|
Just got back from seeing this in a half full theater at the first showing on Sunday, so not too bad for a movie that I only saw 1 preview for during an NBA game. The movie owned and is probably the best action movie of the last decade if not the best I've ever seen. It really did everything right and did a fair bit more besides that. Also, Mad Dog.
|
| # ? Apr 15, 2012 21:32 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 02:11 |
|
|
Once the action starts, this movie had the same effect on me that almost ODing on cocaine did 6 years ago. Go see it.
|
| # ? Apr 15, 2012 22:28 |
|
|
colonel_korn posted:
Best as I can tell, The Lieutenant was sent in by the corrupt higher-ups of the police department, ostensibly to murder the Gang Leader (can't remember his name) and his chief henchmen, Mad Dog and Crafty Brother, then assume control of the drug lab and oversee the projects himself. In actuality, he was set up from the start by the higher-ups, who warned the Gang Leader beforehand about the invasion. No evidence of the invasion would ever exist because of the efficient clean-up, and the Lieutenant who was becoming a problem would no longer be one. The reason the Lieutenant made sure the mission was secret was because he planned on murdering the other cops anyway after they unwittingly helped him take power. Ultimately, the corrupt police officials wanted to keep the money train rolling, and sending the Lieutenant in to die (with his most loyal cops) without a trace was the best way to handle the problem.
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 00:28 |
|
|
Just went to see this on a whim knowing almost nothing about it, and HOT drat was this probably the best action film I've seen in a long time, maybe ever. The fight choreography was absolutely stunning, and my only real gripe was that the shaky-cam went a bit overboard near the beginning, but after that it was smooth sailing. I'm probably gonna try to catch it again next weekend and drag as many people with me as possible. Also, like everybody else has said, fuckin' Mad Dog.
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 02:52 |
|
|
The best way to describe mad dog is something like the nearly indestructible Egyptian terminator guy from Spartacus if he also knew kung-fu.
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 06:44 |
|
|
As a movie, this one was pretty atrocious. Unnecessary scenes do you really feel emphatic for the main character from 20 seconds of home life at the beginning, some awful shaky cam work in a particular gun fight, and a ludicrous plot. Why the hell was the guy with a sick wife living there? How could the LT. Oldman really keep a raid like this secret, hell, the Cop Brother had obviously told his family what he was doing! "I'll bring him back". The entire corruption plot was so ridiculous, it passed into farce, especially with the speech preceding the LT.'s suicide attempt. As a action movie equivalent of a tech demo, this one was fantastic! The martial arts choreography might be the best in history. The pervasive percussive soundtrack hit the beats perfectly. And lets not forget the inventiveness of some kills speared by door frame, anyone?. I have a hard time reconciling these two stances, though. Its not a good movie as a whole, but the parts that ARE good, are firing on all cylinders. I really want to see what this team can do with a real script.
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 07:13 |
|
|
If your first thought after seeing this movie was "Hmm, needs more plot" then this is not your type of movie. 
