The Raid at least is honest about its intentions. The tendency of recent action films primarily coming out of Hollywood, is there ridiculous habit of creating terrible plots to facilitate action sequences. The Raid dismisses any type of plot within the first five to ten minutes. I’m not a huge supporter of The Raid but I enjoyed it, for what it is. An extreme action film about the spatial relationship between the body of the performer and his setting. The way Iko Uwais maneuvers his body and limbs throughout the film is fascinating and thrilling. The Raid is an action film reminiscent of the performers of the silent era. I would never compare it to Chaplin’s or Keaton. But there is an element of those performers in The Raid. Even more directly action performers like Jackie Chan and Tony Jaa. The Raid is about Iko Uwais pushing his body to the limits. That’s the pleasure in a film like The Raid. It’s the same pleasure I have when I watch Gene Kelly in An American in Paris, the performance during I Got Rhythm when he is teaching the kids English. The wonderful steps he performs in that sequence always put a smile on my face. As an avid cinephile generally confined to a seat, watching someone perform in such an energetic manner and create beautifully choreographed movement in a scene, is one of true cinematic pleasures. However, the filmmaker, Gareth Evans does push the limits of extreme violence that doesn’t necessarily need to be included. We can’t forget it is for a particular audience that expects that. As a commercially viable film, The Raid knows what it is, knows who its audience is and in that, it is successful.
@Todd
First question: is there a problem with Ebert’s review? Not really, he just doesn’t understand the way genre works or wants a genre film to do something else or adhere to qualified standards for what he considers a “good film,” standards that stretch back (at least) to the classical period and which predate the invention of the genres as we know and (love or loath) them today.
So are you saying that Ebert doesn’t really understand the action genre, asks the film to do something unreasonable or inappropriately applies standards of excellence?
To me, Evans is practicing a supremely minimal approach to the genre, taking a handful of what we associate with it (the pregnant wife, the corrupt cops, the secret relationships) and boiling them down to the point that they don’t take up scenes, sequences, or whatever else, but simply occupy single shots. Luckily for Evans, he’s got a good eye, and these shots are supremely well done.
But does this approach work within the context of the film? For me, it didn’t—at least in the way I understood the film. Imo, the film depends upon a more conventional use of narrative—i.e., creating characters that we care, creating drama via the characters confronting conflict, etc. I didn’t see this as film that dealt with concepts and themes via images (which is the sense I’m getting from you). But I’m open to a reading of the film in that way.
I’m pretty fresh off of the movie so my ability to articulate is a bit rough, but there’s something specific in the textures, sound design, and pulse of the film that doesn’t transcend the genre but develops something with in it, a supremely tactile and physical quality. That the action sequences go on so long is necessary to this point, of seeing the actors under conditions of evident physical exhaustion, that’s what the film’s about to me.
Can you expand on what you think the film is about? Are you saying that the film is about creating texture and mood—specifically related to people at the point of physical exhaustion? If so, can you go into the value or meaning behind this?
Also, I really do feel like the film wants to function as a conventional action film. So establishing the characters as interesting or likable and having a good story are going to be crucial for the film to work, imo (unless all you care about is a lot of action).
@Derek
The Raid at least is honest about its intentions. The tendency of recent action films primarily coming out of Hollywood, is there ridiculous habit of creating terrible plots to facilitate action sequences.
The plot is bare-bones and perhaps it’s not ridiculously contrived and convoluted, but the main problem with Hollywood action plots is that they’re not well-thought out—that the filmmakers don’t seem to care much about creating good characters and a story—whether the plots are too intricate or simple. Well, that’s my opinion anyway.
An extreme action film about the spatial relationship between the body of the performer and his setting. The way Iko Uwais maneuvers his body and limbs throughout the film is fascinating and thrilling.
FWIW, even on this level I didn’t find the film very interesting. I wouldn’t compare the film favorably to the fight sequences in Tony Jaa’s films, and certainly not Jackie Chan’s or any of the good kung-fu films. I really like fight choreography, and I’d be interested in hearing why you were impressed with the fight sequences in this film.
