http://videosift.com/video/TimeScapes-Rapture-This-looks-breathtaking

Not calling dupe yet because it's not 100%.

Unbelievably breathtaking! =oO

Too short ... It is breathtaking, but really I wish we had more.

We have yet to do SO little.

And..SO MUCH to do with everything we have.

At 350x up on a quality scope, Saturn is breathtaking. Particularly in binoviewers.

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!

Some of those floats are breathtaking. I love the shark attack at 4:35. Are those stormtroopers?

*skillful and breathtakingly beautiful

While presidents are not directly responsible for private sector job creation and the economy, they get blamed/credited for it. For politifact to this ignore this convention is disingenuous at best.

Maybe PF should stay away from examining soft rhetoric, political assertions and implications, and just stick to verifying objective facts. I agree with Maddow on this one.>> ^MilkmanDan:

Ummm... Politifact was arguably right the first time. Obama didn't simply say A and B, he said: (from listening to the clip on Maddow's own show!)
"In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect."
THEN he said the bit about A and B, to which politifact agreed A and B were true.
The problem is that I think there is a solid argument that there are some implications made by those opening 2 sentences. "In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs" translates roughly to "that asshole that was president before me sucked so hard that you lost 4 million jobs" (which can be evaluated for truth and fairness on its own). "And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect" means "That last dude sucked so hard that it took even someone as breathtakingly awesome as ME 6 months to climb out of the river of shit that he got us into." Again, something that can evaluated and argued for or against, but it definitely isn't just a non-entity, completely irrelevant throwaway statement as Maddow would have you believe.
I like Maddow, but I disagree with her chiding Politifact here.

Ummm... Politifact was arguably right the first time. Obama didn't simply say A and B, he said: (from listening to the clip on Maddow's own show!)

"In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect."

THEN he said the bit about A and B, to which politifact agreed A and B were true.

The problem is that I think there is a solid argument that there are some implications made by those opening 2 sentences. "In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs" translates roughly to "that asshole that was president before me sucked so hard that you lost 4 million jobs" (which can be evaluated for truth and fairness on its own). "And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect" means "That last dude sucked so hard that it took even someone as breathtakingly awesome as ME 6 months to climb out of the river of shit that he got us into." Again, something that can evaluated and argued for or against, but it definitely isn't just a non-entity, completely irrelevant throwaway statement as Maddow would have you believe.

I like Maddow, but I disagree with her chiding Politifact here.

Nice. I have driven up and down different parts of 1-5, from LA to Vancouver, but never such a long trip in one go. Taking the coast is a slow slog. A cool route would be taking 101 north from SF to see the redwood and the coast, and then scooting back to 1-5 via 199 and Grants Pass.

Aside from the terrain, the night sky is stunning in the more isolated parts of 1-5. Driving around the Cali/Oregon boarder in summer months and seeing the milky way from a convertible is breathtaking.

Also, there's the State of Jefferson, which is cool.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^longde:
Take I-5 from SF to Portland. Some amazing scenery on that trip, especially it you're willing to go off track a little; and good beer at the end.

I've traveled from LA to Seattle by car 6 times in the last 6 months because moving to Seattle and visiting friends and such. Besides getting my time down to 17 hours for the trip I've seen some great stuff and I've never regretted driving even though I take the boring route. I want to do a Coastal Road journey next time...I think it'll be a lot of fun.

The sexuality aside, the muscle control and beauty of the human form in motion is quite breathtaking.

Although I imagine and 80 year old Indian male yogi wouldn't give me quite as big a boner...

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Offensive to Christians, but who cares about them, right?
Pretty much. It's perfectly fine to be proud of your idendity if you're a Muslim, or a Jew, African-American, Hispanic, Atheist, or whatever. But when a Christian is open about their identity then they must be stopped at all costs, mocked, and told to keep it to themselves. The hypocrisy of society towards Christianity never ceases to amaze me with its breathtaking lack of self-awareness. Even worse are the retards who justify it with such idiotic mental diarrhea statements as, "Hey - it's OK because they're the 'majority'.
Do this skit about Muslims with Mohommed and you'd have suicide bombers blowing up the studio in a week. And the SNL staff would be apologizing for hurting the bombers with studio shrapnel. And the rest of our PC enslaved society would apologize for having offended them in the first place.
But let ONE Christian so much as say, "Your skit is offensive to me" and the same people would jump down every Christian's throat for being a jerk, using thier faith as a club to suppress free speech, and for just plain being a dirtbag with no sense of humor. Ah - hypocrisy - thy name is prejudice against Christians.


Awww, is the most powerful socio-economic group on the planet upset because someone is making fun of them? Cry me a river.

and as for the whole tired "you won't make jokes about muslims" line....



and

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Offensive to Christians, but who cares about them, right?
Pretty much. It's perfectly fine to be proud of your idendity if you're a Muslim, or a Jew, African-American, Hispanic, Atheist, or whatever. But when a Christian is open about their identity then they must be stopped at all costs, mocked, and told to keep it to themselves. The hypocrisy of society towards Christianity never ceases to amaze me with its breathtaking lack of self-awareness. Even worse are the retards who justify it with such idiotic mental diarrhea statements as, "Hey - it's OK because they're the 'majority'.
Do this skit about Muslims with Mohommed and you'd have suicide bombers blowing up the studio in a week. And the SNL staff would be apologizing for hurting the bombers with studio shrapnel. And the rest of our PC enslaved society would apologize for having offended them in the first place.
But let ONE Christian so much as say, "Your skit is offensive to me" and the same people would jump down every Christian's throat for being a jerk, using thier faith as a club to suppress free speech, and for just plain being a dirtbag with no sense of humor. Ah - hypocrisy - thy name is prejudice against Christians.


Oh boohoo, your sins are forgiven. Get over it. The rest of us are going to hell.