How to Ruin an Action Scene | Blue Flame Special Episode 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Help us make these videos: / patrickhwillems
MY VIDEO GEAR tinyurl.com/z9k...
______________________________________
TWITTER: / patrickhwillems
FACEBOOK: / patrickhwillems
TUMBLR: / patrickhwillems
INSTAGRAM: / patrickhwillems
______________________________________
Music by Epidemic Sound
______________________________________
SEND ME SOME MAIL:
Patrick Willems
P.O. Box 380333
Brooklyn, NY 11238
![[Limbus Company - PV] Chapter.7 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VUpkXPkvoxU/mqdefault.jpg)
Before commenting to correct me on the model of car, please consider this: I don't care. At all.
Patrick (H) Willems I think there is a valid reason for the correction. Especially for the quantum of solace chase because I think we can assume some things about the vehicles in the scene, like Bond has been driving Astons for a long time so seeing one should immediately clue you in to who is who. Also the truck being far ahead of bond makes a lot of sence because if they were closer bond would have been pancaked the second the truck tyre blew. I get the feeling this scene is less a problem of geography but colour and highlighting, due to the fact the problems you address are about who is in what car not where is the car, I get the feeling this scene was directed by and for people who are interested in the cars and as one of those people this scene is extremely easy to pick up even with the really fast cuts and muted colour palette but they could have made this easier to follow just by making bond's car silver for example, as that would imediately trigger you into seeing him as the odd one out and then it won't take long to figure out who that is. This doesn't excuse later mistakes in the film and your point of geography explains the problem perfectly in those examples.
+Schizoman So you're saying putting them both in two black sedans is fine because one of them has an Aston Martin logo that you're supposed to make out from 12 frames of shakycam?
your lack of interest in details is disturbing.
EaglesRugby the cast of Marvel's Audi deal 4 promotion they definitely have a black sedan problem outside of Tony Stark's exotic Audi collection they use a lot of black and dark sedans in their chases and it can be a little confusing sometimes
EaglesRugby EaglesRugby the Aston is a super car the Alfa Romeo is a sedan. The Aston is low the Alfa is tall (well taller), the Aston has silver rear lights the Alfa has red rear lights. You spend a lot of time looking at the Aston giving you plenty of chances to identify it. The Aston Martin is also... an Aston Martin, one of the most iconic brands to come out of Britain and has been associated with bond for years. Like I said they could of done a bit more to make the car stand out like making it a different colour like a lot of previous bond Aston's have been silver.
It must be really frustrating spending time and effort in a well edited, researched and produced video, just to get coments about the car not beeing a land rover
Bzzzzzzzz🐝
Major plot hole.
Top notch content. Finally someone understanding that the shaky cam of Bourne does not cause unnecessary confusion.
Makes me think of the Every Frame a Painting video about Michael Bay where he talks about the imitators who try to do his thing but then fail because they don't understand the thing that makes it work.
@@BollocksUtwat Bay is a bad example
There are 2 more videos that appreciate Greengrass work but that's about it.
The rest just keeps parroting "sHaKy CaM sUcKs". Paul Greengrass doesn't want you to enjoy the scene, he wants you to be as stressed out as bourne, BUT understanding what's going on, and (except for the fight scene in Supremacy) and he fucking made it.
@@aidilmubarock5394 Bay is the master
1:40 - He literally says shaky cam causes the problem.
Nice. I read where, when making "Duel", Steven Spielberg said he didn't care what kind of car they used, as long as it was Red so they audience will always know when the protagonist's car was on screen. Brilliant.
I think a part of growing up is starting to identify exactly what's wrong with movies, instead of just being generally annoyed by it. I was 16 when I first saw Quantum of Solace, and I remember it being the first time I was conciously aware of bad editing.
I thought it wasn't just bad geography, action is about motivation. We don't know why Bond is being chased or who by or what's at stake. In contrast all the mission impossible films have a fun action piece before the opening credits where were told what they're after.
Mission Impossible films are average
I literally sat halfway through this video thinking "the Bourne car chases where so good, I wish Patrick would talk about those in a future video for comparison" and boom; 20 seconds later :)
I gotchu
Another great example of great geography is in Inception when Mal is holding a gun to Arthur's foot to torture him, the camera style showed us how far away Cobb was from the gun on the table and how far away Cobb was from Mal and Saito. So when Cobb jumps on the table, sliding across to grab the gun and shooting Arthur to wake him up, we get wher everyone was, and how Cobb achieved this task.
