Austin Improv

For all the work that went into this film - and it is extremely well produced - the unending shaky cam makes it almost unwatchable. I was nauseous the entire afternoon and evening after seeing this film. Viewers be seriously warned.

And thus my comment is this: if you can make a movie that makes us believe there is a monster attacking New York, then in the same movie you can certainly make us believe that the latest consumer video cameras have a steady-cam like fluidity function to them.

troy wrote:For all the work that went into this film - and it is extremely well produced - the unending shaky cam makes it almost unwatchable. I was nauseous the entire afternoon and evening after seeing this film. Viewers be seriously warned.

And thus my comment is this: if you can make a movie that makes us believe there is a monster attacking New York, then in the same movie you can certainly make us believe that the latest consumer video cameras have a steady-cam like fluidity function to them.

I experienced absolutely no problem with that shaky style. In fact, i was charmed by it, and I preferred it.

troy wrote:For all the work that went into this film - and it is extremely well produced - the unending shaky cam makes it almost unwatchable. I was nauseous the entire afternoon and evening after seeing this film. Viewers be seriously warned.

And thus my comment is this: if you can make a movie that makes us believe there is a monster attacking New York, then in the same movie you can certainly make us believe that the latest consumer video cameras have a steady-cam like fluidity function to them.

Thanks for the warning about that. I really can't stand that. The last thing I want is to get motion sickness from a film.

Here's more public instances of "Cloverfield"-induced nausea:
http://www.koco.com/news/15112533/detail.html

The friend I saw the movie with didn't last more than 10 minutes and she had to run to the bathroom to hurl. While she was out there she saw about a dozen people coming in and out making trips to the bathroom to do the same thing. It didn't bother me in the least. Take some Dramamine if you're prone to motion sickness and you should be fine.

When I went to see "Borne Ultimatum" in the theater some girl in one of the front rows threw up.

But no one I went to Cloverfield with had any issues, I sort of forgot about the shaky camera pretty early on.

troy wrote:And thus my comment is this: if you can make a movie that makes us believe there is a monster attacking New York, then in the same movie you can certainly make us believe that the latest consumer video cameras have a steady-cam like fluidity function to them.

I find this comment peculiar. I imagine somebody reading Ulysses and saying to James Joyce, "If you can write that much insight into character, then you could certainly do us the favor of telling us exactly who's doing the talking after every shift in perspective."

It's an artistic choice.

vine311 wrote:The friend I saw the movie with didn't last more than 10 minutes and she had to run to the bathroom to hurl.

My friend had the same issue, but it was more due to being forced to endure the company of a "party" full of one-dimensional douchebags for so long before anything even marginally interesting happened.

I have a whole bagful of unkind things to say about the movie, but I'll keep them to myself until someone gets some beers in me, and lets out my inner Comic Book Guy.

It could have been so good, is the biggest shame.

But Marc, it's undeniably enjoyable, remember?

The Brigadier wrote: It's an artistic choice.

One that hurts the story, in my opinion.

Interesting that Bourne Ultimatum was mentioned because I think Greengrass has proven that you don't have to hand the camera over to a character to pull the audience into the action of the scene.

You can still shake the camera, you can still choose not to show it all, but once you let the camera become an active character, you have to hinder the story by making up lame excuses as to why the character is carrying this stupid camera.

Lants wrote:

The Brigadier wrote: It's an artistic choice.

One that hurts the story, in my opinion.

Interesting that Bourne Ultimatum was mentioned because I think Greengrass has proven that you don't have to hand the camera over to a character to pull the audience into the action of the scene.

You can still shake the camera, you can still choose not to show it all, but once you let the camera become an active character, you have to hinder the story by making up lame excuses as to why the character is carrying this stupid camera.

I like the shakiness in The Bourne Supremacy (fav of the Bournes), and in Breaking the Waves, and in Cloverfield. I don't like it in commercials, nor in that old popular cop show that is either still running or not. But yeah, Greengrass is terrific. I loved his 9/11 picture.

The realism of Children of Men and its hand-held camera views for the action sequences made me really nauseous...but I think all the gore and death had a lot to do with that too.

The Legend of Zelda, Twilight Princess, gave me motion sickness.

I think I'll pass on Cloverfield.

nadine wrote:The Legend of Zelda, Twilight Princess, gave me motion sickness.

I just thought it was lame that Link's fairy was toting around a camcorder for no good reason.

Okay, finally posted my (spoilerish) two cents about Cloverfield.