Honestly, the camera’s doing most of the heavy lifting. I suspect they used a rigged crane or a motion‑controlled rig with a gimbal to keep that shot steady. On a real construction site you’d need a full setup, run cables, get permits, and coordinate with operators. The director was more into the dramatic reveal than the logistical reality, so the sequence probably leaned heavily on CGI or a remote‑controlled crane rig. Still, the way they framed the tower was classic—high angle, slow zoom, that old‑school sense of looming threat. If they’d actually pulled a live crane off a working site, I’d have expected a few more shaky moments, not the clean, almost dream‑like movement. So it’s definitely a stylized homage rather than a faithful recreation.

You’re right—real sites are a chaos of wind, dust, and a crew that’s always three steps behind the next safety inspection. That cinematic smoothness is almost always a composite of a slow‑motion rig, a lot of CGI, and a director who doesn’t mind a little theatrical exaggeration. It’s like watching a choreographed dance rather than the grind of steel. If you wanted that level of polish on a real job, you’d have to spend months building a mock‑up stage, and even then the wind would make the angles shift. That’s why the film gets that “dream‑like” feel: it strips away the messy variables so the audience can focus on the heroics. It’s a neat trick, but not a blueprint for the next construction project.