... And Karl Urban.
"GET THAT MAP OUTTA HERE, MARY"
Chandasouk aww 🙁...
This series is remarkable. Just remarkable.
Noice stuff. Next episode... JUST DO A FULL EPISODE ON MAD MAX FURY ROAD.
What can he say about Fury Road that hasn't already been said? When he devotes a whole episode to something it's usually to something that actually needs defending, like the Fast and Furious movies.
I agree with you that there's nothing really left to say about Fury Road, but I think it'd be cool if he did a video on the original Mad Max trilogy. There's some really good action in all three movies (yes, even thunderdome)
Agreed. Fury Road
I was so confused by that chase i even thought the truck driver was a baddie 😩🤔😆
Mission impossible Rogue Nation,
The Opera scene, perfect action scene in my opinion
Thank you for bringing this up. The cinematography and lineup of the shots in that scene were expertly crafted, and absolutely no cut was wasted. You knew exactly what was going on at all times, where everyone was, and what they were doing in relation to everyone else.
I think the bourne series broke a lot of things. I just hate that Bond picked up the crappy action editing, after it did so well with Royale.
One place where Spielberg did geography well, and where it was crucial, was the mall scene in Minority Report. That scene does not work if we don't know where the heroes are, where the cops are in relation, establishing what items Tom Cruise has or makes use of, and why they help him. If one piece of that doesn't work, none of it works.
I love your essays. Always entertaining, always well done
Yeah no matter how much hatred the style gets, there is no denying it was impactful and damn well executed in Bourne 2 and 3 ! And in passing, a shout out to Karl Urban who was one of my favorite actor as a teenager (Eomer was my favorite character in LotR ! ^^)
Hey, hi. Just discovered this series. As an editor myself, I've thought a lot about the difference between the Bourne films and "Quantum" frequently. Usually I get very frustrated with so-called "Cuisinart Editing," but I never got that feeling of chaos with Greengrass' films. What really connected with me is a segment of a wonderful book called "The Conversations," between legendary editor Walter Murch and the novelist Michael Ondaatje, who wrote "The English Patient," the film of which Murch cut. And Murch talked about where the audience's eye is focused on as the film moves from cut to cut. He described an invisible dot, somewhere in the frame. And the focus on the next shot should be where the dot is at ITS first frame. (There are exceptions, where he WANTS the audience to be disoriented, and he'll move the dot somewhere else.) . But that was the eureka moment for me between the opening of "QoS" and "Bourne" (even though I believe they shared the same editor): Greengrass directs KNOWING WHERE THE DOT IS. Marc Forster did not. And it's an absolute mess, and the only Bond film I ever saw that made me ANGRY. (This, of course, is what George Miller has frequently said about editing "Fury Road," where the central focus at the beginning of every single shot is the center of the frame, so your eye isn't wandering around the frame, even with microscopic shot lengths.)
I also want to add that in my opinion, one of the most perfect, and emotional, action scenes I've ever seen is the zeppelin rescue at the end of Miyazaki's "Kiki's Delivery Service." Its use of silence alone is heart-stopping. Okay! Now I can watch Part 3!
You know what makes for really clear geography for action scenes? Setting it on a train. With only on plane of action to work with because of the spatial limitations of a train the location of the characters relative to each other and the direction the action is going is clear. Like last video, this is "Why movies on trains are objectively better" episode 2.
Did you see Snowpiercer? Fun to consider that movie in terms of geography and trains!
Are you a precog?
I love this - Jason Bourne is being chased by Karl Urban 😂😆
So interesting thing, I remember seeing this scene play out on the video game adaptation of QoS and was surprised to see the action beats happening in a much clear way. I had no idea Bond steers right to dodge the truck until I saw the video game cut scene. Even though I had seen the film TWICE before I did.
I have seen movie about 3 times, and i rememberd that car chase happening, but in my memory it was just one car chasing after another, without any recollection of trucks.
Interestingly (or is it), in most actual fighting theory, the concept of "distance" is seldom used in comparison to the concept of "measure" (or ma'aï in the japanese stuff - ). Which means that what matters isn't a precise absolute knowledge of where you stand but rather the knowledge of where you are in relation to your opponents and consequently, how many actions of feet and hands is needed to be reached. Knowing where you are in space is less important than knowing where you stand in relation to a dangerous other. And naturally this measure is always changing because a fight is a mobile affair, therefore you need to re-evaluate said measure at all times.
