MovieChat Forums > Rag Tale (2005) Discussion > motion sickness beware

motion sickness beware


this looked like it could have been a really good film, good actors however every shot is literally 1 sec long...i had to leave it made me really sick.

reply

not seen the film, but bbc critic mark kermode said exactly the same thing - apparently at the screening a fellow critic, james king, left the cinema and vomited! maybe oppresssive regimes could use this film as some sort of torture device.....

reply

I heard Mark Kermode's review and also read Cosmo Landsman's in the sunday times, and both critics talked of feeling sick by the film. I can't say it fuels my appetite to go and see it!

reply

I tried to watch it today with a friend at BAFTA,but had to leave after 20 mins.It made me physically sick.If I'd had to pay for the ticket I would have been furious.

reply




I was going to wait for it to come on dvd. Is it really that bad. What is JJL role like. To be honest i would pro only buy because she is it it. Does she have a long part in it?

reply

Wowee, I'm just after watching the whole thing on DVD and my head is spinning. It isn't just the fact it cuts every half second, the shots all seem to start at some wierd diagonal angle and rock back and forth. It's like trying to watch a movie on a ship during a particularly violent storm.

It was a pretty interesting movie though so I persevered. The dialogue was very sharp.

Personally I found The Blair Witch Project far more difficult to handle. It kept alternating between shaky cam and steady shots which really did my stomach in. This one is consistently rocking all over the place which I seemed to acclimatise to better!

reply

I didnt even think it was that good a concept.

We turned the film off half way through because it it was making us dizzy. The camera work was so amatuerish with the spinning, jolting, bumpy zooms and refusals to do anything horizontally.

And the editting, I wont even start on the editting.

As for the "sharp" dialogue. The improvisation was clearly that - people making it up as they go along. There was no realism. These were suposedly professional Jornalists talking like the cast of an amateur dramatics society.

reply

I watched Man on Fire quite recently and thought that would be hard to top in terms of furious editing but this absolutely took the biscuit.

A pity really because I think there is certainly a great movie to be had in the world of british tabloids, but the director really was awful on this one...

"That crazy enough for ya? Want me to take a s%*t on the floor??!!!"

reply

I thought it was a fairly poor movie made even worse by its really, really annoying editing style, which didn't make me feel sick, but did make me take out the notepad I brought and start playing noughts and crosses. With myself.

reply

[deleted]

you get use to it after a while, i think it's a pretty good film but the camera angles just draw to much atention away from what's going on, instead of following the story from the start, we spend the first 15 minutes trying to get use to the shots. it seems like the director was scared people would find the stroy boring so she tried to make it more 'interesting'

reply