"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:dypjb.780228$YN5.771263@sccrnsc01...
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...


that's like complaining that the tail fins on 50s classic cars are
unrealistic, serves no technical purpose and therefore owners of those
cars have been duped. similarily, certain fans of super-resolution,
hi-fidelity photographic pictures may theoretically decry the
unrealistic, formless faces of impressionism and reason the lack of
realism detracts from beauty, and in fact is a source of ugliness --
but these are more an aesthetic calls than anything else.

what tarantino understands methinks, and that i quite agree with, is
that movies are inherently unrealistic. now, that doesn't give
license to making incoherent dialog or fanciful scenes of sugared
kaleidoscopes and but it certainly doesn't preclude a vast middle
ground where entertainment and reality freely mix. (the bush admin is
a case in point, but that's another post.)

the bottom line for most people is that they want movies to *feel*
real up to a point, but in the end, they just want to be entertained
for chrissakes. afterall, the market for amnesty international-type
realism or the harvard business review-type documentaries is only so
big.






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.