|
>However, I would go so far as to say that what Tarantino and >Rodriguez did together - the Grindhouse experience (both >movies, plus trailers... the whole theater experience) - was >something new, original, and spectacular. That was probably my >second favorite theater experience ever after (Sin City).
well it was new and original (as much as a homage such as this which is basically trying to recreate the spirit of something done before can be), but I don't see what was so spectacular about it.
>I'm not sure that a genre even exists for Grindhouse to >elevate, but if there was, I could definitely make that case. >It was definitely both artful, creative, and above all, >entertaining.
again, entertaining I can see, if that's your thing. I don't see what was so artful about it though.
>>I mean cmon. you can like the movie for being entertaining >or > >Many people do.
and that's fine.
>>whatever, but that is a pretty ridiculous statement that has >>QT fanboyism written all over it. > >Perhaps. Of course, it's always easy to proclaim someone a >"fanboy" anytime they have a REALLY strong opinion about >ANYTHING. > >So what's the distinction between "fanboydom" and someone who >just really genuinely loved the movie?
here's the distinction: I loved 300 because it was fun and stylish and entertaining, but I didn't proclaim it some great work of art that elevated the genre or whatever.
___________________
Mar-A-Lago delenda est
|