Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1504148" data-attributes="member: 151">Well, it obviously has a different meaning to me than you, I think.&nbsp; I think you intellectually 'get it', but you state clearly afterwards that you didn't enjoy the specific parts of the martial arts genre that Tarantino is actually trying the hardest to emulate, namely the Shaw Bros. films of the 70s.&nbsp; I can understand, intellectually, why someone would enjoy Death Metal...but I don't 'get it'.&nbsp; I'm not saying that you don't understand it, just that I'd couch your review differently than say, Teflon Billy's, because his tastes clearly skew closer to mine than yours do.&nbsp; I'm not nay-saying your opinion...if you think it was flawed or inherently not going to work based on the material, I can't say that you're wrong.&nbsp; That'd be my opinion of your opinion. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See Teflon Billy's statements vis a vis the language of martial arts cinema, and then check back on my comments on not being a film that could be so easily pigeon-holed.&nbsp; My point was that this you and I clearly see KB v2 as having roots in two different genres.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I'm sorry, I looked and I'm not seeing where you do.&nbsp; Was it in this thread?&nbsp; Were you referring to this passage?&nbsp;&nbsp;I'm not being snarky here, and perhaps you think I'm trying to be, which I'm not.&nbsp; I'm just trying to get a feel for what got you in the theater.&nbsp; But I don't see a specific instance of 'I hate Tarntino, but I had to go see this movie because...'.&nbsp; I have seen you say that you thought the first movie was foul and that you think that Tarantino hasn't gotten past his juvenile stage, which is fine.&nbsp; But it sounded like you went in knowing you that, for you, the film would never be equal to the sum of it's parts, because the genre is one you don't enjoy, the director is one whose works you historically don't like as a whole film-maker (though you enjoy parts) and that you didn't enjoy the first installment of what is, essentially, the same movie.&nbsp; It's just something I wouldn't have done, given similar circumstances, so I found it curious.&nbsp;I mean, I'm hardly QT's biggest fan.&nbsp; I've seen Pulp Fiction once, and I wasn't sure if I enjoyed it or not...but it certainly was different.&nbsp; I've never seen Resevoir Dogs or Jackie Brown.&nbsp;Quick question: do you think that it was the violence itself that makes the concept flawed, the 'revenge' aspect or the excution of one or both together?&nbsp; That is to say, can a film like, say, 'Gladiator' ever be considerd, IYHO, on the same level as a 'Chariots of Fire', for example?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 1504148, member: 151"] Well, it obviously has a different meaning to me than you, I think. I think you intellectually 'get it', but you state clearly afterwards that you didn't enjoy the specific parts of the martial arts genre that Tarantino is actually trying the hardest to emulate, namely the Shaw Bros. films of the 70s. I can understand, intellectually, why someone would enjoy Death Metal...but I don't 'get it'. I'm not saying that you don't understand it, just that I'd couch your review differently than say, Teflon Billy's, because his tastes clearly skew closer to mine than yours do. I'm not nay-saying your opinion...if you think it was flawed or inherently not going to work based on the material, I can't say that you're wrong. That'd be my opinion of your opinion. :) See Teflon Billy's statements vis a vis the language of martial arts cinema, and then check back on my comments on not being a film that could be so easily pigeon-holed. My point was that this you and I clearly see KB v2 as having roots in two different genres. I'm sorry, I looked and I'm not seeing where you do. Was it in this thread? Were you referring to this passage? I'm not being snarky here, and perhaps you think I'm trying to be, which I'm not. I'm just trying to get a feel for what got you in the theater. But I don't see a specific instance of 'I hate Tarntino, but I had to go see this movie because...'. I have seen you say that you thought the first movie was foul and that you think that Tarantino hasn't gotten past his juvenile stage, which is fine. But it sounded like you went in knowing you that, for you, the film would never be equal to the sum of it's parts, because the genre is one you don't enjoy, the director is one whose works you historically don't like as a whole film-maker (though you enjoy parts) and that you didn't enjoy the first installment of what is, essentially, the same movie. It's just something I wouldn't have done, given similar circumstances, so I found it curious. I mean, I'm hardly QT's biggest fan. I've seen Pulp Fiction once, and I wasn't sure if I enjoyed it or not...but it certainly was different. I've never seen Resevoir Dogs or Jackie Brown. Quick question: do you think that it was the violence itself that makes the concept flawed, the 'revenge' aspect or the excution of one or both together? That is to say, can a film like, say, 'Gladiator' ever be considerd, IYHO, on the same level as a 'Chariots of Fire', for example? [/QUOTE]

Verification