Open Forum Friday: Is Shaky Cam Good or Bad for Action Movies?
With so many recent action movies striving for a sense of realism and intensity, we are seeing more and more directors attempting to use handheld and erratic camera movement as a way to inject energy into their scenes. When used skillfully and/or sparingly this can be very effective, but the downside is that it has been known to induce nausea and motion sickness in some viewers (Cloverfield). It is also sometimes used as a crutch when a director wants to hide poor special effects or a lack of fight choreography.
While this current trend is probably a direct result of the success of The Bourne Trilogy, the idea of replicating a documentary feel within fictional films is not particularly new. What is somewhat new, however, is the sudden wave of criticism coming from moviegoers who now automatically assume that all handheld camera work is a sign of bad filmmaking. Surely there are certain situations where it is appropriate, and certain directors who are adept enough to utilize it properly? What do you think… is shaky camera work always a bad thing? Does handheld camera movement add to the action or is it simply too chaotic to appreciate? Which movies have used it well, and which ones have used it poorly? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (62)
In the case of Bourne series i give thumbs up especially in the first one..
At the third part …maybe they overdone it a little..
From the other hand shaky cam in movies like ”Friday Night Lights” i don’t like..
When you re having just simple conversations why the fuck shake the fucking camera..?
its like the director its trying to steel the attention from the actors..
Posted by Kyriacos on July 3rd, 2009If done right, it’s okay (rare).
If done wrong, it’s horrible.
Posted by Dom_G on July 3rd, 2009Just finished Children of Men. That tracking shot was good at the end, made you feel like you were in “the shit”.
I thought Cloverfield was really good. Some people just like to complain.
REC was great. Much better than Cloverfield. I felt it worked more for the horror, but at some point you want to say, “Put down the fucking camera and run!”
Posted by David Wilson on July 3rd, 2009Yes and no.
It really depends on how much the camera is shaking and during what part. Like Kyriacos said, you don’t want a shaky camera during simple conversations. However, if the conversation isn’t necessarily simple (meaning it’s intense dialogue), feel free to with a steady cam so that the shake still isn’t taking too much for the scene (this is still dependent on the nature of the dialogue).
With an explosion, I say go for it. Just make sure your timing isn’t off.
During chase scenes, it can work, as well. Just don’t overdo it. Leave most of the work in a chase scene to the editor. As far as the camera is concerned in this type of scene, get a lot of different angles and keep the shots short. This way the editor can make the chase seem as intense as you want it with quick cuts.
All-in-all, a shaky camera is really a call for the filmmaker. There are far too many variables to say whether or not camera shake is good or bad. Use your best judgment. It may take a while to really get the hang of it.
Posted by Sean on July 3rd, 2009Mainly no, but when it’s done right it’s absolutely awesome.
Posted by Mitch on July 3rd, 2009To put a spin on it, I hate when no budget filmmakers try to capture the feel of a big movie, by sticking their mini dv/hd cam on a dolly or on a jig! Instantly it looks cheap and nasty. It should be handheld for most no budget stories.
So in a way, sometimes big films can be a bit annoying in the same way, as they try to create that doc no budget feel when they have a $100m.
On a whole, if it all makes sense in the script, I don’t mind either way. But you can tell the people that shoot in a certain style to feed the story, and others because they really have no clue about how to use a camera to enhance a movie.
I have to admit, I did like when speilberg used some amatuer cameramen for private ryan opening scene. I used a student to shoot my latest movie, simply because it was meant to be a student shooting it.
Romero said he wanted to use students for “diary of the dead” to get the raw feel. I think he should have, because it was too produced for my liking.
David
Posted by david on July 3rd, 2009Shaky cam is like shooting a gun; everyone can do it, but only a scant few know when they’re on target.
Posted by Ryan M. on July 3rd, 2009It’s like anything else in Hollywood. Someone tries something succesfully, the rest of Hollywood beats that idea into the ground long after the public is sick of it.
Posted by Travis on July 3rd, 2009Shaky cam is ok in the right situations, and when its use is rare. Now every action movie tries for the Bourne look and it is way overdone.
Paul Greengrass is definitely the best at it. His Bourne sequels and Bloody Sunday and United 93 are the four best examples of handheld camera work done right and justify the style’s existence. I think he’s the only one who can pull it off for an entire movie though. Everyone else should use it sparingly.
Posted by Nate on July 3rd, 2009No, it’s always awful IMO. Even in something like the Lord of the Rings movies, I think the combat scenes would be a lot better if you could actually tell what was going on.
