengrass' styles similar to Edgar Wright's quick edits. The Hunger Games was an example of how not to do it, yet I think Greengrass did it perfectly.

    I fully expect Hanks, Greengrass and the film itself to be nominated (and if not win) by BAFTA and the Academy.
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    Of course I've seen the film, I went to a preview on Monday and loved it. The best film of the year so far IMO (ask me again once I've seen Gravity!), ★★★★★. As the majority of the film is shot in very confined and claustrophobic spaces, I felt the shakey-cam quite necessary.

    It's hardly as if Greengrass is shaking the camera during the landscape shots of the ship(s). Perhaps it's one of Greengrass' styles similar to Edgar Wright's quick edits. The Hunger Games was an example of how not to do it, yet I think Greengrass did it perfectly.

    I fully expect Hanks, Greengrass and the film itself to be nominated (and if not win) by BAFTA and the Academy.

    Apologies...I thought you were trolling :o
  • Callum_BrownCallum_Brown Posts: 745
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    heiker wrote: »
    Apologies...I thought you were trolling :o

    Haha, I don't blame you! They're everywhere.
  • tom_domutoatom_domutoa Posts: 425
    Forum Member
    This was a film i wish i had not seen. The shaky camera work was deliberate and very very off putting. Its not that teh camera was shaky. it was on permanent zoom. the nostril hairs of Tom Hanks were more important to the film maker than anything else.

    If you saw Hunger Games....this movie is on teh same level.

    Ridiculous shaky camera on permanent zoom to heighten the shaky effect.

    Gave me a headache.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Just got back from this and was riveted by it, extremely tense and very good acting from everyone involved. I didn't find the shaky camera to be that bad, considering the close quarters setting of the film and the fact that it was set on a boat I actually thought it suited the film and made sense for the camera to be unsteady (and I saw it on an IMAX screen too, so if it had been bad I definitely would have noticed). The shaky camera on The Hunger Games was used to hide the violence and THAT was annoying, it was like they gave someone with Parkinson's the camera, Captain Phillips was nowhere near that bad (imo).
  • The SackThe Sack Posts: 10,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I was looking forward to this but if Greengrass hasn't got control of his shakes ill probably give it a miss.
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    The Sack wrote: »
    I was looking forward to this but if Greengrass hasn't got control of his shakes ill probably give it a miss.

    The girl I went with to see this film actually walked out of Hurt Locker because she claimed that the photography made her feel seasick. She didn't walk out of Captain Phillips !!!

    Go and see it...you won't regret it.
  • tom_domutoatom_domutoa Posts: 425
    Forum Member
    The Sack wrote: »
    I was looking forward to this but if Greengrass hasn't got control of his shakes ill probably give it a miss.


    If shakycam bothers you then this is one film you must avoid. i wish i was told about it before i went to the cinema.

    It may be better to watch it on DVD when released or online on torrent websites. They will be out in a couple of weeks at the latest.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,895
    Forum Member
    The documentary/verite style is a perfectly valid way to shoot such a film. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Captain Philips and the vast majority of cinema-goers who see this film won't have any problems with it.

    If you're one of those who simply don't have a preference for it then that's bad luck I guess.
  • Richard_TRichard_T Posts: 5,159
    Forum Member
    saw this at the weekend - never noticed any excessive shaky cam
  • CBFreakCBFreak Posts: 28,602
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The only time shaky cam ever worked was on NYPD Blue and Cloverfield
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    roger_50 wrote: »
    The documentary/verite style is a perfectly valid way to shoot such a film. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Captain Philips and the vast majority of cinema-goers who see this film won't have any problems with it.

    If you're one of those who simply don't have a preference for it then that's bad luck I guess.

    Exactly. I find excessive use of handheld cameras annoying but the technique is perfectly valid in this film. There's some good acting in Captain Phillips and Greengrass does his best to ramp up the tension but for some reason I found the film curiously unexciting and less than convincing.

    There's an unintentionally funny moment at the end where the medic treating Phillips says (and I swear I heard it) 'Hello, I will be your medic for this evening' just as if she were a waitress.:D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 288
    Forum Member
    I didn't notice the 'shakey cam' at all. I was totally engrossed in the film.
  • LojenLojen Posts: 1,009
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Verence wrote: »
    Some of the crew on the boat have taken issue with the portrayal of Richard Phillips

    http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/captain-phillips--heroism-denied-by-crew-070629510.html

    You know what, I really couldn't care less. I pretty much dismiss the accuracy of any film claimed to be "based on a true story" from the outset.

    These films never turn out to be very close to the truth, if there even is a truth in the first place, and as long as you go to see them with that attitude you will avoid disappointment later on.

    Cpt Philips stands on its own as a decent movie, and it's accuracy, or lack thereof is an utter irrelevance to me :)

    Edit - Oh yeah and I didn't really notice the shaky cam, but generally its use doesn't bother me.
Sign In or Register to comment.