And that's why I suppose wide shots, or any sorts of shot, which allow you to perceive or establish clearly the moving space between the different protagonists is key to understand any action, even if the weapons are guns and cars rather than swords and fists.
Funnily enough, I feel a good example of geography in a car chase is the chase in Spectre, with James in the silver Aston Martin and Dave Batista (can't be asked to google his name in the movie) in the red/maroon Jaguar. The scene is well paced so as to be exciting and suspenseful but still easy enough for the viewer to follow.
...shame bout the rest of the movie though.
Hey so this is the most scholarly literate and spot on analysis of this subject I've ever seen. And Wrong Trousers (as Danny Boyle put it) is the greatest action scene in film history
Really neat stuff. I would've been one of the people blaming shaky cam lol. Would you consider doing an analysis on a scene from The Raid? I think that it'd make for a good episode.
A really good example of this is the Opera sequence in mission impossible 5
THANK YOU for pointing out that shaky cam and fast editing are not necessarily bad things in and of themselves. They are tools to create a sense of energy and velocity, and when done right (like with Paul Greengrass) they can be effective. Great work, here!
In my opinion the frantic nature of QoS action scenes is intended rather than the lack of talents, showing James Bond’s blind rage towards the ones killed Vesper. The similar, but more radical approach is that of the Opera scene. In this scene, the director Marc Forster decided to giving the aural priority to the Opera score rather than the actual fight sound effects. That worked slightly better than the infamous opening, but the problem is the same; most audiences just don’t get the idea why.
There are two key problems that caused this mess. The first one is that Marc Forster didn’t understand the nature of the action genre. Prior to the Bond film his whole career was based on drama-oriented indie films. Stay, the box office bomb that I strangely craved, was the most effect and stunt driven film that he’s ever done, but it is a completely different beast from the Bond movie: a claustrophobic, mind-bending character study. Forster seemed to deal with QoS, a story about the revenge with a brooding, blind-folded rage and the redemption en route. The approach may have worked in a much smaller indie film, but as a part of the larger-than-life, escapism-based Bond franchise it’s a baffling choice.
The second problem is that Hollywood in the 2000s expects its audience to have watched the previous franchise releases. The second Pirates of the Caribbean, for example, skips the character introductions and starts with the highly stylized introduction of the new villain. The newcomer to the series must’ve been confused at least, there’s no freaking clue who these characters are. QoS took the same path: skipping introductory moments and cutting to the chase, in a literal sense. That just didn’t work. Except avid followers of Casino Royale the opening of QoS was just a confusing set of car chase and crash montages. Please be gentle to the new audience, Hollywood.
Another great essay. And love the shout out to BULLITT at the end.
The second you asked her, "what happened" my computer screen froze. It took me way too long to figure out it wasn't just her thinking about it in silence.
Great essay!!!! I'm impressed, i mean, this is really useful information not just a bunch of shallow concepts that means nothing, and yet, it never gets boring, i really love video essays about movies, and i can tell thats one of the best one that i have seen.
Really enlightening! It definitely answered a question that I have been asking for years, but haven't been able to put into words.
You hit the nail on the head.
I think you're spot on about long shots. No, they're not better per se. But it's a guarantee for some things at least. Consistent perspective, and most importantly, there's a guarantee that there's at least thought put into the shot. So many action scenes nowadays are just shot by aiming a couple of (zoomed in handheld) camera's aimed at the action and put together in the edit. Bourne occasionally has shots that really only last a couple of frames, but each shot still feels purposeful.
