Asian Cinema, Action Scenes & The Long Take
In the current cinematic landscape, action movies tend to abide by the “faster is better” way of doing things.
Just look at “The Bourne Identity” series, including “The Bourne Supremacy” and recently “The Bourne Ultimatum.” The action is frantic, quickly-cut, filmed from many angles. The shaky camera movements are designed to make the viewer feel as if they’re right there in the middle of the scene. For many viewers this ratchets up the tension and makes for a truly visceral experience.
But some of the best action scenes of recent years fly in the face of this conventional wisdom. Instead of the constant cutting seen in the “Bourne” pictures, movies like “Oldboy” have wowed audiences with something called the “long take.” In this style, a fight scene is filmed with one continuous, unbroken shot which may last up to several minutes in length.
Here’s an example from “Oldboy” (2003). Please note, a few short takes precede the long take:
Most filmmakers shy away from this for obvious reasons. A single take lasting several minutes requires more choreography, rehearsal, and trial and failure than several shorter takes pieced together.
However, the advantages are numerous. The fighting feels more “real” in a long take because there are no edits– just like in real life. What you see was filmed in real time, lasting exactly as long as the shot does. Time has not been compressed or altered for effect, so the shot stands on its own merits.
Here’s an even better example to top “Oldboy.” Taken from “The Protector” (2005), this shot is a real tour de force:
Whereas “Oldboy” used a tracking shot to move the camera horizontally from left to right, “The Protector” employs the more versatile “Steadicam.” This allows the camera to really penetrate the film space. It is attached to a camera operator who can move the camera up stairs, around corners, or anywhere a person can go.
Notice what a sense of spacial geography this technique imparts to the viewer. After watching “The Protector” clip, you can describe the hotel lobby where it takes place as if it’s somewhere you had been personally. The “Bourne” films, with their quick cuts, never achieve that same sense of space.
The “long take” is often a mark of a great director, or film. Orson Welles, Brian De Palma, and Max Ophuls have all applied the technique, but not in fight scenes. It’s good to see some of Asia’s up and coming directors have adapted the “long take” for action movies. It really stands apart from the “Bourne” style which has become all too common.
Is “The Bourne Identity” style the best way to film an action scene? Seen any good “long takes” lately?
Post Your thoughts.
“Hostel” Is The Set Up, “Hostel: Part II” Is The Punchline
Is being scared the same thing as saying, “That looks really painful and I hope it never happens to me?”
I don’t think so. And that’s the problem with both “Hostel” (2005) and “Hostel: Part II” (2007). There’s nothing genuinely scary about them. No suspense, or mystery, or subtlety– all essential elements in the horror genre. (Stand these movies next to, say, “The Shining” or the “Blair Witch Project” and you will see what the “Hostel” series is lacking.)
What they DO offer is plenty of gore, and lots of torture. Both films rehash the exact same story, with the sole exception being that the batch of torture victims are men in the first film, and women in the second.
Naturally, the original “Hostel” is better. Its direction stands out thanks to Eli Roth, who knows his way around a camera. The sound effects are atmospheric and quite well done. The opening credits (which depict dripping blood, soap suds, and the cleaning of metal tools) combine sound and image with masterful technique. The credits alone would have made a genuinely great short film. Too bad it all goes downhill from there.
The sequel, “Hostel: Part II,” is just plain ridiculous. It tries to top the gore-factor of its predecessor, and in the process goes way, way overboard. Much of it is borderline comedic. The last scene features children playing soccer with a severed head. They kick it around in the woods, at night.
Seriously!
There’s a trophy room of severed heads, too. It looks just like the room in “Return To Oz,” where the witch Mombi keeps her head collection. But despite all the blood and torture in “Hostel: Part II,” “Return To Oz” still scares me more.
Grades:
Hostel – C
Hostel: Part II – D+
Does the “Hostel” torture make you cringe? Or is it so overboard, it’s almost funny?
Post your thoughts.
Guy Ritchie’s “Revolver” Reveals Its Mysteries – During End Credits!
SPOILER ALERT!!! THIS REVIEW IS ONE BIG SPOILER!!!
The most amazing thing about Guy Ritchie’s 2005 release “Revolver” is the end credits, and I mean that as a compliment.
“Revolver” is enigmatic for an action picture. When the end credits roll, not everyone will “get it.” It seems to almost make sense, but not quite.
Maybe that’s why Guy Ritchie made the unusually brilliant decision to interview some real-life doctors of psychology and edit their comments into an explanatory montage played over the closing credits.
What are they discussing?
The human “ego,” which is exactly the lynch-pin that “Revolver” hinges upon. The whole thing is about the human ego manifesting itself– feeding the image of one’s self worth with respect, or money, or fear.
These desires drive the main characters through the story. Jason Statham (from both Guy Ritchie’s “Snatch” and “Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels”) stars as an ex-con with a grudge. He’s out to make a fool of Ray Liotta, the crime boss who sent him to jail in the first place. Along the way, Ritchie fills the film with typical action fare– plenty of drugs, guns, and shoot outs.
But as “Revolver” draws to a close, the plot resolution starts to feel awkward. There are increasing internal monologues and seemingly uncharacteristic outbursts of charity, and even non-violence.
This is not a BAD thing. It is essential to the premise of what “Revolver” is really about. The real villain to be conquered is the “ego,” and those who do not conquer it can only self-destruct.
Keen viewers may figure out this symbolism before it’s over. If not, Ritchie pulls back the curtain during the end credits and basically spells it out. Speaking as one who DIDN’T “get it,” this made me appreciate the film immeasurably more. It was cool to see some secondary interpretation of the film’s art without having to sift through DVD extras.
“Revolver’s” psycho-analytic underpinning will not find favor with everyone however. Roger Ebert’s half-star review is particularly venomous. But give “Revolver” half a chance and it’s unique structure may win you over.
“Revolver” takes a big gamble, and the pay-off is this: A slightly-below-average picture becomes slightly-above average if you buy into it. And I did…
…But not until the end credits.
Grade: B-
What’s Jason Statham’s best picture? Or Guy Richie’s? I say “Snatch” is the answer to both.
Post your thoughts.
“Southland Tales” – Weird For Weirdness’ Sake
The one thing 2008’s “Southland Tales” has going for it is it’s ambition. “Southland Tales” is a very big, very long, complex and star-studded vanity project. Writer/ Director Richard Kelly, hot off the success of the great “Donnie Darko,” is out to spend all the capital his prior success has afforded him. Unfortunately, he may have broke the bank in the process.
“Southland” is a mess. It fails on almost every level.
First, the story adds up to a big nothing. This is a surprising failure, considering all the in-your-face political satire and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo along the way. The plot revolves around an action movie star with amnesia, played by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, as he tries to figure out what happened to him before he woke up in the middle of the desert. Along the way, he meets assorted nut cases, all trying to undermine the government with which The Rock has political ties.
Kelly is playing with some meaningful themes here. They just never add up in any meaningful way. The film poses interesting questions– like what might happen if you meet your time travel self– and then moves on to other concerns, having provided no answers.
SPOILER ALERT!
Finally, after piling on question after question, virtually everyone is killed off at once, in one big explosion. What kind of ending is that? Frustrating? Lazy? Or the only alternative to get out of the corner Kelly painted himself into?
END SPOILER ALERT!
Second, the characters are simply not interesting, or believable. There is no one to empathize with; only weirdos to gawk at. They’re weird for the sake of weirdness, and nothing else. To make matters worse, the supporting cast is constantly upstaging the primary cast, and the main characters are less likable as a result. (I mean, probably half the people who watch this dreck are doing so because they heard that Justin Timberlake does a musical number… But he’s on screen for a whole ten minutes. I read Janeane Garofalo was in it too, only to discover that after extensive re-editing, her part was removed from the picture entirely. You can however glimpse her in ONE shot, right at the end of the movie, celebrating with Timberlake at a party.)
Third, “Southland Tales” is too long to sustain interest. Out of 145 minutes, there are about five minutes that will play great on You-Tube, and the rest is forgettable. (If you’ve seen the picture, you can probably guess which five minutes. If you haven’t seen the picture, of course I’m talking about the Timberlake video.)
But the most disappointing part about seeing “Southland” is knowing how hard the filmmakers tried to make something good, and witnessing how greatly they failed. The wild ambition, imagination, and talent involved is evident in every frame. Too bad it’s such a pain to watch.
Grade: D
Hey “Southland” geeks! Care to explain this dreck?
Post your thoughts.
Best YouTube Ever!
