xfvgbfd wrote:
does the shaky camera make anyone else dizzy?
Thank you, I was about to post that myself. I give the movie a 3.5 out of 5. All the shaky cam and long sequences of shots that were no longer than about 2 seconds got a little old. If Liman directed it (along with the 2nd as well), it would've been better, but apparently the only way Greengrass knows how to build suspense is to shake the camera around a lot and use shots that average out to be about a second long. It made me want to go home and watch that really long f***ing shot from Children of Men on repeat for an hour or so.
Certainly not the best trilogy of all-time, not close. I don't see what the big fuss is. The plot is good enough (somewhere between Catch Me If You Can and The Departed) but the plot is more or less the same in each movie which gets a little boring. The fight scenes are average (hell, the new Die Hard had better fight scenes), and the shaky cam got old QUICK. It's an action movie. If you're action is shitty and the only way to make it exciting is to strap the camera to a Jack Russel Terrier on caffeine pills standing on hot coals, then it probably shouldn't be considered for greatest trilogy of all-time.
Give me Star Wars, LOTR, Die Hard 1-3 any day of the week over these only slightly above average movies.