While I am one of those people who complained about the hand-held technique, I think you misunderstood my position.atv_chic_18 said:So it seems several are complaining about the hand held versus this or that and other things. The thing that I think some people don't get with this movie is that they go into it with this what I call after being in a film class a modernized Hollywood technique. People go into the movie thinking "Oh yes, this movie is going to be like tons of high quality shots, graphics,etc". WRONG my friend.
My criticism is that the hand-held camera did not allow me to see the faces of the characters engaging in dialogue for the first half of the movie, nor let me appreciate the action sequences. On top of all of that, my eyes eventually started hurting as I tried to keep up with the constantly shifting vantage point. It's one thing to put style and originality in your shots. It's another thing to make your movie literally unwatchable. Half-way through the movie, I still couldn't recognize the main characters when I saw them, because I was denied the formative early period of associating actor with character, and face with voice.
To give you a point of contrast, I adored Cloverfield. Unlike most people who, like I do now, complained about the hand-held shots, I thought they made the movie. The cinematographer kept the unpolished and amateur feel of a home documentary while still letting me see what was going on and who was saying what. I didn't miss one detail, and I thought it was fantastic.
What I'm criticizing isn't the technique, namely, it's the execution thereof. Public Enemies simply didn't pull it off.