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 15:29 |
|
|
I know his style grates on some people, but if you like Film Crit Hulk he did a re-dux of his action scene articles specifically about this movie. http://badassdigest.com/2012/03/14/...al-arts-cinema/ Cage posted:If your first thought after seeing this movie was "Hmm, needs more plot" then this is not your type of movie. smokestersky wasn't asking for more plot. He has problems with the plot that's already there. smokestersky posted:As a movie, this one was pretty atrocious. Unnecessary scenes do you really feel emphatic for the main character from 20 seconds of home life at the beginning, some awful shaky cam work in a particular gun fight, and a ludicrous plot. Why the hell was the guy with a sick wife living there? How could the LT. Oldman really keep a raid like this secret, hell, the Cop Brother had obviously told his family what he was doing! "I'll bring him back". The entire corruption plot was so ridiculous, it passed into farce, especially with the speech preceding the LT.'s suicide attempt. The "20 seconds of home life" aren't the only thing meant to make you root for the main character, but it's a good beginning. Throughout the movie we learn and see that he's a good guy. And about the guy with the sick wife, he likely lives there because he can't afford another place or afford to move. Also, it's not like the entire building went after the police. From the relatively small number of people who attacked them, it's clear that many were absent, too scared, too high, or not inclined to murder cops for money. I doubt the guy and his wife were the only decent people among 30 stories of residents. Lobok fucked around with this message at Apr 16, 2012 around 15:43 |
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 15:33 |
|
|
I was in Seattle about two weeks ago and saw this movie while I was up there. I'd been looking forward to it for ages, and then when it finally came out it ended up not really playing anywhere in Florida, where I live. I absolutely loved the movie, and then when I came back I was thrilled to see that the movie had actually opened in MORE theaters. Now everyone I knew could go see it. Many people I talked to did go, and every one of them who did thought it was great. When I saw the movie, the theater was full (albeit the smallest one at the multiplex) and most of the people in the crowd weren't speaking English before the movie started. When my dad saw the movie in Central Florida, he noted there were about 12 people in the crowd, and pretty much all of them were couples in what appeared to be their 70s. Makes me wonder how they even found out about the movie. In North Florida (which to me qualifies as "the South," it's another world there), another friend of mine saw the movie and there were also about 12 people present. Before a single word was spoken in the film, three people in that crowd got up and left the theater immediately once they saw the main character was Muslim. Another five left a few minutes later once they realized the movie wasn't in English, but the part I bolded is what got me wondering. So I started looking at the negative reviews of the movie...and more than one seemed to go out of their way to call attention to that bit as a significant deal. In print media, space is scarce and every sentence counts. So when Roger Ebert gives the film one star because he couldn't tell that the movie was set in Indonesia and essentially asks in his review "why did the hero have to be a Muslim, anyway?" (that's a paraphrasing) it carries additional weight. Of everything in the movie he didn't like, THAT was something that jumped out to him so much he was sure to tell everyone. The Internet doesn't really have to deal with word count restrictions, but placement still counts for a lot. One of those "family friendly" movie review sites--you know, the ones that keep numerical count of every time someone swears and stuff?--was sure to note "Muslim hero prays to Allah in early scene" in their list of objectionable content right alongside all the acts of violence. Now I don't really care about religion, but two things strike me as mega-hosed about this. One: we're talking about a few seconds of one scene in a foreign movie from a country that is predominantly Muslim. Two, and this goes without saying: the mere act of just showing that someone is a Muslim is adequate cause to dislike something for quite a few people. You can write this off as the ignorant deeds of a small minority of wackos if you want, but consider this. Presumably they added the "Redemption" subtitle onto the movie name because they want sequels to this made and because they want to use plain ol' "The Raid" should an American remake get made. What do you suppose the chances are that, as part of remaking the movie for America, the hero won't be Muslim anymore?
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 18:16 |
|
|
"Redemption" was added to get around a copyright issue as there's already a US movie release with that name.
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 18:24 |
|
|
Here's Roger Ebert's review for those interested. Roger Ebert posted:This film is about violence. All violence. Wall-to-wall violence. Against many of those walls, heads are pounded again and again into a pulpy mass. If I estimated the film has 10 minutes of dialogue, that would be generous. I disagree with him giving the movie only one star, but I'm a huge martial arts fan(My username is from Kid with the Golden Arm), so I love most martial arts movies. And I actually did get teary eyed a bit when Rama was thinking of his wife. Maybe because I'm a new dad and all, but I understood how Rama felt. I always thought Roger Ebert reviewed movies for what they were trying to accomplish, not what he thought the movie should have been. And he keeps talking about video games again. Even if this is a valid criticism, there are good video games out there, better than a lot of movies that come out. Why does he hate video games so much? AgentHaiTo fucked around with this message at Apr 16, 2012 around 19:15 |
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 19:12 |
|
|
Daryl Surat posted:What do you suppose the chances are that, as part of remaking the movie for America, the hero won't be Muslim anymore? The American version will be a shot-for-shot remake, except in the opening prayer scene, the main character will be Tebowing.
