After hearing plenty of people, including my mates who's opinions I generally value (shame on them), wax lyrical about how stupendously good and utterly unmissable the Kill Bill franchise is, I decided to give them a go and so I watched them both today.

Well what a bloody waste of several hours! I don't know what's worse: the fact that I will never get those hours back or that so many people could be so wrong about these films.

Boring boring boring. The content is a non entity that fails on so many levels and when it got to the end fight *groan * I was expecting a confrontation of biblical proportions and was rewarded with half an hour of senseless conversation, and I DO mean senseless followed by the combatants sitting down and having a nice drink while some more senseless conversation took place before the protaganist decides to serve up the revenge that she has spent the span of both films working to bring to fruition. She bursts into sudden movement, glass goes flying, this is it THIS IS IT, they both have samurai swords so she takes her measure of her opponent and,....*drumroll...DRUMROLL...buhbum TISH* punches him in the chest!

Err...yeah...she..punches him in the bloody chest.

I was expecting something really cool to happen at this point but the chest punched guy simply coughs up a bit of blood which, rather undramatically drips onto his chin, he then asks his executioner "how do I look?", he stand up and walks a few steps, at this point I am still thinking that something cool is going to happen any second, and promptly drops to the floor and assumes room temperature.

Bloody rubbish.

I agree, dear sir Tarantino is overrated. He's like the John Steinbeck of action movies.

Well, I liked both films...

I haven't seen the second film but I quite enjoyed the first.

I actually liked the fact that the film ended with an "anti-climax", after all of the OTT gak she goes through to get her revenge...it made me laugh in much the same way Indiana Jones shooting the Swordsman in Raiders of the Lost Ark did.
Overall, I thought the films were ok...nothing great..but watchable and fun.

Its one film, not two. The producer's just decided to abridge it as they felt it was a bit too long.

The film's a homage to some of Tarantino's favourite genres, especially the early Japanese film industry-ie Bill accepting the inevitability of his death and dying in such an "anticlimatic" fashion (what you expected his head to explode or something? That'd be a bit overkill). Meh, if you didn't like it Tarantino doesn't care, he just likes making movies that hark back to the B movies of his childhood. ^^

I liked it...
Though i do think Tarantino is overrated...

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I agree, dear sir Tarantino is overrated. He's like the John Steinbeck of action movies.

purplefood wrote:I liked it...
Though i do think Tarantino is overrated...

I agree here. Tarantino is over-rated, but you gotta give him credit for being crazier than Willem DaFoe...

corpsesarefun wrote:I haven't seen the second film but I quite enjoyed the first.

Because it is one film split in 2 parts... like The Matrix

Its different , and refreshing. And way different than your typical holywood movie with nothing but exploding cars , exploding building and main character jumping from something that just exploded.

LunaHound wrote:Its different , and refreshing. And way different than your typical holywood movie with nothing but exploding cars , exploding building and main character jumping from something that just exploded.

And sword fights, extreme violence, and show downs are less typical than explosions?

Is being different actually noteworthy? Who gives a crap if your pacing is terrible and the characters unlikeable.

LordofHats wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Its different , and refreshing. And way different than your typical holywood movie with nothing but exploding cars , exploding building and main character jumping from something that just exploded.

And sword fights, extreme violence, and show downs are less typical than explosions?

100% of action films have explosions , not as much has sword fights.

Extreme violence is Terrantino's specialty , as its shown more graphically.

Ya i would safely say its less typical.

I liked the second more than the first but that isn't necessarily saying much. I've seen all the films he's referencing and if I had wanted to watch them stitched together I could do just that. Skip Kill Bill and just watch The Five Deadly Venoms and then right after that watch Once Upon a Time in the West and you'll get the same basic effect, only they won't be parodies. I wouldn't say QT is overrated but I certainly find him hit or miss.

The second Kill Bill was horrid (in comparison to the first).

If you honestly don't like the first movie, though, you must hate action movies in general. You honestly thought it was boring? How much more high-flying action and over-the-top gore do you need to be entertained? Holy gak.

I understand being disappointed by the ending, or the second movie in general (I was too, for sure), but if you were honestly bored or disappointed by the first film, you must be incredibly desensitized to any form of media. Sure, it's cheesy (that's the point), but to say it's boring, or that it was an awful waste of time? I find that extremely difficult to believe.

As for all of you who think Quentin Tarantino is overrated...he's popular for good reason. He may not be immaculate, like some people make him out to be. He's certainly missed the mark a few times (Death Proof and Kill Bill Vol. 2 come to mind), but he's responsible for some of the greatest films ever made. He has more respect for the industry than anyone else I can think of, and his love for film permeates everything he has his hands in. He understands every aspect of the medium. I'd be hard-pressed to find a better film writer, and though his directing and supervision of the editing (too bad Sally Menke died) has it's own little quirks, you really can't find another director quite like him. He deserves every bit of attention he has earned.

LunaHound wrote:100% of action films have explosions , not as much has sword fights.

Just off the top of my head: Matrix, Star Wars, Ninja Assassin, Spiderman 3 (goblin had a sword yo), that western movie that was Ninja Assassin, 300 (spears & swords so double good), Transformers, and many more and I'm not even trying here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:If you honestly don't like the first movie, though, you must hate action movies in general. You honestly thought it was boring? How much more high-flying action and over-the-top gore do you need to be entertained? Holy gak.

Oh, it's you again. Hi.

Tarantino is fun , the movies he makes are fun.

And lets not forget about budget. There is no way he can make movies for example , like Transformer by Michael Bay.

So is it fair to say he is inferior than Michael Bay? who knows, given same opportunity and budget?

I remember epic movies like ones made by Steven Spielburg, it was an epic movie supported by effects.

Now its just movies made for the sake of adding in more CG and more Explosions ( yes i hate Terminator Salvation and Transformer )
because it felt like they squander the awe impact on us viewers . ( sort of like that LoTR director did in King Kong )

Transformers had a sword fight?

LunaHound wrote:So is it fair to say he is inferior than Michael Bay?

I don't think anyone even eluded to such a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyrmalla wrote:Transformers had a sword fight?

Sadly, it does. Optimus actually beheads one or two Decepticons. The criteria wasn't whether there were good sword fights or not.

No they havnt , but it was a reminder to those that thinks Tarrtino's movie are hit or miss.
Because limited budget forces a director to find alternate methods of satisfying the viewers.

A rich budget movie can fill it in with mindless explosive and dazzling special effects.

Know what i mean?

I think Inglorious Bastards had its fair share of explosions... But it was fitting as Tarantino's pun on the war genre.

And having a smaller budget fits Tarantino well. I mean, who would spend millions on a B Movie? Its heresy. ^^

I only saw the first one. I was unable to suspend my disbelief which is necessary for that film. It was 'meh' until she said, 'One way ticket to Okinawa'. That line should have been overdubbed with a flushing toilet. Having dealt with the Japanese immigration department most of my adult life and all the gak they put you through at times, I just couldn't get over it. Then everyone walking around with Katanas was way too stupid. Why not just make them furries? It was the last Tarantino film I saw.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
If you honestly don't like the first movie, though, you must hate action movies in general. You honestly thought it was boring? How much more high-flying action and over-the-top gore do you need to be entertained? Holy gak.

It would have been a better, and more entertaining, movie if it wasn't so ridiculous.

Inglorious Basterds is a far superior film because it actually takes time for dialogue in between spurts of ultraviolence, and dialogue is critical because that's how characters are established. That's also why the first Kill Bill is inferior to the second.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Sure, it's cheesy (that's the point), but to say it's boring, or that it was an awful waste of time?

I thought both Kill Bills were boring in the extreme, but I actually fell asleep watching the first.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
As for all of you who think Quentin Tarantino is overrated...he's popular for good reason.

Yes, because he makes movies that lots of people seem to like, and he has a particularly controversial temperament which gives him lots of free ad space.

The popularity of a thing has no bearing on the quality of a thing. Lots of people eat American cheese, but its absolutely horrid stuff.

Khornholio wrote:Why not just make them furries?

What does that have to do with the movie? (I've only seen parts of one of them, so... inform me)

I would call Tarantino overhyped rather than overrated. He is a clever man and a fine director, but not as fine as he is made out to be.

Ahtman wrote:Oh, it's you again. Hi.

Hey, how's it going?

Lunahound wrote:Tarantino is fun , the movies he makes are fun.

And lets not forget about budget. There is no way he can make movies for example , like Transformer by Michael Bay.

So is it fair to say he is inferior than Michael Bay? who knows, given same opportunity and budget?

I remember epic movies like ones made by Steven Spielburg, it was an epic movie supported by effects.

Now its just movies made for the sake of adding in more CG and more Explosions ( yes i hate Terminator Salvation and Transformer )
because it felt like they squander the awe impact. ( sort of like that LoTR director did )

Quentin doesn't need a spectacularly high special effects budget to make a good movie (Kill Bill probably had the biggest focus of effects out of any of his movies). Most of the movies he does are grounded in reality, and tend to focus on the script and excellent dialogue more than anything. His movies also tend to have a broken timeline, which has a unique effect on the way that the viewer receives information (creating tension and surprise where normally there would be none). It also allows Quentin the ability to make the movie ebb and flow as he pleases (pacing tends to be much better this way).

The gore he uses is over-the-top because he wants to make a lasting impact on the viewer, and also because he wants to show that it is distinctly a movie; he doesn't condone real physical violence in any way. He's usually pretty sparing with it, honestly (in order to make a bigger impact); Kill Bill broke the trend.

I don't think Tarantino would ever make a big-budget franchise movie. Creative control would be stripped from him, and that just wouldn't fly.

Michael Bay isn't terrible (he simply wastes money at any given opportunity, and his frame cuts during action sequences are nauseating), but he's nowhere near the same caliber as Tarantino. Spielburg isn't either, but I'm really not a big fan of any of his work, so that might be coloring my opinion a bit.

Wyrmalla wrote:Its one film, not two. The producer's just decided to abridge it as they felt it was a bit too long.

(what you expected his head to explode or something? That'd be a bit overkill). ^^

At the very least. Would that be so bad?

It'd be bloody funny if it did.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Michael Bay isn't terrible (he simply wastes money at any given opportunity, and his frame cuts during action sequences are nauseating), but he's nowhere near the same caliber as Tarantino. Spielburg isn't either, but I'm really not a big fan of any of his work, so that might be coloring my opinion a bit.

Thank you!

I think im more impressed with the explosions and the CG , rather than his directing.

I think many people are getting the 2 confused.

Hey if you don't like the second part because its too much like Yojimbo, then watch the first one, which is for all you Road Warrior fans out there. I didn't get the second part as much till I understood its context (the movie's so much better when its one continuous film reel).

...And that's what From Dusk Till Dawns for.^^

QT is a pretty good representative of the US mindset: people talking about useless pop culture, glorification of violence, and a fear of adult sexuality.

Dogma wrote:It would have been a better, and more entertaining, movie if it wasn't so ridiculous.

Inglorious Basterds is a far superior film because it actually takes time for dialogue in between spurts of ultraviolence, and dialogue is critical because that's how characters are established. That's also why the first Kill Bill is inferior to the second.

Kill Bill was made to be ridiculous, and to show respect to early Samurai and Kung Fu films (which would also be considered incredibly ridiculous in this age). If you didn't know that going in, then I understand why you would be disappointed by it, but knowing this, it is not a flaw. It's simply a design decision. Hell, the title is even ridiculous. Was that not a big clue?

I felt that the dialogue in Inglorious Basterds was a bit too long in spots, and that the movie betrayed it's namesake by only showing the Basterds in action a handful of times. Most of the dialogue was interesting moral quandary more than it was actual character development, and I felt that the action helped define the characters more than most of the dialogue did. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's certainly not far superior movie to Kill Bill; it simply had completely different goals in mind.

Dogma wrote:I thought both Kill Bills were boring in the extreme, but I actually fell asleep watching the first.

Yet the dialogue-heavy second movie (wherein she only killed one person) managed to keep you awake? At least the first was visually exciting. I liked the anonymity of the characters in the first movie; that's part of what made old-school action movies so awesome (Bill's anonymity in particular was important; the second movie ruined this as soon as it began). What little dialogue existed was riddled with cheese, but again, that was the point. The second movie retained this cheesy dialogue and quirky editing without the action that made this acceptable, so I felt that it fell flat on it's face.

Dogma wrote:Yes, because he makes movies that lots of people seem to like, and he has a particularly controversial temperament which gives him lots of free ad space.

The popularity of a thing has no bearing on the quality of a thing. Lots of people eat American cheese, but its absolutely horrid stuff.

Skill deserves popularity, but this is almost never the case, which is why I'm glad Tarantino is as popular as he is.

You would hate the media too if they invaded every aspect of your privacy. He's actually a really nice guy, he just has way too much energy for his own good.

Ahtman wrote:QT is a pretty good representative of the US mindset: people talking about useless pop culture, glorification of violence, and a fear of adult sexuality.

This statement is a pretty good representation of everyone who has ever missed the point of a Quentin Tarantino movie.

Chrysaor686 wrote:This statement is a pretty good representation of everyone who has ever missed the point of a Quentin Tarantino movie.

Bold, overreaching, and false. You should write copy for Fox News.

Ahtman wrote:Bold, overreaching, and false. You should write copy for Fox News.

I could easily say the same thing in response to your statement (in fact, I don't even see how that applies to me at all), but enough with the bickering.

Pop culture references are not that abundant in Tarantino films; most of his movies are rather timeless. The only references found therein are from within the industry itself, since Tarantino lives and breathes movies. Since films are one of the few aspects of culture which are accessable at any point in time, Tarantino's movies don't tend to feel dated in anything but some cultural wardrobe inconsistencies (The extras in Pulp Fiction, for instance, make it painfully obvious that the film was made in '94, everything else doesn't have that frame of reference).

The 'over-glorification' of violence is used as an imprint on the viewer, and nothing more. Violence burns itself into your brain in a way that few other things can. Tarantino is not glorifying violence, he is using it as an extremely effective vehicle for storytelling and drama. Again, he does not condone violence. He is simply not afraid to do whatever it takes to make a memorable movie, and he knows the exact chemistry that this requires.

I completely fail to see how fear of sexuality manifests itself in Tarantino's work.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Kill Bill was made to be ridiculous, and to show respect to early Samurai and Kung Fu films (which would also be considered incredibly ridiculous in this age). If you didn't know that going in, then I understand why you would be disappointed by it, but knowing this, it is not a flaw. It's simply a design decision. Hell, the title is even ridiculous. Was that not a big clue?

If I intend to make a bad movie, and it is bad, does that mean its actually good? Are Michael Bay films good because they are exactly what Michael Bay intended to make?

I know what Kill Bill is, and I know what Tarantino wanted it to be, but its still a boring film that I would label as bad.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
I felt that the dialogue in Inglorious Basterds was a bit too long in spots, and that the movie betrayed it's namesake by only showing the Basterds in action a handful of times.

The title wasn't just a reference to the Basterds.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Most of the dialogue was interesting moral quandary more than it was actual character development...

That's what character development is.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
...and I felt that the action helped define the characters more than most of the dialogue did. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's certainly not far superior movie to Kill Bill; it simply had completely different goals in mind.

No, it is far superior, regardless of goals.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Yet the dialogue-heavy second movie (wherein she only killed one person) managed to keep you awake?

Yes, some of us don't act like giddy 10-year-olds when confronted with violence. Chopping heads off isn't necessarily exciting.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
The second movie retained this cheesy dialogue without the action that made this dialogue acceptable, so I felt that it fell flat on it's face.

I thought the second movie was a much more skillful parody of the relevant movies than the first. In fact if you watch the two films as intended, together, its quite clear that the second film is the actual parody while the first is a straight up reproduction/homage.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Skill deserves popularity, but this is almost never the case, which is why I'm glad Tarantino is as popular as he is.

Well, no, skill doesn't deserve anything because dessert is in and of itself an empty concept, but that's another conversation.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
You would hate the media too if they invaded every aspect of your privacy.

I would? What makes you say that? Do you know me?

Chrysaor686 wrote:
He's actually a really nice guy, he just has way too much energy for his own good.

I take it you're a close, personal friend of QT?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Pop culture references are not that abundant in Tarantino films; most of his movies are rather timeless.

Say what?

Tarantino's movie are premised on the fact that they are pop culture references. That's all that the Kill Bills are.

dogma wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:
...and I felt that the action helped define the characters more than most of the dialogue did. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's certainly not far superior movie to Kill Bill; it simply had completely different goals in mind.

No, it is far superior, regardless of goals..

An example would be the cafe scene where the German was asking that Jew ( or French? ) girl
when they were eating cake and cream.

And when he walked away, the girl literally fell into tears.

That German guy is scary like that , even if its just casual talking. A monster.

LunaHound wrote:
An example would be the cafe scene where the German was asking that Jew ( or French? ) girl
when they were eating cake and cream.

And when he walked away, the girl literally fell into tears.

That German guy is scary like that , even if its just casual talking. A monster.

Landa, on his own, made that film better than Kill Bill. Aldo, the Bear Jew, and everyone else were just icing on the cake.

Kill Bill is alright. It's not the best of his films, neither the worst. I like the fact the he mixes different themes and moods and still manages to keep it together. He clearly knows what he is doing and does not fear to write scenes which some people definitely will find ridiculous. He's a brave film maker. He does not need or want to suck up to the viewers. He does what he believes in and that is always admirable and the right way to do any art, even if it means sometime failure.

I found the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique cheerful! The things we don't see are as important as the ones we do see! The scene is effective because we can use our imagination. There is no need of explosions or guns shooting.

Pulp Fiction is great. It was something wholely new at that time. There are much dialog, many of which is not important to the actual plot. But it's entertaining and especially, the characters talking about hamburgers and the meaning of foot massage have depth. This point if often neglected in mainstream cinema. Everything happening in a movie does not have to be relevant to the main plot. A good story has some faster phases and then slows down for a while again. Most films start from A and go straight to B with steady pace and with a way that is both predictable and uninteresting. QT has watched lots of movies in his lifetime and knows what is needed in a good story. He is a film enthusiast turned writer/director and it shows in a good way.

Jackie Brown is an excellent movie. These two films have living characters who, in addition to some major dilemmas, have minor problems too. He knows how to make stuff work. Tarantino approaches film in European way. This is a generalization, of course, but American films typically have characters who are either good or evil and either succeed or not. QT's writing has more variations and that is one of the reasons his films are enjoyable and fun to watch.

Inglorious Basterds is his worst movie to date. It has potential, but fails to blossom. I cannot point exactly what went wrong, but somehow it's not convincing or entertaining. It's just another war movie with slightly different plot, alternate history theme, Brad Pitt and some humour which does not deliver.

Dogma, I have trouble carrying on a debate with you since you are intentionally vague. You tend to assert that something is of objectively bad quality without ever bothering to explain why, and you speak in loose language with no reinforcement, so I have to fill in the blanks (and you don't want me to formulate part of your opinion for you, do you?).

Dogma wrote:If I intend to make a bad movie, and it is bad, does that mean its actually good? Are Michael Bay films good because they are exactly what Michael Bay intended to make?

If you intend to pay homage to something that is unintentionally bad, and you hit the mark in every respect, then I would say that you made a good movie. The sound editing, camera work, special effects, dialogue, and overall storyline all point in this direction. Yes it is bad, but because it is self-aware, that opens up an entirely new grading scale. Comedies do this all the time. Action movies are a different matter entirely, but since so many action movie directors are afraid to do anything but push the envelope, treading backwards can have an incredibly refreshing effect.

The only really bad aspect of Michael Bay's films is that he has no consideration for the average viewer's ability to process information. His cuts are way faster than any other director I can think of, and this turns his action sequences into an indecipherable mess. Since he is trying to compete in the realm of triple-a hollywood blockbusters, he doesn't deserve the same grading scale as an intentionally cheesy homage to old action films.

The title wasn't just a reference to the Basterds.

I get that, but it did seem like a bait and switch (especially considering the trailers for the movie). The Basterds weren't even onscreen for half of the movie.

That's what character development is.

I felt that the dialogue and moral questions were more directed at the viewer than the other characters, though, which is not exactly character development. The characters were fleshed out and driven more by what happened than what was said during any of the dialogue. All in all, it was a unique effect that I quite liked.

Yes, some of us don't act like giddy 10-year-olds when confronted with violence. Chopping heads off isn't necessarily exciting.

I felt that the transition between the two movies was almost cruel, in a way. It felt as if the second movie was mostly buildup, but since it was placed at the end of the storyline and practically led to nothing, it was a rather jarring film when you've become accustomed to the first volume.

Again, everything was built around the premise of this violence, but since the violence almost completely tapered off by the beginning of the second movie, it felt like an empty shell in comparison. You can't have cheesy, melodramatic dialogue, awful editing and camera work, and bad sound design without the violence to turn it into a complete experience. Why would you turn something that's, at it's heart, an action movie, into a half-baked romantic drama? I frown on the second movie for this, and I've tried to erase it from my memory. I'm more satisfied with a half-complete story, honestly.

No, it is far superior, regardless of goals.

Please bother to tell me how. You can not be superior to something if you are not fighting to achieve the same thing.

Well, no, skill doesn't deserve anything because dessert is in and of itself an empty concept, but that's another conversation.

Why isn't someone who pours his heart and soul into his efforts more deserving than someone who goes by the numbers with his efforts?

I would? What makes you say that? Do you know me?

Paparazzi are often incredibly rude and invasive. Are you even aware of this? You may be able to handle yourself better than Tarantino in such a situation, but to say that this invasion of privacy wouldn't bother you whatsoever is a lie.

I take it you're a close, personal friend of QT?

A friend of mine hosts an annual independant film festival in Texas, which Tarantino has attended. I have met him once, though I mostly know through her that he is not nearly as explosive or easily angered in person as he acts whenever confronted by an agent of the media.

Say what?

Tarantino's movie are premised on the fact that they are pop culture references. That's all that the Kill Bills are.

I've already noted that Tarantino movies only tend to reference other films. Since films are accessable at any point in time, that puts them beyond any other cultural reference. Pulp Fiction could've taken place just as easily in 2011, or even 1982, since it didn't reference anything specific to 1994. This is very important, otherwise his movies would eventually feel dated if he made any cultural references that were specific to a time period.

Jani wrote:

Inglorious Basterds is his worst movie to date. It has potential, but fails to blossom. I cannot point exactly what went wrong, but somehow it's not convincing or entertaining. It's just another war movie with slightly different plot, alternate history theme, Brad Pitt and some humour which does not deliver.

For me, the whole Iglorious Basterd is filled with tension ready to explode.

Its like watching a soccer game, where its so tense , but maybe there are no goal scored in the whole game ?

But still , the process of reaching the end is exhilarating.

Chrysaor686 wrote:You tend to assert that something is of objectively bad quality without ever bothering to explain why...

Well there's your problem right there. A comment cannot be both objective, and qualitative.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
...and you speak in loose language with no reinforcement, so I have to fill in the blanks (and you don't want me to formulate part of your opinion for you, do you?).

I've been accused of a lot of things in my life, but lacking specificity isn't one of them. In fact, most people find me laboriously specific, just ask biccat.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
If you intend to pay homage to something that is unintentionally bad, and you hit the mark in every respect, then I would say that you made a good movie.

Right, but would that movie be bad if it did all those things by chance, and not intention? My questions were meant to illustrate that intention doesn't really mean much when judging the quality of individual works.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Yes it is bad, but because it is self-aware, that opens up an entirely new grading scale.

Why?

Chrysaor686 wrote:
The only really bad aspect of Michael Bay's films is that he has no consideration for the average viewer's ability to process information.

Uh, what? This is where I start to consider you unable to seriously rate the quality of film.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
I felt that the dialogue and moral questions were more directed at the viewer than the other characters, though, which is not exactly character development.

Except they weren't, they were directed at other characters in the film. No one breaks the 4th wall in Basterds, and what you hear the characters say, and what you see them go through, are all constitutive of the characters.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
I felt that the transition between the two movies was almost cruel, in a way. It felt as if the second movie was mostly buildup, but since it was placed at the end of the storyline and practically led to nothing, it was a rather jarring film when you've become accustomed to the first volume.

Yes, it was a heavy-handed satire.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Again, everything was built around the premise of this violence, but since the violence almost completely tapered off by the beginning of the second movie, it felt like an empty shell in comparison.

