Guest The Running Man Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 With the coming of this film, what we have I think is one of the most consistent trilogies ever. And in my case, that means this whole entire trilogy is just "ok". I don't see anything that is near masterwork level of praise in any of the movies like many have claimed. They're just ok. However, my beef with this movie is the beef that I had with all of these movies and that's the atrocious action direction and editing. Paul Greengrass and Christopher Nolan are very good dramatic directors. I do think they are great directors indeed. But.....they are worth @#%$ when it comes to visualizing action. And that half-baked excuse about it being about the "intensity" and "feeling" of the action is all bull. There are ways to make a fight gritty and down to earth that doesn't involve shaking the camera and doing random edits like if it were done on a monkey on crack. Those are the signs of an inept action director and editor that does not understand action. The main credit should be given to the sound people because that is what is cueing you in on the fight and what audiences are really reacting to. There is nothing to see other than maybe the occasional time when the movie got hit with a miracle and you can make something out. I can understand the average viewer being fooled into thinking these sequences are well done, but it shocks me to the bone how supposed film experts think these sequences are masterful. You see next to sh¡t. How is that great action direction? If action sequences like this are the future of action cinema, then action film making in Hollywood has taken a gigantic leap backwards past the stone age. Funny how the introduction of HK talent in Hollywood made me think that there were greener pastures ahead for proper action film making. Instead, Hollywood restricts their artistic freedom on set and in post (cause their just useless Chinaman after all) while giving 100% freedom to action hacks like Greengrass and Nolan. By the way, you gotta just love the complete waste of martial arts performer Scott Adkins in the film. He has amazing physical skill and was brought into the film to do a role that a best boy grip could have done. Check him out in Special Forces and Undisputed 2 to see what a missed opportunity Greengrass caused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pressureworld Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 well, you have to know what it is going into it, Im a fan of the Bourne series and I think it has to be understood this isn't Rambo the action takes a back seat to the story which is well thoughout and well written. The first was great and the second was very good too. These films are based on novels and the books are intricate spy thrillers. I understand your point when you talk of restrictions put upon asian action film makers that is sad, but then again it's a shame to put restrictions on any filmmaker asian or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 The action in Batman Begins was the weakest part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest morgoth Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 This is a thread about Bourne Mark:lol And what about that last action sequence of batman where they are on the train? i thought that was thrilling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Running Man Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 well, you have to know what it is going into it, Im a fan of the Bourne series and I think it has to be understood this isn't Rambo the action takes a back seat to the story which is well thoughout and well written. Wether or not the story or characters in an action movie has a lot of importance has nothing really to do with the quality and care given to an action scene. I don't think that just because there is good storytelling means that the action sequences don't have to be criticizes if they aren't done well. Mind you, I don't think that the Bourne films are bad films, but the action scenes are clearly the weakest elements of all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Soda drink Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 However, my beef with this movie is the beef that I had with all of these movies and that's the atrocious action direction and editing. Paul Greengrass and Christopher Nolan are very good dramatic directors. I do think they are great directors indeed. But.....they are worth @#%$ when it comes to visualizing action. And that half-baked excuse about it being about the "intensity" and "feeling" of the action is all bull. There are ways to make a fight gritty and down to earth that doesn't involve shaking the camera and doing random edits like if it were done on a monkey on crack. Those are the signs of an inept action director and editor that does not understand action. I agree wholeheartedly especially with the bolded statements. But I don't agree with your rating of the movie and trilogy. Despite these problems or "artistic choices" I believe these Bourne movies are the s--t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Paul Greengrass and Christopher Nolan are very good dramatic directors. I do think they are great directors indeed. But.....they are worth @#%$ when it comes to visualizing action. That's why I mentioned 'Batman Begins' (and I thought the fights were badly staged). I've only seen the first 'Bourne' movie (and don't remember too much about it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Running Man Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 My impression of a fight scene done by Paul Greengrass and Christopher Nolan: Blur, blur, blur, 'Is that a fist', blur, cut, blur, 'I think he picked up something', cut, blur, 'I guess he didn't', blur, cut, 'Or maybe he did', blur, cut, blur, 'Did he just kick him', blur, cut, cut, cut, 'I think I actually just saw something', blur, blur, blur "Well, I can certainly hear something going on', blur, cut, cut, cut, blur, blur, blur, 'Are they fighting or fúck¡ng', blur, blur, blur, blur, blur, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, blur, blur.....'Oh, he's dead'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GwaiLoMoFo Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Just saw this one, thought it was the best of the series. Alot of great action sequences, and the car chase was pretty sweet too. I did however also get annoyed by the shaking camera. Not just during the fights, throughout the whole film. Even when it was completely unneccessary, had to look away from the screen a few times. Still a great action packed flick with a good story to go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vengeanceofhumanlanterns Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 That's pretty funny Running Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest morgoth Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 This movie had its ups an downs, but it was INTENSE! That scene where Bourne is helping the reporter is the best spy sequence I have ever seen in a movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pressureworld Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Runing Man, with the exception of the action I understand you didn't like did you enjoy the film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Running Man Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 It was not bad. But I detested