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 19:15 |
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:The American version will be a shot-for-shot remake, except in the opening prayer scene, the main character will be Tebowing. Also the main character will be John Cena or whoever the John Cena equivalent is in 3 years.
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 20:04 |
|
|
Bizob posted:Also the main character will be John Cena or whoever the John Cena equivalent is in 3 years. No, it'll be zac efron, who "really beefed up for this role"
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 22:11 |
|
|
AgentHaiTo posted:I always thought Roger Ebert reviewed movies for what they were trying to accomplish, not what he thought the movie should have been. And he keeps talking about video games again. Even if this is a valid criticism, there are good video games out there, better than a lot of movies that come out. Why does he hate video games so much? It's a very weird comparison, because only the best fighting games or brawlers can compare in the tight and lightning quick choreography of fight moves, none of which Ebert has ever played. Yet in comparing the enemy hordes to a videogame only in general terms, he's ignoring or forgetting all of martial arts movie history, which I know he's decently versed in. As cool as Ebert is, he's getting older and 3D and videogames are the kids on his lawn.
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2012 22:39 |
|
|
AgentHaiTo posted:I always thought Roger Ebert reviewed movies for what they were trying to accomplish, not what he thought the movie should have been. He is, though. What the movie is trying to accomplish is distasteful to him, and the thin characterization is also baffling to him. I think it's valid, it's not his job to be swayed by how cool Pankat Silat is.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 00:18 |
|
|
Oh man after watching that trailer just now I'm so stoked that theaters near me are showing this. I will be seeing it soon.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 00:50 |
|
|
Dragged my rear end to cinema yesterday for this movie. And have to say this is probably the best action movie ive seen in years. maybe the plot was lacking, and characters are not very well developed, i am not a critic to think about these things, so i enjoyed the movie for what it was - awesome meat grinder with tons of cool HtH fights. I also took my gf with me to see it, and surprisingly she enjoyed the movie, and the only thing she found disturbing is when they killed Mad Dog and stabbed his neck with piece of lightbulb. Going to recommend it to all my friends. There wasn't a lot of people in audience, maybe about 20. But that is probably because its not advertised at all, comparing to big Hollywood stuff like Battleship coming out this week. I personally would never have known about this movie if not for this thread.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 10:56 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:He is, though. What the movie is trying to accomplish is distasteful to him, and the thin characterization is also baffling to him. I think it's valid, it's not his job to be swayed by how cool Pankat Silat is. I think it is though, because the goal of the movie was to be a martial arts movie, and how cool the style of martial arts is a key ingredient in any good martial arts movie. If you read Film Crit Hulk's review, he specifically talks about the style of martial arts and how that is on his list of things he looks for in any martial arts movie. Also, it's a little strange that Ebert liked Ong-bak even though that movie had the simplest of plots and very little characterization. He also mentions the main reason he liked that movie was the martial arts; it's pretty much all he talked about in his review.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 12:06 |
|
|
AgentHaiTo posted:I always thought Roger Ebert reviewed movies for what they were trying to accomplish, not what he thought the movie should have been. And he keeps talking about video games again. Even if this is a valid criticism, there are good video games out there, better than a lot of movies that come out. Why does he hate video games so much? Here's a fun game to play. Pick any action movie made within the last...I don't know...five years? Maybe ten? Now go read a negative review of it. Doesn't matter if you think the movie is good or bad. Doesn't matter if the movie is heavy on special effects or not. Now see if they pejoratively compare it to a videogame. Chances are pretty damned high they will. Why do you suppose that is? Way I see it, videogames must be viewed as the biggest enemy in the world in the eyes of professional film critics. Saying a movie is "like a videogame" is, to them, the