Tobriand
Well-Known Member
Personally I liked both in completely different ways; the first one is a very well orchestrated bloodbath with some great cinematographic effects; the second one is much less actioney, but eqully has a lot more conversation/character development in. I do NOT think this was a result of the criticisms aimed at the first since, unless I'm much mistaken, both were finished by the time the first came out.
I do think it might have a decently large bit to do with mostly being set in America - so as a result Tarantino concentrates his efforts to produce a more typically American film; conversely, most of the first one was set in the far East, and thus a lot of the emotion was shown in the swordplay rather than in dialogue - a far more eastern idea.
The reason, I would conjecture, that most people really really like Pai Mei in the second (apart from his being a stunning character - Ahahahaha) is because he IS the Eastern element in it, and many who enjoyed the first and then went on to see the second expecting more martial arts and swrod-swingey goodness were disappointed save for the thousand-year-old monk's episode.
I do think it might have a decently large bit to do with mostly being set in America - so as a result Tarantino concentrates his efforts to produce a more typically American film; conversely, most of the first one was set in the far East, and thus a lot of the emotion was shown in the swordplay rather than in dialogue - a far more eastern idea.
The reason, I would conjecture, that most people really really like Pai Mei in the second (apart from his being a stunning character - Ahahahaha) is because he IS the Eastern element in it, and many who enjoyed the first and then went on to see the second expecting more martial arts and swrod-swingey goodness were disappointed save for the thousand-year-old monk's episode.