Posted by Ben on July 3rd, 2009It would be at least interesting, only in the hand of good director.
The most recent one is HURT LOCKER, totally take you into the field
Posted by Xu on July 3rd, 2009Depends on the movie and the way the rest of the narrative, etc. are structured.
Posted by Ian on July 3rd, 2009As long as you know what is going on I am fine with the shaky cam just sprinkled in. It is best when it is used to just enhance a part of a scene. Do not shake the cam every time there is action. No different than a guitar player… If they shake the wham bar for the whole tune it gets annoying and you loose the tune they are playing but if they choose the right spot to use it enhances the tune. It is really a matter of finding the right spot to use it with out losing the feel of the tune. I feel the last Bond film did hit the wham bar (Shaky Cam) a little too long for my tastes. Sorry for the music analogy but that is the best way I can explain it.
Posted by Big Hungry on July 3rd, 2009I think Shaky cam is fine as long as it is used sparingly, and has a motivation behind it. one Shaky cam moment i always loved is the scene in seven, where Morgan Freeman is running towards brad pitt after he sees the head in the box. it’s not overdone and puts the viewer right in the scene with the characters. however I agree that these days it is overused.
Posted by Joe C on July 3rd, 2009Maybe a little less shaky cam just so the Steadicam operators don’t go out of work! They got a tough job running around with that rig on them and to think that all that long work that went into developing a no-shake camera system is now all for nought! But really, the shaky cam works if it replicates the experience of the actors on the screen and makes the audience feel it. So if a guy is running fast and frantic, the camera should match. In fact during a chase scene, have the camera fall down and get back up and run as if it’s in a documentary.
Posted by Maopheus on July 4th, 2009Shaky Cam doesn’t bother me as much as it does others.
Posted by Matt Keith on July 4th, 2009No, Shaky-Cam is absolutely awful, and dare I say it, it’s practically killed the modern action movie.
Posted by bullet3 on July 4th, 2009What the fuck happened to showing us the stunt/action/awesome moment? Shaking things around just confuses and takes you out of it. Look at the great Arnie movies, imagine how fucking lame and annoying they’d be if the camera was shaking so much. It’s ridiculous that no-body even seems to remember how to make a good 80’s style action movie anymore (I’m looking at you WWE films). People keep bringing up children of men, but that was the opposite of shaky-cam. Yes the camera was right there, but it was steady-cam and kind of just glided along with the action, giving you a good clean look (hell, the car scene, it was completely stable, just slowly turning 360 degrees). Actually, the last action scene that really kicked my ass was the shootout in The International, which didn’t have any of that shaky bullshit, instead giving you clear geography, and drawing you into the scene through Clive Owen’s scared as fuck performance instead of the camera moving frantically. The movie isn’t great, but action fans should seek it out for that sequence. Sorry for the rant, but this has been pissing me off a lot lately.
The best use of shaky-can is in the Southpark episode “Pandemic” in which they spoof Cloverfield’s overuse of the “shaky-cam”
It’s laugh out loud hilarious, like most Southpark epidsodes.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on July 4th, 2009okay i’m not the biggest fan of this technique. apart from some of the unique shots that can be captured with the shaky cam, i really don’t like the idea. it’s too chaotic and at points, especially if not done properly, the viewer might get lost without having any idea of what’s happening in the screen. i also think it’s lazy of some directors do just shot an action scene in shaky cam and thus the exploiting the technique.
however, if it’s done in the right way and under the right situation (i.e. if the story demands it) then only it’s use can give us something good.
Posted by modesilver on July 5th, 2009I enjoyed the amount of SHAKY CAM in the remake of “The Hills Have Eyes”.
Posted by Tomas on July 5th, 2009Shaky Cam ruined the last two Bourne movies for me.
Posted by Jeff on July 5th, 2009I had no interest in seeing Bourne Identity when it came out.
Posted by bickle on July 5th, 2009I saw the trailer for Bourne Supremacy and thought it looked like “the Shield” which I love.
I rented the BI and loved it. I love the entire trilogy. I have to admit, it was the shooting style that drew me to the Bourne series…but it in conjunction with the writing and editing, made an awesome bunch of flicks.
shaky cam can be used as a crutch though.
as experienced movie buffs, I think we can easily pick out the best uses for it.
There’s a difference between “just shaking the camera” to hide ineptitude and controlled chaos which is what the Bourne movies are.
Posted by Glendon on July 5th, 2009I forget what I just saw recently where a bunch of people were sitting in a conference room talking about something and the camera was jiggling ALL OVER THE FUCKING PLACE. I mean, COME ON. People are discussing something! IT ISN’T THAT EPIC. Shaky Cam (I really hate that term, too) should be used in very specific moments. I don’t really see the need to slap it into any scene, no matter how dry or bland the action. Making it seem like we’re on a swaying ship won’t help poor dialogue, subpar acting, or bad direction.
I also hate how in my Camera Operating class we had a brief lecture on it. I don’t think it should be this staple in cinematography. :\
Posted by Falsk on July 5th, 2009It’s a technique that’s suddenly appeared almost everywhere and it’s become a little jarring in certain films. But I usually don’t have an issue with it if used correctly. I really liked it when used in Public Enemies for example, but much of that is down to the unusual choice of shots that Mann uses.
One of my new fave films cloverfield would be horrible if done in any other way.
I have seen it done very badly in films but I cannot for the life of me remember any examples.
Posted by Byron on July 6th, 2009it all depends on the movie. Just because it was good for borne, cloverfield, blair witch etc….does not mean it is good for every movie. i.e. casino royale, and quantum of solice.
Personally I think it’s annoying. fast action sequences where you can’t tell what’s happening and who’s hitting who. It’s all over the place and hard to follow. I could do with out it.
but again, i guess it’s what some movies need. I just wish they would quit it with bond. Bond is not supposed to be borne. end of story
Posted by Rick on July 6th, 2009I couldn’t stand the fight scenes in Batman Begins… the camera was a little shaky, but the really bad thing was that the camera was zoomed in and all you saw was arms and legs thrashing about. The actual fighting looked good on the zoomed out ‘making of’ feature, so why did they have to ruin it, they could have achieved the same effect by zooming in on two high school kids having a brawl.
Posted by Duke Togo on July 6th, 2009Please Stop Shaking the god damned camera!!!
For me, it goes beyond style or story or budget concerns. Shakey Cam is KILLING my movie experience for one simple reason: it makes me physically sick!
And I love movies. I love horror (no REC), action (Bourne, et al), and really all good movies. Yet I can not go to the theater and enjoy myself. Half-an-hour in I start to wonder why I am so unhappy about the movie. My skin is all wet and I can’t sit still. And ten minutes later I am about to hurl on the floor.
Please please! Directors everywhere, just tell the damn story without all the shaking!
Posted by ShakytheClown on July 8th, 2009Falsk that board room scene that you mention, I’m pretty sure you’re thinking of Hancock, near the beginning when Jason Bateman pitches his logo to a company. By the time I saw Hancock I already hated Shakey Cam with an undying passion, but that one scene nearly made me get up and leave the theater.
One guy standing, pitching an idea to a bunch of seated businessmen and the Director has decided that this should involve the screen bobbing up and down, and the camera zooming in and out as Bateman talked. It’s not like there was (nor meant to be) any drama in that scene.
Sometimes people try to convince me that Shakey Cam makes it more realistic, but I don’t buy that excuse. If I go jump on a tramp-o-line, my field of vision doesn’t match a shakey cam clip from a movie, because your vision stays stable.
Posted by Phlux on July 9th, 2009This looks cool so far, what’s up people?
If there’s anyone else here, let me know.
Oh, and yes I’m a real person LOL.
See ya,
Posted by BlueHornet on July 17th, 2009I find shakey Cam the absolute worst thing from the movies ever. It disturbes me and I cannot stay in the movie no matter what kind of scene. I hope this horrible trent stops very soon again. Luckely I hear more people complain.
Posted by Jan Valk on August 6th, 2009After reading reviews and watching trailers on my PC, I was psyched about seeing The Hurt Locker, which turned out to be another shaky movie. What the hay? I didn’t remember the trailers as being shaky. Oh wait, the trailers I saw on my PC was probably no more that 6 inches across and the shaky cam seemed negligible. However, on the giant theater screen, even the tiniest shakes in the camera is noticed by the eyes, which then automatically work with the brain to smooth out the image. The key word is work. Thirty seconds into a shaky scene and my eyes needed to rest and the only way to take a break is to close my eyes for a while. Wait a minute. I am not going to close my eyes for an extended time at a movie, at something I wanted to see and paid to see. So I toughed it out, all the while wishing the camera would stop from almost constantly shaking, panning, zooming, and I left the theater with a big headache. Shaky cam hurt The Hurt Locker. This is a movie I would have watched multiple times and then buy the Blu-ray when it’s released.
Posted by siwallace martin on August 7th, 2009The Shakycam plague gives me the resolve I need to resist paying $9.50 at the theater. If a new movie’s reviews mention any shakycam at all, I just wait until it’s free on cable, record it to DVR, and fast-forward thru the shaky parts and the commercials too. Zero revenue for the Shaky-ShitHead Director: customer satisfaction guaranteed.
Posted by Dave Andersen on August 9th, 2009Adobe has software to eliminate Shakycam: see http://videosift.com/video/New-technique-to-make-shaky-cam-videos-stable. What we need is to unshake every new shakyfilm and post the “Unshaken Version” on filesharing networks so the Shaky-Shithead Director gets deprived of income. They may be stupid but they’ll get the message eventually: “Shake This, Mr. ShakyCam Shithead Director.”
Sign online petition at
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-the-shaky-cam
If, this trent of shaky cam movements don’t go away. (I hate it with all my guts!!!) It would be a great idea to rate a move fore its intensety and frequency of cam movements Like the PG , R ratings. A movie like the Kingdom, cloverfield , Hankock and now District 9 for that matter…rated PN what stands for: rated Puking and/ or nausea.
Posted by Fernando Luidens on August 15th, 2009This all started with that dam movie the blair wihch project if you ask me….
Today, I walked out of District 9 after 45 minutes. I was seated in the 3rd row and the shaky cam was making me nauseous. It didn’t help that it was shaky cam of some nasty looking ‘prawns’.
It’s one thing to use this technique in specific instances to heighten a scene’s intensity. But, I can’t sit through hours of it.
Posted by Mike on August 29th, 2009I’m not bothered by “shaky cam” and I think it helps in some movies. When I first heard of people getting sick watching The Blair Witch Project I had to laugh.
Posted by Tomas on August 30th, 2009Shaky cam ruined what otherwise appeared to be the best action/fight sequencing ever performed: the Bourne trilogy. The shaky cam absolutely ruined those fights scenes, absolutely reuined them.
Posted by Will on September 9th, 2009Shaky cam and rapid zoom is the worst thing that could happen to a movie.
Look at the new “Star Trek”. They used it there at every 2nd scene and even forgot to switch it off in steady scenes, like the one where in the pub there is a fight, and then an interview, eveyone is sitting, but the camera goes crazy.
Look at “District 9″. Totally ruined the film. I also had to go out of the room to empty my stomack, although I were surprized by the one scene where the camera was fixed to the gun. that was a good idea. the rest was just bad.
Look at “I am legend”. Total disaster. If he is alone, then who the hell can carry that stupid camera??? then why is it shaking???
I think that I am not alone. 10% of the Sci-Fi and Fi fans are afraid to go to the movies because of this stupid camera shaking trend of hollywood. I gave it a try, and it made me physically sick for days.
Shaking is OK if it is used _very_ conservatively.
Normally the human eye stabilizes in 2 dimensions and also via turning the eyeball!! it always focusses on something even in fights. the human brain normally can only cope with stabilized scenes.
On 3D computer shooter games there is a big red “Warning!” stating that the movemen can cause illness and epilepsia etc. So why dont they do it on these movies? I insist on it!!!!
Posted by Asteri_x on September 15th, 2009I turn off all shaky-cam movies now. First five minutes of the movie if the camera is shaking like some voyeur with Parkinson’s I just switch off the movie and send it back to Netflix with a 1 star rating. Why even put movies in high definition if you’re going to make it look like it’s shot by somebody having a seizure? I hate Hollywood more and more each year.
Posted by JP on October 2nd, 2009there needs to be a shaky cam warning website. i truly love cinema, but i will never ever again knowingly pay money for a film using this tired, cheap, and nauseating tactic.
Posted by rowdy on October 10th, 2009Personally, I’m over shaky cam. I think it ruined Transformers : Revenge of the fallen, espcially in a theatre – it also ruined Gamer. It’s rarely ever done right, how can nausea ever be done right. Eeew, fuck you shaky cam! Fuck you hard!
Posted by Phrakture on November 6th, 2009No no no! I for one absolutely hate shaky-cam for any reason. The only examples where it is just about justified are things like Saving Private Ryan in the battle sequence at the begining- but then I stress it -get’s away with it- I didn’t like it. Used at all is too much IMHO, but used to hide bad fight choriography (Batman Begins) is shameful. I watched Cloverfield in short bursts on DVD because I hated the camera work (aside from the syrupy love plot to glue it together). I just whish this fad for artificially making films look ‘real’ will blow over.