The violence was the setup for the punchline that is the second movie.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Please bother to tell me how. You can not be superior to something if you are not fighting to achieve the same thing.

Of course you can, it happens all the time. The American cheese analogy is perfect here as well.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Why isn't someone who pours his heart and soul into his efforts more deserving than someone who goes by the numbers with his efforts?

No, that's backwards. You have to explain to me why anyone is deserving of anything first, which is something you won't be able to do because I don't care about appeals to emotion, I only care about logic.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Paparazzi are often incredibly rude and invasive. Are you even aware of this? You may be able to handle yourself better than Tarantino in such a situation, but to say that this invasion of privacy wouldn't bother you whatsoever is a lie.

No, you believe its a lie. The point I'm making is that it is particularly stupid to claim that person X would behave in a certain way when you have very little knowledge of that person, and no compelling evidence to support your claim.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
I've already noted that Tarantino movies only tend to reference other films. Since films are accessable at any point in time, that puts them beyond any other cultural reference.Pulp Fiction could've taken place just as easily in 2011, or even 1982, since it didn't reference anything specific to 1994. This is very important, otherwise his movies would eventually feel dated if he made any cultural references that were specific to a time period.

Do you not know what pop culture is? Because what you're arguing is absurd. Its the same as arguing that Wild Planet is timeless because I can look up the headlines from the day the album dropped.

Dogma wrote:Well there's your problem right there. A comment cannot be both objective, and qualitative.

Touche, salesman. Though I have to say, films, like any other art form, exist on two scales of quality. The objective scale comes first, and of course, it is rigid. The subjective scale is used when two films are at about the same place on the objective scale.

I'm just trying to discern your subjective reasoning towards the quality of both Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds, which is next to impossible with only a single sentence on the matter.

Right, but would that movie be bad if it did all those things by chance, and not intention? My questions were meant to illustrate that intention doesn't really mean much when judging the quality of individual works.

You cannot reference something by accident. If Kill Bill came out at the time it did with no predecessors to play off of, then yes, it would've been a terrible movie. That's not the way that films work, though. A script, method of direction, or cinematography might be timelessly excellent, but production quality has progressively gotten better since the inception of film.

Without the factor of nostalgia (in other words, if all production was always the same exact quality it is now; an impossibility), Kill Bill would've been an awful movie. Since the homage is so universal, you don't even need to see it's main source material to know that it is (mainly) one big reference to old asian action movies (along with some 70's filmmaking sensibilities and other things). You either appreciate this, or you don't, but intention means everything in this case.

Why [does Kill Bill deserve to be graded on a different scale]?

Because reproducing the art of ages past is an art in itself, especially when your art form is drowning in modern technique and expects you to do the same. Everything about Kill Bill is painfully intentional; no competent director would ever use that same method of cinematography, or sound effects, or melodramatic dialogue in this age without an intention to pay respect to ages past.

Uh, what? This is where I start to consider you unable to seriously rate the quality of film.

I'm not saying Michael Bay has an incredible amount of depth to his filmmaking, or anything (I'd only give that accolade to filmmakers like Beat Takeshi, and even then, it's not a problem for me to process depth). I am saying that his cuts are way too fast-paced and jarring during moments of intensity (moreso than any other director I can think of), which leaves you wondering what the hell is even going on during any action sequence. Since he only directs action movies, this is extremely bad form.

Except they weren't, they were directed at other characters in the film. No one breaks the 4th wall in Basterds, and what you hear the characters say, and what you see them go through, are all constitutive of the characters.

Though no one breaks the fourth wall in Inglorious Basterds, the character's reactions to these moral questions do not really define them as characters. The dialogue is a bit less natural than most of Tarantino's films, and more like heavy-handed questionaire that the viewer will undoubtedly have to answer for themselves (especially during Landa's dialogue). The character's motives and personalities are not defined by these questions, though, no matter which side of the query they are on.

Yes, it was a heavy-handed satire.

The violence was the setup for the punchline that is the second movie.

It felt more like a slap in the face than a punchline.

However, now that I think about it, I think that Vol. 2 really questions my need to see violence, and my desensitization towards it in film. Since I hate it, and wish that both movies were consistently violent, that basically makes me a depraved person (and that may have been the point; the movie Funny Games raises a similar question). This is very interesting to me, as it is an excellent test of morality when approached in the right way.

Even though I may have just made a very important revelation, I still hate the second movie despite myself.

Of course you can, it happens all the time. The American cheese analogy is perfect here as well.

This is like saying that Rembrandt is a superior painter to Dali. They both have different methods, different goals, and different outcomes, so they are not comparable by any standard. If both movies had similar goals, then their elements could be weighed against each other, but they are entirely mismatched, so it is impossible to do so.

No, that's backwards. You have to explain to me why anyone is deserving of anything first, which is something you won't be able to do because I don't care about appeals to emotion, I only care about logic.

Someone who obviously puts more effort into his craft is more deserving than someone who doesn't. It's really that simple, yet things almost never work out that way.

No, you believe its a lie. The point I'm making is that it is particularly stupid to claim that person X would behave in a certain way when you have very little knowledge of that person, and no compelling evidence to support your claim.

If this is not the case, then you are a social anomaly. Being stalked will garner some sort of reaction in you unless you are completely without emotion, even if that reaction is not complete outrage.

Really, I'm asking if you blame Tarantino for blowing up whenever someone shoves a camera in his face, especially given that it's happened to him thousands upon thousands of times at this point.

Do you not know what pop culture is? Because what you're arguing is absurd. Its the same as arguing that Wild Planet is timeless because I can look up the headlines from the day the album dropped.

Films are only one aspect of pop culture. Though you are technically correct in calling all of his references 'pop culture references', you are not being nearly specific enough. It seems somewhat ignorant or lazy to do so.

Meh I liked kill in a Sunday matinee sort of way. I never bothered buy either of them. Now reservoir dogs and pulp fiction I really like. I love the dialog thepace and delivery. The characters were interesting to me and fun to watch. There's really not much on screen violence in either of them as well. Like you really only see two people or so get shot. And in a honesty I think those two movies hold up pretty well today because how they were shot and their dialog. I also have to say that I find most of tarrentinos pop culture references to be pretty obscure. So much so that I have trouble sometimes even recognizing them all.

That said, I kinda thought death proof sucked.

Dakkadan wrote:Meh I liked kill in a Sunday matinee sort of way. I never bothered buy either of them. Now reservoir dogs and pulp fiction I really like. I love the dialog thepace and delivery. The characters were interesting to me and fun to watch. There's really not much on screen violence in either of them as well. Like you really only see two people or so get shot. And in a honesty I think those two movies hold up pretty well today because how they were shot and their dialog. I also have to say that I find most of tarrentinos pop culture references to be pretty obscure. So much so that I have trouble sometimes even recognizing them all.

That said, I kinda thought death proof sucked.

Death Proof was QT's nod to 70's "Grindhouse" films...it was good for what it was.
I do enjoy most of his films, Resivoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in particular.

It is a mixxed bag on Deathproof. If you have ever seen any of those driving movies he was drawing from they were just as bad so in a way he succeeded. The dialogue usually wasn't as labored in the old drive-in movies but they also didn't have the awesomeness of Kurt Russel so it sort of balances out.

I've enjoyed every Tarantino film I've seen, excepting Jackie Brown and Death Proof. The guy makes movies about movies, either for fun, or to say something about movies. You'll either like this, or you won't. If don't it's no biggie, just a matter of personal taste, but that doesn't mean you can pretend that Tarantino doesn't have tremendous technical skill and a very insightful view on film.

Kill Bill, admittedly, had nothing to say about anything. It just revelling in the schlocky fun of mashing together b grade 70s kung fu movies and equally b grade revenge exploitation films from the west. I loved it, but I can see why, if someone didn't like that idea, they might have found the films boring. I can also see where Tarantino's dialogue heavy approach might have caused the two genres to work against each other, whereas I liked the contrast.

Complaining that the films are anti-climactic makes no sense, though. The point in the final scenes is in the Bride deciding to go through with her final revenge, regardless of what Bill might have once meant to her, and what he still means to the Bride's child. At the same time Bill is realising that the master told the Bride the hidden technique, that she kept that from him, and what that meant about their relationship. It's an emotional climax, one that's very strangely played straight and still played very well, and one that would have been hurt with an overblown action sequence.