ultimate insult one can levy. Because videogames are, after all, an inferior entertainment medium that have only become mega-popular as they attempt to be "like a movie." Being paid to critique films is fast becoming a dying profession due to the rise of electronic media, so when these people see all the press regarding the financial successes of [insert latest bro manshooter here] they fear for their livelihoods and relevance. I admit that I don't read many movie reviews, and the ones I do are always after I've seen the movie because reviewers like to spoil the gently caress out of things, especially things they don't like. I also admit that there are few conversations more tedious and uninteresting to me than "is this work of entertainment...ART?" But the "this movie is so infantile, it's like a VIDEOGAME" mindset is so pervasive and so ill-informed that it's impossible NOT to notice it. To Team Film Criticism, The Raid is "like a videogame" in that its plot is focused on the completion of concrete actionable objectives with relatively little time allotted for deviation. "Clear linearity" equals "videogames." They hear there are levels of the building that have to be cleared one at a time, and those building levels must be akin to levels in a videogame because...well, uh, because the word "level" got used. Never mind that they need to backtrack to lower floors, or that contrary to what Ebert wrote it is a significant plot point that the boss of the place is explicitly NOT on the top floor. That doesn't matter: "levels" = "videogame levels"! Just like in all those Inception reviews!. Oh, and since there are a lot of foes to contend with such that some of them are substantially tougher to beat than others, that's further "proof" for them. Apparently none of these people are willing to remember that Game of Death existed. It's all just colossally lazy as Hell. If you doubt this, read all about how the other current action movie in theaters, Lockout, is "like a videogame" and therefore bad. Or in another week or so, how the new Jason Statham movie Safe is "like a videogame" and therefore crap. Battleship is literally a movie based on a goddamned BOARD GAME, but I'll bet money "like a videogame" will be frequently used to describe why its effects and story are poor. In that case, the reasoning will also have included "uh, because they used a computer or something." Daryl Surat fucked around with this message at Apr 17, 2012 around 16:41 |
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 14:24 |
|
|
Ebert posted a follow up on his review of The Raid that added a bit more meat to his arguments. It sort of read like he was weary of people's low expectations and took it out on The Raid. It's worth a read, but here's a snippet: Roger Ebert posted:So what am I saying? "The Raid: Redemption" failed as a generic success because it simplified its plot too much? Not really. It is a generic success. And yet my heart sank and I asked myself: Is this all they want? Are audiences satisfied with ceaseless violence, just so long as they can praise it for being "well choreographed?" Is there no appreciation for human dimension, meaning, and morality? Westerns were the first Hollywood morality plays, and it was always clear who was good and who was bad. Now it doesn't matter so much, and the cops and robbers in "The Raid" agree with Red Sanders: "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." That point about the anti-Muslim sentiment is really sad, but not entirely surprising, unfortunately. Oh well, their loss.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 15:58 |
|
|
Daryl Surat posted:It's all just colossally lazy as Hell. If you doubt this, read all about how the other current action movie in theaters, Lockout, is "like a videogame" and therefore bad. Or in another week or so, how the new Jason Statham movie Safe is "like a videogame" and therefore crap. Battleship is literally a movie based on a goddamned BOARD GAME, but I'll bet money "like a videogame" will be frequently used to describe why its effects and story are poor. In that case, the reasoning will also included "uh, because they used a computer or something." I maintain that an action movie that looked like a video game would be the best action movie ever. Stay with me for a second while I explain To use an example I'll talk about an action scene from Gears of War played by a decent player. Marcus enters a room, there's a bunch of pillars and tables, these pillars and tables that will eventually be used as cover are exactly where they are from the beginning of the fight scene to the moment Marcus walks out to the next room. From a filming perspective, this is actually very difficult as stuff will get moved around between takes and it's up to the editor to make sure no one notices. After establishing the room the enemy