So glad you pointed out Quantum of Solace, literally one of the worst cut films I've ever had to try to lay eyes on. The script is fine and in many regards unique and dynamic for Bond, and some beautiful cinematography, but all wasted by overtly sporadic, erratic, manic butchery. Better off watching the B-roll of the chases. I tried explaining my distaste for the action editing to my buds while we were Bonding, how a scene comprised only of millisecond coverage cuts doesn't seem to cover much at all as far as relaying the scope and stakes of the scene, how the filmmakers are almost literally cutting away from the action, robbing us of cool shit to gander and essentially robbing the studio who fronts the bill, but my pals just scratched their heads. I get it, "intensity, disarray, momentum, etc.", but Bond is slyly calm and focused under pressure even when out for blood, he is a killer by nature and occupation (with the ladies too ;), and there is nothing to reflect that visually when there's no focus or rhythm to the sequencing. And plainly, when even an easily enthralled viewer becomes more interested in how long it will take for the the filmmakers to get around to a shot with a duration of more than two seconds, you can't help but be aware that they fucking blew it with this polished turd and the director is a cunt. Thank you kindly for emphasizing this to others, Mr. Willems, it brings me... quantized solace.
I'd also like to give special mention to the palsy-ridden cameramen of the past decade utilized to capture "realism" by shaking the camera to near nausea inducing results even amidst a simple dialogue scene. I get the whole hand-held, lo-fi, mad-dash stuff, but when I have a conversation with someone, I don't bobble my head like a newborn crack baby. Time to dust off the ol' tripod, folks.
I think each and every scene in the Quantum of Solace could've been long takes inter-cut by establishing shots because they aren't so complex. I think that's the problem. Action directors think complexity heightens the excitement, whereas it's the exact opposite if it's shot well enough.
Bourne used shakey cam in that scene deliberately, to establish the sense of confusion Bourne experiences inside the car. It's usually used nowadays to 'hide' the lack of stunt coordination. It makes me think of magicians, they show as much as possible-in fact too much-to hide 1 moment of sleight-of-hand. You don't palm a coin by hiding your hand, you do it by pointing to your hand to make people believe you haven't already moved it.
The car chases in John Frankenheimer's Ronin. The 1920s bicycle chase in Sammo Hung's Project A. The one-man warehouse raid in John Woo's Hard Boiled. Just throwing those suggestions out there for those who haven't seen them.
I get why people would comment so passionately about the car, I'm a car guy, too. But, I understood your point and learned more about the geography of a scene. Thanks, again, Patrick :)
This plays a big part in the reason why I fucking hate fast-cut editing and shaky cam. Those kind of directors don't give the audience much time to process where each character is and what's happening.
Quantum of Solace is a great example of action done wrong. It's particularly frustrating for me, because I actually like most everything about the film that's not an action scene. It's one of those spectacularly bad action movies that's at its worst when an action scene breaks out.
I specifically remember thinking, when I saw it in theaters, "What the f^&* happened? This is awful!"
Quantom of Solace is just so bad, I can't believe how expensive it was to make and that was the best they could do.
Yep - this is the really weird part. It is one thing to use this style in B-movies to hide the lack of budget and the inability to crash real cars. But this movie would have had the chance of choerographing action and camera movement so all the details they paid for anyway could form some meaningful sequence.
Crazy Marker Films They should have kept Martin Campbell. GoldenEye and Casino Royale were both great Bond films.
I don't think Spectre is much better.
It's amazing how the Craig films have two of the best entries and two of the worst in the Bond franchise.
SPECTRE is almost a parody of a Bond film but lacking any humor. If someone took all the elements associated with Bond and cut and pasted them together while sapping them of any fun. An Anti-Austin-Powers. By far the least enjoyable Bond film for me, regardless of any superficial elements of film-making skill.
It's Thunderball-level boring with a title song, and sequence which is among the very worst in the franchise. A plot which is nearly Moonraker-level ridiculous, and a Craig who clearly does not want to be in the movie. Only Waltz and Fiennes seem to put any effort in.
SPECTRE is the 'Die Another Day' of the Craig era.
Maybe.
It's hard to imagine having a less enjoyable theater experience than I had with SPECTRE.
Beginning with that weird couch gag, then the awful Sam Smith song and the movie never did get back on track.
I've rarely been as thuddingly disappointed as I was watching that movie. I didn't even go into Bautista.
About all it had going for it was the cinematography and occasionally the score.
LOL on the people complaining about the car. The thing (mistake?) I noticed was the abrupt volume change on the BG music on the end-of-video comments. I understand the need to emphasize Patrick's voice there since it's more important than the BGM, and earlier videos had a higher volume BGM after the volume drop, but for this much I think it'd go better with a slower drop in volume, or two-three separate smaller drops.
That type of shaky cam is unbearable, I quit watching QoS after that opening scene.
Hope to see more of this series.
