SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 29th, 2024, 9:58am
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
No Members and 11 Guests

 Pages: 1, 2, 3 : All
Recommend Print
  Author    The Raid 2: Berandal  (currently 5482 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
Demento
Posted: August 12th, 2014, 1:19pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25

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
Logged
Private Message Reply: 15 - 31
Heretic
Posted: August 12th, 2014, 2:15pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



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

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.

Revision History (2 edits; 1 reasons shown)
Heretic  -  August 13th, 2014, 11:11am
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 16 - 31
DustinBowcot
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 12:28pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




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.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 17 - 31
Dark Shape
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 3:10pm Report to Moderator
New



Location
Los Angeles
Posts
24
Posts Per Day
0.00

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.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 18 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 5:34pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25

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.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 19 - 31
Andrew
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 5:55pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1791
Posts Per Day
0.32

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!


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 20 - 31
ArtyDoubleYou
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 6:04pm Report to Moderator
New


Onen Hag Oll

Location
Newquay, Cornwall, England
Posts
219
Posts Per Day
0.05
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.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 21 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 6:27pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25

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
Logged
Private Message Reply: 22 - 31
ArtyDoubleYou
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 6:52pm Report to Moderator
New


Onen Hag Oll

Location
Newquay, Cornwall, England
Posts
219
Posts Per Day
0.05

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.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 23 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 7:05pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25

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
Logged
Private Message Reply: 24 - 31
ArtyDoubleYou
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 7:20pm Report to Moderator
New


Onen Hag Oll

Location
Newquay, Cornwall, England
Posts
219
Posts Per Day
0.05

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.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 25 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 7:32pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25

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)
Logged
Private Message Reply: 26 - 31
ArtyDoubleYou
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 7:43pm Report to Moderator
New


Onen Hag Oll

Location
Newquay, Cornwall, England
Posts
219
Posts Per Day
0.05

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?
Logged
Private Message Reply: 27 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 7:51pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25

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.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 28 - 31
ArtyDoubleYou
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 8:05pm Report to Moderator
New


Onen Hag Oll

Location
Newquay, Cornwall, England
Posts
219
Posts Per Day
0.05

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.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 29 - 31
Demento
Posted: August 13th, 2014, 8:45pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
946
Posts Per Day
0.25

Quoted from ArtyDoubleYou


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.


I believe anything can be done right if it's in the right hands.

Logged
Private Message Reply: 30 - 31
DustinBowcot
Posted: August 14th, 2014, 7:49am Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Demento


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.


That's not true. I've seen a smaller guy bite a much larger guy's eyebrow clean off. After that the guy didn't want to fight anymore. This is a true story. I even know the little guy's name. A mixed race kid, proud of the fact he was diagnosed schizophrenic. He was 21 years old, around 5 7, 11 stone... the guy he hit was over 6ft, easily 15-16 stone in his late 30s. The big guy was a drug dealer, the little guy was robbing him. Little guy took a punch to the head, launched himself in the air and bit the guy's eyebrow off.

I'm not sure that you're thinking of the same thing I am when I think of biting... as I've seen it be very effective at least twice. There have been others where things haven't been exactly clear, but for the eyebrow I had a front row seat. I also know from experience that when blood is pouring into your eye, you cannot see and are just a sitting duck anyway. I had a fight once where the guy's razor sharp knuckles split my eyebrows and blood was pouring into my face. The fight was over from there.


Quoted from Demento

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.


Nobody will let you do anything with ease unless it's a beat down and not a fight. Like I say, clinches don't happen much in my country unless friends or people not used to fighting are getting it on. Usually it's a slug fest until one guy hits the floor. There are unspoken rules, one of those is you don't bite. However, there are people that don't play by the rules and will be naturally more violent.


Quoted from Demento

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.


Most of the time one wouldn't be fighting a wrestler. But I would expect anyone with a dominant position, landing a knee to the head, to go on to win. In real fights, people are rarely of equal weight. I don't think UFC gives an accurate representation of a real fight. It has rules and weight classes, even skillsets are measured fairly equally through the contenders lists.


Quoted from Demento

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.


Not quite sure how we got from talking about realistic fights to an amateur fighting a pro... but I agree with you.


Quoted from Demento
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.


Prison fights are generally handled with weapons or surprise attacks. Aside from that I'm not sure how they would differ from any other street fight. In that regard, any trained fighter has an advantage of someone that isn't.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 31 - 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