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.

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!

OK choggie I'll take a stab at interpreting your idea for a channel. One of the themes under the umbrella of postmodernism is that every new idea has been done. Therefore to be creative you steal, recycle and/or rearrange something old to make something new. In film that’s what Gus Van Sant did when he remade “Psycho” shot for shot.

Here’s a term for y’all to choke on:

“recontextualization”


You’ve already mentioned mashups and fan-made videos. There are also re-cut trailers and video remixes.

I guess all that doesn’t help you with a descriptive name.

The channel would celebrate the video products from average folks/amateurs handed powerful video recording and editing technology.

Finally! There for a while I was getting worried that Gus Van Sant had lost his touch when he released Elephant and Last Days. Ugh, Last Days. What a terrible piece of shit.

I saw this at the Toronto Film Festival. It's more of the same for Gus Van Sant (flowing steadicam shots, long stretches with no dialogue, etc) but I loved it. I thought he went too far with Last Days, which was just dull for the most part, but this one was actually really compelling and really good. My favourite of this batch of films (Gerry, Elephant, Last Days, and Paranoid Park) is still Elephant, but this was a close second.

"Paris, Je T'Aime":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris%2C_je_t%27aime

Gus Van Sant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Van_Sant

Gaspard Ulliel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspard_Ulliel

In addition to his work with Tim Burton, Elfman has written scores for dozens of other films including:

* Forbidden Zone (Richard Elfman, 1980)
* Back to School, (Alan Metter, 1986)
* Wisdom (Emilio Estevez, Robert Wise, 1986)
* Big Top Pee-wee (Randal Kleiser, 1988)
* Midnight Run (Martin Brest, 1988)
* Scrooged (Richard Donner, 1988)
* Darkman (Sam Raimi, 1990)
* Dick Tracy (Warren Beatty, 1990)
* Nightbreed (Clive Barker, 1990)
* Army of Darkness (Sam Raimi, 1993) (theme)
* Sommersby (Jon Amiel, 1993)
* Black Beauty (Caroline Thompson, 1994)
* Dolores Claiborne (Taylor Hackford, 1995)
* Dead Presidents (Hughes Brothers, 1995)
* To Die For (Gus Van Sant, 1995)
* The Frighteners (Peter Jackson, 1996)
* Freeway (Matthew Bright, 1996)
* Mission: Impossible (Brian De Palma, 1996)
* Good Will Hunting (Gus Van Sant, 1997)
* Men in Black (Barry Sonnenfeld, 1997)
* A Simple Plan (Sam Raimi, 1998)
* Proof of Life (Taylor Hackford, 1999)
* Chicago (Rob Marshall, 2002) (The instrumental pieces "After Midnight" and "Roxie's Suite")
* Spider-Man (Sam Raimi, 2002)
* Red Dragon (Brett Ratner, 2002)
* Hulk (Ang Lee, 2003)
* Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi, 2004)
* Deep Sea 3D (Howard Hall, 2006)
* Nacho Libre (Jared Hess, 2006) (Ramses Suite)
* Charlotte's Web (Gary Winick, 2006)
* Meet the Robinsons (Steve Anderson, 2007)
* Spider-Man 3 (Sam Raimi, 2007)

He has also written the theme music for several television series, including:

* Pee-wee's Playhouse (some episodes) (1986)
* Sledge Hammer! (1986)
* The Simpsons (1989)
* Beetlejuice (1989)
* Tales from the Crypt (1989)
* The Flash (1990)
* Batman: The Animated Series (1992)
* Dilbert (1999)
* Desperate Housewives (2004)
* Point Pleasant (2005)

What do you expect? It's directed by Gus Van Sant!

While I really liked the way it was filmed, I really felt Elephant was a collective critic wank off to Gus Van Sant.

It failed to realistically explore the cause of the crime, instead relying on the usual: they were bullied in school, liked violent games, ordered weapons online easily and for some odd reason were actually closet homosexuals.

I understand that he wanted to portray it as an ordinary day. But come on... that doesn't mean it has to drone on and on...

The actual events and reasons for Columbine would have made for a much more psychologically compelling picture because it's not easy to pinpoint one facet of their psyche that caused this.

I really hope someone can explain to me why this movie is revered, I felt History of Violence was pretty shit too but again there was a collective critics wank off to that film as well. I mean the same people said Blade Runner and Dr Strangelove and 2001 were shit when they came out. Yet they are classic years on.

K0MMIE takes a stand against meticulous shot-by-shot re-creations of silly mattress tumbles.
I'll bet you hated the idea of Gus Van Sant's PSYCHO.