JFrawley032759

This is not a good film, and much of the criticism of it is justified, but the comment that the use of the LeMat revolver is ahistorical may be mistaken. This film is set prior to the Civil War, and thus before 1861, but subsequent to California statehood, and thus after 1850. The LeMat was first manufactured and sold in 1856. If this is set between 1856 and 1861 the presence of the LeMat doesn't need to be a problem. The use of a katana, on the other hand, is a problem. Extremely few Japanese, or those familiar with the Japanese, arrived in the U.S. before the 1880s, and those who came then were almost exclusively farmers, rather than samurai: Katanas would be very unlikely to be found in antebellum California.

It is unfortunate, but nearly unavoidable, that what is innovative and successful will be copied until new viewers find the original unchallenging or even imitative of the successive work they have already viewed. Tarantino has been entirely forthright in acknowledging his debts to the innovators in this and other genres. The primary difference between the approaches of this film and Tarantino's "tributes" is that these intend very little irony or parody, while his work is hyper-aware of such things. I think it is important to view the Scorpion films in the proper context: They are excellently produced potboilers which are very pleasing, and their use of Meiko Kaji as an unapologetically aggressive and vengeful woman looking out for herself, while praiseworthy today, was particularly innovative 35 years ago.