Be Excellent To Each Other

It's like you're trying to make some sort of a point, but I can't fathom what it could possibly be.

Absolute brilliance, that scene. It's like the editors consigned it and every reference to it to the cutting room floor, only forgot to actually take it out.

Yes, because I think the camerawork is integral in portraying the adrenalised confusion of the fighting and chasing - it's meant to be blurry and overwhelming because it's trying to make you feel like you're part of it. Whether it's completely successful is obviously subjective but I can understand what they're trying to achieve and for you to dismiss it as a director's failings is your loss really. Most decent and/or excellent films demand repeated viewings simply because of the staggering amount of work that goes into it cannot be fully appreciated in one hit.

I've seen tons of films that achieve a real sense of speed, adrenaline, and excitement. Most of them manage to do it whilst actually showing you the film at the same time.

Repeat viewings to understand nuances of dialogue, plot, or even careful stagework and cinematography I can understand. Repeat viewing because it's all a bit blurry? No thanks.

You're being dogmatic for the sake of it now. When did you watch the Bourne sequel? 2 years ago? 3? I said I agreed with you as I felt the same way on first viewing but I also said I've seen it since, may times and I disagree with you as I think the way it was filmed actually has a purpose. You can argue but until you've seen it more than once it's just your opinion versus mine and you're being wrong on lots of things today

I'm really not. That was one film where I walked out of it thinking solely that the camerawork was a fuckup, that I had a headache, and that I wished I'd been able to work out what was going on in most of the action sequences.

Plenty of other films convey a sense of speed and exhilaration without any of that bullshit.

I totally believe you that subsequent viewings improve it - but why should I bother? I've got plenty of other stuff to watch that doesn't demand that I alter my viewing behaviour to suit its ideas of how to watch it.

Because a friend with good taste in movies recommended it and you'll waste many more hours in your life watching stuff that is genuinely rubbish when this isn't. I'm not arguing that the editing and shooting style was right because it does overwhelm and confuse initially but it's a style of film making that's been lifted and used in other films since and you do get used to it. It was the first movie I'd seen that used such frenetic camera work but it's been copied ad nauseum since then.

I must say I didn't have a problem watching Bourne2 at all and quite enjoyed it.

Malc

Me neither, for confusingly shot (yeah I know it's CGI) fight scenes I think Transformers is the worst offender.

Lord of the Rings. Fellowship of the Ring. Moria. Balin's tomb. Urgh.

That's it exactly. I'm the first person to complain about action sequences being fucked up by shitty camerawork (Daredevil, I'm looking at you) but the latter two Bourne films are rare examples of someone making that sort of extreme close-up shakeycam hyper-quick editing actually work to the film's advantage. Part of the reason that the series pulls off the unlikely feat of making you think that Matt Damon (aparrent age: 13) is a legitimate badass is the awesome camerawork and editing. See: the fight at the end of the Morocco rooftop chase, conducted at Ludicrous Speed and yet you're still able to follow the flow of moves and counter-moves.

Also: X-Men 2 is miles better than the original. Better script, better characters, better sets, more interesting story, fewer lines about frogs being hit by lightning.

It certainly contains vampires, so I'd say it's a vampire film. One, admittedly, that's also about magicians of sorts.

Though I'd say that 'Night Watch' was better than 'Day Watch'. I'm still sad that they changed the plot so dramatically from the books.

Oh, and anyone watching any version of these films other than the 'Theatrical' version (aka the versions with the best subtitles ever) needs to watch them again, properly (unless they, like, understand Russian).

You can't get Day Watch with proper subtitles, I don't think.

And my objection is that you shouldn't need to have to make up for the inability to choreograph a decent fight scene or chase sequence by deliberately obscuring most of it with the camera.



And I felt that I couldn't follow it, and it was the worse for that.

@DBSnappa, you're right - it has been copied lots, and while I still don't think it's a good scene, I think everyone else has done it better. Even Bourne 3 used the technique in such a way that it was more entertaining and much less nausea-inducing.

