I'll give them credit for trying something so difficult. However, I thought the 7 minute single take was an unnecessary gimmick that, because of its sloppiness, called attention to itself instead of building the tension that proper editing might have given it. Perhaps this was done deliberately. The camera platform was too unstable... especially at the starts and stops of the movement of the camera. Unlike the hand-held camera technique that's supposed to be constantly shaky, a smooth camera platform movement that's followed by a sudden jerkiness, takes me away from the story. I wondered why they didn't at least use a Steadycam! See the eight-minute opening shot of The Player (1992). Sure, it doesn't go up and down three stories of the side of a building, but it doesn't really call attention to itself. Most people didn't even notice it was a single take.
I like when a movie draws the audience into the story and characters so much that we forget we are even watching a movie. This one doesn't do that. The production team seems to be saying to us "How skilled and clever we are... look what we can do!". (with a pat on the back from their peers, colleagues, film students and IMDB readers)
Also, look closely on the ground and you can see what looks, to me, like some of the wiring that might have been used by the production team for this stunt with little effort to hide it. Perhaps this, too, was deliberate.
reply
share