I didn't say it was completely devoid, i was saying it was almost impossible to make a film that is. of course warrior's way has some good scenes, i even said so in my review. lois lane and col. striker gave the best fight in the movie, and they weren't the lead characters.
Originally Posted by It is Fake
i'm not sure why it came off like "i want discussion only on my terms," i just want discussion. der didn't explain why he liked geo at all in that review, so there was no discussion. he's responded in this thread, which means there's discussion and i'm happy.
Don't be a hypocrite by saying "I want discussion only on my terms" it makes you sound like rabbit.
I gave you my reasons for liking Geochilmaru in its original thread.
my barometer is standardized by how entertaining a movie is. just having a geeky-fun/deadliest warrior premise doesn't make something automatically entertaining.
Originally Posted by Bodhi108
babies don't make something automatically entertaining either.
and i lauded her for it. but she's not the main character, so it's a complete disappointment when the movie's climax points to the korean pop star to deliver the final catharsis. also, both the dancing and bosworth's fights only made up about 25% of the action, which left the vast majority looking like a cheap crouching tiger rip off.
The sword-dancing scenes were well-choreographed & Lois Lane was convincing in her final fight.
i was too. if they'd kept the motion graphics it would have set a much better tone to the rest of the movie, but instead they completely forget about it after the first scene, and we're left with a melodramatic circus (literally and figuratively) with hardly any entertainment value. if you're gonna do a comic book style movie, it should be consistently so. see zombieland, city of violence, or kill bill.
The opening was hilarious. I was disappointed they didn't keep up the comic-book scripting throughout the movie.
a better tomorrow is my roommate's favorite movie. regardless, lung ti was barely in the film at all, had an awful script, and acted terribly as a result. just like geoffrey rush, he was underused and became just another face to put asses in seats.
Showing you had no love for genre: You didn't notice that the lead ninja was also the lead in the classic dadashasha film "A Better Tomorrow"
i expect movies to deliver entertainment. as i've said in my previous reviews, i loved the expendables, machete, and black dynamite. they all had a lot of energy and engaging action sequences. warrior's way did not. it drags for more than an hour before anything starts heating up, and then fails to deliver an exciting finish. i've read plenty of action manwha, manga, and comics, and most of them know how to pull a reader in with an entertaining story, then deliver hardcore action as a strong payoff for investing in the characters.
Your problem is that you don't accept movies for what they are.
You walked into 1h40min live action manhwa and were disappointed that it wasn't "Last of the Mohicans".
i wonder if you're even reading my reviews, or if you're just reading what you want to see me say. i love dumb action movies, but if they don't have good action, what's the point?
1) Kill Bill was a fucking horrible movie. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
You should be banned from reviewing kung fu movies just for mentioning its name.
2) This was not a dumb action movie. Action movies are a Western genre. That is the central point of my issue with your reviews.
YOU DO NOT REVIEW THINGS IN CONTEXT.
City of Violence was a Korean dadashasha.
Zombieland is an American spoof.
Geochimaru is a Korean indie film project made by a director & his martial arts practitioner friend. Your judgement of it was completely out of context.
The Warrior's Way is a live action manhwa. It had plenty of violence at the beginning, good character development in the middle, and a great ending.
You expect movies to deliver entertainment to your standards. The problem is, your standards do not reflect the genre. There was no way the Warrior's Way would entertain you.
If you're going to judge everything with fight scenes or martial arts as "action movies", you're going to be disappointed no matter what.
Learn something about the genres you're reviewing. Learn something about the cultures you're reviewing.
Jang Dongeun /= Rain.
Actor /= pop star.
This right here.
Originally Posted by Bodhi108
I loved MA movies thing is I hated Jet LI movies. Why? I couldn't accept the difference between the genres in Action films.
I grew up watching Ti Lung (man I was happy to see him again), Jacki Chan, The Leung Brothers et etc etc.
The problem was I didn't separate Wuxia from "The Shapes" genre. Yes, they are two distinctly different types of movies. Once I was able to separate them, I actually enjoy Jet Li movies. Not all but, I can appreciate them on their own merit.
Warriors Way is a movie with Action not an Action Movie. It is similar to movies like the Baby Cart series or Zatoichi of old. Weird humor mixed in with a serious story line. Another genre, from Japan, that I didn't like at first. I had to learn to take them at value from their culture, their genre and the point.
Don't get me wrong I actually agree with quite a few of the flaws you pointed out.
Context is all well and good, but at some point films do need to stand on their own merits, regardless of genre. Machete, even without the Mexploitation parody context, is still entertaining because it has good characters, solid action, and an awesome soundtrack. Black Dynamite, on the other hand, is totally dependent on context, and thus isn't going to be worth the ticket price for someone unfamiliar with what a Blaxploitation film is. The main goal of any of my reviews is whether a film is worth the reader's time and money. If you're saying I need to have all this context and background information in order to review this movie, what about all the other readers, who also may not have that context? Now who's being pretentious?
Context is a funny thing also. If you say that the movie has good character development, I can say no it doesn't, because the hero doesn't demonstrate significant change over the course of the story. If you say it has has good fight scenes, I can say no it doesn't, because the choreography is simplistic and the lead looks awkward and clumsy. These are tangible aspects of filmmaking that can be analysed. Context, on the other hand, isn't really that tangible, and opens up a lot of room for excuses regarding decisions or mistakes made. Obviously, in Black Dynamite's case, the "mistakes" are part of the intention of the film in context. However, in The Warrior's Way, I don't think this is the case with the issues I discuss in my original article. Now, if you find the movie entertaining regardless of these issues, that's fine, it's your personal taste. However, speaking for the average movie-goer/forum-reader, I doubt the contextual knowledge you speak of will be present, and thus the film will not be enjoyable to them.
Just as a last note, I thought that another Korean Western film, "The Good, The Bad, The Weird," was fantastic, despite lacking a lot of the cultural context involved with the setting. I know very little about the relationship between Japan and Korea, and I know very little about Western films in general. However, the movie is fast-paced with great characters and action scenes, and is one of my favorite films. Context should not be necessary to enjoy a quality piece of cinema, the work should be able to speak for itself.
Are you fucking kidding me?
What character development did the Man with No Name show?
which movie are we talking about? Good Bad Weird, Good Bad Ugly, or Warrior's Way?
Not every film has to have character development, and i never said they did.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO