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!

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!

>> ^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!

Yeah, good, experienced points all around.

I always felt that the most redeeming, amazing plot-twist that could have come out of this trilogy would be that, at the end of the third film you discover than Amidala and Obi-Wan were lovers behind Anakins back, and that Obi-wan was actually the father of Luke and Leia.

Would have blown some minds.

After the first two films I was really wishing there would be something like that to make up for all the trite shit.

sigh...Darth Maul would have been so much more interesting than Dooku had they developed him better

I can only imagine how kickass the fight would have been in ROTS if it was Anakin vs Maul instead of Anakin vs Dooku

Can someone explain Anakin's lightsabre? Is it green or blue/white in the blu ray release?

>> ^Shepppard:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Xaielao" title="member since March 13th, 2009" class="profilelink">Xaielao
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks the old battles were better. The old battles were slow.. and that MADE them unrealistic.
In a typical swordfight, I'm pretty sure you're not gonna hit 3 times in 5 seconds and stop. And I can probably back the rest of that up with Lore.
Despite being "The Chosen One", Luke was only trained when he was older. Yoda came close to showing off a jedi's true potential by lifting the X-wing out of the marsh, but at that point he was old, and likely hadn't used the force for ages since Luke had appeared.
The Jedi we see in the prequel trilogy had been raised since they were insanely young (Younger then the 9 year old Anakin, because someone even says "He's too old.") and whenever you see someone fighting they're not just a run-of-the-mill jedi, it's typically someone from the council, essentially, the cream of the crop.
And.. just on a last little rant about the swordplay.. they're Jedi. Again, people trained since they were extremely young to use the force as a guide. Qui gon Jin at one point even says something about "He can see glimpses of the future, it's a jedi trait." which again, is something that happens in battle making the fights faster and more epic. Jedi are essentially a partial ripoff of samurai anyway.. and if you don't think sword fighting can be that fast and action packed, watch a couple good Kendo matches.



I may be the only one (though I sometimes doubt that hehe, but I must disagree about the saber battles in the original. They were choreographed by Bob Anderson, one of the greatest holywood sword trainers ever. The guy is behind literally every major action movie with sword fighting in them from Star Wars to The Lord of the Rings, and Pirates of the Caribbean to Highlander. The saber fights are slow I'll give you that, but they were slow for a reason. As I said they were choreographed in such a way that you could almost feel the battle of wills behind the sabers themselves.

@Xaielao

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks the old battles were better. The old battles were slow.. and that MADE them unrealistic.

In a typical swordfight, I'm pretty sure you're not gonna hit 3 times in 5 seconds and stop. And I can probably back the rest of that up with Lore.

Despite being "The Chosen One", Luke was only trained when he was older. Yoda came close to showing off a jedi's true potential by lifting the X-wing out of the marsh, but at that point he was old, and likely hadn't used the force for ages before Luke had appeared.

The Jedi we see in the prequel trilogy had been raised since they were insanely young (Younger then the 9 year old Anakin, because someone even says "He's too old.") and whenever you see someone fighting they're not just a run-of-the-mill jedi, it's typically someone from the council, essentially, the cream of the crop.

And.. just on a last little rant about the swordplay.. they're Jedi. Again, people trained since they were extremely young to use the force as a guide. Qui gon Jin at one point even says something about "He can see glimpses of the future, it's a jedi trait." which again, is something that happens in battle making the fights faster and more epic. Jedi are essentially a partial ripoff of samurai anyway.. and if you don't think sword fighting can be that fast and action packed, watch a couple good Kendo matches.

It isn't just Han Solo that's being ripped off. The whole time I was watching it seemed like they were putting old ideas in new clothes and changing the order around.

Smuggler guy who cares about money, helps the Jedi, and happens to have the fastest ship - Han Solo
The Sith ship that landed in the docking back looked an awful lot like the Millenium Falcon
Man the guns while I get the hyper-drive ready - escaping the Death Star in Episode IV
Tiny bit of Empire while they dodged some asteroids
The Jedi apprentice's master is killed and now she must carry on the fight against the Sith(I, IV, VI)
Flying through the Sith ship looked an awful lot like going into the Death Star in Episode VI

I understand the necessity of continuity in this universe they've created. A lot of its not only necessary, but fun. Still, they need more new ideas. The trooper being a character that gets developed may be the only new one. Also, the Jedi chick left her lightsaber with her master so that's probably a starting point for the game - you get to play as a Jedi, but you don't get a lightsaber for a while.

Still, this video did look freakin' awesome!
>> ^rychan:

What the hell... this was better than 90% of the prequel content. All four protagonists (two jedi's, captain, and stormtrooper) are already more likeable than Anakin and Padme. We got to see a storm trooper actually doing cool stuff. The smuggler was clearly a Han Solo rip off, but still. It's such a great universe, why do you have to run it in to the ground George Lucas.
Unfortunately, the actual gameplay footage I've seen looks pretty pedestrian.

>> ^rychan:

What the hell... this was better than 90% of the prequel content. All four protagonists (two jedi's, captain, and stormtrooper) are already more likeable than Anakin and Padme. We got to see a storm trooper actually doing cool stuff. The smuggler was clearly a Han Solo rip off, but still. It's such a great universe, why do you have to run it in to the ground George Lucas.
Unfortunately, the actual gameplay footage I've seen looks pretty pedestrian.


A guy stabbing me in my eyes is more likeable than Anakin and Padme. Portman is a very good actress, but she can't make Lucas's scripts sound any good.

What the hell... this was better than 90% of the prequel content. All four protagonists (two jedi's, captain, and stormtrooper) are already more likeable than Anakin and Padme. We got to see a storm trooper actually doing cool stuff. The smuggler was clearly a Han Solo rip off, but still. It's such a great universe, why do you have to run it in to the ground George Lucas.

Unfortunately, the actual gameplay footage I've seen looks pretty pedestrian.

Astoundingly bad. So I have to *promote.

Didn't Red Letter Media make the point about Ob's line in a New Hope where he says something about Anakin being "a good friend"!? Or did I get that wrong?

No ghost of young Anakin Skywalker? Upvote.

>> ^pho3n1x:

Wouldn't the saber have disengaged completely as soon as he let go? ( nerdalert)
I also upvoted simply for the comedy value of the repeated pokes at the end.


Depends on whether he used a switch-activated lightsaber (ala Obi-Wan Ep IV for example) or a button-activated lightsaber (ala Anakin from the prequels).

Translation: I'll see your nerdalert and raise you a geekwarning!

cool video and all... but man, his voice sounds just like Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker).