I've seen most of the GitS material incl. the comics & anime. I actually found the Hollywood adaptation watchable.... because I placed it in its own little isolated corner and the lowest of expectations -- Hollywood, blockbuster, skin-deep sci-fi... and I came out much relieved it wasn't as bad as the critics said. At least I had a nostalgia blast from the visuals. My blockbuster movies watching has evolved into a state of "don't care to be angry/don't pay to watch at the theatre/ just wait them out to be on Netflix/clearance DVD BluRay)

Seriously... how can anyone expect anything of above average depth from a Hollywood blockbuster anymore? Don't be silly and set yourself up for disappointment.

I can totally understand their reasons for risk-aversion. From their perspective, they got burned too many times financially (not saying it's not their own doing) to make films that demand thoughtfulness from the audience. I just don't believe in Hollywood will give us anything deep anymore for these big budget films...

I haven't read this one, but I like Gaiman a lot, so I should. On the other hand, I don't know how well his books would translate to the screen generally. It tends to be the massive amount of interesting exposition that makes the books good. On the other hand, that tends to make films and television bad.

*quality

Excellent breakdown. I love the side-by-side comparisons. Jackie Chan is the awesome.

Reminds me of behind the scenes of Rush Hour. The fight upstairs in the Chinese restaurant there's one gun and the American filmmaker wanted Jackie to toss it aside as if he would prefer to fight mano a mano.

Jackie pointed out the absurdity of that stupid concept altogether and made it so his character's focus in that scene was the exact opposite, to fight to get his hands on the gun, thus shutting the bad guy down.

It's awesome that he's done so many of his own stunts, but I feel bad for him because he's said one thing he loves about making films in America is they do everything they can to prevent him from getting hurt, and that's simply not the case in Hong Kong.

That was extremely well done, @Sarzy. Do you make films professionally?

I didn't really get the punchline, but the rest of it had me LMFAHS in stitches. (I loved the realistic abdomen skin as it was cut open. :-p)

*length=3:00 *doublepromote

I'm not a fan of Shyamalans work anymore, especially after the Happening (and I didn't even bother to see The Last Airbender), but the guy definitely had something special about his work. It's something that would make me a fan of his again if he returned to making films with that certain something.
I really didn't have a problem with The Village, Unbreakable, or even Lady in the Water, even though that last one I really had to try to get through. If you look at his films chronologically, that spark of different imagination slowly dwindles out until he did Airbender (the first film by someone other than himself).
Even The Happening, being the final straw for me, was still based around a topic that was insanely imaginative and interesting if it had been done in the right way. Lady in the Water had a cast of, like, 5 people, and took place entirely in one shitty apartment complex, but it was still insanely weird in that Shyamalan-way.
That aspect of his work is what made his pre-Airbender films truly unique. I guess if you're going to fail, might as well fail by doing something no one else will.

"Games vs Stories: How they end up ruining each other."
http://youtu.be/-VUm4iONrjo
Smart guy.

I haven't actually played The Last of Us. I watched a 6hr youtube video and enjoyed the story. I would have watched a shorter version with most of the gameplay skipped, but it lost too much of its continuity. From watching the gameplay I dont think I really missed out on much from not playing the game. The "puzzle" sections in particular looked awful.

So yah. I watched The Last of Us and it kinda seemed to me like the developers just want to make films. I'm not sure how much worth is really gained from bland interactivity when they could just do away with it entirely and not compromise at all on the story. That said, I enjoyed Bioshock Infinite and I the story was somewhat enhanced by playing it even if the gameplay was somewhat mediocre. Seems a lot of people liked "playing" The Last of Us (although I think a similar number enjoyed watching it too) I just struggle to define it as a game. That might also be why a "game" critic has a lot of negative things to say about it.

ps. I wonder if they'll start pulling those youtube vids for copyright infringment.

My parents watched Bela Legusi do it. They watched Marlon Brando do it. They saw Paul Newman and Robert Redford do it.

I saw Harrison Ford do it, as well as Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery and countless others, but there’s something that shakes me about seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger enter the era of his senior-career.

The fact aside that the concept of age and mortality will not stop fucking with me the older I get, I am super stoked he's making films again.

I love that last story. Although i imagine it's relatively easy to get to meet him compared to other actors, i'd love to meet him one day, he's been a hero of mine since i was about 8.

He's one of those people, to me, who are irreplacable "characters" that single handedly make films work. Every so often we get one.. leslie nielsen, john candy, clint eastwood. The kind of person who you just couldn't replace.

This looks sick. Levitt sounded quite a lot like willis at the end when he was shouting.

I've been DYING to see bruce willis back in a good action film. He's got so many films in him if the right films are made. He could turn into the next clint eastwood style hardass if you ask me.

MAN i love bruce. Can't wait. He's such a good action star. Makes films good, for me.

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!

>> ^artician:

Huh. Dunno if I'd even be interested in the film, but these guys are kind of picking low-hanging fruit, all but declaring they hate it before the review even starts, and then base their reactions of the film by how far it deviates from their expectations.
At least Plinkett can put together well-thought out arguments presented with some some semblance of thought toward the media and its history and aesthetics. Boo.
EDIT: okay, I watched the entire thing (because if you're going to criticize something, you should know what you're talking about, right?)
This video seems more like a demo-reel for a couple of guys who wanted to make films for a living but missed the boat. Nearly all their criticism is inapplicable to the general viewer, or even most film critics, as it's so subjective to their own expectations, and devoid of any real critical appraisal.
I'm not even arguing that the film isn't bad. I wouldn't know, as it looked like shit and I never saw it, but this video is an embarrassment for any film critic, let alone these shit, failed, beer-mongering authors. These guys really piss me off, because there is 0% talent here, and 100% "let's leverage the internet popularity for our own gain" (Like: "Pick a shit movie and tell everyone how shit it is! We're genius!")
Fuck these guys.


Overreact much? Me thinks you missed the point. Also, the guy on the left IS Plinkett

Huh. Dunno if I'd even be interested in the film, but these guys are kind of picking low-hanging fruit, all but declaring they hate it before the review even starts, and then base their reactions of the film by how far it deviates from their expectations.

At least Plinkett can put together well-thought out arguments presented with some some semblance of thought toward the media and its history and aesthetics. Boo.

EDIT: okay, I watched the entire thing (because if you're going to criticize something, you should know what you're talking about, right?)

This video seems more like a demo-reel for a couple of guys who wanted to make films for a living but missed the boat. Nearly all their criticism is inapplicable to the general viewer, or even most film critics, as it's so subjective to their own expectations, and devoid of any real critical appraisal.

I'm not even arguing that the film isn't bad. I wouldn't know, as it looked like shit and I never saw it, but this video is an embarrassment for any film critic, let alone these shit, failed, beer-mongering authors. These guys really piss me off, because there is 0% talent here, and 100% "let's leverage the internet popularity for our own gain" (Like: "Pick a shit movie and tell everyone how shit it is! We're genius!")

Fuck these guys.

Eh. By its very nature the porn industry attracts people with "bad" tendencies, because they can't live them out in real life. To say that all porn is degrading, dehumanizing etc. is nearsighted.

I don't particularly enjoy any degrading porn, it just makes me cringe, but since there's a market for it, there it is. Porn is not sex, it's fantasy. Young people who see it may think differently, but that's not the porn makers responsibility, that's parents and the society surrounding them.

This all sounds like "I don't like the mainstream, the mainstream should be more like what I like!!" which is just childish. Porn hipster. Hah.

Here you go, you softies http://www.reddit.com/r/passionx

>> ^spoco2:

Wow... I... um... am going to agree with @quantumushroom, that's pretty amazing.
Sex is not wrong in any way, filming or photographing it is not wrong. What mainstream porn has become IS FUCKING wrong. It's absolutely disgusting what passes for adult entertainment now. QM says it's dehumanizing, and he's fucking right. Porn has become a competition about how much can we treat a woman like a fuck toy, like an object, how much punishment will she take.
It's fucking horrible and disgusting. I hate it. My wife and I used to watch porn together sometimes, but then she went through a point of just not being able to link having a daughter and what happens to the women in porn videos.
And as much as I would like to say 'Yeah, but it's not all like that, there is caring, sweet porn. There is female centric porn, there is porn that is hot and heavy but still respects the woman.' But you know what? There's fuck all. There really isn't. Everything is all now gagging the woman with a cock, pulling her mouth open with fingers, getting the women to spit into each other's mouths, cock slapping, hard ramming... and on and on and on... It's horrible. It's NOT what sex is, it's NOT how you have a wonderful time with a woman.
And yet it creates a generation of men who think that's how you treat women.
The fact that this site should even have a reason to exist is horrible. Horrible.

And sure, she's saying that her videos are about sexual expression for her, but you hear that all the time from women while they're still making films. Because men want to imagine that the woman they're watching fuck while they jerk off is actually really enjoying puking because a dick was pushed too far down her throat.
But you know what? They pretty much all say the opposite once they're not making money from it any more.
So, yeah, nothing wrong with painting naked women, nothing wrong with painting naked women who act in porn movies... but porn movies aren't as harmless as people make out.

>> ^spoco2:

Wow... I... um... am going to agree with @quantumushroom, that's pretty amazing.
Sex is not wrong in any way, filming or photographing it is not wrong. What mainstream porn has become IS FUCKING wrong. It's absolutely disgusting what passes for adult entertainment now. QM says it's dehumanizing, and he's fucking right. Porn has become a competition about how much can we treat a woman like a fuck toy, like an object, how much punishment will she take.
It's fucking horrible and disgusting. I hate it. My wife and I used to watch porn together sometimes, but then she went through a point of just not being able to link having a daughter and what happens to the women in porn videos.
And as much as I would like to say 'Yeah, but it's not all like that, there is caring, sweet porn. There is female centric porn, there is porn that is hot and heavy but still respects the woman.' But you know what? There's fuck all. There really isn't. Everything is all now gagging the woman with a cock, pulling her mouth open with fingers, getting the women to spit into each other's mouths, cock slapping, hard ramming... and on and on and on... It's horrible. It's NOT what sex is, it's NOT how you have a wonderful time with a woman.
And yet it creates a generation of men who think that's how you treat women.
The fact that this site should even have a reason to exist is horrible. Horrible.

And sure, she's saying that her videos are about sexual expression for her, but you hear that all the time from women while they're still making films. Because men want to imagine that the woman they're watching fuck while they jerk off is actually really enjoying puking because a dick was pushed too far down her throat.
But you know what? They pretty much all say the opposite once they're not making money from it any more.
So, yeah, nothing wrong with painting naked women, nothing wrong with painting naked women who act in porn movies... but porn movies aren't as harmless as people make out.


I agree with this almost entirely. I don't see why Belladonna should take the blame for it, though. QM said that she, specifically, doesn't know right from wrong and that's what I asked about.

With another sentence or two he could have closed the loop and tied it together. But I'm filling in the blanks when I imagine what those sentences might be, as is @Lawdeedaw, and we could be totally off base with our guesses.