On a recent comment from a local cinema-goer, 'Cloverfield was amazing - if you liked "The Bourne Supremacy" - you will love this... The camera shook that much, I was still dizzy after leaving the cinema"
Is this the new art in film making now? When I leave a cinema, I don't want to be dizzy - if I wanted to be dizzy I'd take a roller coaster. Do we have to make up what we are missing? Don't get me wrong... The acting, action and story is all there to be captured... I prefer modern acting and effects to older films but they just seem to be passing the camera down to an 8 year old who is capturing 'glimpses' of this 'amazing footage' on full zoom, and now and again we catch a glimpse of something that we sometimes identify what actually went on. I may as well read a book if I am to imagine what is happening, and I don't like books now that films have a 5.1 digital surround soundtrack! The Island... an absolutely amazing film, but it personally makes me sea sick. Lets start putting the camera back on a tripod and holding the shots a little longer than a trailer.


Kind Regards,
Pete

dunno kind of worked 4 the ending of the remake of dawn of the dead 4 me

i especially liked the grainy footage in the end credits


n then blair witch project worked 4 me 2


cloverfield was ok...tbh the hype was better than the actual movie kind of a let down tbh irregardless of film direction tbh ...

i dont like the shaky camera look to be honest

I dont mind if they have a little bit during some action scenes but not so much fast cuts and shaky cam you dont know whats going on.

I dont like how they do it with a lot of modern horror.