LunaHound wrote:No they havnt , but it was a reminder to those that thinks Tarrtino's movie are hit or miss.
Because limited budget forces a director to find alternate methods of satisfying the viewers.

Tarantino has a long line of box office hits behind him, and is among the most famous directors in the world. He doesn't struggle to finance his movies. In fact, he has his pick of Hollywood talent, and basically gets to pick whatever number he wants for a budget. Inglorious Basterds was budgeted at around $70 million. The two Kill Bill movies cost about $80 million between them.

He makes top of the line, big tent productions. Do not mistake flashy CGI with big budgets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:If I intend to make a bad movie, and it is bad, does that mean its actually good? Are Michael Bay films good because they are exactly what Michael Bay intended to make?

Michael Bay intends to make unashamed CGI fests with crude humour and images of girls in tight clothes. He shows tremendous skill in getting these massive productions in the can on time, on budget.

That I do not like those movies does not mean that he has no talent. That I hated The Rock doesn't make it a bad movie.

Tarantino makes movies about movies. His knowledge of movies is near encyclopaedic, his range of commentaries on the medium is frequently very clever, and his technical skill as a film maker is excellent.

That you do not like what he's doing doesn't make his movies bad, nor negate the skill he puts into their production.

sebster wrote:I

He makes top of the line, big tent productions. Do not mistake flashy CGI with big budgets.

Perhaps i should say he efficiently uses his budget. And uses his strength as a director to make his movies successful.

And yes i see Bay's movie that satisfy viewer's lust for destruction , just like Q T satisfies our blood lust.
But Bay's costs alot more and takes little to no talent as the scale of it is completely different. Blood and gore is more refined as the angle , the splatters , itself all adds to the intensity.

Then we have explosions , yay giant fire balls the bigger the better , such brute.

sebster wrote:I've enjoyed every Tarantino film I've seen, excepting Jackie Brown and Death Proof. The guy makes movies about movies, either for fun, or to say something about movies. You'll either like this, or you won't. If don't it's no biggie, just a matter of personal taste, but that doesn't mean you can pretend that Tarantino doesn't have tremendous technical skill and a very insightful view on film.

Kill Bill, admittedly, had nothing to say about anything. It just revelling in the schlocky fun of mashing together b grade 70s kung fu movies and equally b grade revenge exploitation films from the west. I loved it, but I can see why, if someone didn't like that idea, they might have found the films boring. I can also see where Tarantino's dialogue heavy approach might have caused the two genres to work against each other, whereas I liked the contrast.

Complaining that the films are anti-climactic makes no sense, though. The point in the final scenes is in the Bride deciding to go through with her final revenge, regardless of what Bill might have once meant to her, and what he still means to the Bride's child. At the same time Bill is realising that the master told the Bride the hidden technique, that she kept that from him, and what that meant about their relationship. It's an emotional climax, one that's very strangely played straight and still played very well, and one that would have been hurt with an overblown action sequence.

Some good points here. I liked both halves of Kill Bill quite a bit, but for different reasons.

I recommend checking out Jackie Brown again sometime, though. I found it slow and boring the first time I saw it (in the theater) and hadn't bothered trying it again until recently. In the meantime I'd grown up more and seen more 70s cinema (good and bad) and gotten more acclimated to slower pacing, and this time I found it pretty darn good. Death Proof is probably his biggest mixed bag; the first part of it is definitely a bit long and self-indulgent. Just because the movies he was aping had lots of time-eating mediocre dialogue because they had no budget didn't mean he HAD to eat up that much screen time lusting over the girls and listening to them talk. Much as I like Tarantino's dialogue, it just went too long. The second half is pretty awesome, though. Fun characters and a great, real-cars-no-CGI chase scene. I miss those.

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Khornholio wrote:Why not just make them furries?

What does that have to do with the movie? (I've only seen parts of one of them, so... inform me)

For me at least, first there was the oneway ticket to Japan, which is generally hard to pull off with appropriate visas, etc., but nigh on impossible for someone who has escaped from a mental hospital. Second, there was everyone in Japan walking around with samurai swords, which put it over the top in lameitude for me. I couldn't suspend my disbelief at all. Not even slightly. He may as well have shown the Great Wall of China in Tokyo. At that point the movie was lost on me and I was disappointed in having spent the $3 ish to rent the DVD and I thought the only thing that could make this over-hyped Tarantino deuce any worse is having the characters be furries, as to further showcase his elementary school like vision of what Japan is like. This movie made Karate Kid 2 look awesome.

I liked some of his earlier stuff, but the peak was Pulp Fiction. After that it just goes from 'meh' to 'bleh'.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Touche, salesman.

Logician, actually.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
I'm just trying to discern your subjective reasoning towards the quality of both Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds, which is next to impossible with only a single sentence on the matter.

Kill Bill had awful pacing, terrible character development (and boring characters, the only good one was Bud), and bad aesthetics. Inglorious Basterds had great character development, great characters, good pacing (though the bar scene could have been trimmed, same for scenes with the French girl), and really, really good aesthetics.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
You cannot reference something by accident.

Yeah, you can, that's basically what irony is.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
You either appreciate this, or you don't, but intention means everything in this case.

I disagree. There's a reason that, while I love it, The Book of the New Sun is generally regarded as fairly bad science fiction.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Because reproducing the art of ages past is an art in itself, especially when your art form is drowning in modern technique and expects you to do the same. Everything about Kill Bill is painfully intentional; no competent director would ever use that same method of cinematography, or sound effects, or melodramatic dialogue in this age without an intention to pay respect to ages past.

But that doesn't make the film good. There are reasons that we don't do things like we used to, and most of them relate to "we don't have to anymore."

Its like Slings and Arrows. The show is pants, but theater people love it for its insider look at theater, but its still pants.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Since he only directs action movies, this is extremely bad form.

He also struggles with being derivative of 80's action flicks, which is why most people consider him bad. You can definitely create solid, quick-cut action films. Wanted is a good example.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Though no one breaks the fourth wall in Inglorious Basterds, the character's reactions to these moral questions do not really define them as characters. The dialogue is a bit less natural than most of Tarantino's films, and more like heavy-handed questionaire that the viewer will undoubtedly have to answer for themselves (especially during Landa's dialogue). The character's motives and personalities are not defined by these questions, though, no matter which side of the query they are on.

Sure they are, Landa very clearly sits on a particular pedestal as a moral actor: pragmatic utilitarian. Maybe its just me and my familiarity with ethics, but its quite obvious where all the characters sit when it comes to moral choices, and the quandaries are the only thing which illustrates that.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
It felt more like a slap in the face than a punchline.

Those are the best punchlines.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
This is very interesting to me, as it is an excellent test of morality when approached in the right way.

If you want to go in that direction, I preferred 2 because it involved more manipulation.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
This is like saying that Rembrandt is a superior painter to Dali. They both have different methods, different goals, and different outcomes, so they are not comparable by any standard.

Of course they are. The standard of preference. The first thing that you learn when studying aesthetics is that what people feel when they look at X is critical.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Someone who obviously puts more effort into his craft is more deserving than someone who doesn't. It's really that simple, yet things almost never work out that way.

I still don't know why that's the case. If person X is a virtuoso, banging out Motzart while drunk and high why should they not be appreciated at the level of the guy who practices 10 hours a day?

Chrysaor686 wrote:
If this is not the case, then you are a social anomaly. Being stalked will garner some sort of reaction in you unless you are completely without emotion, even if that reaction is not complete outrage.

I've been trying to kill my emotions off since I was about 10.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Really, I'm asking if you blame Tarantino for blowing up whenever someone shoves a camera in his face, especially given that it's happened to him thousands upon thousands of times at this point.

Of course, he did it.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Films are only one aspect of pop culture. Though you are technically correct in calling all of his references 'pop culture references', you are not being nearly specific enough. It seems somewhat ignorant or lazy to do so.

No, its actually quite accurate. He references film, and film pop culture, therefore he references pop culture.

sebster wrote:
Complaining that the films are anti-climactic makes no sense, though. The point in the final scenes is in the Bride deciding to go through with her final revenge, regardless of what Bill might have once meant to her, and what he still means to the Bride's child. At the same time Bill is realising that the master told the Bride the hidden technique, that she kept that from him, and what that meant about their relationship. It's an emotional climax, one that's very strangely played straight and still played very well, and one that would have been hurt with an overblown action sequence.

