style over substance again
The following quote from the top review of the film on this site explains quite precisely the problem I have with people who rave over films like this...
"I don't complain when the dead rise from their graves. I don't complain about the lack of reason behind the ideas that aliens would have less intelligence than humans or that the living dead would harbour grudges against the really living. I complain when it just looks simply uninspiring and frankly visually boring."
In his own words, he values visual style over plots that actually have any reason behind them. Call me an ignorant popcorn muncher if you like, but that sounds a lot like reading a novel and basing your entire criticism on what font was used.
This film, Hero and Crouching Tiger are all the same - examples of the kinds of films that were already old and boring in Hong Kong 40 years ago, but which suddenly get rave reviews when they throw money at the idea and make it look visually impressive.
I know films students like to bang on about how supremely important direction and cinematography are to the cinema experience (probably because they all want to be directors), but most uneducated heathens like me occasionally like some sort of narrative depth thrown in as well. Or are we missing the point of cinema?