‘Gamer’ Review: Hollywood, Step Away From the Shaky-Cam
by John NolteYou’re not using the Almighty’s name in vain when you mean it. So everybody all together now: God Damn the Shaky-Cam.
Was it Spielberg with “Saving Private Ryan” who started the shaky-cam phenomenon or was it “NYPD Blue?” Whatever. My suggestion is that we build a time machine to locate and eradicate the host virus. Not through violence, through a plea to their humanity (unless it’s Paul Greengrass — we’ll ring his doorbell and run) and DVD examples of what their monster will become. Then we’ll go back to 1941 where you can drop me off in front of Barbara Stanwyck’s house.
Maybe, possibly, inside the jittery mess that is “Gamer,” there sits an ‘80’s style actioner — an unpretentious time killer with an interesting premise, lots of action and a little gratuitous nudity to get you through a slimmer than slim story. There’s just no way to tell because you can’t see anything, and the epileptic camera is only part of the problem. The cinematography’s completely washed out and every time you get any kind of fix on what’s happening a wavy, electronic-transmission effect is added for no reason other than to add it.
The “Running Man” meets “Avatar” story is built on the idea of a nano-cell, a synthetic cell let loose in the human body that replicates until it dominates. When the program’s complete the host can then come under the full control of a gamer, who, for a fee and from the comfort of mother’s basement, can do whatever he wishes with his electronic counterpart. The result is a sub-culture of desperate individuals willing to come under this control in order to make a living — and because you have to be pretty twisted to find control over another human being entertaining, think “Sim City” at midnight on Sunset Boulevard.
The nano-cell has also made “Slayers” possible, a pay-per-view reality show where death row inmates serve as avatars in a series of urban shoot-em-ups sanctioned by a federal government desperate for revenue. The show is a national phenomenon thanks in large part to Kable (Gerard Butler), who’s on death row for murder, desperate to get back to his family, and just a few games away from becoming the first prisoner to win full pardon with thirty wins.
The nano-cell was created by Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall), a celebrity billionaire and fidgety sadist with SPECTRE-like plans for world domination. With the help of “Humanz,” an underground group on to Castle’s arch-villainy, Kable escapes a game he wasn’t supposed to survive and targets Castle for revenge.
With another draft or two of the script (and a tripod), what is arguably a pretty imaginative premise could’ve risen to something. Instead it’s a waste of Butler, one of the few not-a-metrosexuals working today, and The Great Keith David, who does the same thing here he did in “Crash”: makes his single scene the most memorable one.
But back to that shaky-cam. “Gamer,” and all those filmed like it, do not represent a “style.” Confusion does not equal style. This is cover for filmmakers not only lacking in style but too lazy to choreograph compelling action sequences – which is probably the most difficult job a director can come up against. You not only have to stage the actors and props, you also have to figure out where to place the camera.
But not anymore… Just set the camera to “seizure” and the edit machine to “nonsensical.”
If our government really wanted to earn pay-per-view revenue they might consider a cage match to the death between two of the worst styles to hit the movies in their 100-plus year history: The Shaky-Cam vs. Quirky.
That I’d pay to see.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
59 Comments
I'm with you, Enough with shaky-cam. It has ruined too many action scenes by not actually being able to see what is happening.
I agree that the shaky-cam is annoying, but did you not think that the film carried a positive CONSERVATIVE message? i.e. despite the fantasy lives that new technologies allow us to enjoy, we inescapably belong to an OUTSIDE, OBJECTIVE reality.
While I found the sex and violence excessive, the film does make several allusions to Spartacus (in its Christian, not leftist sense.) "Gamer" essentially shows us a post-modern world which has reverted to paganism– and the "Humanz" correspond to a kind of early Christianity, working underground to bring an enlightening and incorruptible morality to both the controlling and controlled alike.
That was also cleverly tied into the use of "Sweet Dreams" on the soundtrack.
I saw the Humanz as anarchists Vs. GIANT CORPORATIONS and the fascist Gub'mint.
The Spartacus overtones I caught.
The shaky-cam just depressed me too much to look for anything more than the end credits.
Yes, I believe my initial reaction to the new "Battlestar Galactica" series was, "Oh, look! Shaky cam!" <*change channel*>
I haven't seen the film yet, but the shaky cam and ultra-fast cuts have been driving me nuts for some time now.
