Greatest guy flicks

[kandrathe]

ooops, meant to edit.

[Ashock]

First in order to appreciate "guy films" you must adopt the proper frame of mind.  Step aside from your inner connoisseur, and look deeply within for that slavering id driven monkey, send the womenfolk off to the stores, order a Meat-Lovers pizza, and crack open a brewskie.

Film quality is secondary to the MAN fulfilling quest for lots of action, fight scenes and explosions, little dialogue (one liners are ok), car chases, while surrounded by pouty gorgeous vulnerable women.

If your wife and/or girlfriend reads this board, then I understand your "position".  ::wink:: ::wink::

P.S.  It might also be guy movie conditioning, which begins at a very young age.  I had to leave for work this morning, but I would have rather stayed home and finished watching GODZILLA VS MECHAGODZILLA with my son.
[right][snapback]87772[/snapback][/right]

Let me be more direct here. I do not mind violence, I even like it. However, this was horribly rediculous and unrealistic violence. Now, I understand that this was sort of meant as a tribute to movies of this genre. Well, Elvis impersonators aren't really Elvis, are they?



-A

[--Pete]

Hi,

Hi,

Why NOT Kill Bill 2 ???   :w00t:
[right][snapback]87679[/snapback][/right]

Because Kill Bill 1 was an over the top action fest. Taking on 88 martial artists at once? No problem. Coming out of a long coma and overpowering everything in sight? Easy. This is a film that is totally enjoyable even when circumstances have reduced you to two working neurons ;) No plot, no character development, barely any coherent dialog.

But Kill Bill 2 tries to introduce all the elements that the first left out. Instead of 'no plot', you get a sappy plot. 'Character development' boils down to 'you're a mom and I'm raising your kid'. The dialog remains incoherent. And all this at the expense of kick ass action.

So, as any modern artist from Monet on can tell you, it is perfectively fine to leave bits out, indeed far preferable than to put them in poorly. The lack of literary constructs in 1 is far preferable than the poor implementation of those constructs in 2. And, as I said, it interferes with the kick ass action.

--Pete

[jahcs]

Let me be more direct here. I do not mind violence, I even like it. However, this was horribly rediculous and unrealistic violence. Now, I understand that this was sort of meant as a tribute to movies of this genre. Well, Elvis impersonators aren't really Elvis, are they?
-A
[right][snapback]87782[/snapback][/right]

The violence was exagerated on purpose. Combat with swords is normally romanticized instead of portrayed as the gruesome affair that it actually is (unless you're watching Braveheart ;) ) but in this movie it was taken so over the top the audience was laughing most of the way through.

[Doc]

The violence was exagerated on purpose.  Combat with swords is normally romanticized instead of portrayed as the gruesome affair that it actually is (unless you're watching Braveheart ;) ) but in this movie it was taken so over the top the audience was laughing most of the way through.
[right][snapback]87795[/snapback][/right]

I watched a sword vs knife fight. A real one. Started out as a bar fight. Guy went out to his pickup truck and got some sort of calvary sabre or something like it out from behind the seat of his truck.

Nothing, and I mean nothing at all to how movies portray a swordfight.

And yes, he was quite good and knew what he was doing.

Unfortunately, the guy with the boot knife was better.

And the town Sheriff with the shotgun had them both beat.

Gotta love living in the South.

[Attika]

Most all the above, plus a few more "guy films":

Rob Roy -- gotta see the fight scene at the end, Claymore vs. Saber (Epee?)

Lock, Stock, and 2 Smoking Barrels

Repo Man

The first and second Die Hard movies. (Bruce Willis does a buncha "guy films")

An American Werewolf in London

Spartacus

Kagemusha

The Seven Samurai




And my all-time favorite:

Yojimbo!

(The moment the dog trots by with a human hand in his mouth, you're hooked!)

[kandrathe]

Let me be more direct here. I do not mind violence, I even like it. However, this was horribly rediculous and unrealistic violence. Now, I understand that this was sort of meant as a tribute to movies of this genre. Well, Elvis impersonators aren't really Elvis, are they?
-A
[right][snapback]87782[/snapback][/right]

I'm hyper-analytical by nature and profession, so ALL movies are somewhat unrealistic to me. But, some of my favorite movies cross far from reality into campy, or ludicrous. :D I absolutely love the movie Big Trouble in Little China on many levels, but most people just don't get it. I have to stop myself from thinking about, for example, how a car would really explode. I'm pleasantly surprised when I see a movie scene that is somewhat realistic, for example, the epic gun battle in the movie Heat using special forces gun and run tactics.

