Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Captain Phillips (2013)

This is topic Captain Phillips (2013) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001986

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-11-2013, 11:51 PM:

We got to see this at a screening during the Rocky Mountain Theatre Convention in Boise at the Edwards 9.

What a fine example of moviemaking. This show rivets you to your seat from start to finish. It's one of Tom Hanks' finest performances, and the "bad guy" is one of the baddest bad guys ever on the screen.

The best thing about the movie is, you know how it's going to end but you don't know how they're going to get there. And, when the big moment comes, it's not overblown and overdramatized like most Hollywood movies are....if this had been a Michael Bay film, the Captain would have been rescued following a gigantic explosion and/or a chase scene using small boats, or something.

I haven't been this satisfied by a movie in a long time. Highly recommended. 4.75 stars from me. (I would rate it a perfect 5 stars, but that would mean there have never been, nor will there ever be any better movies.)

We heard after the movie had ended that the "real" Captain Phillips was staying at the same hotel we were -- he was in Boise to speak at a Chamber of Commerce banquet there. Too bad the convention committee didn't know he was going to be in town, that would have been the perfect capper for the evening to have him show up.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-12-2013, 02:18 AM:

Did your head feel like it was in a paint shaker the entire movie?

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 10-12-2013, 08:26 AM:

I'm not a huge fan of the shaky-cam, either, but the film was excellent enough that I was able to let that one go. I agree with everything Mike said. Except I didn't know how it was going to end.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-12-2013, 05:07 PM:

"Except I didn't know how it was going to end"

That's a joke, right?

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 10-12-2013, 05:27 PM:

Nope. I was not familiar with the story upon which the film was based. I mean, I assumed he was going to be rescued. But that's not necessarily a given. Skinny could have shot him.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-12-2013, 05:54 PM:

I have no clue how it ends either and have never heard of anyone named Captain Phillips until I saw an ad for this movie (without sound because I mute commercials). And even then I thought that was perhaps the silliest title I'd seen for a movie in a while.

Shaky cam dates movies. People from the future will look back on our primitive asses and wonder how we even survived doing idiotic things like shakey cam. It's a fad just like those jeans that unzip at the knees from long ago. I dare anyone to defend this fad. Come at me, bro! Other fads for which we will be judged: hashtags, minimalism in graphic design and of course the fauxhawk hairstyle.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-12-2013, 08:49 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Did your head feel like it was in a paint shaker the entire movie?

There was some shaky-cam but it was toned down. Nothing like the puke-fest that was United 93, at least. It didn't bother me. We saw the movie on a mid-sized (40' or so) screen.

quote: Joe Redifer
I have no clue how it ends either and have never heard of anyone named Captain Phillips until I saw an ad for this movie (without sound because I mute commercials). And even then I thought that was perhaps the silliest title I'd seen for a movie in a while

I'm kind of surprised that there are people who didn't know about this event, since it was such big news (at least in this country) in 2009.

On the other hand, I guess I shouldn't be surprised because when we showed "Titanic," we had patrons who thought the whole movie, including the sinking of the ship, was fiction.

I agree the title could have been more grabby.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-12-2013, 09:03 PM:

I probably have heard of whatever story this is based on, but I don't recall any names.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-13-2013, 12:52 AM:

That would be me as well. I had no idea who "Captain Phillips" was until I saw the movie trailer.

I must disagree with you about the "silliest movie title" however. That distinction must go to Final Destination 2. (Also Final Destination 3, 4 and 5)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-13-2013, 03:35 AM:

So yes there was lots of unnecessary camera shaking. Particularly in the beginning, there was absolutely no reason for it. Once they were at sea, it worked pretty well because they weren't particularly over-shaking the camera when the camera would've been shaking anyway.

Overall this movie was much better than I was expecting. Once it got going, perhaps 15 minutes in, it held my attention the entire time without dead spots. The no-name pirates did a very good job with their roles (at least I'm assuming this was their first movie to act in). The sound mix was also well done.