The third Bourne staged one hell of a car wreck in which a car tumbles at high speed off a garage – shot at least partly (from memory) at low angle.
Sitting in the theatre, I was going, "Holy …" I didn't even have time to get the "… crap" out and the movie was on to the next micro-second cut.
I hadn't seen that wreck before. It struck me as one of the best, and I wanted to experience it much more intensely than the director allowed me to. Pissed me off.
BTW, does anyone here have any thinking on the shaky cameras and fast cuts rewiring our brains either to speed up our perception abilities or to cause ADD (not a disease that I currently believe in, but am interested in the arguments.)
I seldom watch movies anymore. When I do, I have to remember the Dramamine first, else I'd spend the whole time staring at the floor, trying to guess from the sound what's going on, sneaking peeks at the screen when the camera seems still for a second…then getting caught when it moves. Unpleasant.
It's not just shaky-cam and washed out colors. There's really a lot of self-consciousness in many of the technical aspects of film. It's like they're saying: Look at me. I'm technically amazing.
When the camera's not jittering, it's zooming in and out, slam-panning left and right AND then jittering.
Quality film scoring seems to have died with the passing of Goldsmith and Bernstein. I can't remember the last time there was a memorable musical sequence ala Barry or Jarre.
I'm sick of everything being kinda blue (and not in a jazzy kind of way). Hey, just make it black and white if you don't know what you're doing (how I miss three-strip).
Stop cutting cutting cutting between actors. My wife and I recently saw 12 Angry Men. I kept stopping it. "Look, they have the camera on someone's reaction, not the person talking. Look how they keep doing that." My gosh, one of the most dramatic scenes I've ever witnessed was the dressing down Edward Arnold got in You Can't Take It With You. All we see is the back of the guy giving a piece of his mind and we see Arnold's reaction to it. No cutting. None. Hey directors. You've got some terrific actors out there. Let them act. Plant the camera on them, leave it alone, and let it rip.
And action sequences and fights should be something I can make out. Watch the end of From Russia With Love. It's fast action, quickly edited (even with drop-frames), but it's clean and exciting.
OK, more coffee for me.
Wonderful, yet another movie that will give me a migraine thanks to the shaky-cam.
I blame the show Cops. Then I watch Cops since it's still more entertaining then most of the shows on tv anyways. LOL
blame a 1992 movie called "Laws of Gravity" by Nick Gomez. Used the hand-held, and did it well, so everyone wanted to be hip like him.
BTW, I'm totally with Dustmouse. "Public Enemies" made me nauseous and I was looking at the floor for 70% of the film.
The shakycam started on t.v., but the truth birth of it on the big screen was the headache inducing -to me at least- 'Diehard 3' set in N.Y.
It was the first film that actually nauseated me to the point that I had to leave the theater to calm my head and bowels. That cinema abortion didn't catch on then, but the shaky became more and more evident on the boob tube. The first "new wave" of epileptic cameraman handling began in earnest with the horrible film '~Borne 2'. That Entire film could not stop vibrating except for a small part where Borne sets up a McGuyver styled bomb that blows up that house in the middle of the movie. It's the coolest "Classical" smoothest moment in the whole dang show!
And from there with the aid of Computer Technology, the ShakyCam took off, where Nothing was safe from the vibration. Sadly, this is the end of cinema as I knew it and there's no way to stop it.
Pixar hasn't tried it yet, but…..
Woody Allen is another director who took a major shine to the shaky cam. I got dizzy the first time I saw Husbands And Wives. The camera was bouncing back and forth between actors so much I thought I was watching a tennis match!
Remember way back when- "Rocky." The development of the steadicam was revolutionary. Even through I was pretty young, I remember a story on one of TV newsmagazines, maybe 60 Minutes, I don't remember which show. It was about "Rocky" and how this new development was going to completely change movie making. It is rather pitiful that some directors and/or cinematographers have abandoned what was powerful component of movie-making that helped propel the story, for a gimmick that gets in the way of the story.
I had a friend who thought NYPD Blue was the greatest show ever. But I tried to watch it, but the camera was just so distracting, I couldn't follow the story.
