Inventive Filmmaking?

Rating: Null/10 (13 October 2002)

First of all, I do not understand why when someone shoots something in a "non-traditional" re: non-steadicam manner everyone starts praising them for being revolutionary. I can't even comment on the film itself because I found that the constant fade-to black and the hand -held camera work was distracting and actually made me so nauseous and dizzy that I stopped caring about what was going on ( having read Mullan's book I already knew where it was all going anyway.) I know the film is supposed to look realistic, but I felt that if I hadn't already been familiar with the event the film is covering, I would have lost interest real fast when confronted by a director who was trying to capture realism, but who really just covers up large holes in the plot/factual research by trying out fancy camera tricks. I suppose the film was all right, but as I said before, I was already uninterested after about 20 minutes due to all the unnecesary shakiness and editing.