my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » United 93 (2006) (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: United 93 (2006) Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 05-14-2006 08:19 PM                        CINEMA: Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons, Sandy, UT AUDITORIUM: 6 PRESENTATION: 35mm/DTS PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Shaky picture (yes, even moreso than intended) RATING: Two stars (out of four) If I ever get to meet the director in person, I am going to beat him to within an inch of unconciousness, drag him to Home Depot, stick his head in the paint shaker, and let it rip. I wasn't right for about two hours after experiencing that thing. And I shut my eyes for probably a third of the time. And I tried, too. Didn't help. My head STILL hurts. Aside from the camera work, I had no problems with the movie whatsoever. But that guy needs to never direct a movie again.  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 05-17-2006 03:28 AM                        Rock on my brother! No More Paul Greengrass. And all those who have worked for him in these endeavors to dizzy us to puke levels in every film they do. Hanging from their eyeballs is too good for them. Have you ever noticed that when you are up on 10mg of Ambien, 3mg of Melatonin, 1000mg Valerian root, 1000mg St Johns wart, 1000mg Asprirn, 1000mg Tylenol, 10mg loratadine, and 50 mg, benadryl, that everything on your computer monitor is in 3D? CIAO  |  IP: Logged Matt Barth Film Handler Posts: 46 From: Albuquerque, NM 87109 Registered: Oct 2005 posted 05-28-2006 05:06 AM                     Alright, I agree, the "Docu-drama" camera style (that many people are attributing to Greengrass in Black Sunday) is not only annoying but it's a cheap trick and that hurt the movie. I was very upset at the film. I know the movie was made for profit but I just can't respect someone willing to use 9/11 for profit only, I really want to believe some people truely want to make a story known. Throughout the film I saw the same old emotion-building tricks (the off-center shot showing a normal activity, the sweeping crowd shot, etc.) and I was upset. The conclusion is amazing and while there are a few actors you can recognize it's better than the Harrison Ford as Todd Beamer we can expect in later films. Now one of the earlier complaints is the bad actors dishing out psycho-babble. If you stick around through the credits you'll see many of the ground people are the actual people playing themselves. This made a second showing important to me. On the second viewing, the tricks still bothered me but the story seemed more honest knowing the people didn't try and make themselves out to be great heros. My answer for friends' questions is if you're curious, see it. If you have no interest, just stay away as expected. ---Matt  |  IP: Logged Chad M Calpito Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 05-28-2006 10:03 AM                        I have to agree with Brad & a few others that there is way too much camera movement. I mean, what's up with that? Can't this guy just keep the camera still? Even though I liked this movie, the camera movement to the point of dizzyness was uncalled for and ruined the movie.  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 05-29-2006 12:11 PM                        The "shaky camera" syndrome was used very sparingly in the 80's on some action films to give the impression of massive action without the necessity of long complicated choreography and extended filming times. One of the first examples I can remember is the ending fight sequence in "lethal weapon" between mel gibson and gary busey. I didn't like it then, I hate it even more now. Directors have become increasingly dependant on this technique to make action scenes seem more action packed. I think it is time to make a new federal law requiring the use of rigging equiment or steadycam equipment. Violations would be punishable by death. Not too much to ask. Ciao  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 05-29-2006 12:54 PM                     One of the few things that worked really well in this movie was the camera work. It's not meant to create an increased level of tension. It's very much in keeping with the rest of the film in creating an ignorant point-of-view. No one knew what was going on that day, and neither do the characters in the movie or the people making the movie. Everyone talks about hand-held cameras trying to mimick documentary style, and in most cases, that's not true. Even when it is, it usually doesn't work. But here, it works completely. Of course, it's viciously undercut by the ridiculously over the top score, but what can you do? The stuff with the air-traffic controllers worked extremely well. I love that type of procedural stuff. The movie kind of falls apart when they get onto the plane. The ending was a little too sappy for its own good. It would have been more effective had it been more neutral. Again, the music is mostly to blame. On the whole, not bad. But certainly probelmatic at times.  |  IP: Logged Richard P. May Expert Film Handler Posts: 243 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jan 2006 posted 05-30-2006 01:07 PM                     I will add another vote to the "keep the camera still" conversation. When moving around, we don't see the earth jiggling. When a movie camera jiggles, the image moves within the screen frame. It is distracting from the movie, and gives many people motion sickness. Nothing like going out for entertainment, then coming home to just plop into bed. RPM  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 06-15-2006 07:11 AM                        quote: Matt Barth I know the movie was made for profit but I just can't respect someone willing to use 9/11 for profit only, I really want to believe some people truely want to make a story known. I certainly thought that was a problematic issue: however much of a public service argument you can make for the film (highlighting security lapses, etc.), the fact remains that it was produced on a commercial basis and has made the studio a substantial amount of money. But there again, you could argue that for-profit media have had positive side effects: for example, child prostitution in Victorian London, the Watergate scandal and the design flaw which caused the Concorde crash were all publicised by commercial media, and steps taken to prevent a repeat were taken as a result which probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. The question is, was this film for profit only or has it morally justified portraying the deaths of hundreds of real people in a commercial entertainment film? I was half expecting two dimensional heros and villains, and didn't get that: the terrorist leader is seen to have second thoughts about initiating the attack, and the passengers were very reluctant to attack the terrorists until they realised they had nothing to lose by doing so. The film avoided sensationalism - for example, not showing the murder of the pilots. And it did make the point, very powerfully, that on 9/11 no-one was prepared for the possibility that suicide bombers could or would be used as a weapon of mass-murder outside the Middle East. Set against which, I thought that the relentless marketing campaign which stressed the endorsement of the film by the actual victims' families was basically a cheap trick to make us feel less uneasy about paying to see a film of this event as commercial entertainment.  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-15-2006 09:30 PM                        To say that showing the endorsement of the victims families as a cheap trick I think is ignoring that the families were consulted during preproduction to make sure they had both the support of the families and that they had as many of the details down as possible. I think that when a film goes to this length, and that so many people were up in arms about its release, I have no problem with them making hay about it. Ciao  |  IP: Logged Paul Van Dusen Film Handler Posts: 82 From: Roanoke, VA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 06-25-2006 12:52 PM                        quote: First and foremost, hold the godamn camera still!!! The verticle tracking guide roller that sits between the film bands was stuck open too far, allowing the film shake from side to side. No one even noticed aside from me and my manager. I have to agree with Brad, this isn't a style, it's a lack there of.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-04-2006 05:59 AM                     Paul Huh? John  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.