I liked Ebert's take on it:

"'The Raid: Redemption' is essentially a visualized video game that spares the audience the inconvenience of playing it."

"There's obviously an audience for the film, probably a large one. They are content, even eager, to sit in a theater and watch one action figure after another pound and blast one another to death. Have you noticed how cats and dogs will look at a TV screen on which there are things jumping around? It is to that level of the brain's reptilian complex that the film appeals."

"So what am I saying? "The Raid: Redemption" failed as a generic success because it simplified its plot too much? Not really. It is a generic success. And yet my heart sank and I asked myself: Is this all they want? Are audiences satisfied with ceaseless violence, just so long as they can praise it for being "well choreographed?" Is there no appreciation for human dimension, meaning, and morality?"

I like Ebert, but he is way off on this one. I have noticed that in recent years, his tolerance for movies with a lot of violence and death has gone down -- perhaps it's an unwelcome reminder of his own looming mortality. It's unfortunate, because this is a superlative martial arts film, and Ebert has shown a fondness for these types of movies in the past.

And shuac, I think comparing this film -- which has some of the most intricately choreographed, beautifully violent and skillfully shot/edited action that we've seen in years -- to "Ass" is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. It's also condescendingly dismissive of 50+ years of martial arts action cinema, in which this film is easily a milestone -- a culmination of the types of films made by stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Donnie Yen. I can agree with Ebert that the characters are (intentionally) thin in this movie, but to imply that there is no artistry or craft at work here is, again, idiotic.

I am going to *promote this, because it is awesome.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, April 1st, 2012 10:40am PDT - promote requested by original submitter Sarzy.

Sorry but Ebert is not only in the minority, he's also just wrong.

The Raid is a terse, well executed action flick. It is phenomenally well paced and shot.

The shortest story in the english language was written by Hemingway. "For sale, baby shoes. Never worn".
On the face of it there are no characters, no plot. But anyone who spends more than a second can see the story behind the story. So it is with the raid.

Gonna see this on Tuesday, can't wait!

Shuac's quotes are perfect examples of why your typical film critic are simply snobby douche bags. I feel sorry for anyone that cannot just have fun with a simple and sometimes awesomely cheesy action film such as Commando, Road House, Shoot 'em Up, Jackie Chan's films, Ong Bak, etc without lamenting the lack of "appreciation for human dimension, meaning, and morality". I'd gladly see those kind of people get round house kicked in the face, stumble backward, crash through a window, fall down flipping end over end until they crash onto a car 3 stories below

>> ^Sarzy:

I like Ebert, but he is way off on this one. I have noticed that in recent years, his tolerance for movies with a lot of violence and death has gone down -- perhaps it's an unwelcome reminder of his own looming mortality. It's unfortunate, because this is a superlative martial arts film, and Ebert has shown a fondness for these types of movies in the past.
And shuac, I think comparing this film -- which has some of the most intricately choreographed, beautifully violent and skillfully shot/edited action that we've seen in years -- to "Ass" is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. It's also condescendingly dismissive of 50+ years of martial arts action cinema, in which this film is easily a milestone -- a culmination of the types of films made by stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Donnie Yen. I can agree with Ebert that the characters are (intentionally) thin in this movie, but to imply that there is no artistry or craft at work here is, again, idiotic.
I am going to promote this, because it is awesome.


One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?


Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

Because the critical consensus is that it's an instant classic.

Because it's breaking through into the mainstream more than any martial arts film I can think of since Ong Bak.

Because it is awesome.

Some quotes from reviews:

David Fear -- Time Out: And in terms of beautifully coordinated film violence—the kind involving flying fists and feet, whizzing blades and ballistic superbattles—Gareth Evans’s insta-classic Indonesian crime flick is leagues above every kinetic bullet-ballet and martial arts epic of the past decade. Whether this 31-year-old Welsh director will eventually be mentioned in the same breath as legendary chaos orchestrators like Sam Peckinpah or John Woo remains to be seen. For now, Evans can take pride in the fact that he’s set the bar for cinemayhem impossibly high.