I have a 25 year old roommate who told me that she never watches a movie made before 1995. My assumption is that she requires not just hot actors, but the underlying faster pace.
I wonder if younger folks can experience as complete an emotional roller coaster as is possible in movies or if they are merely being more simplistically dumbed down much as their music does.
Specifically, the emotional content is so quickly run through their brains that they more and more have less and less time to add up all the meaning via critical thinking – which leaves them no choice but what the commercialists who now make movies want them to believe.
Or am I wrong? Have the young speeded up to the point that they can feel at the pace they are presented, as well as integrate that meaning?
I doubt it.
Why do they do this? Why? I want to see this flick but dang………….is Gerry really worth the price of admission or should I wait and buy a used Blue Ray?
I’m curious, John, as to what you thought of Michael C. Hall. I’m a big fan of Showtime’s Dexter, thanks in no small part to his terrific work on the show, and I was wondering if his talent translated well on the big screen.
Well… I'm only 26 and I'm looking over the DVDs on my shelf: I see Hitchcock films, Casablanca, Marx Brothers films, Three Stooges shorts, Jerry Lewis films, James Bond boxsets, Stanley Kubrick Blu-Rays, and a few other classic gems. I can provide your roommate with a list of must-see classic films if you'd like.
(It's a shame so many of my generation display that kind of ignorance… no offense.)
I think part of it is the dumbing down of society in general. And many of the big blockbuster movies don't require that kind of critical thinking (The Dark Knight being a noticeable exception). I think it's a combination of: a.) execs who think people are idiots and feel the need to play to the lowest common denominator, b.) people who "don't like to think" when they see movies (I'm not talking about rocket science but I have encountered that quote*, and c.) writers who don't know how to craft intelligent screenplays or who are forced to dumb their work down which leads us back to letter a.
* – There is nothing wrong with going to a movie that doesn't require any kind of critical thinking (we all have our guilty pleasures) but I do admit this one baffles me. Some of the best movies are the ones where you have a "Eureka!" moment a month later. But if people don't want to think, then what? Make movies less intelligent? But people don't want to be talked down to either.
Then we’ll go back to 1941 where you can drop me off in front of Barbara Stanwyck’s house
——————————–
If that happened you would end up in an insurance scam….
You'd walk into a good looking dame's front parlour and says, "Good afternoon, I sell accident insurance on husbands… you got one that's been around too long? One you'd like to turn into a little hard cash?"
You wouldn't hear your own footsteps. It would be a walk of a dead man.
Hmm. Say David, I wonder if I know what you mean?
This is just my own BS theory…
I think a lot of it has to do with the current crop if directors who got their start in the world of music videos and commercials, where the goal is to keep a person's attention and sell a product in a matter of seconds. There are some exceptions (David Fincher) but for the most part, directors like Michael Bay are simply used to employing that style of editing, even when it isn't necessary for the scene. Or maybe they don't know any better.
As for the shaky-cam, I can understand why a filmmaker would use it. It worked very well in the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan, giving it a "You are here" vibe. But like so many other conventions of cinema, it has become overused to the point of annoyance. Hopefully it's just a fad that will fade away in time. (Zooming shots were pretty big in the 70s but how often do you see them today?)
In his DVD audio commentary for Star Trek II, director Nicholas Meyer says something to the effect of, "With the directors today who started in music videos, every shot in their films is perfect. Every single shot is perfect. But if every shot is perfect, then there's no distinction or priority." Smart guy, that Meyer.
"There is nothing wrong with going to a movie that doesn't require any kind of critical thinking (we all have our guilty pleasures"
Gees, don't remind me of twenty to thirty years ago and all those slow moving, European, character driven emotional basket cases that your girlfriend would pick. I could barely keep her awake to get her home and never back to my place. An East Indian restaurant and a Body Heat were my lucky charms.
Sure, most aren't interested in concentrating on why a film works. I am always accused of being too analytical after leaving a film, unless I am with another movie enthusiast.
That's not what I am talking about, though. I am just pointing out that both the shaky camera and ever faster edits tend (though not always) to contribute to dumping a movie's message in the brains of the audience before the info can be compared to known life experiences.
