Do fast action movie scenes bug you?

[drwho]

The first time I ever really noticed this phenomenon was when Aliens Vs. PRedator came out. Now I notice the same flaw in movies like Transformers and Order of the Phoenix. When I'm griping about fast action scenes I mean the times where they have cameras shaking and moving fast all over the place with so much going on that things get messy and that causes you to miss out on the details of the action sequences where sometimes it is hard to tell what is going on. Does this type of filming bother anyone else? Has it shown up in the 90s, or did this show up in the 00s?

[Thorlief]

the "camera shaking" movement was born in the '90s. Strange Days, Keep Cool (a movie by Zhang Jiimou), Enemy of the state, The Rock and a lot more took advantage of this new technique..which came directly from music videos and breaking news. Michael bay went overboard with it and thats why his movies look like a total mess (still imo)
I dont think this is the reason why some movies look messy..it's all in the editing. They have to lightspeed the movie and I dont really know why, buit it sure bothers me when it happens in certain movies like Harry Potter, while it doesn't when it happens in movies like Bourne or Face Off

[Tien Long]

The first time I ever really noticed this phenomenon was when Aliens Vs. PRedator came out. Now I notice the same flaw in movies like Transformers and Order of the Phoenix. When I'm griping about fast action scenes I mean the times where they have cameras shaking and moving fast all over the place with so much going on that things get messy and that causes you to miss out on the details of the action sequences where sometimes it is hard to tell what is going on. Does this type of filming bother anyone else? Has it shown up in the 90s, or did this show up in the 00s?

I really don't like the shaky camera, fast editing of action movies. I think what's underlying this particular technique is the desire to convey the frenetic craziness of a particular moment in the movie. I think this is better suited for war movies, w/ the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan coming to mind. However, as someone who appreciates a great fight and more importantly how the technique is performed, I hate this trend in Hollywood movies. Indeed, whenever I watch a Jackie Chan or Jet Li film, there's no stupid erratic moment. Something like that would RUIN the action they'd want to convey to the audience.

"Shaky cameras" and fast edits prevented me from enjoying fight scenes from films like Batman Begins and The Bourne Supremacy (Transformers, I'll make a slight exception, since the shakiness wasn't too bad, and the final battle was supposed to evoke a crazy, hyper battle. Still, i really wanted to see the robot fights a bit more clearly.)

The only movie which I've seen that made good use of the "camera in a tumble dryer" method was Blade II. Sure, there were shaky moments, but the camera wasn't close up on the characters when they were doing complicated movement, but rather scenes were filmed from a farer distance. Thus, the audience had a clearer view of what the people were doing.

[mgs]

Like anything, I like it when it's done well. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen car chase scene was bad, the digital effects were overwhelming. The pod racing scene in Star Wars was bad. Any chase scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark was good, very good.

[J. Robb]

I really don't like the super-close-up, ultra-quick-cut so many action scenes they have these days. The one thing "Phantom Menace" really did right was the duel at the end. We got to watch the characters move and leap and attack, it was fun to watch. It wasn't split-second clips of sabres clashing and characters in midair.

Good action scenes should be like a ballet of violence, not a strobe-light of ADD-afflicted editing.

[1WEBHEAD]

Transformers is a good example even though I loved the movie.

I also dislike the "close up" fight scenes where it's hard to make out what's happening because the camera is zoomed in too much. See Batman Begins.

[Your Imaginary Pal]

you see an action movie for the action, right?!?
not to wonder what the hell just happened.
I'm not a fan of the super fast cuts that are shaky and too close up.
what I like alot are the multiple angle kill shots, we need more of those....immediately.

[clayholio]

I really hate this trend in action movies. The Bourne Supremacy was a big culprit - I generally liked the movie, but the action sequences would have been vastly improved if the director could have tried some less self-conscious camera-work. Grrr...

I prefer action films that just let the action speak for itself. If you watch Bruce Lee, it's so much more spectacular because he was just that good. Shaking the camera and cutting every half second isn't going to make Bruce Lee better, it's just going to distract from what you've got in front of you.

[Ivan Isaacs]

The only movie were the fast cuts annoyed the hell out of me
was "Vidoq" by Pitof. The rest of the movie was good but those fast cuts... BLERGH!

[TheLazy]

I'll take that over the slow mo action any day.

[jadrax]

I also dislike the "close up" fight scenes where it's hard to make out what's happening because the camera is zoomed in too much. See Batman Begins.

Begins only did that on one scene, which was bats versus some things that weren't going to put up much of a challenge anyway. And even then it was done to display just how fast and scary the whole process looked from the bad guys point of view.

Which I think is the answer, I like it when it serves a purpose.

[Sanagi]

Yeah, I really hate that shaky-cam, blurry, what-the-hell's-going-on type of action scene. Hate hate hate hate. It's a way for the director to tell the audience "I can't do action scenes, so please accept some fast-paced nonsense as a substitute."

[Black Atom]

Begins only did that on one scene, which was bats versus some things that weren't going to put up much of a challenge anyway. And even then it was done to display just how fast and scary the whole process looked from the bad guys point of view.

Which I think is the answer, I like it when it serves a purpose.

The final fight with Ra's was also obscured by this.

[jesse_custer]

The only time this technique really works is in stuff like Saving Private Ryan and Children of Men, and thankfully, Spielberg and Cuaron have the good sense to still make it watchable.

while it doesn't when it happens in movies like Bourne or Face Off

It didn't happen that often in Face/Off. John Woo used slo-mo about 50 times in that movie as usual.

[Jared]

The final fight with Ra's was also obscured by this.

