Quoted from Dreamscale 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.

I liked them as well. I'm just saying that they weren't as realistic as people claimed that they were.

Quoted from Dreamscale 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.

I was speaking in general. A guy with wrestling skill with take down a striker that has never practiced take down defense, almost at will. Look at Royce Gracie he wasn't a wrestler and was around 180-190 pounds, yet he took everyone down. And they were bigger than him. Later on guys like Dan Severn, Mark Coleman, Mark Kerr started to dominate because of their superior wrestling. But people evolved and people started to get takedown defense and the sport kept moving forward. Even today you have a lot less submissions then you did 4-5 years ago, because people got better at defending them.

But in a situation where one guy has wrestling skill and the other has striking skill, I would always bet on the wrestler. Because like I said, he dictates where the fight will take place.

Quoted from Dreamscale 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.

I wouldn't call him a fighter. Because I have never seen evidence that he actually fought anyone. He never competed as far as I know. He claims he fought in dojo fights and so on. But that is all hear say. He started to get out of shape after like 1996. He's been fat for a long time now. He was a breath of fresh air when he appeared and made an impact. No doubt. I really liked Under Siege 1 and 2.

Quoted Text 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?

In the first few UFC's, the only illegal things were: biting, eye gouging and groin shots. Of course street fights are different. Instance, if you judo throw someone on concrete, you'll most likely kill him. Fight over.

Here is a clip of Bas Rutten talking about biting and stuff from other martial arts and how he says they wouldn't work on him and why. http://youtu.be/vA5kQnL9t4U?t=3m28s

Quoted from Andrew Curious if you've given it a second viewing, 'cos I can't imagine that opinion would hold over. [...] 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 haven't watched it again. For now, I'll happily stand by the original review!

1. The movie's 150 minutes long. No non-Michael Bay action film is 150 minutes long. It's the length of a gangster epic, not an action movie. (EDIT: I forgot Bollywood and the likes of Singham. You should never forget Singham, lest you find the belt tolls for thee.
2. The protagonist is passive and buried under plot for most of the film. He's not a guy with a single goal that he pursues actively; he's one party in a large series of unfolding tensions. Action heroes are the centre of their story and they drive the arcs actively and physically, much more so than in any other genre. Iko was not that. Iko was a character from The Departed, one guy with one set of goals caught up in an intrigue much bigger than him.
3. The movie opens with the tone of a gangster epic. If you showed the first twenty (?) minutes of that movie to anyone who didn't know the film, they'd never guess it was an action movie. Talk, menace, gang executions, prison sentences, all very static and serious.
4. Finally, here's Evans himself:

Quoted from Gareth Evans But with the sequel, I wanted to branch out and try a different genre. I don't want to survival horror again. I want to do an American crime gangster movie. I want to do a Yakuza movie. And I want to fuse it through an Indonesian sensibility.

(http://www.rogerebert.com/bald.....-the-raid-2-berandal)

The only time I consider plot in an action film is when it's really good (A Better Tomorrow, Police Story) or when it gets in the way, as I absolutely think it did here.

Quoted from Demento Here is a clip of Bas Rutten talking about biting and stuff from other martial arts and how he says they wouldn't work on him and why. http://youtu.be/vA5kQnL9t4U?t=3m28s

Obviously from certain positions biting will not work. He is only talking from specific positions where he has the advantage, like an armbar etc... bites don't happen just to get out of something, they also happen as part of an attack.

Quoted from Dreamscale 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.

The action in THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM is phenomenal.  Greengrass' shooting and editing style works wonders for kinetic energy, and I never once had trouble following the action in ULTIMATUM.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Obviously from certain positions biting will not work. He is only talking from specific positions where he has the advantage, like an armbar etc... bites don't happen just to get out of something, they also happen as part of an attack.

I understand. I'm just pointing out it isn't as effective as some people make it out to be. Sure it can cause damage and sure it can work. But its effectiveness is overstated. You can't rely on that.

In order to bite someone you would need to close the distance on them and really impose your physical will on them. Realistically if someone knows how to fight, they will not let you do this with ease. They will resist, try to hit you, clinch, wrestle you, knee you and so on. Also just biting someone isn't that damaging, you'll need to go for the ears or nose, because they are cartilage and you can rip those off and really do damage.