This was one of the reasons why I liked Stephen Strange's first full fledged magic fight when he arrives at the New York house. At first he can't find anybody and the scene is about him and the audience discovering the house, taking in the magical items and whatnots. Later, when he runs into the bad guys we already know where in the house they are fighting, as the fight takes place throughout the house, and because Strange was playing with a few items we have an expectation on how they are implemented in the fight and thus gives you excitement and expectations while watching a cool spectacle.
Boy, I didn’t think Quantum was that bad. Lol! I really didn’t have any trouble following it but then I can pick out an Aston from a sea of same colored cars from a mile away. Maybe it’s asking the audience too much to do the same.
I think the scene showed in Jurassic Park is one of the most confusing geographic loophole in film history.
Thought I was alone in finding that car scene from QOS confusing. Thank you!
Great video essay.. totally agree that geography is an important factor so few directors get right. However, still think shaky cam should be used super sparingly.. most annoying film invention ever
Patrick........
amazing video.
It would be interesting if there's a film with the whole movie having no cuts at all.
Man action really did suck a decade ago. Hollywood was blind chasing a trend they didn't fully understand, so we were left with 4-5 years with some truly unspectacular spectacle.
@ 6:00 *big black Merc' or G-Wagon or Benz ; )
You are a big inspiration to me! When I grow up I want to become a filmmaker so thanks for helping me with your videos!
I did a comparative film analysis paper of precisely this scene from Qos, which of course required me to watch it multiple times and holy shit is it a masterpiece of desorientation. My favorite bit is the give or take 4 frames of Bond’s car hitting the guardrail in the opposite frame direction of where was going in the previous shot. 😂
QoS was riddled with accidents during filming, and was halted several times. One of the main accidents dealt with the drivers in the opening scene. Very possible they had to use what they had already shot without re-shooting due the accident.
patrick you are awesome dude!
I'm applying your tips to my Pen and paper sessions. Thanks pal :D
Clearly pointing out geography to get across the stakes. I never thought about it that way!
I agree with everything you said about Quantum of Solace's opening car chase. Yet I never had trouble telling what was going on. Mind you I can only imagine the headache that scene brought on in the cinema.
After an establishing shot that is kind of a fakeout because it doesn't help you at all, you see a series of quick cuts of car parts and Bond's eyeball, that also don't help you at all. As you struggle to figure it out, the best clue you get is Bond's side mirror showing two pursuers, followed by a reflection in the side of his black car that lets you see the two black cars behind him. There's geography in these reflections, but it takes more work to figure out. Also one of those metaphors in film language: the reflections are telling us the "bad" guys are Bond's mirror image?
When the truck nearly slammed Bond into a wall, I wasn't sure which black car it was. At first I thought it was the bad guys in the Alfa. Then they reveal it was Bond. Next you see him on the wrong side of the road nearly being hit head-on by a truck. This is foreshadowing. Next thing you know Bond lures one of the cars to run head on, on the wrong side of the road, into another oncoming truck.
It seems pretty obvious that this sequence is set up do deliberately confuse you as to which car is which. Not knowing which car was blocked by the truck in the first part is intentional. You can complain that you don't like this kind of scene but the effect is what they were going for. The feeling of chaos and confusion is part of what is supposed to make the scene exciting to the audience. If your position is that you bought a ticket to be entertained therefore don't care if an SUV is a Mercedes or a Land Rover, does that square with the position that everyone must care exactly where each car is during a chase scene? You probably have a point but I'm not sure this is the best example.
What bothers me is why Bond waited so long to pull out that machine gun he had right there.
"I thought the editing was too fast"
"No what you don't like is the geography"
"Oh ok why is that?"
"The editing was too fast"
"Right, I'm such an idiot"
Yes, you are an idiot, because that was not what was said at all.
funny you mentioned Spielberg as the final battle in Saving Private Ryan is the perfect counter example to this, there is no clear geography, the entire secuence is confusing as fuck and yet it works perfectly
Miyazaki is a master of Geometry too. Hell I could waltz into the bath house in Spirited Away and know whats up, that's impressive
0:11 That's a good "aw shit, now I feel bad" face.
love your videos essay or non-essay, keep doing it
That's why I LOVE it Jackie Chan's Action Movies.
