Last movie watched...

[Jim_Campbell]

BATMAN: YEAR ONE

Aside from this suffering from that anime thing where characters dont move a hell of a lot, other than their mouths opening and eyes narrowing, i thought this was aces and probably the best batman thing ive ever seen on screen. Mind you, im a big admirer of the original comic, so i was always half-sold.

Interestingly, I got my wife, who quite likes Batman movies but has never read a Batman comic in her life, to sit through this recently, and she thought it was excellent, as did I.

Cheers

Jim

[Tiplodocus]

"At points it's unintelligible, and while I know Greengrass got a bit of stick for a similar approach with his Bourne films I thought it worked really well for him."

He just about kept it on the right side of the fence for me. And I took it as a story point; the speed and the reactions of these people is such that us mere mortals can barely keep up. 

I don't buy the attention span bollocks. Certainly, I think the trend is for an action scene every five minutes otherwise Timmy turns off the DVD but that action scene doesn't have to cut every 1/2 second to keep Timmy happy.  The younger members of Clan Tips often complain that you can't see what's going on in Transformers etc.

[SmallBlueThing]

I cant quote on my phone, but responding to Jim:

Yes, same here. My wife has to be physically dragged to anything superheroey, doesnt like cartoon movies, and has no time whatsoever for batman in any of its forms. She's also no comic-reader. But she watched year one with the kids and me, and when questioned afterwards said it 'wasnt bad' and admitted she'd 'probably watch another one if we put one on'. And this is the woman who turned to me halfway through toy story 3 and begged to be allowed to leave the cinema'. High praise indeed for the cartoon guy in tights.

I know they're doing dkr, which im looking forward to, but have any of you seen 'the batman vs dracula', the full-length (84mins) movie from a few years ago? Weve had it a while and i confess to not having seen it in anything other than bits at a time, but what i have seen looks great (if not quite the 'red rain' adaptation i would hope for) and the kids say its one of their favourite dvds full stop.

SBT

[I, Cosh]

New director Gilroy was saying in Total Film this month that there was a definite aim to cut really fast because people's attention spans are such these days that they can take in information more quickly, so for a scene to be exciting you have to keep updating that information constantly. Maybe he's right, and I'm just slow and stoopid, but more likely I think he's just done a bad job and it's a poor approach.

No, he's not right. This sort of horseshit does my head in. People (well, me) don't like this style of filming action, it just happens to have been used in some successful films which then means it gets used in more. In my view it's little more than an excuse for being either unable or unwilling to spend the time properly setting out and choreographing an action scene or a way of covering shoddy stunt work.

The older Bourne films (certainly the first, I haven't seen the others as often) are an interesting example of where a hectic jumpy editing style does actually work because it's used in an intelligent way. Tips mentioned that it's illustrating the enhanced speed and reactions of the Treadstone agents. I also think it's intended to remind us that, at this point, Bourne still doesn't really understand what he can do or why, his body just reacts. More importantly, however, irrespective of how it's shot or edited, someone has actually sat down and planned out each sequence. Here's the fight in Paris flat:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFnmq5PPScA

This is most certainly not the end of The Expendables where they've filmed a bunch of men running about from various angles while fireworks go off and then spliced it all together in a haphazard fashion. Prior to this, we've already seen the layout of the apartment so we know where Bourne is leading his assailant; despite the quick cuts we are constantly aware, without having to be shown, where each of the three characters are in relation to each other (and when it cuts back to one and our assumption is proven correct, our absorption in the action is reinforced); we don't often see Matt Damon's face, but we get frequent almost full-frame shots of the two antagonists so we can see blows swung and landed. In this case, the editing actually increases the intensity and enjoyment of the scene. However, that takes a shitload of work to manage and so most people can't be arsed.

Now here's a scene from Thai action film The Raid (or "some pretentious foreign crap that's only been seen by about a dozen people" as I believe it was described on the Dredd film thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOF4yNpYEkg
There are some initial quick cuts and weird angles to illustrate our man's disorientation and desperate search for an exit but as soon as the fighting starts, boom. Lengthy shots from a static viewpoint showing several men battering each in full frame.