It can work, not saying it can't. But if lets say a wrestler takes you down and you try to bite him, considering he has a dominate position on you and is on top, you can expect that he is going to knee you in the liver, ribs or head. And in honestly if one of those lands clean, you're pretty much done.

So it's not as easy as just "I'm gonna bite someone". In most instances it will just not work again someone that knows what he's doing and knows not to panic in those situations. People exaggerate and think the stuff you can do in a street fight you can just do in a fight against a professional fighter and he won't know how to react. When in reality these are people that fight for a living. They train 8 hours a day. They can also bite, punch your throat, gouge your eyes and so on if they wanted to. If they're desperate they go to what they need in order to survive, just as a street fighter would do.

I remember I read a discussion on some forum a few years back where people were arguing that the British inmate Bronson would beat a top level MMA fighter in a prison fight. Which is just a ridiculous and ignorant claim. But we live in a world where people think Bruce Lee was the best fighter ever, even though he never really fought anyone.

Quoted from Heretic I haven't watched it again. For now, I'll happily stand by the original review! 1. The movie's 150 minutes long. No non-Michael Bay action film is 150 minutes long. It's the length of a gangster epic, not an action movie. (EDIT: I forgot Bollywood and the likes of Singham. You should never forget Singham, lest you find the belt tolls for thee. 2. The protagonist is passive and buried under plot for most of the film. He's not a guy with a single goal that he pursues actively; he's one party in a large series of unfolding tensions. Action heroes are the centre of their story and they drive the arcs actively and physically, much more so than in any other genre. Iko was not that. Iko was a character from The Departed, one guy with one set of goals caught up in an intrigue much bigger than him. 3. The movie opens with the tone of a gangster epic. If you showed the first twenty (?) minutes of that movie to anyone who didn't know the film, they'd never guess it was an action movie. Talk, menace, gang executions, prison sentences, all very static and serious. 4. Finally, here's Evans himself: (http://www.rogerebert.com/bald.....-the-raid-2-berandal) The only time I consider plot in an action film is when it's really good (A Better Tomorrow, Police Story) or when it gets in the way, as I absolutely think it did here.

That's an interesting quote cos I would say calling the first one as a 'survival horror' is quite niche, when most would bracket it under action. Fair enough, if that was his intention, but the movie is still an action movie with dramatic elements to me. Seeing as he gave that interview, I think it's now carte blanche for you!

I'll stand by a second viewing changing your perspective, though!

I'm torn on whether I want to watch it again. I found my first viewing drag quite often, and I'm not sure I have the patience for it again as it seemed a bit too long. I've watched the first one 5 times I think, and still love it. But, like I said before, I thought the final fight(or fight near the end) was outstanding. I'm tempted to buy it just so I can fast forward to that bit and watch it again and again.

Quoted from ArtyDoubleYou I'm torn on whether I want to watch it again. I found my first viewing drag quite often, and I'm not sure I have the patience for it again as it seemed a bit too long. I've watched the first one 5 times I think, and still love it. But, like I said before, I thought the final fight(or fight near the end) was outstanding. I'm tempted to buy it just so I can fast forward to that bit and watch it again and again.

You already saw this give something else a shot

Here are some random suggestions of good martial arts movies, of the top of my head:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098155/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102159/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084267/

Or you can watch one of my favorite movies, the remake to The One armed swordsman. Dao - The Blade by Tsui Hark.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112800

The end fight is a thing of beauty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGdgTeInZxw

Quoted from Demento You already saw this give something else a shot Here are some random suggestions of good martial arts movies, of the top of my head: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098155/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102159/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084267/ Or you can watch one of my favorite movies, the remake to The One armed swordsman. Dao - The Blade by Tsui Hark. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112800 The end fight is a thing of beauty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGdgTeInZxw

Out of the four you chose, 'Ninja in the dragons den' seems like the one that would be most up my street, going by the logline anyway. I'll probably search it out at some point.

And funnily enough, the clip you picked did nothing for me. Perhaps it's because I haven't seen what comes before it though. It was one of those fights that I feel suffered from the camera being far too close to the action, I found it tough to keep up with what was going on.

Don't suppose you know of any good fight scenes that are shot from further back, where you get to see everything that's going on? It's something I wished I got to see more often, and not just in martial arts films.

And I just watched the kitchen fight scene from the Raid 2 again. That for me is a thing of beauty, including the seriously brutal way it's finished. I would put the link up, but for some reason the link is about a million lines long.

