Actually, I just got my Bronze back earlier this week, so I've been taking advantage of my ability to add thumbnails and lengths, declare death, and resurrect. My comment stream since then has been a nearly-uninterrupted stream of those invocations and my Profile has been a parade of Badge notifications.
In reply to this comment by ant:
Thanks and same to you for finding these problems. I assume you loved Bruce Lee game?

Thanks and same to you for finding these problems. I assume you loved Bruce Lee game?

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
Have I mentioned how awesome it is that you upvote "dead" invocations? You're top notch, hoss.

>> ^ReverendTed:

dead


Dang it. I couldn't find a replacement except a horrible PC port: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2DQ3-raKKg

...

Man, did Will Smith ever do a good job capturing him. I recently saw "I am Bruce Lee", and Bruce watched films of Ali's fights over and again to help develop footwork when he invented Jeet Kune Do.

At this point we no longer have to wonder why Bruce Lee hated having to pretend that the Boy Wonder could kick his ass.

He talks about the rage coming at you. That happens no matter if armed or unarmed so I guess all self defense is pointless since that rage coming at you is so impossible to deal with?

I was taught to run if you can when unarmed against a knife. Bruce Lee himself said something similar... We were also taught disarming techniques and the guys who were good could do this stuff real-time. Filipino martial arts are great for armed/unarmed combat with knives, sticks, longer knives and swords. The armed forces there still have to use their skills in real encounters and they train hard so it must help them.

>> ^ant:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar is a vampire!
It is weird to see him doing karate. He should ues basketballs or something as weapons!
Let's see Lakers' Kobe do this.


I believe he was a student of Lee's.
Even though I don't study Jeet Kun Do, I'm a big fan of Lee's philosophy in martial arts, especially the whole "be water" concept.

>> ^Deano:

Oddest fight scene ever!


I know, "best"? What about all the time stood around waiting to get his ass kicked? Standing in the sunlight for a good 5 seconds when all he needed to do was sidestep? He was wearing sunglasses the whole fight too!

Your video, Bruce Lee vs Kareem Abdul Jabbar, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Correct! The Way of the Dragon. Great karate schmaltz, that. And Chuck gets killed at the Colosseum in Rome after a great preening match with Bruce Lee. But Enter the Dragon . . . not.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^silvercord:
Chuck Norris wasn't in Enter the Dragon, Dusty. He was, however, in the Virgin Islands. Now, they are just the Islands.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068935/

>> ^Jinx:

I did a little Ju Jitsu. I'd expect the throws would be completely useless in a confined space. The knowledge of how to escape a choke hold or how to effectively disarm an opponent would probably be quite useful though, as would arm locks etc. Even comprehensive martial arts training can only do so much and I imagine when you have no room to move then brute force and weight advantage matters more.
The fact they chose Wing Chun seems to me to have more to do with PR than safety. Its a elegant martial art and it fits the image, but I wonder if there are simple more effective techniques that would probably give them better self defence.


Maybe Krav Maga? Bruce Lee did ok with his take on Wing Chun.

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:

I like Ebert, but he is way off on this one. I have noticed that in recent years, his tolerance for movies with a lot of violence and death has gone down -- perhaps it's an unwelcome reminder of his own looming mortality. It's unfortunate, because this is a superlative martial arts film, and Ebert has shown a fondness for these types of movies in the past.
And shuac, I think comparing this film -- which has some of the most intricately choreographed, beautifully violent and skillfully shot/edited action that we've seen in years -- to "Ass" is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. It's also condescendingly dismissive of 50+ years of martial arts action cinema, in which this film is easily a milestone -- a culmination of the types of films made by stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Donnie Yen. I can agree with Ebert that the characters are (intentionally) thin in this movie, but to imply that there is no artistry or craft at work here is, again, idiotic.
I am going to promote this, because it is awesome.


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?

I like Ebert, but he is way off on this one. I have noticed that in recent years, his tolerance for movies with a lot of violence and death has gone down -- perhaps it's an unwelcome reminder of his own looming mortality. It's unfortunate, because this is a superlative martial arts film, and Ebert has shown a fondness for these types of movies in the past.

And shuac, I think comparing this film -- which has some of the most intricately choreographed, beautifully violent and skillfully shot/edited action that we've seen in years -- to "Ass" is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. It's also condescendingly dismissive of 50+ years of martial arts action cinema, in which this film is easily a milestone -- a culmination of the types of films made by stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Donnie Yen. I can agree with Ebert that the characters are (intentionally) thin in this movie, but to imply that there is no artistry or craft at work here is, again, idiotic.

I am going to *promote this, because it is awesome.