Quote:
Bourne series - first one was by far better than #2. But not so much because of the story, but Doug Liman's direction. Paul Greengrass (#2 and upcoming #3) is a tool and should be shot for the near unwatchable camera shake he brought to the sequel.

We've talked about this before, but, IIRC, that camera shake you're talking about exists solely in the fight sequences. That camera shake makes them, by far, the most interesting fight scenes I've seen in years. I'm totally bored stiff by traditionally filmed fistfights. It's either an unrealistic depiction of martial artistry or it's a dull two-shot of brawling. I'm totally not interested in the fight. I'm interested in what the fight means to the characters, and that camera shake gave me something that psychologically put me in a similar state to the combatants, not knowing where punches were coming from, being surprised by events, etc. During normal fight sequences, I start thinking about my grocery list and waiting for it to be over. Those fight sequences left me enthralled and excited. Excellent filmmaking.

That said, I do hate arbitrary camera shakiness. It's one of the reasons I couldn't ever watch "NYPD Blue". But when it's used to actually provide something to the story, I think it works.

To put it in a different light, if The Third Man was filmed entirely in dutch angle (I know, you're thinking "it wasn't?"), it would be irritating, but since it's used to convey psychological information to the viewer on an almost subliminal level, it works.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk