None of the reviews mention that this movie has some of the most tiring and intrusive handheld camera work.

I understand the concept that the handheld camera is supposed to give an immediacy to the movie, that you're supposed to feel like you're there and part of it all ..

.. but with Rachel Getting Married, it is so overdone and intrusive, that it has the opposite effect. It pulls me right out of the narrative. I couldn't finish watching the movie .. it is THAT annoying.

I wish that reviewers would make specific mention of this.

And even more, I wish there could be a backlash against this by the general public, with more and more people not buying movies that have been shot with such deliberate carelessness.

I felt I might not be able to watch the movie after the first few minutes, but quickly got used to it. In the end I thought it was a great movie, and disagree that the camerawork was careless. Deliberate, yes, careless, no.

It is interesting that this aspect of the movie wasn't really mentioned in reviews - I was taken by surprise at first - but yours is likely an extreme reaction, apparently most viewers were ultimately able to assimilate the cinematography.

Hey everybody, remember back when people were saying this in 1999? After "The Blair Witch Project"?

I think it's not singled out in reviews because it has become an accepted and often effective choice by cinematographers. If it doesn't work for you, hey, it doesn't work for you. But the fact that you don't like something doesn't mean there should be a "backlash against this by the general public". They keep making "Fast and Furious" movies, no matter how much I loathe them, but I'm not demanding an uprising in the streets against them.

If you're complaining that the reviews don't mention the handheld camerawork, you're wrong:

If you're complaining that the reviews don't mention that you personally didn't like the camerawork, why would they?

Kurtie:
I didn't say the camera work was careless. I said "deliberately careless". Meaning, I know that it was intended for effect. I just hate it.

Hand-held camera work does NOT look like that .. except if you deliberately (and randomly) jerk the camera around.

Another movie that would've been far more effective was the 3rd Bourne flick. They overdid the jerky camera effect there as well.


Yakuza Bengoshi:

I'll repeat this - there is a huge difference between hand-held camera work, and deliberately jerking the camera around for NO reason. The reviews didn't mention that the effect was completely overdone and intrusive.

And I really wish reviewers would make this part of their assesment of the movie.


As for this comment:

That makes no sense whatsoever.
I understand the individual words, but when you string it together like that, it has no meaning.

It's the difference between reviewing the title for DVD and reviewing it for theaters. Many critics mentioned the horrid handheld work, since on a 70 ft screen it was as annoying as BLAIR WITCH. Heck, theaters here even posted signs about "motion sickness" from the camerawork on the box office window during its run.

On home theater, you can get away with it easier. Take a trip over to Rotten Tomatoes and read the initial reaction (I myself, in my review, felt the camerawork ruined a potentially GREATmovie.)



BILL

I saw it in the theater and loved the camerawork there as much as I did on my 84 inch home screen. I think my review is very clear about the camerawork, but it simply puts a positive spin on what Saxofonix found unsettling.

If it makes anyone feel better, I can't read in a moving car, and if I'm a passenger in a moving car and I have to fiddle with the radio too long, that gets me too. Equilibrium is a funny thing, but handheld camera work doesn't bother me ...

Yakuza -

Please. Talk. Slower.