Andrew O'Hehir -- Salon: “The Raid” is a witty, pulse-pounding instant midnight classic, an immediate sensation at the Sundance and Toronto festivals that should appeal to cinema buffs, action freaks and a pretty large mainstream audience besides. It offers some of the best Asian martial-arts choreography of recent years and an electric, claustrophobic puzzle-palace atmosphere that’ll leave you wrung out and buzzed.

Ty Burr -- Boston Globe: Not yet 30, Evans is a master of visceral tension and release. “The Raid’’ repeatedly slows down, gathers force, and rushes forward using all the elements of filmmaking at a director’s disposal: editing’s ability to expand and contract time; the camera’s gift for revealing information through motion and light; a good musical score (by Joseph Trapanese and Linkin Park’s Mike Shinoda) that can cue audiences to respond or just play with their heads. At times, “The Raid’’ feels like pure cinema.

Nordling -- Ain't it Cool: Then, there are the action sequences, which are so exquisitely orchestrated that they build like a symphonic suite of pain and kickassocity. This movie builds and builds, each fight even bigger than the one before it. I can't imagine an audience that won't be on their feet for some of them - and the action choreography is damn near perfect, with cinematography to match. Sure, there's some shakycam, but it's only to build the intensity because Uwais and director Gareth Evans have planned each fight so well that it's never confusing, not once. The geography is flawless. The film wisely lays out the building early on, so that you unconsciously understand where everyone is in the building and even in the same room. I haven't seen such confident action direction since John Woo unleashed the doves in THE KILLER and, yeah, HARD BOILED.

*Spoiler

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.


(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.

Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.

Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.

Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.

Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.

To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.

Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

>> ^shuac:

To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.

I was pointing out that the film has received plenty of critical acclaim. Ebert is welcome to his (increasingly irrelevant) opinion, but my opinion is that he's wrong and I stand by it. I'm not alone either.

My point about Hemingways story wasn't about terseness, it was about inference. There are aspects to The Raids storyline that aren't written down in the script. And even then it wasn't a direct rebuttal to anything Ebert (or you) said, merely a point about how I felt the movie was made. But go ahead and assume everything is related to you.

You don't have to like the Raid, and you're welcome to go watch some tedious pseudo-intellectual bullshit for a few hours if it strokes your ego, but comparing it to "Ass" in Idiocracy is, as @Sarzy pointed out (and somewhat ironically) idiocy.

Sorry for sounding like a condescending prick, but you work to your audience. At least I can actually form my own opinion rather than regurgitate someone else's.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shuac:
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
I was pointing out that the film has received plenty of critical acclaim. Ebert is welcome to his (increasingly irrelevant) opinion, but my opinion is that he's wrong and I stand by it. I'm not alone either.
My point about Hemingways story wasn't about terseness, it was about inference. There are aspects to The Raids storyline that aren't written down in the script. And even then it wasn't a direct rebuttal to anything Ebert (or you) said, merely a point about how I felt the movie was made. But go ahead and assume everything is related to you.
You don't have to like the Raid, and you're welcome to go watch some tedious pseudo-intellectual bullshit for a few hours if it strokes your ego, but comparing it to "Ass" in Idiocracy is, as @Sarzy pointed out (and somewhat ironically) idiocy.
Sorry for sounding like a condescending prick, but you work to your audience. At least I can actually form my own opinion rather than regurgitate someone else's.


Not directed at me? So you'd have posted what you did even if I never made that first post, is that right? Very good then. So long as we're free to infer what we like to any film bereft of story, I'd like to infer a compelling yarn into the multiple award-winning (and fictional) film called Ass.

In Ass, our protagonist is a subject in a medical trial testing an anti-flagellant. It's a closed study so all the test subjects are sequestered. Despite this, our hero smuggles in some chilli for supper the night before. The twist? He's in the placebo group.

Now wasn't Ass a great film? I see your point now. Well-done again!

Most impressive about this post is that I did it on an iPhone.

Enjoy your day!

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.

Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.

Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.

