Originally Posted by scissorhands85
So we both agree that there was little to no character development in the first one, so what makes you want to go see the second one? If you are going to have a sequel there should be a pull to go see the second right?
How incredibly interesting! Most of the people I know (me included) liked the first film better than the second film. Indeed, they were two different types of movies. You're the first person Ive met who liked the second better. How odd.
But Ill explain: Tarantino comes from a generation that appreciated the bloody, gory, violent revenge filled karate movies of the 80s and 90s. In fact, I think that my generation came in on the tail end of those kind of movies, more in the Van Damme, Bolo Yueng, Samo Hung, Michael Dudikoff, Cynthia Rothrock et al movies. Think: I can remember stuff like
No Retreat, No Surrender,
American Ninja,
Bloodsport, etc. etc., plus all their sequels. Those were the days man!
Now you figure that Tarantino's generation had a heavy appreciation for the Asian karate/samurai films, which were the forerunners to the American karate films. I mean, by the time I came up, Bruce Lee was dead and we only had the reruns. The Asian samurai films were already cult classics in the genre and have only since been reinvigorated by the likes of Jet Li and others.
So to me,
Vol. 1 was like Tarantino's personal Mecca to the cult classics. In fact, if you watched the interview on the DVD, he admitted it! The bar fight with the Crazy 88 was styled off of the brawls in the Samurai flicks. And there are so many other examples.
You must understand though, that as an American, we only had the "dubbed" versions of the Samurai movies, so it always lent an air of humour to what would otherwise be horrifically violent. So it was with
Vol. 1. I think what he attempted to do was to basically make an American samurai story, with all of the traditional elements and style of the cult classics, but with the addition of some sort of basic realism to the plot.
And frankly, I think he did a good job.
Not to ramble on, but as to
Vol. 2, you have a violent departure from the spirit and mood of
Vol. 1. If it were music, Id think of
Vol. 2 as more of a mournful ballad, while
Vol. 1 was a crashing adrenaline filled song of any genre (pick one that works for you: rock, rap, dance, etc.).
I liked them both, but I found 1 to be more action-centric, and 2 to be more slowly dramatic. And depending on the kind of movies you like, the vast difference b/t the two will determine whether you liked 1 or 2.
I still don't see any part in the movie where he makes you want to care about the outcome besides that lame attempt of humor where the guy comes in and wants to get with her when she is in a coma, is that supposed to make me feel bad for her?
Was it supposed to? I NEVER got the impression that she was supposed to be this wilted little woman, poor little thing that I ws to feel sorry for. In fact, I felt pity on her persecutors. Even when she was in the hospital.
A character doesn't have to be an emotional wreck for you to care about what happens to them.
Care to explain? You thought she was an emotional wreck? I could keep going with my observations on that sentence, but Id better not..