the way the action was done. Some people act like if it's not important but I don't agree. Any sequence in a movie should be judged and if you have action and are not doing it right it's the same as a movie with great action that has bad drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GwaiLoMoFo Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Some people act like if it's not important but I don't agree. Any sequence in a movie should be judged and if you have action and are not doing it right it's the same as a movie with great action that has bad drama. I agree with you.... but most "normal" people (average moviegoer) would probably consider the action top notch. Most of us on the forum have much higher standards for action in films because of the hundreds of MA films we've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest froffeecoffee Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 It's still a great film trilogy that has pushed action films to be more focused on plot and character. Examples: Batman Begins and Casino Royale. Both are excellent films, not just movies, that have made their respective franchises exciting again. The Bourne films are not traditional action movies and we need not apply MA standards to them because they are spy/political/suspense/thrillers that happen to include action as part of the story. I think they're great films that challenge our insight to the inner workings of government operations, instead of he's a bad guy, shoot em mentality. I'm glad to have a more realistic and thoughtful basis for these films. Let's give them credit for being the exception to the mindless entertainment we usually get and hope that, "War," will be that good mindless action flick until the next Tony Jaa, Donnie Yen, and whatever MA comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest morgoth Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 I don't see any problems with the action in Ultimatum. The main fight scene is the best of the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daisho2004 Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 OK I got to watch this movie last night and I enjoyed it a lot, I thought the Action scenes were well done, and fast paced the way any action scene should be, granted GLMO hit the nail on the head when we on this forum hold action scenes to a higher standard due to the MA movies we all see. But overall I thought the Bourne series was very good, and I would like to see another one, with him becoming an Assassin for hire, why not since he's a free man now that would make it a more intense type of movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Running Man Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 The Bourne films are not traditional action movies and we need not apply MA standards to them because they are spy/political/suspense/thrillers that happen to include action as part of the story. That really has nothing to do with complaining about filming action scenes properly. Just cause a film isn't a "martial arts movie" doesn't mean it gets leeway with bad action scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest froffeecoffee Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 That's true MA standards need not apply to a non-MA film, but we should apply how the action relates to the overall story and visual aesthetic of the film. Me personally, I just used my "suspension of disbelief" and accepted that all the chaotic camera work related to the overall emotional content of the story and characters' that both sides' dilemma was desperation and anticipation of each other's move. Bad action scenes? I think they were great and tense. Definitely in line with the characters, who were efficient. calculating, and used fighting styles that would neutralize their opponent as quick as possible. Long drawn-out, flashy, unrealistic, SPX-laden action scenes need no apply for films like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Running Man Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 I think you are confusing things here. I am not asking for extended sequences or specific fighting styles (which by the way, they are using martial arts). I am asking for quality action direction. It might feel like the the skay cam "fits" with the action, but that's cause all the sky cam is throughout the film. That doesn't mean it's "well made" or "good". It feels "tense" because someone most of the imagery is blurred and you can't see what is going on most of the time and the sound effects are just loud. It's not hard to achieve really since the "tension" is coming mostly from bad camerwork, not the performers or choreographer's talents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest morgoth Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 the tension comes from the story and Matt Damon's acting. And what is wrong with the main fight in the movie? I thought it was shot very well and was exciting. I don't remember the image being blurred and I could see the moves clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest froffeecoffee Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Dan Bradley,the stunt coordinator and second unit director for the last 2 Bourne films' action scenes has been hired for the next Bond film. He just got finished with Indy 4 and is getting ready for a possible winter start for Bond. Wow, Casino Royale was great. Just think what he's going to do for the Bond series. A tough, gritty, realistic approach that I always felt that the lastest Bond movies needed. I know there are some who don't like the action scenes for the Bourne series, but like it or not, this will add the realism that Bond films have lacked since, From Russia with Love. This also adds a sense of danger to 007 that will make the stories more in spirit with original Fleming books. Too cool!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest morgoth Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Jason Bourne vs. Guillermo- youtube.com/watch?v=qA1tM4lIjIU "Its me, Bourne Identity" :rollin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Running Man Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 the tension comes from the story and Matt Damon's acting. That has nothing to do with what's being complained about. And what is wrong with the main fight in the movie? Badly shot and horribly edited. Wow, Casino Royale was great. Just think what he's going to do for the Bond series. A tough, gritty, realistic approach that I always felt that the lastest Bond movies needed. You missed of really misunderstood the action in Casino Royal if you didn't think that was a far more tough and gritty approach to Bond than the last recent films. The action in the Bourne movies is atrocious and an insult to action film making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest froffeecoffee Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Sure nuff', the action in Casino Royale was tough and gritty. I was refering to the previous Bond films' lack of realism and overreliance use of gadgets. I love all the Bond films, but after seeing the 1st Bourne, I was hoping to see the Bourne style being applied to the Bond series. Low and behold, Casino Royale comes out and Bond is exciting again. With Dan Bradley now on board, I can see the Bond series takin' it to the next level and being relevant again. That's all I'm sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.