SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 29th, 2024, 7:31am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Reviews    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  ›  The Raid 2: Berandal Moderators: Nixon
Users Browsing Forum
Googlebot, AdSense and 9 Guests

 Pages: 1, 2, 3 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    The Raid 2: Berandal  (currently 5481 views)
Heretic
Posted: April 18th, 2014, 4:11am Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
2023
Posts Per Day
0.28

Quoted from Heretic
Awwwwwwwwww yeah.

With a 148-minute runtime, I'm a little worried that this one might be missing the beautiful simplicity of the first, but man. These guys cater directly to the insatiable action junkie/martial arts maniac that is my inner child.

The brawl in the mud looks incredible.


Callllllllled it. It was way too long, the action was out of this world, and the brawl in the mud was incredible.

The first was overly serious from sequence to sequence, but its endearingly silly central premise kept it tethered to a goofy foundation. This one is a bad Godfather/Infernal Affairs -- and I do mean bad, as it lifelessly recreates characters and scenes from these and other superior gangster dramas -- but gosh freaking darn is the action good. The more of a martial arts buff you are, the more you will appreciate this movie. The complexity of some of the fight coverage is astonishing and can really only be appreciated in relation to where and how it rises above other genre efforts.

Again, the gangster epic approach is so ill-advised that the plot basically becomes irrelevant somewhere late in the second act. The final fights are amazing, but in no way carry the weight of the story as they should. This is a bad movie; not in the way that its predecessor was bad (it wasn't bad, it was fantastic, albeit a little overly dour, overly grim, and overly self-important), but in a much worse sense. It's bad because it's "pretentious." All of its aspirations towards being an epic disappear in its final act, as it finally admits to being the fists-out action flick that is really all anyone wanted anyway. The movie never earns its melodrama, and some scenes come dangerously close to falling flat, but the fights are so good that hardly anyone could really care.

I won't say this is only for martial arts action buffs, but anyone not fitting that description deserves the warning that the film's first 130 minutes of plotting are basically there to lead to a final 20 minutes of asskicking (damn, what a long movie). Not that there isn't also plenty of asskicking along the way.

But if you need a quick way to absolutely, positively fill your martial arts violence quotient (is that a thing people have?)...accept no substitutes.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message
albinopenguin
Posted: April 18th, 2014, 10:40am Report to Moderator
Been Around


I got dipping sticks.

Location
Los Angeles
Posts
785
Posts Per Day
0.14
I consider The Raid to be the best action film of all time. Or at the very least, the best hand to hand combat movie I've ever seen (easily). Is The Raid 2 better than the first film? Hard to say. Someone compared the Raid series to Mario Brothers and I think that's a pretty accurate comparison. The Raid 2 manages to expand the film's universe while remaining true to what made the first one so great.

As for The Raid 2, my jaw was on the floor the entire time. I didn't want the movie to end. 148 minutes feels like a half hour. Furthermore, The Raid 2 gives fans what they want. It retains the fighting style of the first film while adding in knifes, baseball bats, and hammers. So f ucking cool.

My only gripe with the film is the story. It's catered around the action scenes, giving them an excuse to take place, rather than the other way around. But to hell with it. We're not here for the story.

I yearn for the days when people said, "You HAVE to see this movie for this part or that part." As for the Raid 2, that's EVERY part. See it asap. You won't believe what the f uck you're watching.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 1 - 31
Heretic
Posted: April 18th, 2014, 1:10pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
2023
Posts Per Day
0.28
The Raid 2 is Super Mario 3, right?? Not…y'know…

I enjoyed this article, which talks about the relation between story and action (in The Raid and in action flicks in general): http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/04/03/entertainment-geekly-the-raid-2-death-of-hollywood-action-movies/
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 2 - 31
ArtyDoubleYou
Posted: April 28th, 2014, 7:07am Report to Moderator
New


Onen Hag Oll

Location
Newquay, Cornwall, England
Posts
219
Posts Per Day
0.05
Saw this the other day. I wanted to love it but ended up only loving parts of it. The first Raid worked so well for me because it was so simple, the story was as basic as they come and it was pretty much action the whole way through. This one seemed like it was trying to be a lot more, which I can understand why they would do that, but it didn't quite work for me.

