The Raid 2

brianregan09 · 27-03-2014 7:37pm

Is this going to be about the guy that survived the 1st one ?

27-03-2014 7:39pm

brianregan09 wrote: »

Is this going to be about the guy that survived the 1st one ?

It takes place mere hours after the original ended. Reviews seem to say that the story is generic, it's bloated and a bit too long but that the action is exceptional and amongst the best ever put onscreen.

brianregan09 · 27-03-2014 7:53pm

I'd imagine like the people that he stopped in the original stretch further than one apartment block and they'll be out to get him , but if the action is as good as the 1st who gives a monkeys

Marty McFly · 27-03-2014 9:41pm

Kiith wrote: »

Definitely going to try go see this on Monday. 1st one was absolutely brilliant.

Damn you :mad:, got an email notification with this post open thread only for unlimited card holders

.

johnny_ultimate · 27-03-2014 9:43pm

Here's a deleted action scene from the film for anyone interested: http://vimeo.com/90092972

No spoilers as it was a side scene intended to show the scale of the gang war in the film. Was cut for pacing reasons despite clearly being a pretty elaborate sequence to put together.

e_e · 27-03-2014 9:53pm

Well that was certainly violent. :pac:

pixelburp · 27-03-2014 10:02pm

A pretty elaborate scene to cut out, makes you wonder what has been left in! Some nice choreography in the action, although the CGI blood & muzzleflashes looked poor - I'd hope that's simply because it was left on the cuttingroom floor and weren't given due polish

I'm no mad fan of the first film, but that was down to personal taste & a general apathy towards martial-arts; if the sequel's more of a epic gang film, I could be persuaded to poke my head around the door again

Telecaster58 · 28-03-2014 5:01pm

RogerEbert.com gave it 2* and a mediocre write-up

Fysh · 28-03-2014 5:42pm

Telecaster58 wrote: »

RogerEbert.com gave it 2* and a mediocre write-up

Given that Ebert gave the first film 1*, I'm not sure it's going to be worth paying much attention to the rogerebert.com review by Glenn Kenny.

I don't like dismissing reviewers whose names I don't recognise based on one review, but the opening few paragraphs of that review just scream "I didn't like the first one and somehow got made to watch the second one and didn't like it either and you people who like these films are just weird and wrong and EEEEEEEEEW!". Seems to me he was never going to like the film and thus should probably not have agreed to try and review it.

Unless, of course, this is the by-now-expected clicktrolling negative review of something hotly anticipated in order to try and "generate discussion" (ie get a bunch of people to comment saying "wow, you're an idiot/you missed the point/YO MAMA" or something along those lines).

(Also, I'm absolutely sick to the back teeth of seeing crap like "In any event, nobody's going to mistake these passages for Shakespeare." in reviews for action films, because it reeks of a kind of genre snobbery that doesn't distinguish between clever, inventive film-making and by-the-numbers humdrummery...)

e_e · 28-03-2014 5:54pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70X7UpbYGKQ

Here's a positive review from a fan of the first film as well as someone who hasn't even seen it.

johnny_ultimate · 28-03-2014 6:01pm

To be fair to that negative review - which is undoubtedly a bit smarmy at times, and Ebert himself was probably the most vocal critic of the first - it focuses on negatives that seem prevalent in other, otherwise positive responses to the film. Outside the excited first responses from festivals (alas, first screenings are rarely a genuine barometer of a film), the critical consensus has certainly been generally favourable but also a tad muted and reserved. I haven't heard anyone criticise the action, which let's be honest is why we're all going to this film. But if it's surrounded by an hour of awkward storytelling as many seem to be suggesting, then that's hardly a negligible criticism given how lean and to-the-point The Raid was.

Obviously we can only wait and see for ourselves!

Fysh wrote:

Seems to me he was never going to like the film and thus should probably not have agreed to try and review it.

As valid an opinion as someone who was almost definitely going to like the film

frag420 · 28-03-2014 10:05pm

Monday can't come quick enough!!

Fysh · 28-03-2014 11:24pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be fair to that negative review - which is undoubtedly a bit smarmy at times, and Ebert himself was probably the most vocal critic of the first - it focuses on negatives that seem prevalent in other, otherwise positive responses to the film. Outside the excited first responses from festivals (alas, first screenings are rarely a genuine barometer of a film), the critical consensus has certainly been generally favourable but also a tad muted and reserved. I haven't heard anyone criticise the action, which let's be honest is why we're all going to this film. But if it's surrounded by an hour of awkward storytelling as many seem to be suggesting, then that's hardly a negligible criticism given how lean and to-the-point The Raid was.

