— Begin quote from "DizzyForLife?"
The cinematic style has been praised by many, and I thoroughly enjoyed it despite needing to look away a few times in the IMAX. It’s not everyone’s preferred type of movie (just like any genre, including classics), but I wouldn’t draw such a harsh conclusion about the merits of the movie as a whole based on a sensitive population getting sick from it. Just my opinion, of course. If anyone still wants to see it, maybe try it out when it hits Redbox. That way, you are only wasting a few dollars if you can’t make it through for whatever reason.
— End quote
I’m glad you enjoyed it and were able to make it through without difficulty. I give you even more credit for seeing it in IMAX, which I could never handle (even before MAV). However, it makes me very ill (mentally and physically) to see those images and in all honesty I am flat out tired of them, hence I feel my “harsh” criticism is completely justified. I really don’t try to watch them either - anytime the commercials come on I either leave the room, skip through the commercial, or change the channel. And now it pummels me whenever I go to the “On Demand” on my cable because they are showing the same things in the background when I am searching for something to watch, which makes it very difficult for me to view the movie lists. It’ll probably be another month before that goes away.
But I was criticizing the visual style and not the content of the movie itself. In fact, I have no doubt it would probably be just as fine of a movie if it didn’t have such an exaggerated camera style, just like many TV shows would probably be just fine without all the excessive camera shake as well. Years ago, cinematographers used to work hard to prevent this kind of thing from happening (eg, the Steadicam), but somehow it all fell by the wayside.
Many people have reported sensitivity issues from movies, and it’s not just limited to us with MAV. I remember seeing the the 2nd Bourne movie years ago with my friend (who doesn’t have MAV). She got physically ill from the excessive camera shake, and we almost had to leave the theater. Back then, it didn’t bother me at all, but I remember that all that motion added absolutely nothing to the story and it would have been completely fine without it. When the 3rd Bourne movie came out a few years later, there were people writing to Roger Ebert en masse complaining about how all the camera movement made them sick and he argued the same point as well. It would have been interesting to see what he would have thought of Gravity had he not recently passed away.
What scares me the most is that anything that makes money in Hollywood is worth repeating, in the studios’ eyes. Which means, there will be more of these kinds of movies in future. And what does it really add? I really sympathize with anyone who doesn’t want to see more of that.
I would really like to see “Captain Phillips” since it is based on factual events, but if I have to spend half of the movie looking away, then what’s the point?