Saying that, there is a chance it's my fault I didn't like it so much. I'm quite a slow reader at the best of times, but it seemed like the subtitles were just flashed up for the briefest of moments and I quite often missed bits of information that maybe could of made the difference. Also I had a bit of trouble keeping up with who was who, which may make me a bit racist, but I'll put it down to the foreign names being hard to keep track of.

Honestly though, this sort of film isn't really about the story. It's about the action. It's about the fights. Some of which were outstanding.

A few highlights include the prison mud battle, hammer girl on the train, the restaurant fight with the burnt face and, well, thinking about it there's too many to remember let alone list.

However, my absolute favourite fight was the final battle in the kitchen. I'd even go as far as to say it's my all time favourite martial arts film battle. I found myself ducking in the cinema. At one point it even had me believing that the hero was gonna lose. That's how good it was. When it was over I just wanted to stand up and cheer and clap as loud and hard as I could. It was an absolute master class in fight choreography.

The one other thing I just want to mention quickly is how he took down hammer girl. I was a bit worried that because she was female she would get a nice, polite death (if there is such a thing). However, it was delightfully and deservedly brutal, I would say a joy to watch but that may just make me a psycho.

Overall, worth watching just for the final battle.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 3 - 31
Dreamscale
Posted: August 10th, 2014, 12:51pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



The movie is well done, well shot, and looks great.  And, of course, the action scenes are fantastic.

BUT, the story here is weak, convoluted, cliche, and not really well told.  In a sense, it's both way too big, and way too small, both at the same time.

Yayan Ruhian's character,  Prakaso, was very poorly developed and didn't have nearly enough screen time, which made his epic fight and demise come off much weaker than it should have. I read where much of his back story was cut out and that was a huge mistake.  His "Mad Dog" character from the original was a classic and IMO, 1 of the better Antags of all time, in terms of being a true beast of a fighter.

I think much of the opening and prison run time was way too long and not necessary.  Even the awesome mud fight was overdone and probably unnecessary.

And, really, in a nutshell, it's obvious to me that the movie was simply too long and drawn out, while still lacking runtime in other areas, which again, as stated above, leads me to beleive that the story itself was overblown and too big for what Gareth Evans really wanted to do here.

Impressive visuals, choreography, fight scenes, and action don't equate to a truly great movie, and this is clear and completely on display.  I'd watch it again, but I think I'd fast forward from epic fight to epic fight.

Grade - B-    
Logged
e-mail Reply: 4 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 10th, 2014, 3:17pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25
These movies did nothing for me.

First one was okay. This one was far too drawn out and boring. Action scene after action scene doesn't make a movie exciting. At least to me.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 5 - 31
Andrew
Posted: August 10th, 2014, 5:05pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1791
Posts Per Day
0.32

Quoted from Heretic


Callllllllled it. It was way too long, the action was out of this world, and the brawl in the mud was incredible.

The first was overly serious from sequence to sequence, but its endearingly silly central premise kept it tethered to a goofy foundation. This one is a bad Godfather/Infernal Affairs -- and I do mean bad, as it lifelessly recreates characters and scenes from these and other superior gangster dramas -- but gosh freaking darn is the action good. The more of a martial arts buff you are, the more you will appreciate this movie. The complexity of some of the fight coverage is astonishing and can really only be appreciated in relation to where and how it rises above other genre efforts.

Again, the gangster epic approach is so ill-advised that the plot basically becomes irrelevant somewhere late in the second act. The final fights are amazing, but in no way carry the weight of the story as they should. This is a bad movie; not in the way that its predecessor was bad (it wasn't bad, it was fantastic, albeit a little overly dour, overly grim, and overly self-important), but in a much worse sense. It's bad because it's "pretentious." All of its aspirations towards being an epic disappear in its final act, as it finally admits to being the fists-out action flick that is really all anyone wanted anyway. The movie never earns its melodrama, and some scenes come dangerously close to falling flat, but the fights are so good that hardly anyone could really care.

I won't say this is only for martial arts action buffs, but anyone not fitting that description deserves the warning that the film's first 130 minutes of plotting are basically there to lead to a final 20 minutes of asskicking (damn, what a long movie). Not that there isn't also plenty of asskicking along the way.

But if you need a quick way to absolutely, positively fill your martial arts violence quotient (is that a thing people have?)...accept no substitutes.


Curious if you've given it a second viewing, 'cos I can't imagine that opinion would hold over.

First and foremost it's an action film with dramatic elements, so slaughtering the story in the way you have is akin to smashing the story of Toy Story to pieces because it doesn't hit the dramatic beats of 12 Angry Men. Ignoring genre when reviewing is what sets apart wannabes like Mark Kermode from the words of a Roger Ebert.

We all do it when we view a film, but misaligning the goals of the filmmaker with your expectations often leads to misguided reviews like this. That review would make sense if Gareth Evans set out to make a drama with action sprinkled throughout.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 6 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 10th, 2014, 5:48pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25

Quoted from Andrew

We all do it when we view a film, but misaligning the goals of the filmmaker with your expectations often leads to misguided reviews like this. That review would make sense if Gareth Evans set out to make a drama with action sprinkled throughout.


I agree with most of the things Heretic said.

And I'm the target audience for this movie. I pretty much grew up on these kinds of movies and more or less... I've seen them all. From King Hu, Chang Cheh to Tony Jaa and Donnie Yen.

I have to agree that the movie went into a direction it didn't have to. For the first hour and something It tried to be overcomplicated, deep and gritty. There was no need for it. It came of like it was "trying too hard", it didn't gel and it didn't work for me.

As a lifetime long fan of martial arts movies and real combat sports, the fighting in martial arts movies is highly unrealistic. You have to suspend disbelief and take it for what it really is... choreography. It works for mystical tales such as Hero and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or comedy driven action movies that don't take themselves too seriously. IMO it's a mistake trying to insert gangster drama and 30 min unrealistic fighting sequences. You trying to get the viewer invested in realistic drama with stakes and then you have the same actors doing a violent dance of sorts. It doesn't gel IMO.

I would rate the first one higher than this. Because it knew what it was and it delivered. Plus this was really drawn out, long.

We all have our opinions and there will never be a consensus on anything. That said, I think this movie was boring and I really didn't even find the action scenes that impressive. Some were way too excessive that it was hard not to be "full" fast.

PS: Since we're talking martial arts movies, I'll leave one of my favorite fight scenes here as a bonus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpC0HoDTC7E

Revision History (2 edits; 1 reasons shown)
Demento  -  August 10th, 2014, 7:07pm
Logged
Private Message Reply: 7 - 31
Andrew
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 8:44pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1791
Posts Per Day
0.32

Quoted Text
IMO it's a mistake trying to insert gangster drama and 30 min unrealistic fighting sequences. You trying to get the viewer invested in realistic drama with stakes and then you have the same actors doing a violent dance of sorts. It doesn't gel IMO.


I think that's a really interesting point actually. I like that it melded a more Western approach with undeniably superb Asian fight chereogaphy - creates something with a unique flavour for me. Something such as the near universally loved Oldboy melded dramatic elements of a more traditional Asian approach with some obviously less energetic fighting than The Raid 2, but would probably (and I'm obviously guessing) be more of your thing.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 8 - 31
DustinBowcot
Posted: August 12th, 2014, 2:33am Report to Moderator
Guest User



I'm the same... I think... I had my fill of fancy choreography back in the 80s. One guy I had a lot of respect for back in the late 80s early 90s was Steven Seagal. A real fighter using real fight moves. OK, some of it may have been a little fancy, but a lot of the time he was using genuine Aikido in his fights... and man, did he have some cool moves. The way he'd disarm and then strike actually looked real.

That was a game-changer for me and I couldn't settle for anything less afterwards.

Perhaps it all boils down to the choreography being overly done to the point where it looks more like a dance than a real fight. I have no love for unrealistic violence. I'll certainly be looking for realism in my own short when we make it.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 9 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 12th, 2014, 5:30am Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25

Quoted from DustinBowcot
I'm the same... I think... I had my fill of fancy choreography back in the 80s. One guy I had a lot of respect for back in the late 80s early 90s was Steven Seagal. A real fighter using real fight moves. OK, some of it may have been a little fancy, but a lot of the time he was using genuine Aikido in his fights... and man, did he have some cool moves. The way he'd disarm and then strike actually looked real.