Meh, I just wanted to see them hit each other in the faces with those swords. Or maybe one of them pull the others arm off and beat the other to death with the wet end (well it IS a Quentin film after all) but nooo Quentin has to go all clever on us and change the goalpost at the last minute. Wasn't the whole film/s about a double hard bird (she definitely drank pints that one) carving her way through countless people in the quest for finding some random called, funnily enough, Bill in order to go all grimdark on him?

After more than a few killings and "Where's Bill?" interrogations she tracks him down and the stage is set for a proper drama. They have matching swishy swipey chippy choppy super swords and both of them are capable of kicking a Space Marines bottom (well maybe thats stretching it a bit). How can anyone expect the ending to be anything other than a ridiculously OTT confrontation? Were we even watching the same film? But instead what we got, straight from Quentin's deepest darkest mind, is for the two super assassins/former squeezes to forget that they have swords and to start rowing! Coronation Street style!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some northern English lad who's IQ is matched only by his shoe size and who doesn't like films unless they have blood and explosions in them but I do like things to do what it says on the tin and 95% of the tin had 'Bills in the s**t' written all over it in a choppy uppy kind of way.

So yeah, the 'lets put the chab to bed then have a row' is most definitely anti-climactic.

QT, IMO, needs to stop trying to educate us all with B movie gold homage and stick to making great 'normal' films like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. But I very much doubt he would give a rats ass what I think anyway so I will get off my soapbox now and shut it, your welcome.

Great guy though. Funny too.

Pulp Fiction is not a "normal" film.

I like Tarantino's movies. For a guy who's, apparently, so obsessed with himself and egotistical (I don't know the guy, just going off the media), his movies are really good at not taking themselves too seriously.

Kill Bill has a great comic-booky vibe to it that I enjoy. The fight scenes are fantastic, yet still quite realistic and painful looking.

But each to their own.

Khornholio wrote:For me at least, first there was the oneway ticket to Japan, which is generally hard to pull off with appropriate visas, etc., but nigh on impossible for someone who has escaped from a mental hospital. Second, there was everyone in Japan walking around with samurai swords, which put it over the top in lameitude for me. I couldn't suspend my disbelief at all.

You weren't being asked to suspend your disbelief. The world shown was utterly fantastical, completely ridiculous. You could guess that part of the Bride's training involved getting false passports or something, if you wanted, but really you were being told that kind of thing didn't matter. This film doesn't take any interest in being plausible, and the time you spend worrying about that kind of stuff is time spent missing the point of the movie.

as to further showcase his elementary school like vision of what Japan is like. This movie made Karate Kid 2 look awesome.

It wasn't about showing Japan as he actually thought it was. That's like complaining that people crippled in brutal assaults don't really recover from comas and become hardened killers capable of slaughtering hundreds of people standing in their way to vengeance. Or that there isn't actually secret kung fu taught by mysterious teachers to a handful of students that make them rock hard super killers. These are deliberate, fantastical elements of the setting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Perhaps i should say he efficiently uses his budget.

How do you even measure that?

And yes i see Bay's movie that satisfy viewer's lust for destruction , just like Q T satisfies our blood lust.

Is Tarantino just about satisfying bloodlust? Would they be the same movies if the dialogue was dropped and we just got the violence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I recommend checking out Jackie Brown again sometime, though. I found it slow and boring the first time I saw it (in the theater) and hadn't bothered trying it again until recently. In the meantime I'd grown up more and seen more 70s cinema (good and bad) and gotten more acclimated to slower pacing, and this time I found it pretty darn good.

I'll take you up on that, I was a lot younger when I saw it and could well have missed most of what he was getting at. I saw Pulp Fiction again a while ago and realised that while I loved it when I was younger, I missed a hell of a lot of what was going on.

Death Proof is probably his biggest mixed bag; the first part of it is definitely a bit long and self-indulgent. Just because the movies he was aping had lots of time-eating mediocre dialogue because they had no budget didn't mean he HAD to eat up that much screen time lusting over the girls and listening to them talk. Much as I like Tarantino's dialogue, it just went too long. The second half is pretty awesome, though. Fun characters and a great, real-cars-no-CGI chase scene. I miss those.

Yeah, I liked the idea of time chewing dialogue that was actually written by someone with a bit of talent, compared to all the crap we got in those old grindhouse movies. And who better to write it than Tarantino? Except he dropped the ball, badly, and put up his worst script out of any of his movies. By the time the chase started I just didn't care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Muhr wrote:Meh, I just wanted to see them hit each other in the faces with those swords.

Okay, but you were wanting a different movie with a different intent than Kill Bill.

Or maybe one of them pull the others arm off and beat the other to death with the wet end (well it IS a Quentin film after all) but nooo Quentin has to go all clever on us and change the goalpost at the last minute. Wasn't the whole film/s about a double hard bird (she definitely drank pints that one) carving her way through countless people in the quest for finding some random called, funnily enough, Bill in order to go all grimdark on him?

Those were the goalposts from the beginning of the movie. There was only one huge, over the top bloodfest in the whole movie, the fight preceding the fight with Lucy Liu. Other than that there were two ugly brawls with women in tight locations (Vivica Fox and Darryl Hanna), and a weird journey off into American gothic territory with a live burial (ending up with Michael Madsen's death).

In between there were long periods of dialogue about kung fu and revenge, a creepy coma scene, and a load of training montages.

When the ending was all about that kung fu training, and about why she had to get revenge, you really shouldn't have been surprised.

After more than a few killings and "Where's Bill?" interrogations she tracks him down and the stage is set for a proper drama.

She wasn't killing them to find out where Bill was, she was killing them because they were part of it and also deserved death. Then when she came for Bill, a father figure of hers and also the guy looking after her child and very regretful of what he did (something she in part was to blame for), then the primary conflict was emotional, not physical. Trying to put some level of suspense into the physical would have been the point of the two main elements - kung fu (she'd been taught the five pointed palm technique that had been denied to Bill and so her kung fu was absolutely superior) and revenge (that it was an ugly, ugly business, but sometimes a necessary one).

QT, IMO, needs to stop trying to educate us all with B movie gold homage and stick to making great 'normal' films like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.

But both of those movies were very heavy on the homage.

Dogma wrote:Logician, actually.

That was a Family Guy reference that I use whenever I feel the need to say the word 'touche'.

Kill Bill had awful pacing, terrible character development (and boring characters, the only good one was Bud), and bad aesthetics. Inglorious Basterds had great character development, great characters, good pacing (though the bar scene could have been trimmed, same for scenes with the French girl), and really, really good aesthetics.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here, but at least I'll give you the courtesy of explaining why.

I felt that the pacing in Kill Bill vol. 1 was perfect. Almost too perfect, in a 70's B-movie sense (where they tried too hard to appeal to the audience by following a set formula; I managed to see the charm in this because I could see that Tarantino was doing it intentionally). The ebb and flow was very calculated and exact, and the storyline was shifted around in such a way to provide for a perfect balance of speed and intensity.

I also loved the non-existent character development in the first movie, as I understood what it was going for. Part of the reason that the characters in old-school action movies were so badass is because they were unknowable, unstoppable forces. They had their sole motive, but other than that, you kind of got to fill in their story for them, and this was a return to form in that sense. I especially love the anonymity of Bill, as I really miss those omnipotent, enigmatic antagonists that used to be so prevalent (the second movie ruined this right out of the gate, which I hated).

I grew up on kung-fu movies as a kid. They were practically my bread and butter. Needless to say, I loved the aesthetics of Kill Bill, as it's easy to see that Tarantino really appreciates that kind of film. He hits the nail on the head when it came to what made those movies (both the good and the bad). When I first saw Kill Bill, it brought back so many memories from my childhood, and it was one of the few chances I've ever had to actually enjoy some cheesiness (I tend to hate anything that can't take itself seriously, but the action was 'unintentionally' hilarious all the way through). I continued to see the movie five times in theaters, and bought it the day it came out. Volume 2 was a horrible disappointment to me, but I've already made that clear.