Sir,i loved it please do more video essays on action scenes
Fun Fact - in Poland all SUV's are simply called Jeeps. Perhaps similarly Patrick just named a type of a car with a common name for SUV'S - Land Rover, and thus creating a generic trademark. (great video btw)
Also, all diapers are called Pampers, all running shoes are Adidas, razors are żyletki (gilette) and most importantly bicycles are called Rower after the company Rover, BOOOOOOM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark
GREAT critiques. I could not possibly agree more.
I can't even tell anyone how angry it makes me to watch what COULD BE AN AMAZING FILM with emotionally rich, interesting characters... in clearly wonderful costumes... with gorgeous music and riveting sound... beautifully arranged over magnificent sets/locations/CGI-ifications...
...only to see it all ~FCUKED~ UP IN THE EDITING ROOM because Jumpy McFranticpants wants to slice apart the shots into what could only be called "throwing the footage into 'The Cuisinart Mincer 2000' and in the aftermath... sort it out".
Did I mention it makes me angry? Yes, I did. But really... IT MAKES ME ANGRY.
#HulkSMASH
Ah how much I love the Helm's deep battle! More than the Minas Tirith battle in the next movie, and now I think I know why. :D
Wasn't the QoS opening cut that way because one of the cars crashed partway through and they had to cut around it? It doesn't make it good but at least they weren't deliberately trying to bamboozle everyone.
Even if that were the case, there still needed to be some early planning on how to make the geography clear regardless of the geography. If they had given Bond a different colored car from the bad guys and maybe held on to the shots longer if they could, the scene would have been a bit more tolerable.
THAT's the new Patreon logo? Completely unrecognizable!
Kind of ironic how you cite Jurassic Park for an example of good scene geography when it includes that infamous cliff that still has people arguing about its plausibility over 20 years later.
I remember there being a comment about Battle Field Earth that the director "knew some people used dutch tilts, but didn't know why so he just used a bunch of them" (might have heard that on this channel). Shakey cam is same, when used correctly it can work even if not everyone likes it. Or it can be overused and just annoying.
Fun fact: Dan Bradley choreographed both the Quantum of Solace chase and the Bourne Supremacy chase.
Listen to Forster, in interviews for quantum. He said that he wanted, and deliberately wanted, to create confusion and you be with Bond in his confusion. The chase in the sewers, after the the credits has the same problem. Nice video though and I understand your point completely.
The perception of the car chase in _Bullitt_ is, as we all know, widely agreed to be of nearly mythical levels of importance to cinema. I am among those who share some version of that adulation. I also, however, find within the visual storytelling of that car chase a hilarious irony. The _absolutely earned_ prestige of the chase sequence, itself essentially a gem of a short film, within the cinematic treasure that is _Bullitt,_ starkly contrasts the bizarrely brazen and seemingly avoidable oddity I'm about to describe. Akin to the glitching black cat in _The Matrix,_ most of this weirdness involves a particular Volkswagen Beetle appearing like a misguided character actor from _Extras,_ repeatedly ambling through the periphery of different shots as the green Mustang and black Charger squeal and roar past.
In what are without question intended to be physically and chronologically disparate parts of the of the car chase sequence (as opposed to intentional repetition of a particularly spectacular or fast-paced scene from different camera angles). What is obviously a single take, shot from at least two different camera perspectives, is presented as two distinct parts of the chase. As though it was two unrelated cameras showing different scenes. One of the shots takes place earlier than the other, with other parts of the chase shown between them. I believe this establishes that this could not have been intended to be a sports-broadcast type of action replay.
It's annoying now that I can't un-see it, but it doesn't keep me from still getting the tingles as McQueen and his pursuers creep through San Francisco sharing the knowledge that _it's about to pop off._ Hell, probably most of why I see these inconsistencies comes from my repeated and sometimes consecutive viewings of the chase sequence; because it's awesome and I love it, and the movie as a whole.
The chase sequence retains substantial merit even alone, divorced of the larger story, but like combining Power Rangers, the chase reciprocates outsized enhancement with the unparalleled *cool* of _Bullitt._ Not to even mention the crushingly cooool opening credits sequence, which I also hold as a benchmark.