3.5 out of 5 (1/2 star deducted for unnecessary camera shaking in parts)

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 10-13-2013, 12:16 PM:

Agreed with Brad. No need for shakey cam on steady land. At sea, it works. Sound was fantastic. I want the soundtrack, if there is one.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'm kind of surprised that there are people who didn't know about this event, since it was such big news (at least in this country) in 2009.

That would require one to actually pay attention to the news. Some of us intentionally do as little of that as possible.

I remember there was a slew of pirate incidents a few years back. I did not know any specifics, and I certainly didn't know the names of those involved. I knew this was based on one of those incidents, but like I said, without knowing specifics I did not know how it was going to end.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 10-26-2013, 08:32 AM:

Paul Greengrass is the king of gritty realism. With his shaky cam style he is an expert at portraying the moment of chaos and making us feel like we're actually there. It's a risky film making method, it can go horribly wrong in unskilled hands, but with his Jason Bourne films and, most prominently, United 93, Greengrass demonstrated his mastery of the technique. His skill is likewise demonstrated in Captain Phillips.

Captain Phillips has much in common with United 93: they both depict true, well known stories; they are both about terrorism (of a sort); and they are both shot in Greengrass' gritty realist style. But the most interesting thing about the pair are their differences: Captain Phillips has a happy ending (for most); and, unlike United 93, it stars a big name actor in Tom Hanks. Greengrass uses these differences to his advantage.

Using a big name actor such as Hanks works in this film as Capt. Richard Phillips was a headline name at the time and so the inevitable spotlight drawn to Hanks is appropriate. Compare this to the events of United 93 where everybody was anonymous, employing no-name actors (and indeed some non-actors) played to the strengths of that film.

Because Captain Phillips has a known happy ending, we are spared the ever present dread which persisted in United 93. This affords the audience some elation at the end rather than the sombre, crushing reality of the latter. But Hanks' excellent measured performance keeps the end celebrations in check. His performance is an exercise in desperation and humility; emerging in the end a traumatised individual rather than a triumphant American hero. In so doing Greengrass foregoes the American flag waving which could so easily have destroyed this film.

Giving us glimpses into the backgrounds of the Somalian pirates, Greengrass sidesteps the cardboard villain caricatures of lesser films. Aside from one moment of unnecessary preachiness where he underlines the toil of Somalian poverty (that message was already coming through loud and clear), Greengrass delivers a film which admirably keeps it's moral tone in balance.

9 out of 10

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-26-2013, 01:56 PM:

quote:
Paul Greengrass is the king of gritty realism. With his shaky cam style he is an expert at portraying the moment of chaos and making us feel like we're actually there. It's a risky film making method, it can go horribly wrong in unskilled hands, but with his Jason Bourne films and, most prominently, United 93, Greengrass demonstrated his mastery of the technique.

Disagree! Shaky cam does NOT make me feel like I'm there nor does it feel like "gritty realism". Well it might if I had an extremely severe case of Parkinsons going on 100% of the time. It's extremely distracting. It's also a fad. The Bourne movies were horrible. A friend and I were making fun of it throughout the entire movie when we watched part 2 or 3. If you need shaky cam to "immerse" the audience in the situation, you are an incompetent director/DP.

Didn't know Greengrass directed this. I definitely won't see it now. I avoid the diarrhea he squirts out and releases as movies for that very reason. What a horrible human being he must be. I bet his family hates him and his dog pisses in his shoes at least once a week.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-26-2013, 03:31 PM:

I will say that the shaky cam is FAR less shaky in this movie than it was in the Bourne movies. At least 75% less, I would guess. At least, it didn't make me go "wow, this picture is shaky" all the time like I did with the Bourne movies. (I never saw United 93.)