Anyone claiming to be a “movie buff” needs to watch this compilation of “100 Movies, 100 Quotes, 100 Numbers.” You will love it!
I know 58 by name (although there’s some others that I recognize but can’t name specifically).
How many do you recognize?
Post your thoughts.
If You Like “El Topo,” Try Climbing “The Holy Mountain”
“The Holy Mountain” (1973) is one of the best movies I have recently seen. It is also one of the best movies I have ever seen in my entire life.
Like everyone who has experienced “The Holy Mountain,” I saw director Alejandro Jodorowsky’s “El Topo” first. “El Topo” was a minor cult hit in the early seventies, thanks to John Lennon’s interest in the picture. If you’ve seen “El Topo” and enjoyed it, you owe it yourself to experience “The Holy Mountain”
Mere words cannot convey the depth and breadth of a film like this one. Certainly, it is NOT recommended for just anyone. It is filled with symbolism and ambiguity, and carries a strong “R” rating. At times shocking, at times hilarious, “The Holy Mountain” is always challenging for the viewer. It is also immensely rewarding if you take the time to understand it. Repeat viewings are required if you want to really “get it.”
The story is intriguing. Basically, a thief wanders into town and experiences certain events which start him on a spiritual journey. He witnesses the conquest of the New World, as depicted with frogs and lizards, and his likeness to Christ is used to manufacture crucifixes for sale. Later, he meets an Alchemist, played by Jorodowsky, who guides him on the path to enlightenment. The Alchemist recruits seven others to join them, each from a different planet and representing a different personality type. Together, the group of nine scales a mystical mountain, in search of the cloaked immortals who live there.
But the story is merely one element of a complicated whole. It is the vehicle which allows Jorodowsky to explore his interest in Tarot symbols, spirituality, social and political satire, and sexuality. Many of these themes resonate with “El Topo.”
Additionally, “The Holy Mountain” feels like the film David Lynch has been trying to make for his whole career. Like Lynch’s pictures, “Mountain” is not seeking to be enjoyed as a dramatic narrative, but rather it tries to affect you as a visceral, emotive experience.
Whereas Lynch– when he delivers his BEST work– may make one of the top five artistic films of the year, here Jorodosky has delivered one of the best films of all time. “The Holy Mountain” is a complete original, unlike any other movie. It has its own vocabulary, its own rules, and its own timeless reality. It utterly defies convention, and yet is universally inclusive in terms of scope, and applicability. “The Holy Mountain” is a film for the ages.
Without building up expectations any further, I should point out that the less you know about this movie before seeing it, the better. “The Holy Mountain” will not welcome your preconceptions. Watch it first, and then if you like what you see, seek out other takes on it. Particularly enlightening are Jorodowsky’s own words in the DVD commentary, and the Wikipedia summary found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Mountain_%281973_film%29.
Grade: A+
Note: This is not a grade I give out often. Only every couple years do I see a film that is without flaw. Perhaps a total of 30 films have reached this level, in my opinion.
Post your thoughts.
“Beowulf” Is Awesome!
Oh, to have seen “Beowulf” (2007) in IMAX 3-D! It would have been amazing. Watching the DVD, one cannot help but imagine what the 3-D version is like. Axes flying at you; spears pointing in your face; and soaring through the sky with a dragon! All in a gloriously animated adventure, rated PG-13 because it’s not for the Disney crowd.
The blood, and guts, and hints of nudity and sex are a refreshing sight in a mainstream, computer-animated movie. This type of picture does NOT have to be clinically familial, and “Beowulf” proves it.
Here’s a few reasons why you must see this movie:
1. The filmmakers rock! Robert Zemeckis is a trustworthy director. He brought you “Roger Rabbit,” “Back To The Future,” AND “Forrest Gump.” One of the writers is Neil Gaiman. He wrote the grand-daddy of all graphic novel series, “Sandman.”
2. The cast is amazing. Crispin Glover plays the monster Grendel (and nearly steals the show). Angelina Jolie, although animated, appears nearly naked. John Malkovich and Anthony Hopkins add to the mix. Part of the fun is recognizing who plays who– not by voice– but by likeness. Their CG counterparts look so realistic, it is amazing to see how far this technology has come.
3. The DVD extras are cool, too. Even if you never watch behind-the-scenes material, be sure to check out The Making Of “Beowulf.” It shows how the actors played out their scenes wearing motion-capture suits on sets made mostly of see-through materials (so the light can penetrate the film space and the computer can digitally map out the action, right down to facial inflections). Very interesting!
