It's a pity they don't have the patience or bravery to drop the music and shakycam and just allow more of the process to be filmed in a more traditional manner. If anything this show doesn't really celebrate the artisan at all.

Yeah the guy who fixed the 'shakycam' on this is an UnAsshole.

>> ^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.

@JiggaJonson: What's funny is that that is the least-shakycam fight scene in the least-shakycam Bourne movie. That one's actually quite steady and easy to follow. It just dumps around a lot. Grab one of the fight scenes from the Bourne Supremacy. That's where it went freaking nuts.

Some people will go to great lengths to pirate pornographic material. This is one step up from shakycam cinema footage.

>> ^brycewi19:

Aren't the point of movie trailers to give the viewer a general sense of what the movie is about?
Being that I've never read the books, only have heard of them, I've now watched that trailer learning nothing about it and only came away with the possibility of contracting seizures and/or a serious case of ADHD with those 1/4 second, seemingly-unrelated clips.


Glad I'm not the only one thinking that. No idea how the movie will be but this may be the worst trailer I've ever seen.

And it's ShakyCam footage to boot. Yay.

Steven Bochco.>> ^ponceleon:

Great message, absolutely SHITTY camerawork. Who the FUCK decided that "shakycam" is good and why the fuck to others seem to agree with them?

I guess they thought this video would be the end of Christianity Ah if only...>> ^ponceleon:

Great message, absolutely SHITTY camerawork. Who the FUCK decided that "shakycam" is good and why the fuck to others seem to agree with them?

>> ^ponceleon:

Great message, absolutely SHITTY camerawork. Who the FUCK decided that "shakycam" is good and why the fuck to others seem to agree with them?


Maybe the same dude that decided subtle background violins and a desaturate filter would punch it up. You know, in case the viewer can't tell how they should feel about it.

But of course that's all nitpicking. He has a great point. It's always interesting to me how the private morality of Christians seems to have evolved far beyond the actual moral teachings of their religion. Most truly don't believe that a man should be condemned for the sins of his progenitors (except original sin). Or that their sins can be relieved by scapegoating (except on Jesus). Or that love and obedience can be demanded by a "benevolent father" on threat of torture.

Even they find the principles behind their core teachings to be backwards and unacceptable anywhere else in life. But somehow it's all fine when god does it.

Great message, absolutely SHITTY camerawork. Who the FUCK decided that "shakycam" is good and why the fuck to others seem to agree with them?

Well, no matter the videogame precedent this scene is going to catch a lot of heat - and I figure ActiBlizz likes it that way.

*Spoilers ahead*

*No, I'm serious*

We know the game will be wildly popular. We now know its first level involves the player controlling the shooting of a large number of unarmed civilians running in terror. That combination of popularity and opening-intro-controversy will get the Jack Thompsons of the world back on the news talking about the game which, again, is likely more than just a happy PR coincidence for the publisher. Furthermore, we know the Jack Thompsons of the world don't even need a coherent argument or slice of reality to bash the entire spectrum of videogaming. No matter what artistic statement Infinity Ward is trying to make or no matter how 'normal' such a scene would be in an R-rated movie, they know they're going to be slammed over this.

Anyway:

As a game concept and mechanic, ignoring for the moment the likely upcoming controversy? Not sure if I like it. To me personally there was something deeper about Modern Warfare 1's movement restriction in the 1st level where the player watches a military coup through the eyes of a deposed president. The helplessness in controls reflected the helplessness of the situation and afforded the player more observation; by not having to decide where to walk and being literally taken for a ride, the player was instead able to focus their attention on watching the scene that unfolded. The design choice felt purposeful and, to me, increased the emotional affect.

This issue of control, to me, is a key distinction with the prior title versus the opening of Modern Warfare 2. Modern Warfare 2 allows the player to gun down those civilians and in a sense encourages it by requiring the player to keep up with the other terrorists who perform the same actions. I reserve full opinion since I've only seen the shakycam video, but on a conceptual level it just doesn't seem as purposeful. Being placed into the body of a civilian? That would have been interesting from a design standpoint as well; not necessarily better or worse, but I think you could have conveyed the same gameplay message. To me, the official PR response that "the scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit ... By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them" does not justify the choice from a design standpoint.

Again, clearly this is just ruminating on the designers' decisions without getting deep into the moral or PR aspects of the level. However, I do wonder just how much backlash this is going to get as a result.

TL;DR

Not only dupe of, but the other vid is longer AND not shakycam.

I always laugh at people that can't tell the difference between shaky cam and handheld.

I love handheld in films. It creates a sense of reality and immersion that I think is great. Children of Men is a great example. Saving Private Ryan overall as well. Well composed shots that are simply handheld. Many films have had handheld shots over the years. Alien part 1 had a good number of handheld shots in it. Aliens as well. A bazzilion other films.

This is different from shaky zoomy crazyness. Paul Greengrass and others do tend to use a lot of long lens shakyness that can be a tad overboard. Michael Bay transformers action as well.

No one seems to understand this now though. Everyone jumps on the "i hate shakycam" wagon the moment they see a handheld shot. I don't want handheld to go away.

I wish the silly notion that all grainy shakycam videos must have slo-mo instant replay (and sometimes even quarter speed instant replay replay!) would just stop. Every time I see that, and one of those everyone's-got-the-same-editing-package, white-letters-on-blue-screen narrative edits, I want to hurl.