I don't think anyone would think to go see this because they think it's going to be an objectively good movie. Nobody. If you go to see it you do it because of all of the action stars. Because it cast so many people, you can't even think of them as characters! Anyone who watches the film will be talking about how Sylvester Stallone is taking a lot of steroids, or, "ha ha, bet he broke his hip when they filmed that!" The movie is inherently comedic, it doesn't matter if it's self conscious. Furthermore, if it's a parody, it is not a parody of Action Films, so much a parody of the ACTION STARS. I think Movie Bob might have lost some objectivity on this one because of psychological transference. Movie Bob; Sly Stallone DOES NOT EQUAL the football player who beat you up in High School. Get over it. Sure it's not high minded, nor is it art, nor does it need to be. Sometimes people just want to see something mindlessly violent. That being said, you were probably justified in your condemnation solely on the grounds that there wasn't enough violence and gore. You're quite right that that is the only thing it has going for it. The other criticisms about it not being self-conscious are rather irrelevant.
In regards to your fulmination upon the popular taste in action genres: The action in the matrix was immersive because it was fantasy backed up by computer effects. Neo's power was mental not physical, so it was completely believable (if you aren't familiar with Keanu Reeves' other works {see Bill and Ted}) that he could have superhuman fighting ability. The action sequences in Kill Bill were, on the other hand, deliberately meant to be seen as over-the-top and silly, and thereby fun. I'm sorry but 110 lb women cannot kick the ass of a 250 lb man with rippling muscles, no matter how much Kung Fu they know, unless they have supernatural powers, although I will admit swordplay does somewhat level the playing field. Charlies' Angels was COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS because it lacked the tongue-in-cheekness of the Tarantino films. Those movies come off as though they thought they were somehow empowering women! I'm all for empowering women, but only if it's about something actually relevant, like their equality in the workplace, and not predicated on the delusion that they are somehow equal in strength to men twice their size. Some women actually buy into that crap too, then get themselves hurt. If a 110 lb woman wants to take a martial art to defend herself then she should take Judo or Aikido, you know, something that allows them to use the size of their opponent against them, (or better yet, just by a gun/mace/taser), not something that relies upon them being able to knock out a 250 lb buff dude with a back-knuckle, because they simply cannot generate the necessary force (virtually no one can use a flying high kick in real life unless they've already stunned their opponent, or their opponent is incredibly slow and uncoordinated). It's not, directly speaking, a gender thing, it's a size thing, and is thus only a gender thing insomuch as the gender of the INDIVIDUAL affects the size and strength of the INDIVIDUAL.
The point I'm trying to make is that unless I'm given a fantastic back-story (One that explains why the small person is stronger than bigger people) I lose my sense of immersion whenever a small women is kicking the collective asses of twenty guys that are individually twice her size. It's just silly. And even with a good back-story, if the movie still smacks of some crazy sense that it's empowering women by saying they can defy the laws of physics, I'm still going to be irritated.
Sure, Van Dame, Chuck Norris, and the B-grade action stars are terrible, terrible actors. But Schwarzenegger, although he lacks any sort of range, in my opinion, is usually a pleasure to watch. There is a difference between being a bad actor and a 1 dimensional actor. The latter are called character actors and they are absolutely integral to the movie industry. In all of Schwarzenegger movies his hand to hand combat sequences always look brutal and visceral, which is something the elaborately choreographed Kung Fu movies completely lack. So I think people are quite justified in wanting the old style of "beefed up muscle heads bashing against one another" (paraphrased). The flying around, cartwheeling, high kicking Jet Lee/Jason Statham movies can quickly become tedious. Sometimes you just want to see a brutal knife-fight-to-the-death between two muscle-bound psychos. That blade inching closer toward someone's throat is a lot more intense than repeated flying roundhouse kicks to the face of guys who then just back-flip into unconsciousness.