The pacing in Inglorious Basterds was all over the place. The dialogues tend to draw on for far too long, and I didn't get much comic relief (because I felt most of the attempts at comedy fell flat, except for one or two lines from Aldo). The action scenes tended to be lightning-fast, so they provided almost no respite from the long segments without anything particularly interesting going on (except for the excellent ending scene). Most of the pointless banter felt far too self-indulgent, as I can't relate too well to a character who lived in 1940's Germany or France (nor do I care to), and the balance between serious drama and completely over-the-top parody material was a bit too polarized for my liking. I found the scenes with Shosanna to be some of the best in the movie, right behind scenes featuring Colonel Landa.

Inglorious Basterds did have excellent character development, no matter if it achieved this character development in some strange ways. I felt like I knew each character's exact motivations at exactly the right time, so kudos for that.

If you enjoy parodies, the aesthetics of Inglorious Basterds were pretty good. At the very least, it's the most unique World War 2 setting I've ever seen. I have to say I didn't know what the movie was trying to do with itself most of the time (which is the opposite effect that Kill Bill had on me). It felt like Tarantino had a goal in mind, but he threw in whatever he felt like along the way. It's certainly not very succinct, and I can't say that the movie resonates as a whole (though individual plot threads are incredibly poetic and entertaining).

Again, this is just my opinion. I just thought I would explain myself to the best of my ability, so you would know where I stand in this argument.

Yeah, you can, that's basically what irony is.

Okay, let me rephrase that. You can't reference that many things unintentionally. You might get lucky once in a while, but it becomes obvious when things are intentional.

But that doesn't make the film good. There are reasons that we don't do things like we used to, and most of them relate to "we don't have to anymore."

Its like Slings and Arrows. The show is pants, but theater people love it for its insider look at theater, but its still pants.

I will concede that Kill Bill is a somewhat bad movie when held up to current standards. However, if you're going to hold it up to current standards, then the entire point of the movie completely flew over your head and you shouldn't be watching it in the first place. It's just going to be a complete waste of your time, if that's the way you really want to look at things. Think of it as the pinnacle of 70's action movies, and you're golden.

It really wouldn't hurt you to admit that intention does make all of the difference in this sense, even if you aren't willing to appreciate that intention.

Sure they are, Landa very clearly sits on a particular pedestal as a moral actor: pragmatic utilitarian. Maybe its just me and my familiarity with ethics, but its quite obvious where all the characters sit when it comes to moral choices, and the quandaries are the only thing which illustrates that.

The point I'm trying to make here is....it could've been a silent film, and you still would've known exactly where each character stands, and their intentions for everything they choose to do. The higher plot might've been lost in translation, but the character development would almost remain untouched. The proposed questions are more food for personal thought than anything else.

If you want to go in that direction, I preferred 2 because it involved more manipulation.

But if you actually enjoyed volume 2, it never manipulated you in this way. Also, this manipulation would not have been possible without the first movie at all.

Of course they are. The standard of preference. The first thing that you learn when studying aesthetics is that what people feel when they look at X is critical.

Preference is not a quantifiable standard by any means, nor is it a good basis for a comparison

I still don't know why that's the case. If person X is a virtuoso, banging out Motzart while drunk and high why should they not be appreciated at the level of the guy who practices 10 hours a day?

I would certainly appreciate someone who practices 10 hours a day more than a lazy virtuoso, as I have a lot of respect for pure physical skill. Compositional skill can only exist on a foundation of physical skill, though, so you should keep that in mind. Even if you are a virtuoso, you need the chops to back it up, which don't come effortlessly to anyone.

No, its actually quite accurate. He references film, and film pop culture, therefore he references pop culture.

I'm not saying it's not correct, but why not use the most specific terminology whenever possible to avoid confusion?

Kornholio wrote:For me at least, first there was the oneway ticket to Japan, which is generally hard to pull off with appropriate visas, etc., but nigh on impossible for someone who has escaped from a mental hospital. Second, there was everyone in Japan walking around with samurai swords, which put it over the top in lameitude for me. I couldn't suspend my disbelief at all. Not even slightly. He may as well have shown the Great Wall of China in Tokyo. At that point the movie was lost on me and I was disappointed in having spent the $3 ish to rent the DVD and I thought the only thing that could make this over-hyped Tarantino deuce any worse is having the characters be furries, as to further showcase his elementary school like vision of what Japan is like. This movie made Karate Kid 2 look awesome.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you expect a movie about a girl who is a member of an assassination squad, who gets shot in the head by her former lover and returns to life to seek revenge on him with her elite martial arts skills to be true to life?

Give me a break. Looks like the point flew way over your head as well. To quote Tarantino, this is a 'movie movie'. This is the kind of film that the characters in Pulp Fiction would go see. At no point in the film are you supposed to be grounded in reality. You don't need to suspend your disbelief, because you don't need to believe it's actually happening, or even that it's remotely possible, at any point. I'm sure you've enjoyed your fair share of movies in this vein.

sebster wrote:I'll take you up on that, I was a lot younger when I saw it and could well have missed most of what he was getting at. I saw Pulp Fiction again a while ago and realised that while I loved it when I was younger, I missed a hell of a lot of what was going on.

Yeah, I definitely recommend checking out Jackie Brown again as well. Even though it's not his writing, it *almost* sounds like it (if a bit less poetic). Samuel L. Jackson and Robert DeNiro are perfect here (Quentin really understands how to work with both of these actors), and I think this is Pam Grier's best performance. Go into it expecting a blaxploitation movie, and you won't be disappointed.

Literally the only aspect of Jackie Brown I don't like is the half-baked romance between Jackie and Max. It feels a little off to me, but don't blame Tarantino, blame Leonard (the guy that wrote Rum Punch).

Discussing intent in popular culture.

I liked the cartoon bit, the rest was fairly meh

I liked Kill Bill. The movie was pure 100% Tarantino. I can also see how people would hate the movie. Too much Tarantino becomes too cool, or tries to hard to be cool, which in the eyes of many people makes the movie really uncool. If your not a fan of Tarantino especially Pulp Fiction by all means skip Kill Bill, it's not going to be your cup of tea.

Meh.

Reservoir dogs was the last Tarantino movie I saw.

His directing style doesn't grab me - and the rapidfire jump-cut edits don't do him any favours.

I had one friend who really liked his movies - and he's now dead to me (well, dead to everyone, really. Really, really dead).

I liked Kill Bill quite a bit. The sword fights are over the top slapstick, that are meant to be so. But some of it is really choice.

but yea, Tarantino is overhyped in a big way. He does occasionally make a good movie (Pulp Fiction, Inglorieous Bastards), if you take them for what they are, and they aren't Shakespeare.

I do like Shakespeare...

purplefood wrote:I do like Shakespeare...

As do. DON'T GIVE TARANTINO IDEAS!

Muhr wrote:How can anyone expect the ending to be anything other than a ridiculously OTT confrontation?

By paying attention to the foreshadowing?


Craig's segment in the latest D6G episode might also apply here...

I still enjoy the assumptions made by many here that they were 2 separate movies...

purplefood wrote:I do like Shakespeare...

I only really enjoyed Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet wasn't my cup of tea and I have yet to read his other scripts.

Cheesecat wrote:

purplefood wrote:I do like Shakespeare...

I only really enjoyed Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet wasn't my cup of tea and I have yet to read his other scripts.

Othello is a very good one.
Macbeth is one of my favorites...

dogma wrote:Pulp Fiction is not a "normal" film.

Well at least I know what I mean.

I still enjoy the assumptions made by many here that they were 2 separate movies...

They are.

I know that they were originally a single movie, but Harvey Weinstein insisted that Kill Bill be released in two volumes so that most of the movie could remain intact, as not that many people will sit through a four hour film.

However, volume 1 and volume 2 are entirely different from one another, in every respect. Trying to argue that they aren't two different movies is like saying that the plot in The Fellowship of the Ring is the same as the plot in The Return of the King. They may have been the same entity at some point, but both volumes are so fundamentally different that they deserve to be taken on their own merits.

AvatarForm wrote:I still enjoy the assumptions made by many here that they were 2 separate movies...

They were two separate movies...during the theatrical release one did not gain admittance to Volume ll simply because they'd seen Volume l...
Now,from a "story" point of view...It could be considered " One movie"...but by your rational Star Wars episodes lV,V and Vl could be seen as "one movie".