Posted by Mat on November 9th, 2009I don’t think it is just shaky cam that people are reacting to. I think it is shaky cam combined combined with ridiculously fast editing. I remember seeing “Batman Begins” and the fight scenes were completely disorienting. All shaky, fast cuts, close-ups but rarely pulling back and giving the viewer an establishing shot so you can get your barrings.
Posted by xego on November 9th, 2009Shaky cam is masturbation. It makes the film makers feel good, but pretty much disgusts everybody else to watch them do it in public.
Shaky cam is like rap. It tramples the history of art and then craps on it.
Human beings have built-in steady cams in their psycho-visual system. It takes really violent trauma, or drugs for a human to perceive their view as weaving or waving around.
When the camera is the viewer’s point of view, it needs to make sane movements. Otherwise the viewer quite appropriately asks “why am I staggering and swaying around like I’m drunk or insane?”
When the camera is an actor’s point of view, same question with regard to the actor. Unless the actor is drunk or insane, his or her point of view would not stagger and weave uncontrollably.
When the camera is an actor, it also has to explain itself. People defend shaky cam saying it’s trying to emulate documentary filming. I am a camera operator, and I can tell you that only a child or a person who completely doesn’t give a flying f**k would weave and wave the camera around while shooting a hand-held documentary. It’s an insult to us to say that the camera moves you see in 80% of all TV and movies represent a documentary style.
I remember in “From the Earth to the Moon”, they were showing a TV interview set, and from time to time they showed from the TV camera’s point of view, and the camera was zooming in and out and waving all around and fixing on bizarre framings. What a total insult. When you’re a camera operator on a set, you move quickly from one well-framed shot to another. You don’t weave and wave around. Sometimes you zoom in to focus, but you do it quickly and deliberately, and immediately return to a well-framed shot.
The directors of 80% of what I see on TV and movies these days are in serious need of either critical thinking skills, or medical attention.
Posted by Charles Hand on January 16th, 2010So, the people who promote this technique claim it looks like a documentary, adds authenticity, adds the immediacy of an amateur shooter. BS! Every single time Tru TV airs actual amateur footage, the amateurs never knew they were supposed to wave and jiggle the camera around. They hold the camera still. So Tru TV digitally adds shaky cam to the amateur footage in order to give that “amateur footage” feel! Ironically, amateurs will soon start waving their cameras around because they think that’s how video is supposed to be shot. What a crazy world!
Posted by Charles Hand on February 6th, 2010Saw “Green Zone” in Houston today and I almost had to leave the theater because I was so NAUSEOUS. I literally closed my eyes for about 30 minutes of the film, just to keep from puking. I also took breaks from looking at the screen to stare at fixed points in the theater, like the “exit” sign. It’s ridiculous. It’s stupid. It’s way too much. There are establishing shots of buildings that are shaky and over-zoomed and blurred. At one point in the film, I literally didn’t know if they had just kidnapped Matt Damon, or ran him over with a car. And fight scenes? Forget it! You have no idea who’s fist is punching whom! It’s all blurs and sounds and then someone’s standing up with a gun! It’s not “docu-drama”…it’s just plain bad cinematography.
Posted by rzm on March 18th, 2010I can’t watch more than 10 minutes of shaky cam wo feeling nauseous.
Posted by la1234 on May 29th, 2010I hate shaky cameras. They have been doing this everywhere, even on shows where they have to show some items in detail, and it’s impossible to see anything. Not to mention 30 second commercials that show 45 to 50 different images, shaky and zooming in and out like crazy. As posted here by some, whenever I get a movie that the cameras won’t be on tripods, I send it back with 1 star review.
Posted by Nick on May 31st, 2010It’s dreadful. It ruined “District 9,” The Bourne movies, “The Green Zone” and countless otherwise good movies. Hey, you shit headed directors, GET A CLUE AND MAKE SOME REAL FILMS!! Shaky cam is the scourge of Hollywood and it MUST die!! I repeat: it MUST die!
Posted by Mike on June 2nd, 2010Somebody please enlighten me. People are saying that shaky cameras make the scene more realistic. Assuming this is correct (which i completely disagree), what is the purpose of making the scene more realistic if nobody can follow the scene?