My roommate might like to hear from you and you might like to connect with her, but I seriously doubt that Isaac would approve. He's kind of a badass, redneck Midwestern fireplug of a Jew (football and wrestling) who has never been to a Harvard style conflict resolution class. He's one of my primary sources of info regarding the next two guns I intend to buy.
John Locke – Dexter fans won't be disappointed. Michael has some of the best moments in the film, and a sweet song and dance number.
Also, I think ON3i1 is onto something w/ the conservative subtext…the depiction of the bloated, soulless gamer was definitely a stick in the eye to the status quo.
Think back to the blair witch project movie and MTV music video editing for the birth of the shaky cam in cinema. A few directors are coming from making music videos and they have brought their editing techniques to the big screen. There is another thing I hate, filming fight scenes with the camera so close to the actors you cannot see what is going on. I really hate that. One of the first instances of this was the final fight scene in Lethal Weapon, between Mel Gibson and Gary Busse. You couldn't really see what was going on. Another thing I hate is when they show a character dressed in black, fighting in a dark environment. You can't see anything again. I noticed this in the first Batman remake with Michael Keaton. The first Blade movie, with Wesley Snipes, dealt with this problem by always having the background a very light color. The meat packing plant and the final fight scene were very well lit and allowed you to see the action.
Remember way back when- "Rocky." The development of the steadicam was revolutionary. Even through I was pretty young, I remember a story on one of TV newsmagazines, maybe 60 Minutes, I don't remember which show. It was about "Rocky" and how this new development was going to completely change movie making. It is rather pitiful that some directors and/or cinematographers have abandoned what was powerful component of movie-making that helped propel the story, for a gimmick that gets in the way of the story.
I had a friend who thought NYPD Blue was the greatest show ever. I tried to watch it, but the camera was just so distracting, I couldn't follow the story.
Well… I'm only 26 and I'm looking over the DVDs on my shelf: I see Hitchcock films, Casablanca, Marx Brothers films, Three Stooges shorts, Jerry Lewis films, James Bond boxsets, Stanley Kubrick Blu-Rays, and a few other classic gems. I can provide your roommate with a list of must-see classic films if you'd like.
(It's a shame so many of my generation display that kind of ignorance… no offense.)
I think part of it is the dumbing down of society in general. And many of the big blockbuster movies don't require that kind of critical thinking (The Dark Knight being a noticeable exception). I think it's a combination of: a.) execs who think people are idiots and feel the need to play to the lowest common denominator, b.) people who "don't like to think" when they see movies (I'm not talking about rocket science but I have encountered that quote*), and c.) writers who don't know how to craft intelligent screenplays or who are forced to dumb down their work which leads us back to letter "a".
* – There is nothing wrong with going to a movie that doesn't require any kind of critical thinking (we all have our guilty pleasures) but I do admit this one baffles me. Some of the best movies are the ones where you have a "Eureka!" moment a month later. But if people don't want to think, then what? Make movies less intelligent? People don't want their intelligence insulted either.
Amen to COPS being some of the most compelling television ever. 5 or 6 kinds of dirtbag vs. 5 or 6 types of cop plus 8 or 9 variations on drunken/stoned moron for variety. I won't say it's representative of humanity in general, but it certainly is "must-not-look-away" television.
I always blamed Michael Bay for popularizing Shaky Cam with the Hummer vs. sports-car chase scene in The Rock. That was the first time I saw it show up in a movie I think everyone saw. After that it was Katie bar the door.
Shaky cam is annoying but I can endure it. I couldn't endure this movie. I agree with ON3i1 about a conservative message. Before we walked out, my wife leaned over and whispered "talk about the depravity of man". This was only the second movie I've ever walked out of in my life. Last one was around 1980 so I had a pretty good run there.
The amount of eccentric unnecessary, camera movement in today's films makes Hong Kong Kung Fu theater look like Kubrick in comparison. Good grief.
I mean, it had it's place. Black Hawk down really benefited from that treatment. Imagine if it had been shot in the style of say, A Walk in the Sun. I somehow don't think the drama would have had as much impact. (or the RPGs!)