So let's try not to get so worked up, remember the movie industry's primary concern is to provide ENTERTAINMENT for everyone whether it be high-minded or completely mindless. You should have just judged the movie upon the points that were salient to it's audience, that is, how was the action and gore? Not whether or not it was a self-conscious tongue-in-cheek parody of a retro genre that only movie geeks could appreciate. All you needed to say was that it not only lacked the self-consciousness requisite for it to be a proper parody, but it also lack the violence and gore for it to be a successful action movie in the genre it was attempting to place itself. The whole diatribe against the general population was not so much sardonic and amusing as vitriolic and off-putting. The true weapon of a critic is his humor, not his outrage.
In regards to your fulmination upon the popular taste in action genres: The action in the matrix was immersive because it was fantasy backed up by computer effects. Neo's power was mental not physical, so it was completely believable (if you aren't familiar with Keanu Reeves' other works {see Bill and Ted}) that he could have superhuman fighting ability. The action sequences in Kill Bill were, on the other hand, deliberately meant to be seen as over-the-top and silly, and thereby fun. I'm sorry but 110 lb women cannot kick the ass of a 250 lb man with rippling muscles, no matter how much Kung Fu they know, unless they have supernatural powers, although I will admit swordplay does somewhat level the playing field. Charlies' Angels was COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS because it lacked the tongue-in-cheekness of the Tarantino films. Those movies come off as though they thought they were somehow empowering women! I'm all for empowering women, but only if it's about something actually relevant, like their equality in the workplace, and not predicated on the delusion that they are somehow equal in strength to men twice their size. Some women actually buy into that crap too, then get themselves hurt. If a 110 lb woman wants to take a martial art to defend herself then she should take Judo or Aikido, you know, something that allows them to use the size of their opponent against them, (or better yet, just by a gun/mace/taser), not something that relies upon them being able to knock out a 250 lb buff dude with a back-knuckle, because they simply cannot generate the necessary force (virtually no one can use a flying high kick in real life unless they've already stunned their opponent, or their opponent is incredibly slow and uncoordinated). It's not, directly speaking, a gender thing, it's a size thing, and is thus only a gender thing insomuch as the gender of the INDIVIDUAL affects the size and strength of the INDIVIDUAL.
The point I'm trying to make is that unless I'm given a fantastic back-story (One that explains why the small person is stronger than bigger people) I lose my sense of immersion whenever a small women is kicking the collective asses of twenty guys that are individually twice her size. It's just silly. And even with a good back-story, if the movie still smacks of some crazy sense that it's empowering women by saying they can defy the laws of physics, I'm still going to be irritated.
Sure, Van Dame, Chuck Norris, and the B-grade action stars are terrible, terrible actors. But Schwarzenegger, although he lacks any sort of range, in my opinion, is usually a pleasure to watch. There is a difference between being a bad actor and a 1 dimensional actor. The latter are called character actors and they are absolutely integral to the movie industry. In all of Schwarzenegger movies his hand to hand combat sequences always look brutal and visceral, which is something the elaborately choreographed Kung Fu movies completely lack. So I think people are quite justified in wanting the old style of "beefed up muscle heads bashing against one another" (paraphrased). The flying around, cartwheeling, high kicking Jet Lee/Jason Statham movies can quickly become tedious. Sometimes you just want to see a brutal knife-fight-to-the-death between two muscle-bound psychos. That blade inching closer toward someone's throat is a lot more intense than repeated flying roundhouse kicks to the face of guys who then just back-flip into unconsciousness.
So let's try not to get so worked up, remember the movie industry's primary concern is to provide ENTERTAINMENT for everyone whether it be high-minded or completely mindless. You should have just judged the movie upon the points that were salient to it's audience, that is, how was the action and gore? Not whether or not it was a self-conscious tongue-in-cheek parody of a retro genre that only movie geeks could appreciate. All you needed to say was that it not only lacked the self-consciousness requisite for it to be a proper parody, but it also lack the violence and gore for it to be a successful action movie in the genre it was attempting to place itself. The whole diatribe against the general population was not so much sardonic and amusing as vitriolic and off-putting. The true weapon of a critic is his humor, not his outrage.