Obviously we can only wait and see for ourselves!

As valid an opinion as someone who was almost definitely going to like the film

The thing is, if you review a film you don't like without giving a context for why don't like it, the review isn't really of much use in terms of either generating discussion or providing insight into the film. And, well, I posit that someone who is apparently fairly uninterested in this kind of film is not well placed to evaluate it on its merits, at least not until they prove otherwise. There weren't any comparisons made for contrast or suggestions of other films which attempt similar ideas with greater success, so I can't help feel this review was written by someone who's sniffy about genre films in general and thus is unlikely to offer any useful insight to those of us a bit more interested in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

On a separate note, my OH noted that the posters in London are advertising the film as "the Dark Knight of action films", which provoked the question "So what was the Dark Knight?"

LuckyLloyd · 31-03-2014 9:28pm

Had been really looking forward to this and had a ticket to the unlimited preview. Unfortunately they had a dodgy print. Saw ~5 mins with dodgy picture and no subtitles then ~10 mins with no subtitles before giving up. Will catch it at the weekend.

maximoose · 31-03-2014 9:36pm

Yep. That was a disaster. I stayed about half an hour and they still hadn't fixed it. Raging. Everyone was hyped for it and all.

Won a goody bag, but I wanted to see some damn ass kicking.

e_e · 31-03-2014 9:37pm

Wow, glad I didn't try and see if anyone had a spare ticket here then.

frag420 · 31-03-2014 10:59pm

Just seen it!! Lacks the tenseness of the first movie but more than makes up for it with the fight scenes!! The Raid movies are the only two movies I have seen where by there were several rounds of applause after a fight scene!

S.M.B. · 01-04-2014 12:54am

That review on RogerEbert.com doesn't come across as being overly negative to me and it closely echoes my thoughts on the movie even though I enjoyed the first one.

bigslick · 01-04-2014 9:12am

Was at the Unlimited screening as well. Was a bit of a farce, but I just stepped outside while they were fixing it up. On a side, it seems that alot of Cineworld locations had issues with their print.

Glad i waited, as was an amazing film with some great action and amazing set pieces. Might go again when its released.

BadCompany · 03-04-2014 10:39am

I honestly don't think that I've never been more excited about a movie release as this one. The first one for me is probably in my top 5 action movies ever, certainly top 10. So many great set-pieces and while the plot was thin, it certainly served its purpose. I saw it twice in the cinema (stumbled across it by chance the first time!) and must have watched the DVD 5 or 6 times since, everyone I've showed it to has loved it. Roll on next Friday!

ancapailldorcha · 03-04-2014 9:18pm

I saw this at an Unlimited screening on Monday.

The biggest difference to the original would be the much greater emphasis on the plot which revolves around Rama's attempt to infiltrate a criminal empire. I went in expecting something similar to the original film so the added emphasis on a story felt very odd to me.

The action sequences are very imaginative and are imbued with a flair that I don't see too often nowadays. It's nice to see characters act creatively and the film pulls no punches when it comes to the sheer brutality of the scenes, spiced up with, thankfully small offerings of comic relief. Also present is the best car chase I've seen since the Matrix Reloaded.

I've been comparing it to Die Hard 2. It discards the claustrophobic environment of the first film in favor of telling a grand tale of betrayal and conspiracies. I was originally under the impression that the whole plot would unfurl in a prison, which is merely a chapter of the whole story. Like Die Hard 2, it's a good film worthy of being rewatched. I think something got lost in making it, sadly.

BadCompany · 05-04-2014 10:33am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Also present is the best car chase I've seen since the Matrix Reloaded.

This has me very excited! While the Matrix Reloaded had its problems (I think the whole drawn-out piece at the end with "the architect" is especially painful), that car chase was unbelievable!

Funnily enough, I was only saying to a friend recently that I reckon The Raid is probably my favourite action movie since The Matrix (first one)

Goldstein · 05-04-2014 11:17pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Also present is the best car chase I've seen since the Matrix Reloaded.

It's been 11 years and noone's even attempted one with a straight face since. It's easy to be cynical with hindsight but those 16 minutes from Reloaded were so defyingly ambitous that The Wachowskis single-handedly killed pretty much all subsequent serious attempts at any kind of a car chase scene with the possible exception of Nolan's Batmans in places.