I just wrote my review of “The Raid: Redemption,” and I sort of agree with Ebert in parts. Even if I don’t, I still respect his opinion (something people REALLY need to learn how to do) and can see where he is coming from. It’s an action film, and lacks substance. That part people can’t really ignore. But that’s almost the film’s job. It is working with the genre it has been placed in. How often do you see martial arts films with true characters and depth? They exist, but they aren’t wholly common. “The Raid” is rock and roll, and I can respect that. Did I enjoy it? That’s a different story (review here, http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=reviews&thread=2944).
@Jazzsaloha
I wasn’t directly comparing Jaa or Chan with Iko Uwais but more the idea that we enjoy watching these performers push their bodies to the limit. Iko Uwais doesn’t have Chan’s charisma or Jaa’s fluidity but there is a correlation between them. I was impressed on a basic level of, ‘wow, that’s fast’, ‘I could never do that’, an amazement of the style of the fights and the success of pulling them off. On the most part, The Raid isn’t a very successful film in my opinion, I was trying to comment on why an audience enjoys that type of film. I watched at the Glasgow Frightfest and that audience went nuts. I wasn’t as enthusiastic for The Raid as most were but when your in an audience that respects a performer such as Iko Uwais, who is seamless in his discipline and can always find inventive ways of pushing the next fight sequence that step further. I felt The Raid wasn’t as relentless and as volatile as it could have been. But there are at least two fight sequences that are fun to watch and to deny yourself that simple pleasure of one man beat another man, not necessarily to death but in a skillful honest way. Almost like body chess. A skill I don’t have.
@Jazzaloha
I wasn’t saying that the plot should be dumb or lazy. It’s the fact The Raid doesn’t pretend to be anymore than the sum of its parts. Whereas Hollywood cinema tries to pretend it has a intriguing plot and push that but it doesn’t. If films were sometimes, not always, self conscious, it would be a much more enjoyable experience rather than trying to complicate a terribly contrived plot that the majority of the audience doesn’t care about anyway. They saw giant robots fighting each other and thats what they paid to see. Don’t pretend that the audience really cares about a story when fighting robots are concerned.
In my country The Raid is beign shown in an arthouse theater!!! Guess that today all non Hollywood films are considered to be art films. Oh boy.
lol.
The Raid is being shown in art house theaters everywhere (although here in LA, it played in both the AMC and Laemmle). Thank SPC and the failure of Attack the Block for that.
@Derek
_Iko Uwais doesn’t have Chan’s charisma or Jaa’s fluidity but there is a correlation between them. I was impressed on a basic level of, ‘wow, that’s fast’, ‘I could never do that’, an amazement of the style of the fights and the success of pulling them off.
OK, that’s cool. I was just saying that I didn’t care for his fighting style or the fight choreography.
…when your in an audience that respects a performer such as Iko Uwais, who is seamless in his discipline and can always find inventive ways of pushing the next fight sequence that step further.
See, I didn’t think the film was very inventive in terms of the fight sequences—that was one of the problems I had with the film. Maybe I’ve seen too many martial arts films, I don’t know. Compare Uwais to Jaa, a relative newcomer, for example. Jaa’s Thai style is pretty unique—at least I had never seen it up to that point. Uwais style isn’t as distinctive. (The fighters did use more knives than I would see in martial arts films, but the style wasn’t very interesting.) The choreography in Jaa’s film is also pretty inventive and impressive. (Btw, I didn’t really care for his first film, but I did like Jaa, his fighting style some of the situations they set up for him.)
But there are at least two fight sequences that are fun to watch and to deny yourself that simple pleasure of one man beat another man, not necessarily to death but in a skillful honest way.
FWIW, I just didn’t feel the same way—and I do enjoy good hand-to-hand fight sequences. (I mentioned the problems I had earlier.)
I wasn’t saying that the plot should be dumb or lazy. It’s the fact The Raid doesn’t pretend to be anymore than the sum of its parts. Whereas Hollywood cinema tries to pretend it has a intriguing plot and push that but it doesn’t.