That was a game-changer for me and I couldn't settle for anything less afterwards.

Perhaps it all boils down to the choreography being overly done to the point where it looks more like a dance than a real fight. I have no love for unrealistic violence. I'll certainly be looking for realism in my own short when we make it.


In all honesty there is a huge debate on how practical Aikido really is. Most say that it isn't really practical at all in a real fight. Instance you never see anyone use aikido moves in mixed martial arts. Now people will say stupid stuff like things used in mixed martial arts aren't the things that you'll use in a street fight, aikido has deadly moves and so on... but all that is BS. Rarely people use small joint lock manipulation, fingers, wrists. It's just hard to do on someone who has a vague idea about what he's doing. No one is just going to let you grab their wrist and not punch back instinctively when you do.

Most people consider Seagal to be a phony of sorts. Even though he's a legit aikido master. 7th dan I think.

Real life fighting will be sloppy, quick and more or less uncoordinated in most cases. You've got a feeling of danger, adrenaline pumping ect. Even if you have a cool head it'll be hard for you to be able to string a couple of moves together that look great.

Here is a video of trained Mixed martial artist Roger Huerta in a street fight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmfXN588F98 As you can see (from what is visible), lots of chasing, winging punches and so on. And we're talking about a trained fighter that fought in the UFC and was decent.

Now this is a realistic fight scene, from the show Deadwood - warning gore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blki-DISUis

This one is pretty good as well IMO, Eastern Promises, bath house scene - warning nude Viggo and gore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cSP8u9N1Vg

Revision History (6 edits; 1 reasons shown)
Demento  -  August 12th, 2014, 6:24am
Logged
Private Message Reply: 10 - 31
DustinBowcot
Posted: August 12th, 2014, 8:26am Report to Moderator
Guest User



There are lots of different types of fights. Those hugfests in Deadwood rarely happen aside from with friends who don't want to hurt each other.

I've seen one guy stand firm and knock down three guys with punch combinations and knees and then he was screaming for more. Funnily enough he is known as Animal. I've seen lots and lots of real fights... and it depends on the size of the guy in relation to the other guy and the skillsets of both, also how well they know each other. Sometimes it's just all about who hits first.

All fighting is deadly. You only need to punch a guy in the head and he could die. It happens quite a lot. One punch. Sticking to the principles of any individual discipline while in the middle of a fight wouldn't be good as there will be things happen you just can't account for. What each discipline does do is prepare you and the odd move comes in handy.

What I did like about the Deadwood fight was the charge at the beginning... but it should have ended in punches being thrown. Most of the fights I see are just a flurry of punches until one of them goes down... but there are the occasional sweet ones too. I've seen two guys hammer each other for about 60 seconds and then both give up. There are just so many different ways a fight can be realistic. So long as it doesn't look choreographed then it looks good... and I don't think Seagal's did look choreographed.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 11 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 12th, 2014, 9:59am Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25
No, I agree that there are all types of fights. Anything can happen, it's a fight, it's real life. All it takes is one punch... and it's over.

My point was that when you have a fight in real life, there usually isn't a set of moves that happen one after the other. Like in martial arts movies. They block, they block then they come with a punch. It's too premeditated. A chain of moves don't happen so smooth in real life no matter how good you are. Because you can't predict things at such a pace. And realistically no one is that good and can pull them off. People can hardly hit someone, let alone block 2 punches, dodge one and come back with one of your own.

Unless you're Anderson Silva :

Still that is ducking under punches it's not blocking.

I've been watching boxing, kickboxing, muay thai fights, mma fights for about 16-17 years. Of the top of my head I don't remember seeing anyone doing a block than coming back with a punch. Or doing some arm trapping and punching, like in kung fu movies. In real life usually chaos reigns. It's not choreography. Especially in street conditions and not on a sports mat, ring or whatever. Where the conditions are controlled to some degree.

Steven Segal's moves do look cool. But most of those flips people do in aikido, they do voluntary, so their wrists are safe and don't get damaged. In a real fight a person will not have the awareness when you twist his wrist to do a flip. Aikido moves may work a person that doesn't know how to fight at all, but I doubt they'll work against someone with some basic knowledge of fighting. Or come off as smooth in a fight if you could implement them. Segal does come of more realistic because the moves are fast, short and do more damage on film. So it looks more brutal, aka more real.

