two
First Post
I finally saw this movie.
It was schlocky, granted, conceived as schlock and produced as schlock. The trouble was, I found it BORING. That is death to all schlock.
After talking to my friends, who generally liked the movie, and reading the critics, who generally liked it, a "defense" of the movie goes something like this.
1) The plot was linear and repetitive because the kung-fu sources have linear and repetitive plots (revenge -> kill everyone, etc.).
2) The dialogue was intentionally stilted and "bad" because the kung-fu precursors featured really bad dialogue.
3) The sets and color scheme were from the 60's and 70's because that's the time frame of a lot of the kung-fu precurors.
4) The sound track was great.
5) The blood and guts and violence was over the top and cheesy, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precusors.
6) The "character development" and emotional involvement in the characters is nill, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precursors.
7) There are some stylish actions scenes.
In other words, except for 4) and 7), if something is self-knowingly "bad" or "cheesy" because it "wink winks" at a typically bad genre (sock'em kung fu), it is magically... not "bad" or "cheesy" somehow?
Explain this?
This is the self-referential laziness that I have never found digestible, in movies, or literature, or art of any kind.
If you create something that is self-knowingly bad, how it that different from the "bad" original? (except that you KNOW it is bad when you are creating it, thus opening yourself up to the sensible criticism that, if you KNOW it is bad, why not...make it good instead?).
At most you generate a short laugh - "yeah, that old kung-fu movie dialogue really was bad." Which is fine, if you hear a line or two. Good joke. But 4 hours of it?
What if, instead of stilted and lame dialogue, the movie had not just regurgitated stilted and lame dialogue, but instead... substituted some reasonably good dialogue? At least once in a while?
Ditto character development, ditto plot, ditto rather disgusting over-the-top violence, ditto time period (really, the 70's are pretty de riguer these days in movies).
I just don't see how the movie is anything but self-indulgent and ultimately a bore.
If you don't buy into the "making fun of bad stuff by being bad is cool somehow" trope, what does this movie have to offer?
(besides a good sound track and some decent but not top-of-the-line action sequences? - which is a feeble payoff for the investment of time)
It was schlocky, granted, conceived as schlock and produced as schlock. The trouble was, I found it BORING. That is death to all schlock.
After talking to my friends, who generally liked the movie, and reading the critics, who generally liked it, a "defense" of the movie goes something like this.
1) The plot was linear and repetitive because the kung-fu sources have linear and repetitive plots (revenge -> kill everyone, etc.).
2) The dialogue was intentionally stilted and "bad" because the kung-fu precursors featured really bad dialogue.
3) The sets and color scheme were from the 60's and 70's because that's the time frame of a lot of the kung-fu precurors.
4) The sound track was great.
5) The blood and guts and violence was over the top and cheesy, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precusors.
6) The "character development" and emotional involvement in the characters is nill, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precursors.
7) There are some stylish actions scenes.
In other words, except for 4) and 7), if something is self-knowingly "bad" or "cheesy" because it "wink winks" at a typically bad genre (sock'em kung fu), it is magically... not "bad" or "cheesy" somehow?
Explain this?
This is the self-referential laziness that I have never found digestible, in movies, or literature, or art of any kind.
If you create something that is self-knowingly bad, how it that different from the "bad" original? (except that you KNOW it is bad when you are creating it, thus opening yourself up to the sensible criticism that, if you KNOW it is bad, why not...make it good instead?).
At most you generate a short laugh - "yeah, that old kung-fu movie dialogue really was bad." Which is fine, if you hear a line or two. Good joke. But 4 hours of it?
What if, instead of stilted and lame dialogue, the movie had not just regurgitated stilted and lame dialogue, but instead... substituted some reasonably good dialogue? At least once in a while?
Ditto character development, ditto plot, ditto rather disgusting over-the-top violence, ditto time period (really, the 70's are pretty de riguer these days in movies).
I just don't see how the movie is anything but self-indulgent and ultimately a bore.
If you don't buy into the "making fun of bad stuff by being bad is cool somehow" trope, what does this movie have to offer?
(besides a good sound track and some decent but not top-of-the-line action sequences? - which is a feeble payoff for the investment of time)
