Not to nitpick you or anything Jay, but me thinks you might have
missed the point of this movie. Now, that being said, no, I have not
yet seen this one. BUT, reading interviews with Tarantino, that was
his intention. This was a pure action movie; the plot was supposed
to be secondary to the action scenes.

Hmm. So saying "I meant that" makes a bad film okay? Sounds like the
classic refuge of an incompetent director, to me.

A *good* director successfully combines plot AND action.

The carnage was SUPPOSED to be unrealistic. The gore and violence are
supposed to be over the top, it's an homage to the Asian Kung-Fu
movies of the 60's and 70's. One of the reasons that it got an R
rating instead of NC-17 for the violence was because the violence is
done so unrealisticly.

So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a weak
plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the aim
of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and 70s?
While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on more
than one level here...

Tarantino must be laughing himself silly.

Oh well -- I'll always remember Uma Thurman, in tight leather, neatly
slicing off Lucy Liu's cranium -- and then watching her die.

Yeah -- a real "classic" movie, this one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"