Grade: B+
P.S. Use this movie to test drive your home theater system. It’s such a visceral experience. If you have amped up sound and a High-Def TV, “Beowulf” is tailor-made for your enjoyment.
What about “Beowulf” did you like the best?
Post your thoughts.
“30 Days Of Night” Is Not Very Bright
What’s the deal with vampire movies?
The subject matter is gripping, but the films never live up to it. With such a well developed mythology to draw from, vampire movies should be artful, scary, and engrossing. Instead, they give us recycled stories with bland heroes and generic blood sucking villains.
To be fair, “30 Days Of Night” does try its best to rise above the typical fare. The source material is a dark and atmospheric graphic novel that would seem the perfect starting point for a motion picture. And the basic plot device is an intriguing one. What if vampires planned a coordinated attack on an isolated Northern town? And what if the town was so far North that 30 days passed between sunset and sunrise?
Unfortunately, the end result doesn’t live up to its promise.
The main problem is the vampires. The filmmakers were trying to “reinvent” the vampires as quick and ravenous animals, rather than the suave and romantic vampires of yesteryear. Too bad for them, the animal-like vamps have been done before too. And the “30 Days” variation really adds nothing new.
Then there’s the problem of the heroes. They’re not nearly as interesting as the villains, and yet they dominate the screen time. We’d like to get to know the vampires better (and their leader is pretty cool, delivering the best line of the film), but they really only show up long enough to kill someone and then they’re gone.
Lastly, there’s just not enough surprises. Everything happens just as you expect it would. Like when the Sheriff’s ex-wife misses the last plane out of town, and she joins his group of survivors– is anyone expecting them NOT to reconcile? And how many times have you seen the mercy killing of someone who has been bitten but doesn’t want to “turn into one of those things?” But have you ever seen a child vampire before?
Yeah, you and everyone else. And “30 Days Of Night” plays that card too… At least the set design was nice.
Grade: C
What IS the best vampire movie? There has GOT to be something better than “Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” And I don’t think it’s “Interview With The Vampire,” either.
Post your thoughts.
“The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford” – The Best Western Since “Unforgiven”?
“The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford” (2007) is easily the best western since Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven” redefined the genre in 1992.
Which is not to say that there have been no good westerns during the interim– “Tombstone” and the more recent “3:10 To Yuma” have plenty to offer. The trouble is, the western is a tough genre to work in artistically. Like horror films, westerns are defined largely by convention. Certain ingredients (saloons, gunfights on Main Street, and train robberies, to name a few) are considered indispensable. Working within the confines of the genre is therefore difficult, without the results coming across as cliched.
“Unforgiven” helped to change all that. It is the quintessential anti-western. Contrary to genre norms, the hero of “Unforgiven” is aging and isn’t exactly a sharpshooter. His sidekick is going blind, and shoots even worse. The sheriff is one of the bad guys. And a fiction novelist paints their stories larger than life, because real life isn’t fantastic enough.
“The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford” has the same rule-breaking attitude. The movie is thrilling because it doesn’t look like it’s trying to be thrilling. It takes its time to tell a story of people, not gunfights. There is gun play to be sure, but not at the expense of character driven dialogue. Thus, when the bullets do eventually fly, it is all the more effective.
Additionally, the movie doesn’t glorify Jesse James as a hero, but humanizes him as a historical figure. In most westerns, the characters are mere archetypes, painted in broad strokes to be one-dimensional symbols of good or evil, or strength or weakness. In “The Assassination of Jesse James” the characters are layered and true. (Especially Robert Ford, a memorable character played with great depth by Casey Affleck.)
But the real strength of “Jesse James” is not the characters or the acting, or even the story. It is the directing and the cinematography. The images feel at once “old-timey” and alive. Some shots use a technique to blur the edges of the frame, making you feel as if you’re peering through a thick pane of glass, or using an antique camera to take a photo. And the wide open landscapes will have you longing for a simpler time.
If you liked “Unforgiven,” see “The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford.” It’s the best titled film of the year and also one of the best pictures of the year!
Grade: A
I think “Unforgiven” is the best western ever made. It’s even better than “The Searchers,” which is about on par with “The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford.”
Post your thoughts.