I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.

I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

Yes, films can work for many different reasons. The number of reasons they can fail make the scales balance out nicely.

In case you haven't pinned it down yet, martial arts is not a favorite genre of mine. It's down there with animation and musicals. Despite this, I have seen films from each of these genres and enjoyed some of them.

I've never heard of the directors you mentioned but I can appreciate a meditative style. I didn't dislike Gus Van Sant's Gerry from years back, although I can't say I enjoyed it exactly. That was shot in the style you mentioned, I believe. So yes, I'm with you.

But if you expect me to meditate during the Raid, then I'm going to need more hard drugs. <- relax, this was a joke, I understand what you're saying about the role of story in the two kinds of films.
Jokes aside, however, I would respond to that point with this: which type of limited-story film allows for real-time reflection? The wall-to-wall actioner? Or an Andrey Tarkovskiy flick? Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story.

As far as my judgement of directors go, I wasn't really going there in my comments about The Raid. I was taking about the film only. If Bela Tarr or Apichatpong Weerasethakul (gesundheit!) made this film or that film, I'll only be able to say if the film was successful after I've watched it. If a director makes a film and it says what (s)he wants it to say and people see it and have a reaction...then that director is successful.

Despite what you may think, I do not have a checklist of things all good films must have before I declare them a success. Film is far too complex to attempt to codify all the things that make it good or bad.

>> ^Sarzy:

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.
Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.
Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.
I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.
I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)
>> ^shuac:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

Well, look, if you're hoping for a transcendental experience with every film you see, then I can see why The Raid (and martial arts films in general) wouldn't exactly be your cup of tea. Personally, I loved The Raid because it was an awesome piece of kickassery, and having watched enough awful action films, I know how hard this can be to pull off, and to pull off well. But then, I don't think there's anything wrong with a film that says "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." I like cerebral films as much as the next guy, but every now and then you just want to watch people get punched and kicked in the head. There's something admirable about a genre film that knows exactly what it is, and succeeds almost entirely on a visceral level.

>> ^shuac:

Yes, films can work for many different reasons. The number of reasons they can fail make the scales balance out nicely.
In case you haven't pinned it down yet, martial arts is not a favorite genre of mine. It's down there with animation and musicals. Despite this, I have seen films from each of these genres and enjoyed some of them.
I've never heard of the directors you mentioned but I can appreciate a meditative style. I didn't dislike Gus Van Sant's Gerry from years back, although I can't say I enjoyed it exactly. That was shot in the style you mentioned, I believe. So yes, I'm with you.
But if you expect me to meditate during the Raid, then I'm going to need more hard drugs. <- relax, this was a joke, I understand what you're saying about the role of story in the two kinds of films.
Jokes aside, however, I would respond to that point with this: which type of limited-story film allows for real-time reflection? The wall-to-wall actioner? Or an Andrey Tarkovskiy flick? Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story.
As far as my judgement of directors go, I wasn't really going there in my comments about The Raid. I was taking about the film only. If Bela Tarr or Apichatpong Weerasethakul (gesundheit!) made this film or that film, I'll only be able to say if the film was successful after I've watched it. If a director makes a film and it says what (s)he wants it to say and people see it and have a reaction...then that director is successful.
Despite what you may think, I do not have a checklist of things all good films must have before I declare them a success. Film is far too complex to attempt to codify all the things that make it good or bad.

Any movie can be intelligent or stupid, but some abstain, I guess like a state of amorality, asexuality (or indeed, atheism). It's without an intelligence quotient. I'm okay when my action movie is brainless- it's an action movie, I generally don't watch them to engage my brain on a deeper level, the same way I don't drink red wine for breakfast. It's when a movie actively insults your intelligence (a la Fast Five) I have a problem with it.

>> ^Sarzy:

Well, look, if you're hoping for a transcendental experience with every film you see, then I can see why The Raid (and martial arts films in general) wouldn't exactly be your cup of tea.



Is that really what you think? Hmm, I kinda felt hyperbole was beneath you, Sarz. We were doing so well too. I'm disappointed.