Is there anyone here who will be kind enough to post all the directors who are known to use shaky camera. For example PAUL GREENGRASS…why will someone in his right thinking see any movie directed by him?
Considering that shaky cameras can be nauseous to normal people, maybe it will be a good idea if all movies will warn its viewers in case a shaky camera was used.
Posted by Ronald on July 23rd, 2010Enough of the shaky cam
Posted by stanbarney on December 7th, 2010use a freakin steadicam
if you have great action you do not need to shake the camera around to make it more realistic. All it does is make me feel like I am seasick. Paul Greengrass is the worst offender. The first bourne movie is the best, because Greengrass and his shakycam were not present. Greenzone made me ill.
If you have a great script and great acting, and hell even if you don’t there is no need for a shaky cam. To me it just looks and feels like the work of a rank amateur.
I had to leave The Black Swan 45mins into it. I felt nauseous (and actually still do the day after). Shame really as I was enjoying the story.
I agree with Ronald, please put a warning up if shaky-cam was used in the filming.
I’m getting to the point where I won’t go to see a movie I suspect may be using that technique.
I think this is a case of Hollywood all telling each other that it’s cool and leading edge to do this kind of thing. Well from my standpoint it’s not. It isn’t even realistic. I for one don’t shake my head around when viewing real life.
I keep it still so I can take it all in and savor it.
Please, please, please – Move On!!
Posted by Philip on January 1st, 2011When telling a story the camera is supposed to be invisible to the person watching the story. It’s like a book with the words moving all over the page as your reading them.
Here is a rule of thumb for you directors thinking about using shakycam.
Is the watcher supposed to think that there is someone there physically filming this, another off screen character perhaps?
If not, then do not shake the f’ing camera because it has no place in the story, if so shake to your hearts content becuase it makes sense for it to be shaking, very f’ing simple.
Posted by Rich on January 13th, 2011As a follow up…’
Yes the mysterious camera person in question in which hands the camera is shaking needs to be explained and be part of the story for the shaky cam to be valid.
If you haven’t told me who this person shaking the camera around is in your story, then it shouldn’t be there at all.
Places where it MIGHT be appropriate.
-(Fake) real, live news footage
- One of the characters filming with a personal camera of some kind
- A fixed camera from survailence or something that got shaken by an earthquake or bomb or something.
Otherwise, the camera should not be shaking.
I can’t think of anymore at the moment.
Posted by Rich on January 13th, 2011As Rich described, it like a book with moving words. So i dont want to watch this kind of f*ing films. It make me sick. It must be writen if it is shaky cam or not on the films. It can be used on news but with professional cameramen. It is a way if there is no chance. I feel like cheated, i dont wanna pay for it, or watch for free even if the whole world likes it.
Posted by mrza44 on January 16th, 2011Shaky cam is good for home cinema but very, very bad at the actual cinema. Let me explain in brief terms:
1. Home cinema you can have a much higher frame rate so the jarring effect of motion blur is much less.
2. The cinema screen is much too big for this style of cinematography as you look left to right, up and down the big screen and the camera is often shaking against your head movement creating the nausea effect.
3. It is not a natural movement. The camera may mimic your own head rotation looking at things, but your eyes often compensate. Which is why you don’t fall over when running.
Violent camera movement does not copy a natural viewpoint. Just shoot the damn picture and let my own eyes choose where to look quickly!
Posted by Scarshi on March 11th, 2011Hate shaky cam,makes me feel seasick.
Posted by Andrew on July 16th, 2011Please stop shaking the F-ing cam, a-hole.
Posted by Peter on August 3rd, 2011Shaky cam is lazy and sh!te.
Posted by Jimbo on October 16th, 2011There should be a law that will require movie theaters to inform the viewers if the movie is using shaky cam. Movie theaters should also be required to maintain a doctor and medical facility inside the theater in case a viewer suffers as a result of the shaky cam.
Posted by Ronald on October 21st, 2011I hope some Hollywood directors take the time to read the comments on this site.
Posted by Craig on December 3rd, 2011When you see a movie that is beautifully shot, you wish it would be used as a training video for directors showing how things should be done.
Please bring back skilful camera work & leave the out of focus & shaky footage on the cutting room floor where it belongs.
Craig
The worst camera shake? “The Devil Inside.” I could not see a damn thing. It was “violently” shaking almost the whole time. It looked as though a 3 year old filmed it.
Posted by Malakith on January 11th, 2012Leave a Reply