The Dark Knight Rises got me thinkin’!!!!!!
Ahh, so this is a ‘fresh vendetta’ thread. Air the grieviance that’s on your mind and pose it as a question. Ok, I’ll bite.
Magnificent Ambersons, if it counts.
Recently, I have to go with Adjustment Bureau.
Out of this summer so far, The Amazing Spider-Man seemed to me to have some of the worst editing. I sometimes felt out of touch with the story progression. Even Prometheus, which was a pretty good film, lacked in proper editing
I am yet to see how it goes with The Dark Knight Rises, But, in the last couple of years it has become more evident that Hollwyood blockbusters either are suddenly losing competent editors, or have more studios’ involvement in final cut that needed.
So it seems that editing will take the hit for the lack of a compelling narrative. There’s a lot absent from the films mentioned, editing isn’t the problem.
Ambersons was butchered.
The Transformers films. And any Michael Bay action extravaganza for that matter. I don’t even believe Bay knows the definition of coherency.
I find a lot of recent Hollywood action sequences to be completely incomprehensible. The editors seem to think if they cut from shot to shot every half-second, the scene will be exciting even if it makes no sense. Quantum of Solace was one of the worst offenders (which I found weird, because I thought Casino Royale had some of the best action sequences in recent memory). And while I won’t ever watch it again because I’d rather pull my eyelids off my face with a pair of rusty tweezers, I seem to recall Hanna was almost as bad. I might be wrong about that though.
Aside from the opening, how many shots in Armageddon were longer than three seconds? I would love to put Bay in a dark alley with Tarr, Sokurov, and Wang Bing.
I love Hanna, though! It’s Joe Wright’s classical adaptations where the editing was a little crazy, imo. Always said he was better suited for action.
Weirdly, I think David Yates’ Potter flicks are simultaneously the best in the series and worst edited. Would give examples but frankly I’m Potter’d the hell out. I can’t do it anymore.
Gladiator. Embolism ocular. commercial epileptic junkie
@Flip – YES! Solace’s editing almost killed it, among other things. But yeah, the opening car chase is completely incomprehensible.
I thought over-editing hurt Scott’s Man on Fire and Malick’s The Tree of Life.
CHICAGO — end of discussion. Edited by blindfolded genetically defective baboons.
Quantum did suffer from some terrible editing, although I usually find that the ‘shakycam’ style is a lot easier to follow at home on TV versus in the theater. The action scenes in Quantum and the two Bourne sequels were much more enjoyable when I revisited them at home. In the theater, I could barely follow Quantum in particular.
Some of the worst editing in terms of action movies: The Transporter 3 and Colombiana (same director), Gamer. I know Gamer has a lot of fans on Mubi but the rapidly cut nature of the entire movie, not just the action scenes, hurt my skull before too long.
I love Speed Racer as a whole but the racing scenes are too swiftly edited for me to really process or enjoy.
I’m also a fan of Nolan but the fight scenes in Batman Begins were awful.
When you combine close camera proximity and quick cuts, it’s a recipe for a disappointing fight scene for me.
Despite its apparent critical love, I thought the over indulgent, unnecessary, studio executive driven editing of “The Hunger Games” to be quite reprehensible.
Many narrative, structural ,rhytm and continuity problems are blamed on the editor when in reality the screenplay and direction are to blame. Such is the case with that recent Batman movie.Editors can only edit the footage that was shot. Caveat Emptor.
Heaven’s Gate was a mess of editing, just horrendous.
Dark Knight Rises wasn’t edited as bad as the story structure was, which I felt was the biggest problem.
I dunno how Tamra Davis’ version woulda turned out, but the Cosmatos release had one of the most confusing shoot-outs I have ever seen.
As for “Gamer” I haven’t seen it, though I tried 3 times.
^ In the scene where Wayne dances at the charity dinner with Selina Kyle, Nolan was clearly trying to pull off that same circle track effect of the penthouse attack scene in The Dark Knight, but the dialog was too slow and there wasn’t enough suspense to build it up so the editor cut it short and just laid in whichever shot had the best performance of the dialog… probably even cut some dialog out. That scene includes but one single cutaway where it could have used two or three more. I thought it was interesting to watch as something I would show a class on editing as what not to do, and show a class on directing as, “And this ladies and gentlemen, is what B-ROLL is for.”
Nevertheless the overall editing job of Rises balanced a lot of arenas of action and crosscutting pretty well in my opinion.
Watching mainstream movies that are poorly edited is disappointing. Lower budget and independent movies can be a little bit more understandable — n00b directors and editors, not enough footage, whatever. It’s a real pleasure when they turn out edited well. Stuff like Woody Allen’s recent movies, though, confuse me. I know he’s a by-the-hour writer and by-the-year director but does he even do second takes or coverage anymore?! I’m sorry but everything from the writing to the editing looks like he’s just trying to pump it out as quickly as possible and isn’t concerned with the details anymore. He’s had so much practice the results are usually entertaining enough but homeboy could try a bit.
While editors want coverage, there is a thing where there can be too much coverage, and directors feel the need to justify taking the time to use the shot, and editors are left helpless after a two-hour argument to use the flippin’ shot. It’s seen in action-type films all the time.
I feel more films need to be pre-edited; the Director, DP and Editor sit down and go through the whole thing, then bring the PM in, and this is incredibly important in lower budget films when there is no time to waste. Shoot what you need and if time allows shoot some extra.
That is why god created storyboards.
Yes, but too often the editor is not involved in the storyboard process
“While editors want coverage, there is a thing where there can be too much coverage”
See George Stevens.
Actually, I’m in agreement with virtually all the films mentioned here. The Dark Knight Rises, Hanna, Hunger Games, Quantum of Solace, any Michael Bay movie – they were all noticeably poorly edited.
I disagree on the editing on Hanna
Adjustment Bureau has my vote, along with Source Code and I’ll throw this into the fire, Inception. This might be straying from the idea of editing overall, perhaps better in a discussion about structure and linear/non-linear story telling, but films that rely entirely on the jumble effect of a fragmented narrative and the microbiology of minutiae such as in Source Code, end up being about the concept not A story or A character or characters. Just go back to Source Code and you’ll find that the whole film is comprised of the same 8 minute scene played over and over again with tiny revelations until we reach the end and realize the main character we’ve just been following was actually dead the entire time. So yeah, Source Code then would be my choice.
I don’t know if worst edited applies to Michael Bay. I mean he is guilty of excess in the same way Nolan can’t not blow stuff up in 10 minute intervals, but there’s also some really interesting editing choices in his films. He might not get the right mix or the camera spends too much time as a character in his films, but he is committed to his audience – you just have to remind yourself what it’s like to be 15 again if you’re not.
I expand on Bay’s stuff here if anyone is interested http://rorydean.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/michael-bay-movie-mechanic/
Tree of Life? Malick needs a writer the way Tarantino needs someone to remind him he used to make great character films.
What was the problem with the editing in INCEPTION?
I hated the editing on Moulin Rouge.
“Just go back to Source Code and you’ll find that the whole film is comprised of the same 8 minute scene played over and over again with tiny revelations until we reach the end and realize the main character we’ve just been following was actually dead the entire time.”
I’m confused. How is that an argument against the editing when that was the premise of the movie? The revelation that he’s dead is not exactly Sixth Sense quality game changer, but the dramatic question.
Hanna was extremely well edited.