>> ^speechless:

actionpack cinema GaryOldman


*actionpack *cinema *GaryOldman

A fair summary, though I should point out that I was trying to claim that you implied there was no craft or artistry to The Raid (with your unfair Ass comparison), not Ebert.

I think we've beaten this dead horse to a pulp at this point, but I'd like to also point out that, though you may not be able to achieve transcendence from a martial arts film, I think it can have other pleasures that are equally as valid. And I'm not saying that all you want is transcendence from a film, but obviously you're placing more value on it with your comparison.

As I said before, I think that a film whose sole objective is pure entertainment can have just as much value as a film whose ambitions are more weighty. A movie like, say, Singin' in the Rain's sole purpose is to put a smile on your face. The characters aren't particularly deep, nor is the romance anything that hasn't been done a million times before. But it's a classic, and rightfully so, because it's really well made, the dance numbers are inventive, the performers are all very charismatic, and the songs are catchy. It's a very fun movie, and there's not much more to it than that, and that's okay.

I personally think that there is a lot of pleasure to be had from a really well-executed, complexly choreographed fight scene. You disagree. But that's fine; art is subjective. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.

And yes, I think The Raid is art.

Looks fantastic to me. I can't wait to see it.

Not sure how I feel about the imitation of homage to Trinity's opening fight scene in The Matrix, but it looks like seriously enjoyable bad-assery to me.

Well, your complaint in this quote seemed to solely be that The Raid wasn't transcendental enough. I wasn't trying to be hyperbolic. Sorry if I misunderstood. I do know people for whom mere entertainment isn't enough when watching a film; from the way you were talking, I thought you were one of those people.

"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."

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
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.


Is that really what you think? Hmm, I kinda felt hyperbole was beneath you, Sarz. We were doing so well too. I'm disappointed.

This movie was great. Fight scenes were fast, very well choreographed and often very brutal; the heroes are definitely not afraid to use weapons. I was also surprised that the story and acting were quite good, well above average for your typical martial arts movie. Great movie, there

>> ^Sarzy:

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.



Is that really what you think? Hmm, I kinda felt hyperbole was beneath you, Sarz. We were doing so well too. I'm disappointed.

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!

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!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shuac:
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.
I was pointing out that the film has received plenty of critical acclaim. Ebert is welcome to his (increasingly irrelevant) opinion, but my opinion is that he's wrong and I stand by it. I'm not alone either.
My point about Hemingways story wasn't about terseness, it was about inference. There are aspects to The Raids storyline that aren't written down in the script. And even then it wasn't a direct rebuttal to anything Ebert (or you) said, merely a point about how I felt the movie was made. But go ahead and assume everything is related to you.
You don't have to like the Raid, and you're welcome to go watch some tedious pseudo-intellectual bullshit for a few hours if it strokes your ego, but comparing it to "Ass" in Idiocracy is, as @Sarzy pointed out (and somewhat ironically) idiocy.
Sorry for sounding like a condescending prick, but you work to your audience. At least I can actually form my own opinion rather than regurgitate someone else's.


Not directed at me? So you'd have posted what you did even if I never made that first post, is that right? Very good then. So long as we're free to infer what we like to any film bereft of story, I'd like to infer a compelling yarn into the multiple award-winning (and fictional) film called Ass.

In Ass, our protagonist is a subject in a medical trial testing an anti-flagellant. It's a closed study so all the test subjects are sequestered. Despite this, our hero smuggles in some chilli for supper the night before. The twist? He's in the placebo group.

Now wasn't Ass a great film? I see your point now. Well-done again!

Most impressive about this post is that I did it on an iPhone.

Enjoy your day!

>> ^shuac:

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.

I was pointing out that the film has received plenty of critical acclaim. Ebert is welcome to his (increasingly irrelevant) opinion, but my opinion is that he's wrong and I stand by it. I'm not alone either.

My point about Hemingways story wasn't about terseness, it was about inference. There are aspects to The Raids storyline that aren't written down in the script. And even then it wasn't a direct rebuttal to anything Ebert (or you) said, merely a point about how I felt the movie was made. But go ahead and assume everything is related to you.

You don't have to like the Raid, and you're welcome to go watch some tedious pseudo-intellectual bullshit for a few hours if it strokes your ego, but comparing it to "Ass" in Idiocracy is, as @Sarzy pointed out (and somewhat ironically) idiocy.

Sorry for sounding like a condescending prick, but you work to your audience. At least I can actually form my own opinion rather than regurgitate someone else's.

>> ^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!

>> ^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.

>> ^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?

Possibly not, he'd have to get more scars to hide it. When I say "an unrecognisable mess", I mean his swastika, not his whole face. He's not going to win any beauty contests but it's better than what would have happened to him if the Basterds hadn't intervened, getting blown up in a theatre or if he's lucky, spending his life running from Nazi hunters.

(What's up with quotes? Videosift seems to be mucking them up.)

>> ^alien_concept:

Were skin grafts that great back in the 40s? If he had to scar his whole face up, that'd still be terrible for a character like him

>> ^Quboid:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Quboid:
>> ^kymbos:
I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).
Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
So there.

Spoilers
This bugged me but what really annoyed me is this: what did the Basterds actually achieve? The only difference they made to the big ending is that they helped the main baddie! Landa (Christoph Waltz, in a superb performance) to survived, and got a nice life in the U.S. because of them screwing up the assassination attempt, at the cost of some plastic surgery. They were counter productive!

Survive with a fat swastika on his head

That could be fixed with plastic surgery, or if that wasn't available, he could get more slices in his face to change it into an unrecognisable mess. Claim he was hit by shrapnel while saving children from Nazis.
.