Maybe I'm too old as well, but if anyone wants to try and tell me that some incoherent, epileptic Transformers bullshit is more exciting or action packed than that then I'm perfectly happy to go round to their house and call them a fucking moron in person.

[Professor Bear]

New director Gilroy was saying in Total Film this month that there was a definite aim to cut really fast because people's attention spans are such these days that they can take in information more quickly, so for a scene to be exciting you have to keep updating that information constantly. Maybe he's right, and I'm just slow and stoopid, but more likely I think he's just done a bad job and it's a poor approach.

No, he's not right. This sort of horseshit does my head in.

^^THIS^^

Hollywood does trip over its own bullshit all the time to the point that I don't think they're being malicious when they outright lie to their audience, they're just incapable of seeing the world like the rest of us do anymore - and fast-cutting action scenes is visual whitenoise to obscure poor craftsmanship, plain and simple.
Watch any Jackie Chan or Samo Hung flick from the early 1980s and note that you can not only tell what is actually happening onscreen during a scrap, but it is exciting, too, despite being composed of shots that can occasionally last an attention span-threatening 3 seconds.  And this is the early 1980s we're talking about - in Hong Kong for fuck's sake, where some of these films were shot with the equivalent of a camcorder.  Police Story is fantastic to this very day but it looks like someone filmed it with their cellphones after they got some finger grease on the wee camera lens somehow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvkpuTRQbGs and I won't lie - I'm off to watch it now.  Did I mention it was fantastic?

[JOE SOAP]

Fast-cutting is generally a sign of bad direction in Hollywood. "Quick, hide the mistakes. Make them think it's fluid and fast."

[bluemeanie]

Screaming in High Heels. Documentary on the top three Scream Queens of the video boom
I say top three, I didn't recognise the name of one of them even though most of the clips they showed were bringing back fuzzy memories but I definitely remember Linnea Quigley and the lovely Brinke Stevens... who I didnt realise till watching this was the model used for the character of Betty in The Rocketeer

Very niche film but if you were a Fangoria reader back in the day whose video rental choices boiled down to "Which horror film havent I seen yet?" it's well worth a look.

[TordelBack]

They've been playing the Die Hard nmovies the last couple of weeks, love Die Hard 2 ... Appropriatly bigger than the first.

Yeah, DH2 is terrific fun, and my favourite of the 4-or-however-many-there-are-now.  I occasionally find it a little difficult to reconcile two of the major plot points: no-one on the ground can communicate with the planes AND people on the plane keep communicating with the ground, but then there are snowmobiles and maintenance ducts and I just relax and enjoy Colm Meaney's accent. 

[Keef Monkey]

Now here's a scene from Thai action film The Raid (or "some pretentious foreign crap that's only been seen by about a dozen people" as I believe it was described on the Dredd film thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOF4yNpYEkg
There are some initial quick cuts and weird angles to illustrate our man's disorientation and desperate search for an exit but as soon as the fighting starts, boom. Lengthy shots from a static viewpoint showing several men battering each in full frame.

Maybe I'm too old as well, but if anyone wants to try and tell me that some incoherent, epileptic Transformers bullshit is more exciting or action packed than that then I'm perfectly happy to go round to their house and call them a fucking moron in person.

Funnily enough The Raid sprung to mind as I walked out of Legacy, it struck me that it was a movie where there was enough confidence in what they'd choreographed and staged that it was enough just to film it and let the audience enjoy it. I'm not saying it wasn't a very well directed/edited movie, rather that the director's hand was skilled enough to be invisible. If only more movies put the work and energy into the planning and performance of action instead of, like you say, focusing their efforts on making it exciting in the editing room, then modern action movies probably wouldn't be leaving me cold as often as they do.

I hadn't been able to put my finger on why the style worked in the original Bournes, so it's really interesting watching that clip for comparison. It's fairly obvious that again it's largely down to things being very meticulously planned and choreographed, and the fact that the layout of the area and the reference points are so clear throughout the fight mean you don't get disconnected from the action. I guess it highlights the stark difference between an assured director who knows what he's doing and someone who's seen it done and is attempting to ape it (like in Legacy's case).

That clip has really made me want to rewatch the Damon trilogy, and I'm pretty sure it'll still hold up great.

[JamesC]

I watched Bourne Legacy last night.
To be honest I don't think it stands up very well as a film in its own right. I'm not very familiar with the other Bourne films (saw the first two when they came out - haven't seen the third) and for the first 20 minutes of this one I didn't know what anyone was talking about.
I went to the cinema to see some exciting action scenes but, as has been said previously, these weren't that great either.
I thought the leads were both pretty good and Edward Norton was the same as he always is (to me he always seems like a bloke doing a Jodie Foster impersonation).
The bits in Alaska were the best thing and I think it would have made for a better film if he'd hve stayed in the forest and gone all 'First Blood'.

[Mardroid]

Clone Wars Volume 2. That's the DVD of the second series of the original Clone Wars cartoon that came out between the last two Star Wars Prequels.

I believe this first came out in 15 minute chunks - so more to work with than the first volume, and it makes for more involved stories than the first series which was in 5 minute chunks I think. I watched it all in one go on the DVD so it was basically like watching a film. It worked very well, and was very enjoyable.

I like the newer CG The Clone Wars cartoon*, but this holds up well in it's own way.

*I hope to pick these up at some point too.

[TordelBack]

Clone Wars Volume 2. That's the DVD of the second series of the original Clone Wars cartoon that came out between the last two Star Wars Prequels.

The best thing about the whole prequel project. I alternate between Vol 1 and Vol 2 as my favourite, but basically it's telling that of the fifty squillion SW DVDs at their disposal, from ANH through Robot Chicken and on to Clone Wars Season 3, these are the two my kids watch over and over and over.  Distilled genius sorely lacking elsewhere in 'recent' Star Wars.

[Mardroid]

I'm glad I bought it. I actually just ordered volume 2 at the end of last week, and it was on  my mat today, which was nice. I had today off work so had a nice cooked breakfast and watched Clone Wars. (I'd bought the first volume a year or two back.)

I did watch some of them on the telly but today was the first time I saw volume 2 all the way through. Great stuff. I enjoyed volume 1 too. Both slightly different flavours that work in their own way.

General Grevious shouldn't be coughing in the new version though. Too early. 

[Professor Bear]

My favorite season was either that one with the Predator rip-off but with kids being hunted and then the story where they met Grand Moff Tarkin that went on for something like seven episodes, or that one where witches use magic to bring Darth Maul back to life and it goes on forever.

Dune, Alan Smithee's (hmm) three-hour version of an old Star Trek novel or something.  I think we are supposed to hate this but it has a dated charm to it, although I could do without the homophobic undertones and the staginess of some scenes like where they meet the Fremen in the desert where it suddenly looks like an episode of Stargate or Galaxy Quest where the makers are self-consciously mocking cheesy melodramatic sci-fi full of made-up space words, or at least mocking people's perception of it.  It's full of ideas and notions, not all of which make sense (like the Harkonnen invading Arakis, bombing the House of Atreides, killing the Duke, and then declaring they'll leave Paul and his mum in the desert because "there must be no evidence!", or the force shield which doesn't stop knives or bullets, so why do they..? Ah, fuck it), and the scale of what's attempted is impressive in itself, but this cut seems to have lots of narrative exposition and lengthy shots of production paintings like a live-action comic book or something, which I approve of as I think it works well even if a lot else doesn't - all the same, it takes about fifteen minutes before a single moving frame is seen as it opens with a massive infodump and shots of pre-production sketches and explanations about wars against the machines that have not a jot of relevance to what follows.  It's a mess, no argument, but an ambitious and watchable one in many places, even if those places are scattered over three hours of film.

Backdraft.  Do all Ron Howard's movies now look like parodies of the film-making of their respective periods, or just this one?  Heavy on cliche and light on wit, my main thoughts were that Robert DeNero and Kurt Russel couldn't ever have looked that young.  It is not good.

[M.I.K.]

Backdraft.  Do all Ron Howard's movies now look like parodies of the film-making of their respective periods, or just this one?  Heavy on cliche and light on wit, my main thoughts were that Robert DeNero and Kurt Russel couldn't ever have looked that young.  It is not good.

I clearly remember seeing a clip of it when it was first released and thinking it looked like cheesy, cliched guff with silly slow motion bits, and that I should probably avoid it.

That was 1991?

Holy crap...