This movie was great. Fight scenes were fast, very well choreographed and often very brutal; the heroes are definitely not afraid to use weapons. I was also surprised that the story and acting were quite good, well above average for your typical martial arts movie. Great movie, there

Well, your complaint in this quote seemed to solely be that The Raid wasn't transcendental enough. I wasn't trying to be hyperbolic. Sorry if I misunderstood. I do know people for whom mere entertainment isn't enough when watching a film; from the way you were talking, I thought you were one of those people.

"Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story."

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
Well, look, if you're hoping for a transcendental experience with every film you see, then I can see why The Raid (and martial arts films in general) wouldn't exactly be your cup of tea.


Is that really what you think? Hmm, I kinda felt hyperbole was beneath you, Sarz. We were doing so well too. I'm disappointed.

Preamble: Much as I hate going through these sorts of exercises, they are sometimes necessary, particularly when a thread has gotten large. People forget what they're responding to; what the topic really is at the time they're responding, leaps of logic, etc. One thing's certain about these summaries: they're always helpful. <- Yes, that's a boast.
1. I posted some quotes from Roger Ebert's review (and blog) that I thought captured my own feelings about The Raid, including a brash comparison to the joke movie Ass featured in Mike Judge's hilarious flick Idiocracy.

2. I get dressed down by Sarzy for said comparison. Sarzy also claims Ebert said there was no craft or artistry to The Raid (which he never actually said, but never mind) and that The Raid is a martial arts milestone.

3. ChaosEngine makes an amusing ad populum argument and later makes a strong case for the merit of terse storytelling and inference of story elements.

4. I ask Sarzy why The Raid is a milestone.

5. Sarzy responds with many heartfelt testimonials by sympathetic reviewers, personal opinions, and lauds its choreography and direction.

6. I excise all the subjective-slanted testimony and focus on what is demonstrably true about The Raid: it was choreographed and directed with great care. I point out that without context (story), conflict is without meaning.

7. ChaosEngine gives it one last try with another amusing post about inference of story elements on the part of the viewer and indirectly calls me a prick. Classy!

8. I respond to ChaosEngine by inferring a wonderful storyline to Ass, instantly making it one of the best joke movies I'd ever watched.

9. Sarzy points out that plenty of other genres of film are short on story. The best examples are the "meditative" styles featured in art houses and the like.

10. I respond to Sarzy's excellent point by citing other possible gains (transcendence) by watching these "meditative" style pictures, gains that are not possible (in my opinion) with martial arts pictures. I remind him that I am responding to his point with, and I quote, "...I am merely responding to your point about the role of story."

11. Despite my reminder, Sarzy erroneously concludes that every film I see must transcend me to another plane even though all I was doing was attempting to shoot a hole in Sarzy's point about other films that are loose on story.

And that pretty much brings us up to date.

But do you see how helpful these summaries can be? They're my little innovation. You internet kids and your short attention spans made its creation a necessity.

A fair summary, though I should point out that I was trying to claim that you implied there was no craft or artistry to The Raid (with your unfair Ass comparison), not Ebert.

I think we've beaten this dead horse to a pulp at this point, but I'd like to also point out that, though you may not be able to achieve transcendence from a martial arts film, I think it can have other pleasures that are equally as valid. And I'm not saying that all you want is transcendence from a film, but obviously you're placing more value on it with your comparison.

As I said before, I think that a film whose sole objective is pure entertainment can have just as much value as a film whose ambitions are more weighty. A movie like, say, Singin' in the Rain's sole purpose is to put a smile on your face. The characters aren't particularly deep, nor is the romance anything that hasn't been done a million times before. But it's a classic, and rightfully so, because it's really well made, the dance numbers are inventive, the performers are all very charismatic, and the songs are catchy. It's a very fun movie, and there's not much more to it than that, and that's okay.

I personally think that there is a lot of pleasure to be had from a really well-executed, complexly choreographed fight scene. You disagree. But that's fine; art is subjective. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.

And yes, I think The Raid is art.