I wouldn't agree with people saying that the fighting in the Bourne movies is realistic. It's still very choreographed. Fact is you can hardly have a real looking fight in a movie and make it look good. It's just not as exciting and spectacular looking.

About the hugfest. The early UFC's proved that wrestlers, people that know how to grapple will beat strikers (boxers, kickboxers) 9 times out of 10, because they can dictate where the fight takes place. It's much more useful to know how to grapple than then to strike, because most likely if you don't get KO'd clean at one point or another the fight will end up on the ground. So hugging, clinching would be my initial reaction in a fight. I think it would be everyone's who isn't trained in a striking art. Unless if you've watched a lot of movies or boxing and think you can KO a guy clean with a punch.

Here is what the early UFC's looked like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReG8XEKJmjQ And these are people that have trained martial arts for years and are black belts. Things still looked chaotic and messy. And a small grappler dominated all of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuzImQo7cdg

Revision History (3 edits; 1 reasons shown)
Demento  -  August 12th, 2014, 10:18am
Logged
Private Message Reply: 12 - 31
Dreamscale
Posted: August 12th, 2014, 10:36am Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Demento
I wouldn't agree with people saying that the fighting in the Bourne movies is realistic. It's still very choreographed. Fact is you can hardly have a real looking fight in a movie and make it look good. It's just not as exciting and spectacular looking.


The fights in the original Bourne movie - The Bourne Identity from 2002, were, IMO, amazing.  I was shocked how good Damon looked in his hand to hand combat skills.  They were not only slick, but also brutal hand to hand fight sequences.

From there, I couldn't stand the Bourne flicks, as they were all edited so fast, you really couldn't see much of anything, which is obviously a way to hide the fact that the action scenes aren't up to snuff.

I'm also a huge MMA guy and have been watching since the very original UFC 1.  I agree grapplers have the overall advantage, but I wouldn't go so far as to say 9 out of 10 fights, the better grappler will win - it all depends on how good or bad one is at grappling, and also, how good or bad one is at striking.

Back in the day, Steven Seagal was indeed a beast of a fighter, and it showed onscreen.  It's sad how far his films fell in quality rather quickly, and how quickly he got out of fighting shape, to the point where sequnces were literally sped up to make it appear he still had it.  But, from the late 80's to the early 90's, he was definitely the man.

Logged
e-mail Reply: 13 - 31
DustinBowcot
Posted: August 12th, 2014, 12:38pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



There are a lot of boxing clubs around my way. Most of us grow up with some ring experience. I think here in England and probably the UK we tend more towards boxing than we do grappling. I can't think of a single wrestling club, but there are three boxing gyms within walking distance.

I suppose wrestling doesn't work well because of the biting thing. In UFC there are certain rules. But you get too close in a street fight and you could have your nose bitten off or even, as I saw once, an eyebrow. I've seen an ear too. The one I haven't seen is nose... but it's something of an adage around my way, as in, I'll bite his fooking nose off. Just strange that it's rarely the nose that gets it. I wonder what the actual stat's are?

The UFC doesn't show real fighting. It's close. Very close... but certain rules stop it from being a real fight. The guy that had his eyebrow ripped off was a big guy and it was a little guy that did it. I'll never forget afterwards, the little guy had to jump in the air to punch the other guy in the head while he was staggering away with blood dripping all over the yard. He didn't want to fight anymore but was too big to put down easily. I actually know the little guy that did it, I grew up with him.

So maybe the grappling thing works best in UFC, but it ain't wise getting too close in an actual street fight, imo. Not unless you've knocked them on their ass and you're ensuring they don't get up again.

In regards to Seagal, his sheer presence also added to the reality of it. Most of the time he made people look small with some fancy moves that looked great on screen. Far more real than the chinese 70s stuff. I can't think of anyone else from around that period that added realism to martial arts fight scenes. Before that it was all leaping 20ft in the air type stuff. Come to think of it, it still mostly like that today.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 14 - 31
 Pages: 1, 2, 3 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006