Quoted from ArtyDoubleYou And funnily enough, the clip you picked did nothing for me. Perhaps it's because I haven't seen what comes before it though. It was one of those fights that I feel suffered from the camera being far too close to the action, I found it tough to keep up with what was going on. Don't suppose you know of any good fight scenes that are shot from further back, where you get to see everything that's going on? It's something I wished I got to see more often, and not just in martial arts films.

I actually like stylized violence more in martial arts movie.

Maybe Donnie Yen vs Jacky Wu in SPL would be more up your alley : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljHRS_19vwk

Quoted from Demento I actually like stylized violence more in martial arts movie. Maybe Donnie Yen vs Jacky Wu in SPL would be more up your alley : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljHRS_19vwk

Yep, that's more my cup o tea.

I'd still love to see a fight take place with two people squaring off against each other and shot from one angle. I've got nothing against all the cuts and getting in close most of the time, I'd just like to see how well it would play out. Maybe it doesn't work as well which is why you never get to see it.

Quoted from ArtyDoubleYou Yep, that's more my cup o tea. I'd still love to see a fight take place with two people squaring off against each other and shot from one angle. I've got nothing against all the cuts and getting in close most of the time, I'd just like to see how well it would play out. Maybe it doesn't work as well which is why you never get to see it.

It's difficult to execute all those moves together in sequence without making a mistakes. That's why they cut. So they can piece it together in editing. It would be really difficult to pull it off in one or two shots. Plus it looks less sloppy. If you shoot it from a wide shot the whole fight, you'll see that they are pulling punches, waiting to get hit, that sort of thing. It's hard to sync up and have real good flow. So it wouldn't look as good on screen. It would look really staged, most likely. Maybe the right guys can pull it off.

As far as long take shots in martial arts/ action movies. The "Hard Boiled" one-take action scene is among my favorites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bozxgVQ9m0

The Protector with Tony Jaa has a few long take wide shots. Here is one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ditPebZ8g (to me this looks sloppy)

Quoted from Demento It's difficult to execute all those moves together in sequence without making a mistakes. That's why they cut. So they can piece it together in editing. It would be really difficult to pull it off in one or two shots. Plus it looks less sloppy. If you shoot it from a wide shot the whole fight, you'll see that they are pulling punches, waiting to get hit, that sort of thing. It's hard to sync up and have real good flow. So it wouldn't look as good on screen. It would look stage most likely. The "Hard Boiled" one take action scene is among my favorites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bozxgVQ9m0 The Protector with Tony Jaa has a few long take wide shots. Here is one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ditPebZ8g

Again, funnily enough, I thought about mentioning both of those scenes as examples of what I don't mean. Don't get me wrong though, they are both mightily impressive. I especially like how Tony Jaa is completely knackered and at points seems like he's struggling to keep up with the camera. Understandable for sure, so I'll let him off.

And I get that it would be tough to pull off, but with the way films can be edited so seamlessly these days, I like to think it would be possible. It certainly would be cool if it could be done in a single take too.

I imagine to pull off a single take/scene in the way I'd like to see, it would have to be filmed on a bridge or something, where they can only move forwards or backwards. If I ever went in the direction of directing, which doesn't really appeal to me, I'd like to give it a shot, just so I would know, ya know?

Quoted from ArtyDoubleYou I imagine to pull off a single take/scene in the way I'd like to see, it would have to be filmed on a bridge or something, where they can only move forwards or backwards. If I ever went in the direction of directing, which doesn't really appeal to me, I'd like to give it a shot, just so I would know, ya know?

I get what you're saying. But don't you think you run the risk of it looking cheap and like a youtube video if you film two guys fighting on let's say a bridge in one wide shot? It would appear as someone is filming them, unknown to them. Wouldn't look very cinematic, imo.

Quoted from Demento I get what you're saying. But don't you think you run the risk of it looking cheap and like a youtube video if you film two guys fighting on a lets say a bridge in one wide shot? It would appear as someone is filming them, unknown to them. Wouldn't look very cinematic, imo.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the risk with it. I think it boils down to when someone says don't do X because Y will happen, and Y is bad, I have that urge to do X just so I can see myself what Y is like. If that makes sense? But to clarify, I mean more like X is 'don't press that button' rather than X is 'don't murder' or something. I'm not a psycho. Curiosity might be the word I'm looking for.