While I can appreciate when an actor handles a gun properly, and filmmakers and editors take the time to count shots, I never expect films to depict realistic gunfights.
I'd rather see something dynamic and exciting than something realistic anyway. Something that works in parameters of the story they are telling and the mood they are setting.
Last Man Standing was based on a samurai fable called Yojimbo. It's not supposed to be real. At. All.
Open Range had some gun work that was meant to
feel more realistic, but still be exciting. Same with Heat. It's supposed to "feel" realistic, but it's not. Not at all. The actors were trained, so they handle the weapons well, even do brass checks and we see them reload and fire without edits.
This is usually not done because actors have a bad tendency to try and slap a mag in backwards, so they cut to a close up of the prop master's hands doing it.
Michael Mann is a director who understands, handles, owns, and fires guns. His new film "Public Enemies" is a return to gun heavy storytelling for him, and I am looking forward to it. meanwhile, I thought his film version of Miami Vice, while having it's moments, was mostly boring and flat.
I'm also looking forward to seeing films I know will probably show guys and girls doing gymnastics while firing 2 guns.
I liked Street Kings too, but didn't feel it was realistic, just well done.
Appaloosa was just a great story, well told with great performances. But if you read the book, gun handling was a big part of it. Reloading, the proper stance in a duel, and using rifles while on horseback were important to the story because Ed Harris read about them in the book and wanted that to carry over.
Death Sentence was WAY over the top, but it was dynamic and blood pumping. And by the time you get to the end and he's a one man army it doesn't need to be real. He's blowing holes the size of garage doors through buildings, but it works because it fits the mood of the film.
Ok, this post is long enough.