Someone mentioned NYPD Blue. Actually, another much earlier Bochco job. Hill Street Blues was the first television show, I believe that incorporated a 'roaming cam'. There was much ballyhoo about it at the time. All hand-held. It was inevitable to go from that to shaky cam which is a rather intentional hand-heldedness made possible by some of the most expensive and heavy camera equipment known to mankind.
Amazing how much money and effort they'll go thru to make it look like there was no effort at all.
My favorite use of the shaky cam was our wonderful Press any time they'd shoot tape on President Bush. That thing not only shook, it rattled, vibrated, and shimmied as if Earthquake was playing in the next room in Sensaround.
Now, compare any of Bush's camera treatment with the way they shoot Obama press conferences. Almost always rock steady, as were Bill Clinton's.
It was an intentional cheap shot to nauseate the viewer. Even Bush's staunchest fans would have trouble watching any press conference after a few minutes w/out getting annoyed or feeling nauseous and not really knowing why.
(I know, I know, the obvious joke here is it wasn't the camera it was Bush words that made them sick. Yeah, hilarious, whatever.)
I even spoke to some people at the WH who worked the in-house stuff and they were fully aware of it and had no way to counter it. Free press.
Amazing how in China, though, during the recent Olympics, not only was Bush video taped with rock steadiness, but the stills and frame grabs chosen by the Chinese press to release to the American and global press pool were fabulous shots. Absolutely super. Bush looked great. Never better. And so many shots of athletes wanting to pose with him, all smiles, having a great time. It was clear our own 'free' press would never take, let alone release such photos to our public. Ironic, that a communist nation did. Speaks volumes.
Here, Here! Along with quick cuts and close ups, films are being ruined!
Seriously, I can't remember a more terrible movie than what I watched when I sat there for an hour and a half while Gamer rolled over my eyeballs. I read a review before going that said it was a bunch of tits and explosions. I would agree with that, except I would add in that it was a bunch of RANDOM tits and explosions. While Kable was in the game, I don't think shaky cam was entirely to blame for the total lack of punch in the scene. The entire battle was completely random. The script must have read like
CUT TO KABLE RUNNING OUT OF TUNNEL. He shoots, not sure if he hits anyone
CUT TO KABLE WALKING DOWN THE STREET WITH EXPLOSIONS. He shoots, not sure if he hits anyone
CUT TO KABLE WALKING DOWN A HALLWAY WITH GUYS IN THE BACKROUND. He shoots, not sure if he hits anyone.
CUT TO KABLE SAVING A RANDOM INNOCENT WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO BE THERE. Innocent gets killed, not sure if KABLE cares.
And that was just the Slayers part of the movie. When they move into SOCIETY, they copied the exact same formula with KABLE's WIFE substituted for KABLE, tits substituted for explosions, and shots fired replaced with random shots of a fat guy making sexual advances with some other weird fat guy.
Hopefully this drops out of the theaters faster than Obama's approval rating crosses south of the 50% line.
whoever uses the shaky cam bs need to sit on it and rotate while it shakes.. absolute garbage.. miseable way to use any type of camera.. (unless it's the bridge of the Enterprise warping through a space storm..)
My husband has joked about starting non-profit "Tri-Pod for Directors" fund. Maybe those stingy studios just won't front the money for a good $50 Manfrotto.
He was okay… The rolewas a little over-the-top. Not his fault. Just screenwriters working too hard to make him unique.
I forgot about BLAIR WITCH. Love that move. Camera worked beautifully there.
Honestly I thought the first coming out of this (non)style was the Blair Witch Project. While I got the whole this is made by someone holding a camcorder and running for their life thing it made me nauseous and I had to close my eyes through half the film. The worst was the Godzilla like remake where the monster detroys New York. It was not Godzlla it was the one where the kids are caught in the disaster and all the footage is on a camcorder. I could not even watch that movie without getting sick.
Sign me up for the shaky cam hate train as well. Although, I do think that in certain movies it is appropriate. The Blair Witch Project, for instance, IMO did it well. I think the recent zombie movie remake Quaranteen also did a good job with a similar premise.
But these action movies that have shaky cam just for the sake of having a shaky cam… There is just no excuse. Hell, there are even a lot of GOOD movies that, when it comes time for a big battle scene, resort to shaky cam and put a damper on the whole experience ala Master and Commander & Gladiator. It might even be a majority of films that choose the shaky route at this point.
