08-31-2005, 09:29 PM
kandrathe,Aug 31 2005, 12:19 PM Wrote: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