Yeah, I mean, movies never show guns accurately either. Not ragging on you, Llakor, because there's nothing worse than when a movie inaccuracy breaks your suspension of disbelief. But if you're an expert on something, you can probably expect to see it depicted wrong.
Caught a free preview screening last night. I had seen some previews for this but was not overly interested in seeing it, but for free I will pretty much see anything.
That being said I was happily surprised with this film. It was a really good movie. The acting was very well done from the entire cast with Nick Nolte stealing the show. He deserves some kind of award recognition for this.
The fight scenes were well done, the stories were well told, and moved along at a good pace. The best part overall is the finale where you are just not sure what is going to happen.
I highly recommend this film to anybody, even people who are not into MMA the story will keep you interested.
Originally posted by Mr. BoffoYeah, I mean, movies never show guns accurately either. Not ragging on you, Llakor, because there's nothing worse than when a movie inaccuracy breaks your suspension of disbelief. But if you're an expert on something, you can probably expect to see it depicted wrong.
I guess except that the film gets so much wrong that it starts to get distracting. And the fights are shot so badly that its annoying. I like Ebert's line "Although the fighters must duck and weave, why must the camera?"
Originally posted by odessastepsWhich is funny, since I was led to believe Meltzer liked it.
That's not quite what he posted on the Observer boards.
Spoiler Below: Highlight text to read
Saw it a week ago. First 2/3 is real good. Last third some will like, but I had qualms with it. (...) Really good until the end. The audience did not leave thinking MMA was a sport, and the guys who wrote the movie clearly were big MMA fans. I've talked to a lot of major people in MMA about it, they saw it themselves and not in a theater and had a different reaction to a degree, but we were in agreement the portrayal of MMA was as freak show savagery and not sport, both the fight content and how the announcers called the matches. (...) And it worked against the movie. In the theater, mostly teenagers, they were thinking MMA was the coolest thing in the world halfway into the movie. When it was over, everyone was quiet and had this blank look on their face and they thought MMA was like dog fighting.
Originally posted by Amos CochranAll due respect to Meltzer et cetera, it's not up to the filmmakers to portray MMA as those within the industry wish it to be portrayed.
(edited by Amos Cochran on 9.9.11 1028)
Well, no, but Meltzer does have a point that the things which (some) movie viewers object to are things that WOULD NEVER HAPPEN in a sanctioned MMA event.
UFC was never human cockfighting, as John McCain famously said so long ago, but it was pretty fucking ridiculous back in the day. Guys fighting with one glove, one night tournaments...I mean really, it was a Van Damme movie. Even today, people get 70K bonuses for "knockout of the night", so obviously this is a business model that goes out of its way to reward violence. If you took Dana White's word for it you'd almost think it didn't involve punching kicking kneeing and elbowing in the head and face, choking people, and compromising joints to their pathological limits. Doubtless it requires skill, but it is brutal violence for the entertainment of bloodthirsty fans.
(edited by Hogan's My Dad on 11.9.11 1747) Quiet, Or Papa Spank!
No, I just can't buy the "dial-a-terrorist" theory. When the mugging occurred, the thug knew what he was after. If the guy was that inexperienced, how would he have known to get a hold of the terrorists in the first place?