So, if we examine just the sword fight in the bar with the Crazy 88's, I appreciated it from the genre nod to Kung-Fu theatre with the stylization of Kato from the Green Hornet. That scene was horrific, tedious, outrageous, deliciously cathartic, and lightly salted with humor. Other than the gore factor I think it worked for many people, and without the gore it would have been even more a farce. You can watch that scene and see Tarentino grinning with glee during the dailys.

But, for this movie I find myself asking at what point does Tarentino just do Tarentino rather than try to weave the styles of the Shaw Bros, De Palma, Lucio Fulci, Chang-Che, Sergio Leone, Kurosawa, Zhang Yimou and Busby Berkeley. So, artistic masturbation? Yes, but that seems to be the quintessential Tarentino.

[Ashock]

I'm hyper-analytical by nature and profession, so ALL movies are somewhat unrealistic to me.  But, some of my favorite movies cross far from reality into campy, or ludicrous.  :D  I absolutely love the movie Big Trouble in Little China on many levels, but most people just don't get it.  I have to stop myself from thinking about, for example, how a car would really explode.  I'm pleasantly surprised when I see a movie scene that is somewhat realistic, for example, the epic gun battle in the movie Heat using special forces gun and run tactics.

So, if we examine just the sword fight in the bar with the Crazy 88's, I appreciated it from the genre nod to Kung-Fu theatre with the stylization of Kato from the Green Hornet.  That scene was horrific, tedious, outrageous, deliciously cathartic, and lightly salted with humor.  Other than the gore factor I think it worked for many people, and without the gore it would have been even more a farce.  You can watch that scene and see Tarentino grinning with glee during the dailys.

But, for this movie I find myself asking at what point does Tarentino just do Tarentino rather than try to weave the styles of the Shaw Bros, De Palma, Lucio Fulci, Chang-Che, Sergio Leone, Kurosawa, Zhang Yimou and Busby Berkeley.  So, artistic masturbation?  Yes, but that seems to be the quintessential Tarentino.
[right][snapback]87813[/snapback][/right]

I think that my problem with that movie is the fact that I thought that it was not light enough and took itself too seriously relative to what was going on in it. IMO, it's tongue was not planted firmly enough in it's cheek. Plus, even as these types of movies go.... ok, 8-10 on one, even 5-7 on one is not realistic, but it makes for good action. 100-1? That's just too rediculous for rediculous. We'll just agree to disagree :)



-A

[Drasca]

100-1? That's just too rediculous for rediculous. We'll just agree to disagree :)
-A
[right][snapback]87835[/snapback][/right]

Exactly. Only a theatre driven large proboscis'ed poet fighter that sneaks through enemy front lines twice daily to deliver love for a woman who only loves in proxy and is married to another can do that. . . and steal all their hats. Plus, he's only able to in theatre backstage, with the lights dimmed, or curtains drawn.

100 assassins? No problem. Cyrano can pull it off. Battle of Thermopylae. Alamo. Song of Roland... well, they either bought enough time for others, or inspired others to fight.

[Rhydderch Hael]

The Replacement Killers. Little weak on story, and the action is quick and far between, but it has atmosphere. And Mira Sorvino in a black satin skirt putting a 9mm slug into a gangster's leg.

And another from the same director, Tears of the Sun. Unlike it's theatrical competitor Black Hawk Down, it didn't downplay the story of African civil strife into a gallery of "let's shoot every single black person in sight".

[jahcs]

And another from the same director, Tears of the Sun. Unlike it's theatrical competitor Black Hawk Down, it didn't downplay the story of African civil strife into a gallery of "let's shoot every single black person in sight".
[right][snapback]87867[/snapback][/right]

I disagree with your stance on your Black Hawk Down. The book BHD and the movie by Ridley Scott were about a battle in Mogadishu. The history of the rival warlords and civil war was only a backdrop for the true story - Delta Operators and US Rangers were sent in to the city to capture some of the warlord's henchmen and ended up in one of the heaviest firefights since Vietnam. It was about a city gone mad and the soldiers relying on each other and their training to survive.

