ext_4473 ([identity profile] unquietsoul5.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] xiphias 2007-04-10 02:39 am (UTC)

Actually, compared to many movies in the martial arts genre I thought it was much better in regards to it's camera angles, pacing etc.

I preferred the first film to the second, the second had far too many 'shock elements' put in purely for their gore factor rather than advancing plot or developing character.

Like most martial action films (and most action films) there is a some artistic license taken along the way, and some obvious referential bits that are just there to connect it with all the action films that have gone before it in the genre.

It's not Crouching Tiger, certainly, but it's a lot better than Kung Fu Hustle which is one of the most over hyped and pathetic hack jobs to make it into American distribution.

And it did the two things that a film has to do. It entertained and it made money. Most mainstream American film is not art, and much of it is just rework and redoing what was done before over and over and over again. Hollywood doesn't do much in the way of original films, the upcoming year of sequels and remakes is proof of that.

At least Tarantino won't do a "Kill Bill Returns" or some other studio crud.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
No Subject Icon Selected
More info about formatting