This one remark tells me everything I need to know about the mindset of Berandal. It reaches to places all other movies haven't and tries to go beyond what we've seen before. That's always enough for me. (Not that there was a chance in hell I wasn't going to see it anyway

)

S.M.B. · 06-04-2014 2:41pm

The entire movie is very Nolan-esque in my opinion which has its merits (the ambitious car chase scene, the final 45 minutes as a whole) and its drawbacks (a plot that is 'both simplicity itself and impossible to follow' as that ebert reviewer puts it, an over seriousness that was absent from the first movie).

weiland79 · 09-04-2014 3:42pm

Booked my ticket for the nine o'clock show in Dundrum on friday night. At time of booking (Last night) there were just two other seats taken in the cinema, so don't expect this to have a very long run.

BadCompany · 09-04-2014 3:58pm

weiland79 wrote: »

Booked my ticket for the nine o'clock show in Dundrum on friday night. At time of booking (Last night) there were just two other seats taken in the cinema, so don't expect this to have a very long run.

Likewise, about an hour ago I booked tickets for Friday in Mahon cinema in Cork and there were no other seats booked yet (although it is the 10.30 show). I just wanted to be sure of getting nice seats, as it's showing in one of the smaller screens.

Roll on Friday! If it's anything close to the standard of the first (and all early reviews suggest that it is), I can see myself going to see it twice, if not three times!

sonic85 · 10-04-2014 5:36pm

Can anybody tell me if this is showing anywhere in the south east? The Omniplex website has it down as coming soon but its not on the listings.

Its out on friday isnt it?

weiland79 · 10-04-2014 7:06pm

yes out tomorrow

Mr E · 10-04-2014 7:10pm

Seems to be a pretty limited release. In Limerick, only the Omniplex has it (it's not in the Odeon or Showtime).

sonic85 · 10-04-2014 7:21pm

Balls anyway. I managed to see the first one in waterford (only one other person in the screening) and had my fingers crossed id get to see this on a big screen. Doesnt seem to be showing outside the major towns and cities.

Gutted

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 10-04-2014 9:52pm

TIL carlow isn't a major town or city

e_e · 10-04-2014 10:20pm

I wouldn't worry yet, films like this tend to test the waters in Dublin and if they work on audiences they move to the rest of the country. If your local cinema isn't showing it you should request it just in case too.

weiland79 · 11-04-2014 9:27am

Woo Hoo Raid 2 day!

e_e · 11-04-2014 7:26pm

Just saw it in the Lighthouse there. Found it to be marvellous and in spite of a few indulgences/absurdities superior to the original in just about every way. Visually Evans has really stepped up his game and I love the juxtaposition between being a sprawling crime epic and an OTT action movie. I just relished every second of this.

Warper · 11-04-2014 10:18pm

Saw this today. Loved it, one of the most enjoyable films i have seen in ages. I must admit i was apprehensive enough about this going in as i didn't particularly like part one, found it basically kung fu master on film, but this is brilliant entertainment. There are some laugh out moments in it too which help capture the fun of this whole mad, ultra-violent and cool flick. Top marks.

LuckyLloyd · 11-04-2014 11:50pm

Utterly ridiculous but very entertaining nonetheless. You have the choice of finding the violence hilarious or hideous. I took the former option throughout. This is easily the bloodiest film I've ever seen with plenty of scenes for fethisists alone. Two moments in particular are outright distasteful.

The scenes in between the fighting are generally irritating: dreadful acting and a farcical 'plot'. But the brilliantly shot gymnastics and stunts generally cover.

Be warned, and don't be the dickhead dragging your girlfriend / mate to this if it wouldn't generally be their sort of thing. This is an out there two and a half hours of gore.

e_e · 11-04-2014 11:57pm

It is indeed violent but I personally don't think it's ever distasteful or laughing at the bloodshed. In fact I think the appeal of this and the original is that they're more masochistic than sadistic, all the "oofs!" are cathartic to watch and the humor is more derived from the ingenuity of the editing/choreography than just laughing at bloodshed.

These 2 films have left me on a high that no other action film has achieved for that reason.

