OK. So this was just a hodgepodge of crap put together with no real clear storyline. There was mostly just the confusion of unrealistic and unlikely scenarios.
"The Good" tried to pull off the cool western look, but it just didn't look right.
This whole thing was just... well... pointless and a waste of time. Although it might be fun for teenagers, it's terrible... just terrible for adults.
"this was just a hodgepodge of crap put together with no real clear storyline".
If that's your conclusion about a good action movie, which happens to be funny, please stick to intellectual flicks.
Obviously, you don't know how to spend a couple of hours just having fun.
"There was mostly just the confusion of unrealistic and unlikely scenarios."
"This whole thing was just... well... pointless and a waste of time."
So like most movies then? If you hate this sort of thing it pretty obvious what it was going to be before seeing it, so moaning about it being just that is moronic.
Is that all you have to say son?
shareWooooooooooooooooooooow..........
This movie wasn't meant to be taken seriously, guy.
Not all movies are supposed to be works of art. This movie is clearly a popcorn flick.
link: http://www.myspace.com/pkgangsta18
This was a great movie. Fun, funny, well made, great music and editing...just a riot. Not a serious film...and, I read people complaining about plot. Wtf?! Since when does a Western have plot? There's more going on here than 4 out of 5 Westerns out there!
shareI liked the movie for the most part, but I think its the weakest film from the director, I'd give it a 6.5 or 7/10. My biggest complaint is the Good guy, he did not have the right look for the part at all, he looked like a wannabe badass.
The action wasn't that great aside from the final chase scene which was rather incredible, despite the incredibly stupid part where the Good guy goes right down the center of an entire army unscathed, and just with his rifle.
The first movie I saw by the director was A bittersweet life, which is 10/10 material for me, and I was really excited to see his other movies. I watched A tale of two sisters next, which was 8/10 material for me for just how uniquely profound it was(can't believe how dumbed down over sexualized the american remake was). Then I watched this movie, just was not as engaging as his previous 2 movies. I know its just a western action movie, but still, was expecting it to be not so...empty with so many cliche generic scenes. Most of it was like watching a generic mainstream hollywood movie, like Sahara or National Treasure. But I guess it had to more accessible to the mainstream, the set pieces give it away that this movie had a much larger budget than the director's previous works.
You seriously need to see more westerns, if you think that none of them have a decent plot.
"IMDB... where 14 year old's can pretend to be jaded 40 year old movie critics"
you are terrible for adults, get a sense of humour!!!
I agree, to those who say an action film doesn't need a story line to be good... did you enjoy Pearl Harbour? Transformers 2? 2012?
There are lots of great action films with good and enjoyable storylines, that's what makes a great action film stand out from the mediocre.
This film was too long, confusing, poorly paced, edited and the action, just like a lot of poor Hollywood films these days became repetitive and boring to watch, despite a few clever action scenes. Which brings me back to editing, too much of a good thing...
"OK. So this was just a hodgepodge of crap put together with no real clear storyline. There was mostly just the confusion of unrealistic and unlikely scenarios."
That's the point. Makes movies like this charming. :)
When you're trying to write a post putting yourself on an intellectual pedestal, make sure to write a bit more coherently. As an adult I thoroughly enjoyed this. It didn't necessarily ask any big questions, but it was well paced and well acted.
share