Right, I get what you’re saying. My point is that this isn’t something automatically virtuous. Some films have simple plots that work (e.g. Duel) and others that don’t work so well (e.g., Battle: Los Angeles). I just didn’t think the filmmakers did much with the plot.
Is the US version cut?
from the IMDB content advisory (minor spoilers):
“A man removes a hidden machete from a table and chops off a police officer’s head; blood spurts from the man’s neck wound before his head and body hit the ground.
We see five men kneeling on the ground with duct tape covering their mouths (most of them appear to have bloody and broken noses), and another man approaches them from behind and shoots four of them point-blank in the head (we see a spray of blood and brain matter from the wounds); when he approaches the fifth man, his gun jams and he smashes the crying, gagged man (his nose is bloody and there is blood on his shirt) in the head with a hammer (we see a slow-motion spray of blood and brains fly from the man’s head)."
in the first sequence, the film cuts away just as the man lifts the machete, and in the second, it cuts away right before the man actually gets hit by the hammer. I saw this in a big AMC theater today, would that have anything to do with it? From what I’m reading, those scenes were the only ones noticeably altered….
Well I’m gonna see this film in about an hour and I’m pretty confident I will be more favorable of it than Ebert. I dig martial arts movies.
Regarding the different versions The Raid, the US version that was in theaters has two scenes that were cut down to get the R rating. However the DVD will be releasing the Unrated version.
However in both cases, these versions are different from the original Indonesian version, which has different music.
Thanks Santino.
If we’re lucky, SPC will let us choose which score we want in the DVD menu, but I’m not counting on it. I’ve heard that the original score is better.
Great action flick.
It can be argued others are better, but I thought it was very entertaining, and pretty much came to enjoy it for what it was. An full-on action flick, and a great premise, plus some very good villains too. If you want to analyze it more deeply, feel free, but I just keep thinking back to that final fight sequence. Phew! Amazing.
And I have to say that I found the editing much more “relaxed” wherein you could actually observe the action without the frenetic cuts you see in many current action films, or something like the Bourne films. (which I actually do enjoy)
It was also the first action film in a long time that I felt I could go and see again. Pretty rare, that.
But until then, I think I’ll put in my Predator DVD for another viewing.
toddj
First question: is there a problem with Ebert’s review? Not really, he just doesn’t understand the way genre works or wants a genre film to do something else or adhere to qualified standards for what he considers a “good film,” standards that stretch back (at least) to the classical period and which predate the invention of the genres as we know and (love or loath) them today.
Second question: is The Raid good, or just mere violence? This one depends on your taste. Personally, I didn’t find the action any more innovative than John Woo, but it’s a film that gets its diegetic world and the laws of its genre and has a rather single-minded focus on them.
but, to be honest, that isn’t all that’s at play here. There is, surprise, a narrative. Ebert criticizes the process of boiling these elements down to bare signifiers, but that’s where I’d disagree. To me, Evans is practicing a supremely minimal approach to the genre, taking a handful of what we associate with it (the pregnant wife, the corrupt cops, the secret relationships) and boiling them down to the point that they don’t take up scenes, sequences, or whatever else, but simply occupy single shots. Luckily for Evans, he’s got a good eye, and these shots are supremely well done.
But wait, even if these are minimal (my term) or underdeveloped (others’ term), is there nothing to be said for the tone and quality of the action itself? Does it just occupy a bare signifying slot, or is there something to be said for pacing, tonality, and the vibration of light in the scenes. If we ignore these things, we might as well pretend John Woo’s just about cigarettes, doves, and two-gun blasting (some think he is, and, well, that’s another thread). I’m pretty fresh off of the movie so my ability to articulate is a bit rough, but there’s something specific in the textures, sound design, and pulse of the film that doesn’t transcend the genre but develops something with in it, a supremely tactile and physical quality. That the action sequences go on so long is necessary to this point, of seeing the actors under conditions of evident physical exhaustion, that’s what the film’s about to me. Well, that and its canny ability to NOT spoil things by focusing too much on plot elements that it’s not interested in beyond the single-shot semes.