LuckyLloyd · 12-04-2014 12:19am

e_e wrote: »

It is indeed violent but I personally don't think it's ever distasteful or laughing at the bloodshed. In fact I think the appeal of this and the original is that they're more masochistic than sadistic, all the "oofs!" are cathartic to watch and the humor is more derived from the ingenuity of the editing/choreography than just laughing at bloodshed.

These 2 films have left me on a high that no other action film has achieved for that reason.

You are entitled to your assessment but I strongly disagree on the basis of

the cut to the face of the man burned on the restaurant hot plate and the drawn out nature of the shotgun finishing of Bejo

. I also believe it's naive to think that people are not laughing largely due to the violence - it's human nature to do so.

This is undoubtedly a great spectacle of shock cinema, but it wallows in its brutality and will be considered distasteful by many on that basis. There were a number of walkouts tonight and I totally understand why that is the case.

weiland79 · 12-04-2014 12:26am

Just back. For me it took way to long to get into gear, and while the scope is admirable it was just to difficult for me to ignore the atrocious acting and paper thin plot. I know it's not meant to be about the story but when so much of the running time is taken up with it, it's hard to ignore.
The fighting of course is visceral and packs no less of a punch as the first movie. The final act being particularly excellent.
There are a few characters I'd like to talk about specifically but as I'm on a phone I cannot spoiler so I'll come back to them tomorrow.

I've watched the first movie several times and will probably watch it several times more, and while I will pick this up on blue ray when it comes out I will be skipping forward to the excellent fight scenes. Which is disappointing.

e_e · 12-04-2014 12:33am

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I also believe it's naive to think that people are not laughing largely due to the violence - it's human nature to do so.

I think the violence is only a part of the reason though. When I saw the original at JDIFF much of the response was in the vein (no pun intended) of "oooh! aaaahhhhh!" and then laughing at our own reactions. I think it's the portrayal of the violence which is a small but important extinction. I guess what I'm saying is that the bloodshed isn't funny in and of itself, there's always other factors at play.

Those 2 examples you mentioned weren't played for laughs, crucially. More for the shock and awe, the

hotplate scene

seemed to show Rama's descent too in very brutal terms

BadCompany · 12-04-2014 11:42am

Saw this last night and, being a HUGE fan of the first, I'm sad to say I was disappointed.

Some have talked about the paper-thin plot - I think the problem was that there was far too much of a focus on the (admittedly thin) plot at times, and it was quite poorly executed. The movie has serious pacing problems as well, there's about a half hour in the middle that felt wholly unnecessary.

I'm surprised I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, but I thought the fighting scenes were a big step down from the first. I noticed a LOT of sped-up camera shots (a pet hate of mine), almost in every fighting scene - it just made the whole thing look very unnatural. I know this technique is used in a lot of martial arts movies (another poor sequel Ong Bak 2 immediately springs to mind for me), but having seen the first Raid 5 or 6 times, this manipulation of fighting scenes is not something that I would associate with it at all, and it was all the better for it. This was probably the biggest disappointment for me, I don't think anyone was expecting Shakespeare but I thought surely we could rely on some of the excellent, perfectly choreographed and REALISTIC action of the first, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a terrible movie - the car chase as mentioned already on this thread is EXCELLENT, and some action scenes still manage to have those "holy sh!t" moments of the first.

I might revisit once more next week before I completely make my mind up (and when expectations are not as high) but for now I don't know who I would recommend this movie to

weiland79 · 12-04-2014 12:44pm

There's just way to much story that nobody gives a crap about between some really short action sequences. It just feels like a hard slog getting from one set piece to the next.

e_e · 12-04-2014 12:49pm

weiland79 wrote: »

There's just way to much story that nobody gives a crap about

Questionable. I quite enjoyed the plot anyway and about half an hour in resigned myself to the fact this'd be a different beast to the original. I think it was bound to alienate people looking for the constant intensity of the original and I actually thought that it made the action stand out even more than it did in the original.

LuckyLloyd · 12-04-2014 1:11pm

e_e wrote: »

Questionable. I quite enjoyed the plot anyway and about half an hour in resigned myself to the fact this'd be a different beast to the original. I think it was bound to alienate people looking for the constant intensity of the original and I actually thought that it made the action stand out even more than it did in the original.

Are you suggesting the scenes in between the set piece action sequences were strong? Surely not?

