District 9

[Scoopicman]

,Story is a thousand times more important than camera work. This movie was original and had good characters, yet all anybody is ever interested in is commenting on the shakycam for that one action scene in the mnu building.

Generally speaking about shaky cam movies, if camera work hampers my personal experience with the story, then that's probably because I'm finding the story harder to follow. You could cite how important good dialogue is, but if it isn't recorded well, what is it worth? Nothing, that's what.

Thanks to ALIEN NATION, the V television series, etc., I don't think the concept of DISTRICT 9 is original at all. We've already seen buddy flicks, where a human pairs up with an alien. What did make this movie work was the depiction of Wikus Van De Merwe, going through his FLY-like transformation. But, even his arc from uncaring evictor to fighting for Eric and his son is nothing new. Example: Tonight, I just watched BLOOD DIAMOND and Leonardo DiCaprio's character made the same journey from uncaring diamond hunter to ......................fighting to save a man and his son. Hmmm. Sounds like what Wikus did for the Prawn (Eric) and his son.

DISTRICT 9 is good, but I've seen it all before, except for the Johannesburg setting. Oh, yeah - I've played the HALF-LIFE videogames, with the Gravity Gun, so I really have seen it all before. I still enjoyed it, just not nearly enough to be additionally irritated by this not so new "fast edit, frantic camera" style, that has become so prominent since GLADIATOR, BLACKHAWK DOWN, etc. It doesn't ruin any movie for me, because I like almost all movies, but it is irritationg and I will dock a movie points when I find it counter-effective.

I really don't understand why people have such a giant problem with shakycam. I have so many of shaky cam movies and I really don't have a problem with any of them, except for the Blair Witch Project

I liked THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. While I don't like the camera work, it was supposed be found footage. It works once in a while. When it really proliferates into so many other movies, I insist that the filmmakers get back to clearly showing a story, which is what made movies great in the first place.

I keep thinking how much better CLOVERFIELD could have been if they made it like a "real" movie. Damn, that would have been great, but I still enjoyed it. REC (Spanish version of QUARANTINE) is perfect, in my opinion!

I don't know if I'll ever see AMATEUR PORN STAR KILLER, but I will see almost any movie, no matter how it is shot. But, if you are like me and hit the theaters early - I saw DISTRICT 9, twice, in the first and second weeks - you might end up near the front rows and it can be a rough watch. THE BOURNE SUPREMECY was probably the hardest movie I ever had to watch from the front rows.

I pay good money to see flicks in a theater and then buy the DVD, so I'm going to bitch until the shaky action trend calms down. I do like it in parts of movies, love the SAVING PRIVATE RYAN beach assault. The camera work didn't bother me one bit on that, but Spielberg knows when to push and then pull back.

Don't take this as a rant, as much as a personal explanation for something I shouldn't be this passionate about.

 

[DRthunderMD]

I insist that the filmmakers get back to clearly showing a story, which is what made movies great in the first place.

I agree with you on some aspects scoop, but this doesn't exactly relate to District 9 in my opinion. I mean, the shaky cam in BWP took me right out of the story because I kept getting headaches and was getting dizzy. But District 9 did it the right way I think. They used the documentary style for some parts to build Wikus' character. That worked I thought. I really don't see how anybody could have gotten lost somehow because of District 9's camera work. And as far as Cloverfield goes I kind of agree with you but another part of me enjoyed the way it was shot. I like how J.J. Abrams and his director did it. Of course the shaky cam is supposed to make you feel like you are there, but it also sets up very well for a sequel since we know only as much as any of the characters know. And who doesn't want to see another movie about a giant monster lose in New York City? And as far as your "ranting", I enjoy it. It's nice when people write like that because it helps me understand your point of view.

 

[Scoopicman]

Thanks, DrthunderMD, for understanding that it's just a point of view. DISTRICT 9 is definitely one of the easier to watch docu-style movies and it wasn't so jarring that I couldn't see it, twice. It's a keeper.

 

[countevil]

I really don't understand why people have such a giant problem with shakycam. I have so many of shaky cam movies and I really don't have a problem with any of them, except for the Blair Witch Project, that was just completely over the top camera work. I don't care if this style may be over used, I don't know why people care so much. Maybe I'm just not prone to getting dizzy because of a little camera movement but I don't know. It's not like the camera work takes anything away from the story. And the story was amazing, yet all I hear people talking about is the camera work. What's with that. Story is a thousand times more important than camera work. This movie was original and had good characters, yet all anybody is ever interested in is commenting on the shakycam for that one action scene in the mnu building.

The problem is that it's a lazy thing to use and it doesn't show much cinematic flair. With shaky cam you tend tend to get one long shot of the action. There's no clever cuts to make things flow well. It's a trend I'd like to see die soon. It doesn't make your film 'edgy' to have shots going all over the place.

We need more people like Kubrick. He really knew how to achieve full effect from good cinematography.

 

[John@Bophe]

Story is a thousand times more important than camera work.

Well, to a point. As a said before, the person I went with to see District 9 could not watch the screen because the quick motion was inducing nausea. So, regardless of the story, it was a wasted experience. No amount of good story will make up for having to only LISTEN to a movie. Some people are affected differently, so we can't assume that all people should experience it the same way.

A friend of mine works at a movie theater. According to her, just about every showing of District 9 has had at least one person ask for a refund because of motion sickness/inability to watch the screen.

 

[Will Vincent]

This is interesting..

I'm generally very sensitive to motion sickness from shaky footage, but it wasn't an issue for me at all with district 9.. To be honest, I didn't even really notice that much shaky camera work, because what little was there was much less severe than cloverfield or numerous other films, and it didn't last the whole time.

I really enjoyed the film, it's a very well told story, and character(s) were explored pretty well.

Not to derail the thread, but I would suggest another scifi film from this year that is easily on par with this -- for different reasons -- is Moon.