If you read the book and watch the movie there is a little bit of racism, with the references of 'skinnies.' That was historical fact. 'Killing every black person in sight' is not what happened. There was the enemy and there were civilians. It just happend to be that the enemy and civilians were nearly 100% black. The book and the movie did not portray racism as motive for the killing that took place.

[Rhydderch Hael]

... There was the enemy and there were civilians. ...
[right][snapback]87870[/snapback][/right]

Aye, that's the cut: where were the civilians? In Black Hawk Down, we saw nothing but combatants. A city chock full of enemy combatants. The innocent civilian population? Virtually nonexistent in the film. The Americans were rolling through the streets, and every single native that popped up into view was an enemy to be fired upon. It was "us versus them" with a total absence of non-combatants caught in between. No true element of human tragedy displayed. Just intense wartime action sequences where the only suffering is of the physical body by combat injury. No indications of the emotional and spiritual suffering wrought by irrational hate that spurs these wars in the first place.

And "'...backdrop to the true story"?

[jahcs]

Aye, that's the cut: where were the civilians? In Black Hawk Down, we saw nothing but combatants. A city chock full of enemy combatants. The innocent civilian population? Virtually nonexistent in the film. The Americans were rolling through the streets, and every single native that popped up into view was an enemy to be fired upon. It was "us versus them" with a total absence of non-combatants caught in between. No true element of human tragedy displayed. Just intense wartime action sequences where the only suffering is of the physical body by combat injury. No indications of the emotional and spiritual suffering wrought by irrational hate that spurs these wars in the first place.

And "'...backdrop to the true story"?
[right][snapback]87900[/snapback][/right]

When the Ranger was forced into the house and came upon the woman and children he didn't open fire. The book also explains that most of the citizens in Mogadishu that moved towards the Rangers were armed combatants.

By backdrop to the true story I meant that the civil strife in Somalia is the why we were there. The tale being told is of the Delta and Rangers that were in the city and their actions during that afternoon and night. It was the story of a snatch and grab mission that went wrong. It was not a documentary on the human condition and the history of Mogadishu's gangs.

[WarLocke]

Kiss of the Dragon hasn't been mentioned yet.

I am very disappointed, lurkers. :angry:

[kandrathe]

...  100-1? That's just too rediculous for rediculous. We'll just agree to disagree :)
-A
[right][snapback]87835[/snapback][/right]

Well the ridiculousness was inherited from films like Hong Quan Yu Yong Chun where the inevitable conflict ends up as the lone surviving hero battling and defeating a cast of thousands. 7-10 adversaries? Heh, these Hong Kong genre films knock off that many as a warm up in the opening credits. :D

[jahcs]

Kiss of the Dragon hasn't been mentioned yet.

I am very disappointed, lurkers.  :angry:
[right][snapback]87928[/snapback][/right]

A good choice. I left it off my list for reasons unknown.

[Ashock]

Well the ridiculousness was inherited from films like Hong Quan Yu Yong Chun where the inevitable conflict ends up as the lone surviving hero battling and defeating a cast of thousands.  7-10 adversaries?  Heh, these Hong Kong genre films knock off that many as a warm up in the opening credits.  :D
[right][snapback]87943[/snapback][/right]

Yeh, you're right. However, I was never into Asian non-Bruce Lee martial arts movies.... so there :P


-A

[Rhydderch Hael]

...And the town Sheriff with the shotgun had them both beat.
[right][snapback]87796[/snapback][/right]

Kill Bill Vol. 2 played on the same sentiment. Taking on nearly a hundred katana-wielding gangsters is one thing, but the "greatest sword ever made by a man" was defeated by two barrels of rock salt.

Rock, paper, scissors. Boomstick beats all.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Kill Bill Vol. 2 played on the same sentiment. Taking on nearly a hundred katana-wielding gangsters is one thing, but the "greatest sword ever made by a man" was defeated by two barrels of rock salt.

Rock, paper, scissors. Boomstick beats all.
[right][snapback]88841[/snapback][/right]

Yep. Range counts for a lot. You can't hurt what you can't hit. OTOH, the fact that a knife does not jam has a lot to do with the last forty years of my life -- specifically that I had those years in the first place. Luck trumps boomstick.

--Pete

[NiteFox]

And yes, he was quite good and knew what he was doing.

Unfortunately, the guy with the boot knife was better. [right][snapback]87796[/snapback][/right]

Never bring a sword to a knife fight. You'll only lose ;)