I liked your entry, but I have to say I thought the directing was pretty innovative given the whole “how can we get people to care more about the charactors in a monster movie and play on people’s own fears of being in a natural disaster” kind of way. This, of course, depends upon the viewer to suspend their disbelief that a home video camera could last so long (presumably 8 hrs) filming (plus however long with a light). That’s NEVER been my experience.

The paragraph starts off with “Aside from the virtually constant shaking, rattling, and rolling (narratively justified or not), what really bothered me about the film (and which ultimately makes it intellectually appetizing) is that there were no traditional reverse-shots.”

I should clarify that I wasn’t keen on how the whirling camera made my eyes feel–so personally, I could’ve enjoyed less of it. But, it didn’t annoy me the way the absence of reverse-shots did. I may not have “liked” nonstop-camera-moving, but I understand why it was implemented.