squad comes in, fire is exchanged, maybe one or two locust go down before Marcus ducks behind cover, from here he is pinned by enemy fire and unable to move from his place of cover while some other locust advance to outflank him, eventually he figures out the best solution to this and kills a couple more locust. So the action scene starts with a bang, then a feeling of tense dread sets in, followed by more adrenaline at the end, the core of a good action scene, with choreography and special effects augmenting the impact. Meanwhile this entire scene I just laid out would be one 10 minute long take, with the camera holding steady and focusing on the best angle to see the most action, no shaky cam and no fast cuts that leave the viewer confused about where everyone is. So yeah, an action movie that's "Like a video game" would be the exact opposite of everything I and most critics hate about modern action movies, and require monumental effort and passion at the hands of a qualified director to pull off. That's what really bugs me about the phrase among film critics.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 16:30 |
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:I maintain that an action movie that looked like a video game would be the best action movie ever. Stay with me for a second while I explain To add to what you said, take a WW2 multiplayer game and imagine one of the best rounds the two teams could possibly play. You've probably imagined something pretty close to the opening scene to Saving Private Ryan. And that scene made cinematic history.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 16:42 |
|
|
Ebert is entitled o his opinion and if he didn't enjoy it, he didn't enjoy it. However referring to "A fighter stands in a corridor and demolishes an enemy. As the enemy falls, another springs into position from around corner" as a video game thing when it's been a kung fu movie thing far before video games even existed is kind of silly.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 17:14 |
|
|
I didn't really get any of the "hero is muslim" thing from Ebert's reviews. He just didn't seem to like the movies because he found them to have very little substance and more of eye candy violence for violence sake. My brother was curious about how a movie with a muslim hero would play out to American audiences. It is such a small detail that I really didn't think anyone would care. As for the best action movie played out like a video game that one goes to Crank 2!
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 17:23 |
|
|
Madkal posted:I didn't really get any of the "hero is muslim" thing from Ebert's reviews. He just didn't seem to like the movies because he found them to have very little substance and more of eye candy violence for violence sake. Replace the prayer mat with a rosary or a statue of the buddha and it is movie shorthand for "this is the good guy." Along with the pregnant wife it was just a very simple, efficient way to establish the protagonist as someone we should care about and cheer for. So weird that anyone would care if he was muslim or whatever else.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 18:23 |
|
|
I love Roger Ebert, his idiotic stance on video games be damned, but I am really confused by a few things in the follow-up. First, he seems upset that we weren't given a whole heaping spoonful of stupid backstory and exposition about the wife. But isn't this an excellent example of "show, don't tell"? We don't need more than a few brief moments at the beginning of the film to feel a strong desire to see our hero make it to the end. Why have scenes of them talking about how the mother-in-law is visiting next week or whatever? Second, he takes it for granted that this movie didn't exceed genre expectations, but I'd say that it did. It didn't revolutionize action movies, or break down some preconceived notions I had about action filmmaking, but it executed at such a high level that it blew me away. I left the theater emotionally and physically exhausted, which I don't remember happening for any other movie in my life. Lastly, he acts like the movie lacks any amount of tension or humor. Humor is sporadic to say the least, but it was definitely present in a few parts, and tension runs rampant throughout the film. Most notably when machete guy is hunting Rama, but also in that brief moment at the start before things go to hell or during various gun sequences soon after.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 18:29 |
|
|
Daunte Vicknabb posted:I love Roger Ebert, his idiotic stance on video games be damned, but I am really confused by a few things in the follow-up. I thought there was all kinds of tension in the lead up to the Mad Dog - Jaka fight, and the end of that fight was a pretty strong emotional moment.