12-04-2014 1:19pm

Honestly, if you're watching a film like the Raid 2 for the story then you're doing it wrong. The Raid had a story so wafer thin that it would crumble in your hand, it was a setup there simply to craft a number of set pieces and that's what made it such a joy. Part 2 needed to do something a little more and while I've yet to see it I hope that the story is a little more substantial. Even if the story is poor I can forgive that as long as the set pieces are good.

e_e · 12-04-2014 1:22pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Are you suggesting the scenes in between the set piece action sequences were strong? Surely not?

They served their purpose and thus gave the action sequences more heft. I don't think the last 40 minutes would have worked anywhere near as well for me if not for the steady build-up.

Is the drama Godfather level? Nope. Is it more than adequate enough to drive the action sequences forward? Definitely.

Warper · 12-04-2014 1:52pm

I disliked the first as the action was just too repetitive and non-stop. I appreciated the action parts more in this film as they weren't just thrown at you scene after scene. This is pure comic book stuff but i enjoyed the characters in this and the film was much more balanced than the utterly ridiculous part one.

weiland79 · 12-04-2014 2:33pm

You're probably right and i'm probably being a little harsh calling it crap, but it felt a little ham fisted and too drawn out. For me it ran at least 20 mins to long and caught myself checking my watch more than once.
As i said last night I'll be picking it up on blue ray when it comes out and will give it another chance then.

I loved the three video game boss characters. The girl with the hammers and the dude with the baseball bat and of course the main boss battle at the end. It really felt like he was working his way through the two mini bosses to the main boss. What a fight it was!

longhalloween · 12-04-2014 3:32pm

Saw it in Cineworld on Parnell St. last night. There seemed to be some audio lag in some scenes. Not very noticeable with a foreign language film, but VERY noticeable with that small karaoke scene.
The subtitles leave much to be desired, with several grammatical errors and sentences that go nowhere.

The action far outweights this though, several very brutal fight scenes and the last scene was just fantastic.

I don't know if I'll ever watch this again though. I think it's a film that only works in a cinema, where the audience can collectively moan, groan and applaud.

johnny_ultimate · 12-04-2014 5:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, if you're watching a film like the Raid 2 for the story then you're doing it wrong. The Raid had a story so wafer thin that it would crumble in your hand, it was a setup there simply to craft a number of set pieces and that's what made it such a joy. Part 2 needed to do something a little more and while I've yet to see it I hope that the story is a little more substantial. Even if the story is poor I can forgive that as long as the set pieces are good.

I hate this argument, because it's misrepresenting what the complaints actually are (and I'm speaking generally here, as I haven't had a chance to watch The Raid 2 yet). If a writer or director forces me to sit through an hour or more of perfunctory plot to get to the main attraction, then I haven't done anything wrong, said writer / director has. There's no reason whatsoever that the plot and the action can't be up to scratch. And if that's not achievable, focus on one or the other and play to your strengths.

I've seen a few comparisons between this and Drug War - that's a strong example of a film that delivers on the memorable action will also delivering a strong (if slightly convoluted) narrative with actual satire and social commentary. The film earns its action setpieces, but also doesn't feel like an inconvenience when the bullets aren't flying. Or something like Evangelion - amazing action, but also fascinating themes and storytelling. Compare it to Pacific Rim (and I'm well aware that film has plenty of supporters, this is all IMO of course) - there's an utterly vapid, poorly told story I have to endure for lengthy periods of time before getting to the good stuff. It's a big, big ask for the reward (and even that was minimal, again IMO). To me, that's what differentiates it as a bad film with some good bits as opposed to a good film with some bad bits. I doubt anyone would praise The Raid 1's plotting - but there was a film that knew its limitations, and focused on what it did well while ensuring the film wasn't simply a relentless series of action scenes. Even without having seen the second film yet, I can see how people feel an epic scale is ill-fitting especially if it isn't handled with particular aplomb - not to dismiss Evans' ambitions to make something a little bit more engaged (it's certainly admirable) but The Raid 1 was about as impressively no-nonsense as action films get, with just enough focus on characters and story to keep everything moving.

Even dumb action films require some sort of plot - to ensure it's not all just an adrenaline rush, and make the action mean something (or just go '**** it' and be Crank, but Crank is Crank!). But that doesn't excuse bad storytelling, and if a director is going to make me sit through a heavily plotted film then it's their duty to make it interesting, not for us to ignore or forgive any failures in that regard even if the action completely delivers. I look forward to finding out myself how Evans has managed it tomorrow.

The Raid 2

Comments