From: none@nonesuch.com   
      
   "Alfie [UK]"  wrote in message   
   news:vjpkq3t5a3opgdapluaiqrutnk5tjcrles@4ax.com...   
   > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:02:15 -0500, "Terry"  wrote:   
   >   
   >>I saw it. Again, without giving anything away, I'd advise those with weak   
   >>stomachs to sit as far back in the theater as you can get. I spent a good   
   >>deal of the "running about and shouting" bits looking away from the   
   >>screen.   
   >>Not because it was disgusting, but because of the hand-held camera work.   
   >   
   > See, I like the whole premise of the movie, but the various comments   
   > about the whole 'hand-held-cam' styley puts me right off.   
      
   Let me just say that I LOVED the movie and was happy to trade a little   
   vertigo for the experience.   
      
   > I don't have a problem with FPS-views in videogames because I am   
   > nominally in control of the 'camera', but in movies it should be a   
   > no-no, alongside 'fast-pan-scan' cam shots, as used to be used a lot in   
   > adverts and MTV type crap.   
      
   I do like how the concept fits though. It's "found" footage, literally.   
   Also, it makes me REALLY REALLY impressed with the FX folks. It's easy to   
   create a CGI monster on a level field. A CGI monster, explosions and such on   
   a jumpy canvas? It was well done, and seemed effortless.   
      
   > The same thing works well in stuff like Firefly, and the 'new'   
   > Battlestar Galactica, for the ship-to-ship shots, but for people-focused   
   > movies it just doesn't sit right with me.   
      
   I understand the issues you have with it. The good thing is, I don't think   
   too much will be lost on a smaller screen, so it may be better as a rental   
   for some.   
      
   - Terry   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)