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 18:32 |
|
|
Bizob posted:Replace the prayer mat with a rosary or a statue of the buddha and it is movie shorthand for "this is the good guy." Along with the pregnant wife it was just a very simple, efficient way to establish the protagonist as someone we should care about and cheer for. So weird that anyone would care if he was muslim or whatever else. This is the way I saw it. It established him as being a man of morals/conviction/duty, no different than the many Asian martial arts movies where the main character prays to his ancestors. Corrupt Politician fucked around with this message at Apr 17, 2012 around 20:52 |
| # ? Apr 17, 2012 20:49 |
|
|
The best action films are master classes in shorthand. We know John MaClanes a good guy because he doesn't sit up the back of the limo. We know Murphy's a good guy because he learnt the gun spinning thing just to impress his kid. Not to mention that Jaka's character is pretty much defined by what he is trying to do at the time, like get back to his kid, or save his mate. It isn't even till the final act that he goes on the offensive, and even that's to save his brother. Until then he's just saving his friend or trying to survive. I don't know how it got translated Stateside, but in Australia, a recurring line from the Sergeant was "we're not here to do good, are we?" and that's the thing, Jaka is determined to be.
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2012 13:33 |
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I don't know how it got translated Stateside, but in Australia, a recurring line from the Sergeant was "we're not here to do good, are we?" and that's the thing, Jaka is determined to be. Jaka is the sergeant; the main character's name is Rama.
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2012 15:02 |
|
|
Rama is fighting for his family, both literally and figuratively. He is also, simultaneously, trying to save his future (eliminating this drug/slum lord has an end effect of there being less dealers on the streets for his child to encounter one day) and his past (stumbling upon Andii in the building and being like "I'll get you out of here"). But the whole entire movie is about the bonds of family, both real and biological as well as figurative and existent as a survival skill. It's why at the end, Rama asks Andii why he won't go with them. "Because it's just like your clothes," he tells him. "This fits me just fine." They are two men who've grown and have their own families to take care of. You can even break things down to how Andii and Mad Dog interact with each other and their "father" and how Rama interacted with his friends. And you get a huge amount of motivation for each of them through that one conversation halfway through the film. So I'm not a hundred percent clear on where Ebert's coming from with this, considering how much is boiling under the surface.
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2012 15:25 |
|
|
I've bee saying for a while that Ebert is not all he's cranked up to be, and lately he's just been getting worse.
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2012 18:45 |
|
|
Bizob posted:Replace the prayer mat with a rosary or a statue of the buddha and it is movie shorthand for "this is the good guy." Along with the pregnant wife it was just a very simple, efficient way to establish the protagonist as someone we should care about and cheer for. So weird that anyone would care if he was muslim or whatever else. Unfortunately, it matters here in Indonesia whether or not the hero is a muslim or not. It also matter whether or not the hero is Javanese or not since Indonesia politics is dominated by Java. Right now, over here, I don't think you can get away with making the hero of the movie other than those two things.
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2012 20:15 |
|
|
Ebert is very, very bad at watching action movies. For the record, he gave Salt, a pretty mediocre action/thriller (read: action movie with an intentionally obtuse plot) movie, four stars and spent most of the review talking about how sexy Angelina Jolie is. He even admits the plot is weak but he is literally entranced with Jolie's performance! edit: So, yeah, I just saw this movie and it was everything I expected, making it the best action movie so far. I've been hyped for this movie since January or whenever the first trailer came out and when I found out that there's a showing in a local theater after their website telling me I couldn't see the movie unless I drove 60 miles (which I was planning to do this weekend), I immediately caught the first showing I could. Everything good that's been said about this movie is 100% true. It's amazing. It wasn't perfect. I think the critique that there was extra flash in the later fight scenes is accurate. axleblaze said "Every movement in this film is designed to kill or cripple." which wasn't completely true. There were some really good moments (memorable ones being the 'grab and shoot' in the beginning and the spike on the broken door but there were other nice ones like the grab of the leaping guy -> powerbomb -> headstomp) but the action did get more cinematic after the baton + knife hallway scene. Don't get me wrong; the Mad Dog vs Brothers fight was awesome and I started the applause for it because I was literally overwhelmed with excitement but there were plenty of times where the single fighter could've been mounted and executed with elbows + stomps. Still, amazing movie. (The spoilers aren't actually spoiling anything too important. I'm just covering up descriptions of things that happen for those concerned with a truly pure experience.) dongsbot 9000 fucked around with this message at Apr 19, 2012 around 05:28 |