The seat belts clicks on. A perfect pause in the tense but slow onscreen physical action provides just enough time to think about why so much is being made of a guy putting on his seat belt before shattering under the jarring, sudden roar of high-output V-8 engines. Despite a couple of problems so glaring that I can laugh at 'em, it otherwise holds its own in comparison to the honed pacing in the most expertly crafted modern cinema. Just like the first time I enjoyed a viewing of _Drive, _ I can still get the tingles in anticipation and tension as I sit rapt in front of any screen showing _Bullitt._
Oky doky, got an ad break after 1:29. I really enjoyed your video about trilogies but if this is how the rest of them are going to be… no thank you.
The opening of Quantum of Solace is basically the intro to Lupin the 3rd: First Contact done poorly.
I really wish someone would do a breakdown of one of my favourite action scenes which has really great geography: the fight from Old Boy. Probably the best fight scene in Korean cinema, and definitely world class.
After that video, I kind of want to see Patrick doing a video on Bullitt.
Thanks for your videos Patrick ....I'm gaining lot of knowledge from you
Thank you for the excellent essay. Something you didn't mention was that the truck driver looks like Daniel Craig, adding to the confusion. Also, interesting that you site the Bullet car chase in the context of geography: they do a lot of cheating, most apparently in the shots with the dark volkswagon beetle (or was it a Land Rover ;-) ). All that aside, however, these scenes are often shot by stunt co-ordinators, with little or no participation from the director.
It's crazy how professionals don't realize what seems obvious to the rest of us.
7:40 I've watched the Quantum of Solace chase countless times, and this is the first time I've ever realized there's a third truck here. That cut has bothered me for years because the geography from one shot to the next made no sense.
Yoo mary low key hella cute
War of the Worlds gettin some love! Fantastic and underrated film! So good!
it's a shame that the Bond films fell so hard in the opening action scene department, the chase down the Thames that kicks off The World Is Not Enough is one of my favorites. Bond ends up using multiple forms of transportation to get from point A to point B but it's all very linear, easy to follow, and has a couple of sly comedic beats as well.
Blue Flame the Raid movies is a must! Is it a thing already? If not why not...?!
A more complex comparison: Van Helsing vs League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Both movies have multi-front battle sequences that combine for the climactic battle. But Van Helsing is clear, where LEG is choppy and hard to follow.
casino royale's opening parkour scene is the only opening bond scene that I clearly remember.
I think a big fix for this particular scene would have been to position the camera from the side for the majority of the action. In action movies, the most effective way to shoot a fight scene is to frame the conflict in a way where every blow, every block, every dodge, every weapon used is visible from a third person perspective. This is the reason why Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan movies have aged so well, because we can actually see the result of every action onscreen. Now compare the previous examples to movies like Taken 3, Battlefield Earth, and the Bourne series and it's not nearly as coherent. I think the same logic can definitely be applied here
Many people would be quite shocked that you can't see a distinct difference between an Aston Martin and an Alfa Romeo.
Happy to see someone finally give credit to Bourne Supremacy's good editing. So many people call it quick and shaky but if you really analyze it, the editing mirrors the story and it's actually quite fantastic.
Gods I love these! More essays! MOAR!
I can identify the cars at a glance and I'm able to follow everything that happens in the Quantum chase, but it takes a lot more mental energy than if it were shot and edited clearly. It takes so much attention to piece together the cause and effect of the action that I'm not able to actually enjoy it.
Hi, Will. I fully agree with the way you've analyzed the car chase scene in Quantum of Solace. When you look at the industry, you open the lines of technical understanding about where a particular scene failed. I like the reviews. I'm a beginner filmmaker. I would like to ask you about a subject that has made me almost go crazy in film school. When you get a negative review of your movie, does it help you make better movies? How to deal positively with this? You see, all of us filmmakers have received good or bad reviews. But the negatives are also true, and much good is the lies of friends who do not want to commit to speak badly of the partner. How to deal with it? I would like to see a video of you on this.
I haven't seen a bad action scene in a while, personally I've never seen a bad action scene before. I'm always able to figure out what's happening. Which is weird.
I had zero problem understanding the scene and loved it as-is. Maybe watch a Wes Anderson movie if you want slower editing?
The action scenes in Quantum of Solace were the WORST I had seen in a long time. And then, I saw Venom. There's a new champion
While i agree with your point, and even agree that geography isn't the QoS chase scenes strong point, i'm not sure if it was meant to be. QoS is not one of Craig's best bond films but i did notice a lot of artistic juxtaposition going on in action scenes that seem to out class other bond films and go for the most part unnoticed.