I agree with Roda and Snappa. I've seen loads of films where the closeup shakycam thing made the film worse. In Bourne 2 and 3, I felt it made it better.

Wasn't it pioneered in that old US cop show with the ginger guy from CSI Miami?

Not on any home release, no. Also, the director's cut of Day Watch (which is about 20 minutes longer and has an awful lot more stuff) only has boring subs.

NYPD Blue, yes.

Thankfully I saw it at the cinema, so got to see the glorious subtitles, in all their blood-spattered awesomeness.

Have you seen Final Fantasy-Advent Children? Obviously all CGI but some of the fight sequences were just unfathomable.. particularly some bit on bikes if I remember rightly.

Really? I never got that at all.

I watched that when it first came out, in the original Jampampanese, which meant I had an incredibly rudimentary understanding of what was going on.

I started off trying to relate it to the plot of the game, but then people who were supposed to be dead starting turning up, and I got all confused. Is it worth watching as an English dub?

I'd say so. The fight in the church is ace.

I think the version I've got is subtitled so maybe I need to get a dubbed version too.

Hmmmm. I notice that Mr Tarantino is talking about a Kill Bill 3. But he wants Uma to age 10 years first.

Well the original Bill is dead which one is she going to kill next? Murray? Clinton? Gates? the alternate BETEO forum?

OMG SPOILERZ!

Kill Zombie Bill, obviously.

That's the real reason he wants to wait 10 years, he's hoping someone invents actual zombies.

Watched this last night. Shamefully, I thought it was terrible. Where Gibson's cut was strangely light hearted on top of the grimness, the Director's Cut is just grim. It's got crappy 'gangster movie' music playing constantly throughout, the noir-ish quality of the visuals has been scrubbed off and the recut scenes and different takes remove the slight impression of motivation that Porter had in the original, turning him into a ridiculously stubborn thug, albeit a highly resourceful one.

And the ending? Pish. I hate non-endings. It feels like you've been ripped off after investing time and interest in a movie. See also Burn After Reading.

Interesting. I did like the original version of Payback with it having the element of fun. It does sound like this version is rubbish. May investigate it myself.

Payback (DC - only version I've seen) is so fucking good. It even makes Mel Gibnson likeable.

Now see, I dunno. I reckon he was in the original, but there's a few elements to the DC that just make him seem emotionless and basically a fool. Oh and remorseless murderer, natch.

I've not seen the DC, but the original was brilliant, because he wasn't a complete cunt, he just wanted his money back. You sympathised with him despite his shady background and questionable methods, because he was basically decent, but just out for some justice. And his money.

How did Burn After Reading not end?

It's still going now, I can't stop the DVD. Clooney's character is watching Flashforward on his TiVo.

Surely it ended with them setting fire to the rest of the home counties?

She's a Hollywood actor. They can just chisel off the make-up, surely?

Or trowel some on.

Speaking of tarantino, i went to see Inglorious Basterds this weekend. I was late to the party, but i'm glad i was since there was only 5 people in the room and i can't stand the sound of chewing popcorns. The movie was glorious, my favorite tarantino by far and a near perfect one in its own right. And the jewish girl was gorgeous. Tarantino surely has a knack to cast attractive females.

He does?

Er, yes?



CBA to find the rest.

Was that photo supposed to support your point in some way, Grim...?

Also


By the power of Greyskull Pam Grier's wonderful.

I am aware of your view on women, sir. It's broken.

Only in one very specific way. Anyway, I prefer the term "non-mainstream".

Thurman? The girl that robs the cafe in PF? The well ugly psychotic-looking japanese schoolgirl with the flail from Kill Bill? Thurman again? Lucy Liu?

The only vaguely attractive person I can think of from any of Tarantino's films is the woman that gets all her limbs cut off.

PAM GRIER.

Can't think of anyone else at all.

The waitress in Reservoir Dogs?

Pam somebody or other.. Shriver?