That might have been partly because I got into this story better than I did with the Bourne movies. Either way...I'm no fan of shaky-cam and it didn't bug me on this movie.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-26-2013, 04:06 PM:

I'm going to have to agree with Joe on this one, but within this is also a disagreement. Read along.

Bourne Supremacy

United 93

Now read my post here regarding Cloverfield. So basically Phillips marks the second time I've ever actually seen the shaky cam thing work. Its worth a viewing Joe, but I do wish people keeping up with who directs what would follow my request on this comment. [Razz]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-26-2013, 05:33 PM:

I don't really remember the shaky cam in Cloverfield so it must have been better/more appropriate/less distracting.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 10-26-2013, 06:27 PM:

Shaky cam certainly has a place in film making. If you're trying to create disorientation or chaos then it works great. The problem is those things are not appropriate in every scene. For instance, in the first Bourne film (not a Greengrass film admittedly) there was an office briefing scene where the camera was "focussed" on a computer and rocking all over the place. You couldn't read shit. Ridiculous! If it's important that you actually be able to follow the proceedings then shaky cam will ruin it.

Green Zone is another good example of this. The opening scene is masterful - complete chaos, nobody knows exactly what's going and neither do we because the cameras rocks around so much. This is entirely appropriate because that's the whole point of the scene.

Later on in the film where we have a chase scene it doesn't work because in a chase scene you have to be able to follow who is where doing what and shaky cam doesn't allow you to do that.

In The Blair Witch Project the camera work was nauseating but that was the point!

Fast forward to Captain Phillips and it works because it creates a sense of bewilderment and irritation and that is exactly what we want - to make us feel what Phillips feels. The action isn't difficult to follow so the technique works perfectly here.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-26-2013, 09:19 PM:

Are we talking about handheld camera work here, or intentional camera shake? (I have not seen the film being discussed here.)

There are plenty of legitmate reasons for a camera operator to shoot handheld (with the intention of holding the camera as steady as possible, of course, and usually with a fairly wide-angle lens, which minimizes the effect of camera movement), but I cannot think of any film that I have seen that was shot with intentionally shaky camera work where this "style" enhanced the film experience in any way. Usually it is just distracting, and occasionally it makes people sick.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-26-2013, 10:12 PM:

Agreed. Cloverfield was shot on a handheld camera running at 24.0fps with an amazing 5.1 microphone and insane battery life even with a wicked spotlight using up that battery. That's what made it realistic and appropriate. But scenes like the 3rd Bourne movie where they're just sitting at a conference table in a building does not need a handheld camera operated by someone who couldn't hold it even remotely still even if they were encased in concrete.

I have a feeling that at parties, Paul Greengrass snorts his own vomit through a 7-11 straw/spoon. He is the kind of nothing. Except maybe ass.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-26-2013, 10:54 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I don't really remember the shaky cam in Cloverfield so it must have been better/more appropriate/less distracting.

I didn't think that shaky-cam was 'that' bad, but I remember there was a sign on the box office of the Uptown theater stating this film had "excessive camera movement - buyer beware!"

'Blair Witch Project' though, my sister and I felt really REALLY nauseous after seeing that. [hand me the barf bag!]

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-17-2013, 07:23 PM:

I finally got to see this and it was much better than I had anticipated. The pacing was good and it really was exciting until the very end. Also, in my humble opinion, Tom Hanks still is one of the better actors currently around.

I'm generally not a fan of shaky cam or overly grainy or soft pictures. Yes, it does have its purposes if used in the right way. But all to often, it's just a cheap trick to hide something. In this movie, it worked, although was kind of superfluous in the first 20 minutes or so.

Although I usually find them extremely distracting, I've personally never gotten sick from shaky cam scenes until now, even not in 3D. The only kind of scenes that sometimes make me feel dizzy are those slowly rotating shots, often combined with some dolly effects. Those are especially popular in sci-fi franchise: Closing in on a big planet, star ship or whatever structure.