Mine was more along the lines of "Starbuck is a chick and psylons look like people?" *click*.
But I'm sure if I stuck around and watched for another 30 seconds I would have hit your conclusion as well.
Is it? I haven't seen the film (and won't), but just about any time you see "gamers" depicted on tv or in the movies these days they are fat and lazy nerd stereotypes.
"You’re not using the Almighty’s name in vain when you mean it."
I don't know. There's more than one definition of vain. There's the empty and valueless one, and then there's the one that satisfies your pride. I think the latter is more to the point of the commandment. God is there to deal with great evil, etc. Nothing that matters mostly to YOU, and perhaps others but mostly you, isn't worth His time.
In any case, both definitions apply here. It is pridefull to invoke God to defend you against annoying cinematic styles. Also, I doubt there's very much meaning or import in the shaky-cam, no matter how much you really mean it.
"The first 'new wave' of epileptic cameraman handling began in earnest with the horrible film '~Borne 2'."
Bourne 2? What about Bourne 1? I can't see much of a difference between the two.
I blame Saving Private Ryan.
Blair Witch and Cloverfield are different. The whole point was to make the audience think it was an actual documentary. The infusion of docu-style into regular narrative films–that is, ones that don't pretend to be other than what they are–started, in my opinion, with Saving Private Ryan. At least that was the first Big, Serious film to bank on it.
John, this is one crusade of yours I will sign up for.
Clearly there are films where the handheld, subjective, jumpy camera is an effective means of underlining the story and themes — Medium Cool and Battle of Algiers are earlier entries that use it quite effectively. And in something like Husbands and Wives you might not even notice the jerky camera all that much because the story is still clear. But I am finding the style grafted onto all sorts of movies where it becomes a flashy tic, not an organic part of the vision.
For those who want to look more at the origins and development of the technique, the great David Bordwell has an interesting commentary on the evolution and technique of what he calls "run and gun," focusing mainly on The Bourne Ultimatum:
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1175
I agree with you. The most important reason that the speed up in pace is because a filmmaker thinks it works to sell more films.
One of the outcomes is what I am wondering about.
In the 60s musical creativity and diversity of sounds surged, but have since largely funneled down to one look and feel: rap/hip-hop, which is a serious dumbing down.
It is hard to imagine a parallel in film, but I am seeing a tendency.
"I think this is a record number of posts for me in a review thread for a movie I'm not even interested in seeing."
LOL I won't go to Gamer because I expect a great movie or even decent Saturday afternoon diversion. My only interest would be if I wanted to figure out what gamers in real life are thinking and then how to make computer based movies more interesting.
Forget the shaky cam. The stupid trailer already gave me the excuse for not seeing this movie. It's nothing but a stupid rehash of a million other 'oppressed hero fights back' garbage. Seen it and then seen it again – no thanks. Give me something original. But the shaky cam? Well, that would have pounded this stupid movie into pieces on its own.
BTW – that outfit of that redhead in the second picture is THE dumbest piece of shitty clothes on a big-assed broad that I've ever seen. I swear, that picture alone says how stupid this film has to be. If wardrobe is this dumb, the rest of the film can't be any brighter.
i know the DH3 shot you're talking about b/c it made me nauseous too – Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson just crashed after eliminating a villain's pickup truck, and as they run across the road, the following cameraman seemed to be mounted on a pogo-stick. The 1995 audience i saw it with laughed out loud at how distracting that shot was (the movement was supposed to feel "real") and the guys near me crowed "what the @$%"… which i remember everytime that movie's glimpsed since then. ironic since John McTiernan had beautifully mastered Steadicam and dolly work in his earlier movies.
Glad I say the Basterds instead. It was a breath of fresh air to see some actual direction and acting.
"That's not what I am talking about, though. I am just pointing out that both the shaky camera and ever faster edits tend (though not always) to contribute to dumping a movie's message in the brains of the audience before the info can be compared to known life experiences."
I can't speak to that point.