| # ? Apr 19, 2012 05:15 |
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:I maintain that an action movie that looked like a video game would be the best action movie ever. Stay with me for a second while I explain Thats not really what film making, especially action, is about and what you described sounds like nothing more than a boring action scene without any thought to the nuances and details of cinematography and its relation to the script. You dont just do a single shot to make the action visible. Films like Children of Men aren't shot the way they are merely for stylistic purposes. Shakey cam, while abused, is an aesthetic, just like any aesthetic in fine art. So is a continuous shot. These things must be realized first and foremost by the script, not because of some objective sense of "everything must be 100% visible". An edit creates an emotion when related to a previous and next cut, its the basis of montage. A frame and a camera movement convey the same. The camera work in movies with long shots and high choreography can be related to dance more than video games. The camera operators with those steadicam shots and handheld shots are practically dancing while filming. The script for The Raid is clearly about brutality, so the camera style and compositions were designed to highlight and express the emotion in this type of action. Put this film and arguably one of the other best action films ever made, Die Hard, next to each other and look at how the themes and emotions of the films attempt to capture and express what is conveyed in the scripts. The Raid is like one of the most intense and violent expressions through movement Ive ever seen. Its beautiful, despite being ferociously graphic. The problem with modern action is not shakey cam, or anything having to do with video games or anything like that, its bad scripts and lovely visual realizations. poo poo comes from poo poo, usually. Also continuity is mostly the job of the script supervisor and other parts of the production team, if they do their job the editors dont have to worry about much. Good directors and cinematographers give their editors enough coverage to accurately create a spacial geometry of the scene and the brain should automatically be able to always know where everyone is and is going, where the direction of everything is from the perspective of the shot, etc. edit: The Raid could be more accurately compared to Win Wemders Pina 3D more than video games. I wonder how Ebert reconciles the fact that all of these artists hes adored for decades are adopting an aesthetic he absolutely despises, but makes an exception of occasionally. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at Apr 19, 2012 around 07:43 |
| # ? Apr 19, 2012 07:32 |
|
|
Just saw this amazing film yesterday as a matinée. Totally loved it. I counted only six people there including myself, all guys. No one walked out. I definitely agree that there was a significant amount of flash in the fighting moves. I haven't seen a martial arts movie like that since early Jackie Chan movies, project a, meals on wheels etc... the fighting moves were very reminiscent of those hk style movie especially with the flourishes but framed in modern cinematography and brutality which is why it seems so innovative. if you have Netflix, make sure to watch the man from nowhere. that movie fight scenes have zero flash and felt much more brutal. I personally felt that the man from nowhere is better but that's very subjective.
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2012 23:55 |
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:A thorough dissection of how wrong I am Thank you for the lesson in film-making that I was sorely lacking, I really intended to point out the absurdity of adapting an animated medium (Well I'll say animated, not sure what your average video game stripped of interactivity is called) to a live action film and I over explained leading to me talking from a pretty high level of ignorance. Really should have just said "Many film critics unjustly compare an interactive, CGI animated medium to their least favorite Live Action films and it bugs me because it makes no drat sense" and left it at that. Back on topic, how much money has this film made in the states so far? I really hope enough to mean we'll at least get the sequels on DVD here.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 00:39 |
|
|
Saw this today. God bless that foley artist.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 06:40 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 02:11 |
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Back on topic, how much money has this film made in the states so far? I really hope enough to mean we'll at least get the sequels on DVD here. About 2.5 million at this point. And last week it did pretty horrible despite expanding nationwide. I wouldn't be surprised if it looses half of it's 800+ theaters this weekend. It's pretty sad since this is better than just about anything that's come out of an American studio in a while of the same/similar genre. We'll probably get access to the sequels in one way or another, netflix probably. But I wouldn't count on a theatrical release of any unless it picks up steam.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 07:12 |
|