Yes, although not as much. And given the tight confines of the fight and the fact that one of the performers is a 50-something Liam Neeson, it was probably a good way to shoot it.

One scene that I felt was really ruined by the shaky cam was a in fight The Bourne Supremacy. I had no idea what the hell was going on, just that Bourne won.

[Enigmanaut]

I'll take that over the slow mo action any day.

Ditto... I hate, HATE, bullet-time. Overused, crappy effect.

[Black Atom]

Yes, although not as much. And given the tight confines of the fight and the fact that one of the performers is a 50-something Liam Neeson, it was probably a good way to shoot it.

One scene that I felt was really ruined by the shaky cam was a fight The Bourne Supremacy. I had no idea what the hell was going on, just that Bourne won.

Neeson moved pretty good circa Phantom Menace. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the restricting Bat-suit that looked crappy in the fight scenes.

But I agree, Bourne Supremacy was terrible with that. Ruined the movie.

[Jared]

Neeson moved pretty good circa Phantom Menace. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the restricting Bat-suit that looked crappy in the fight scenes.


Neeson is a very capable on-screen swordsman, and while I'm sure could do quite a bit of physical stuff I don't know that he'd be a convincing ninjistu master if filmed with a steadycam for an extended time.

[Serik]

Why do studious spend millions of dollars on special effects only to cut away from the action so fast that you're left clueless as to what's happening.

[Kristofer]

In the aspect of "bullet time", I really liked how they did the fight between Law and Lawless in Jet Li's The One. In the commentary, they said that the sparks falling were slowed down even more than Jet Li just to show how fast he is and still be able to see everything he's doing.

[Jmacq1]

I think the "Shaky Cam" has become too much of a crutch as opposed to simply a stylistic element.

In other words, its' stopped being used in a manner intended to convey the chaos and confusion of battle (See "Gladiator" or "Saving Private Ryan" for good examples of this), and is instead used to cover up the inadequacies of actors (or costumes) in terms of actual fighting ability (See the "Bourne" movies and Matt Damon, or "Batman Begins" and the limitations of the batsuit).

So basically, when its' genuinely a stylistic thing, I don't mind it. When it's clearly being used simply because the director didn't want to film/choreograph/show a coherent fight scene (or the actor/actors in question can't really be counted upon to provide one) it bugs the heck out of me.

[Toku King]

I enjoy fast paced action scenes, even shaky camera movements. Just as as they don't do it to the freakin' extreme like some films(no, not "Transformers". They did it really well), and make the fight scenes long and not try to pull the "So cool that we can make it short and we'll be ok" card.

[spoon_jenkins]

I also dislike the "close up" fight scenes where it's hard to make out what's happening because the camera is zoomed in too much. See Batman Begins.
This is one of the reasons I liked Batman Begins less than most people. Much of the action was very poorly directed. I think the degree to which the confusion of Batman's enemies was conveyed by this technique was greatly outweighed by how much it diminished the opportunity to see compelling, understandable action sequences.

The quick cuts are a bad trend in movies today. I think Ebert once said that a film professor had his students time Armageddon. The average shot was something like 1.2 seconds before the editing switched to another shot/angle/scene.

In general, the quick cuts and shaky cameras detract from a film's action sequences. They can work when used sparingly for specific purposes. Unfortunately, many films don't use it sparingly or even moderately.

Directors are also losing out on the compelling power of stick with one shot for a long time. For instance, check out the fight with the big bald guy in the first Indiana Jones.

[The Shelf]

The way I see it is this. If the movie is an action movie, it needs to have action camera takes. The whole point of an action movie is to make you feel like you're there in the action. That's what makes it fun. This feature is in war movies for realism, but it's in action movies for fun. You're not supposed to be able to take in all the details in one viewing. If you could, you'd never watch it again because action movies don't have good enough plots to make you watch them again. It's not like these movies are being filmed in the same style as Blair Witch Project. That's enough to make you sick if you watch it in a theater. I think movies like Transformers nail the balance really well.

[Buried Alien]

I really don't like the super-close-up, ultra-quick-cut so many action scenes they have these days. The one thing "Phantom Menace" really did right was the duel at the end. We got to watch the characters move and leap and attack, it was fun to watch. It wasn't split-second clips of sabres clashing and characters in midair.

STAR WARS movies have always been good at this. Then again, STAR WARS movies, even the more recent Prequels, were made with a 1970s action movie mentality more than a 1990s/2000s one.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[rerun]

Yeah, the shaky camera ruined the last "Bourne" movie for me. I know it's a style but its a mess to watch. That's why I appreciated the slowdown in "300"- I was actually able to appreciate the action scenes. I just need somewhere in between.

[jesse_custer]

It would be great if every action sequence was filmed like the conclusions of Stagecoach and The Wild Bunch. Of course, we would probably get tired of those styles eventually. So it's good that people are trying different techniques, but leave it up to bad directors like Michael Bay and Paul Greengrass to piss away any chances of quality.

[Jota]

One scene that I felt was really ruined by the shaky cam was a fight The Bourne Supremacy. I had no idea what the hell was going on, just that Bourne won.Hated that scene! We heard a lot of stuff about Damon training so much for the fight scenes the shaky cam made it impossible to see anything. That scene might as well have had two old ladies beating each other with their purses and the result would be the same!

[Sabrina_Fried]

What really bugs me about action scenes in movies with martial arts is when they are using an actor who clearly doesn't know what they are doing (or has only been taught to do three moves in a precise sequence for two weeks before filming) and they use wierd cutting and camera angles to disguise the fact that this "martial arts master" or whatever that the actor is playing can barely move.

But I think this is a function of the studios insisting on using big names over people with the necessary skills and the director doing the best they can with what they are given.

Sabrina