I never really thought about it like that before. I simply believe it's a matter of the filmmakers thinking, "Quick, we better move on before the audience gets bored!" without giving the audience any credit. And I think whenever a fast-cut, shaky-shot movie comes out, every other filmmaker thinks, "Okay, now how can we make our movie even faster and more intense?!" (example: the Bond producers wanting to make Quantum of Solace more like the Bourne films in terms of cutting and camerawork… hopefully they'll rein it in a bit for the next one)
P.S.: I think this is a record number of posts for me in a review thread for a movie I'm not even interested in seeing.
Here! Here! Enough with the damned SHAKEY CAM already. It's getting old. Throwing together a mass of quick cuts and close-ups will never out do an old-fashioned, well choreographed action sequence. I was struck by this recently when watching an 80's James Bond movie and was nostalgic for a time when you can actually follow a kick, a punch, and a car crash with precision and logic. No longer. But, as always, glorified music video directors won't change their techniques until some young turk from Hong Kong or Europe makes a mint with a different type of action aesthetic.
The movie is called Gamer. Ever played a good video game? Better yet, ever walked somewhere before? Everything shakes, you're just used to it because you've been doing it all your life. It's a method of immersing the viewer into the action, into the story, into the movie/game. If it doesn't work for you, just keep watching, you will get used to it (unless you're afflicted with motion sickness, then you have my condolences). Also, some people just have to face the fact that they just can not react physically and emotionally to certain artificial visual stimuli in entertaining ways. Sucks to be you. Pass the popcorn and shut up or go watch the new Sandra Bullock movie.
I thought the movie was over the top on the Society part, but I'm kind of a prude. However, I think it was very close to being rather a true representation of what would happen. Have any of you seen second life? It's seriously that exact concept. People wear really weird clothes, look completely different then themselves, and make their characters do rather strange things. With that said, they could have expressed those concepts without it being done that way. I thought the movie ended too easily. Did anyone else see he conservative undertones when they were talking about Castle?
"Humanz dude: Because Castle is scared of you.
Humanz dude 2: It ain't just a game, you know, Tillman. Everyday there's more people stepping forward, wanna be a part of Castle's world. Throwing away everything it means to be human.
Trace: Right now it's the desperate ones…convicts, addicts…the sick, the poor… the ones that fell through the cracks.. they have no choice.
Humanz dude: But this is only the beginning.
Humanz dude 2: Think about it: the federal prison system is growing out of control, set to bankrupt the whole damn USA… Castle rides in on a white horse, says he got a plan to bail us out and everyone just falls in line.
Trace: So what's next? The health care system is collapsing – Castle comes in to the rescue again…
Humanz dude 2: This time he's pushin' total control of genetic disease… birth defects a thing of the past… all we gotta do is exchange our cells for the ones he wanna give us.
Trace: The promise of a longer life and a fatter wallet – you think people will refuse?
Humanz dude: Hell no.
Humanz dude 2: They'll be standing in line to hand their babies over to him. Next think you know, we all slaves. "
Maybe it's just me. But I thought it was talking about someone else there for a minute… =)
Cylons are psylons?
Whatever. I didn't stick around because it wasn't as cheesy as the '70s BSG, but because it wasn't as wholesome.
Seriously, a great question!
I'm with you, Lola – is Gerry worth the admission….or should we wait until Blu-Ray?
"one of the few not-a-metrosexuals working today" – amen to that. I was just watching The Magnificent Seven a couple of days ago. Remember when you couldn't be an actor if you couldn't ride a horse well? And in a cast of real men was the ultimate Hollywood manly man (and a conservative to boot), Steve McQueen. How can anyone watch any movie with Steve McQueen and then think any leading man today can play a tough guy? Please.
Gerry is always worth it to see larger than life but… DVD will allow you to fast forward to teh sexy. I didn't like the movie, shaky cam and all.
watch Gamer online
http://bit.ly/404B7f
There was a point to the outfit on the woman. It's deliberately stupid and makes sense in the context of the scene.
BTW, if you really think Amber Valletta is a big-assed broad, then you're either blind or insane. She has a lovely figure.
Yeah I understand
Unfortunately my stomach did not.
Mind you I thought the premise and acting of both movies were great. Just wished they toned down the whole se sickness experience a little.
Yeah I understand
Unfortunately my stomach did not.
Mind you I thought the premise and acting of both movies were great. Just wished they toned down the whole sea sickness experience a little.
You must be logged in to post a comment.