Chrysaor686 wrote:
The pacing in Inglorious Basterds was all over the place. The dialogues tend to draw on for far too long, and I didn't get much comic relief (because I felt most of the attempts at comedy fell flat, except for one or two lines from Aldo).

Ah, ok, that makes sense. See, I grew up on war movies and westerns. My dad is a huge John Wayne fan. We watch McLintock! and Longest Day every Christmas Eve, so Inglorious Basterds hit a lot of positive notes for me. That being said, its sense of humor also appeals to me far more, as I tend to enjoy Landa as a comic character in the same way I enjoy the elder Lebowski and Jackie Treehorn.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
If you enjoy parodies, the aesthetics of Inglorious Basterds were pretty good.

See, that's exactly why I like the second Kill Bill more than the first, and consider it better viewed as an extension of the first.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Okay, let me rephrase that. You can't reference that many things unintentionally. You might get lucky once in a while, but it becomes obvious when things are intentional.

If that were true, we wouldn't still be debating the meaning of Hamlet.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
I will concede that Kill Bill is a somewhat bad movie when held up to current standards. However, if you're going to hold it up to current standards, then the entire point of the movie completely flew over your head and you shouldn't be watching it in the first place. It's just going to be a complete waste of your time, if that's the way you really want to look at things. Think of it as the pinnacle of 70's action movies, and you're golden.

As I've said, I know what QT wanted to do, and that wasn't make a good film. He wanted to pay homage to, and satirize, old westerns and samurai flicks. That's fine, but what he made was a poor movie for exactly the same reasons that both genres stumbled, and a few new ones that are unique to Kill Bill (iron-fisted satire mostly).

A movie isn't good because it has a lot of in-jokes, in fact the more in-jokes there are the worse the film tends to be, a movie is good because it can stand on its own merit.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
It really wouldn't hurt you to admit that intention does make all of the difference in this sense, even if you aren't willing to appreciate that intention.

But, again, I don't think it matter at all. Intentionality doesn't carry the weight of teleology.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
The point I'm trying to make here is....it could've been a silent film, and you still would've known exactly where each character stands, and their intentions for everything they choose to do.

The first scene would have been awful without Landa's voice.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
But if you actually enjoyed volume 2, it never manipulated you in this way.

Which way?

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Also, this manipulation would not have been possible without the first movie at all.

Sure, but that doesn't make Part 1 any less painful to watch.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Preference is not a quantifiable standard by any means, nor is it a good basis for a comparison

It doesn't have to quantifiable to be a standard. And, honestly, its the only real basis for comparison that exists regarding art.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
I would certainly appreciate someone who practices 10 hours a day more than a lazy virtuoso, as I have a lot of respect for pure physical skill. Compositional skill can only exist on a foundation of physical skill, though, so you should keep that in mind. Even if you are a virtuoso, you need the chops to back it up, which don't come effortlessly to anyone.

I can't really reply to this without sounding even more arrogant than I normally do, but here goes.

I'm really good at doing academic things. Really good. I don't study, I drink all the time, and I piss away most of my time in the gym, reading TMZ, or debating Kill Bill on Dakka. Yet I'm a PhD candidate who has been published several times in a subject not related to my field of study, speak several languages, and taught myself multivariate calculus.

Now, I'm not Einstein (nothing I've written is particularly original), and no one has ever been Will Hunting, but there are people that are just good at certain things by way of either forgotten effort (my dad stuck Metaphysics in my hand at age 10 and said "read it") or "odd" happiness reflexes.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
I'm not saying it's not correct, but why not use the most specific terminology whenever possible to avoid confusion?

It was precisely as specific as I wanted it to be.

This conversation is Meh to me. To each their own. Whatever floats your boat. I personally like QT's films. There are plenty of movies out there that I hate and everyone else loves. Why do we always got to try and prove to someone that a movie they like is bad?

Lord Scythican wrote:This conversation is Meh to me. To each their own. Whatever floats your boat. I personally like QT's films. There are plenty of movies out there that I hate and everyone else loves. Why do we always got to try and prove to someone that a movie they like is bad?

I'm not. Movies are in the eye of the beerholder. If you like a movie great, if you other people don't like movies you do, then they can off (or more precisely each can state their reasoning and agree to disagree as there is no right answer).

sebster wrote:

Khornholio wrote:For me at least, first there was the oneway ticket to Japan, which is generally hard to pull off with appropriate visas, etc., but nigh on impossible for someone who has escaped from a mental hospital. Second, there was everyone in Japan walking around with samurai swords, which put it over the top in lameitude for me. I couldn't suspend my disbelief at all.

You weren't being asked to suspend your disbelief. The world shown was utterly fantastical, completely ridiculous. You could guess that part of the Bride's training involved getting false passports or something, if you wanted, but really you were being told that kind of thing didn't matter. This film doesn't take any interest in being plausible, and the time you spend worrying about that kind of stuff is time spent missing the point of the movie.

as to further showcase his elementary school like vision of what Japan is like. This movie made Karate Kid 2 look awesome.

It wasn't about showing Japan as he actually thought it was. That's like complaining that people crippled in brutal assaults don't really recover from comas and become hardened killers capable of slaughtering hundreds of people standing in their way to vengeance. Or that there isn't actually secret kung fu taught by mysterious teachers to a handful of students that make them rock hard super killers. These are deliberate, fantastical elements of the setting.

Then he missed the mark as the movie was a turd.

Frazzled wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:This conversation is Meh to me. To each their own. Whatever floats your boat. I personally like QT's films. There are plenty of movies out there that I hate and everyone else loves. Why do we always got to try and prove to someone that a movie they like is bad?

I'm not. Movies are in the eye of the beerholder. If you like a movie great, if you other people don't like movies you do, then they can off (or more precisely each can state their reasoning and agree to disagree as there is no right answer).

Nice. I guess I might just start using that expression!

Khornholio wrote:Then he missed the mark as the movie was a turd.

Your response was very poor, and you should feel bad about having made it.

sebster wrote:

Khornholio wrote:Then he missed the mark as the movie was a turd.

Your response was very poor, and you should feel bad about having made it.

He should feel none of it. In a sane and rational world QT would be like Ed Wood, laughable at how bad his works are and lauded as what NOT to do with a movie. But, with Hollywood starving for anything that can draw crowds, that overrated hack gets work. So no, Khornholio should feel nothing but pride in his true statement. QT is a glorified turd polisher.

Eugh....

Wyrmalla wrote:Eugh....

Perfect Response!

Only good Tarantino movie was Natural Born Killers, and even that's a stretch since Oliver Stone directed it.
/thread.

Stormrider wrote:QT is a glorified turd polisher.

I'm no QT fan, but claiming that he sucks? Nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:...as there is no right answer).

There's always a right answer. Its just that some people aren't smart enough to realize that what is right is generally not determined by objective reason.

Stormrider wrote:He should feel none of it. In a sane and rational world QT would be like Ed Wood, laughable at how bad his works are and lauded as what NOT to do with a movie. But, with Hollywood starving for anything that can draw crowds, that overrated hack gets work. So no, Khornholio should feel nothing but pride in his true statement.

No, the crappiness of his answer has nothing to do with whether or not he likes QT. He complained that the version of Japan in the movie wasn't much like Japan. I pointed out that the Japan shown was a deliberately and obviously fantastical setting. Khornholio could only manage to response to that by saying '(Tarantino) missed the mark because the movie is a turd'.

Let's look at the structure of that conversation;
K - I didn't like the movie, because of A.
S - You misunderstood A, because B.
K - No, because I didn't like the movie.

It's a terrible, terrible response. You should feel bad for having made such a terrible effort.

QT is a glorified turd polisher.

It is a good thing to realise there are skilled, talented directors who do work you don't like. Understanding that is an important part of being able to give a view on media beyond either 'that's awesome hurrrr' or 'that's sucks hurrrr'.

Similarly, while I like Tarantino's movies, I'm more than happy to talk about his limitations, particularly his lack of range (he moulds genres into the Tarantino style, rather than actually changing his style to suit the genre) and a lack of substance to his films (the only subject he shows any real insight into is movies).

It's really important to understand that whether you like a movie or not, you can talk about its strengths and weakness in an objective fashion. It's one of the best ways to learn about movies. Simply ignoring the obvious technical strengths of Tarantino movies because 'he's a turd polisher hurrrr' is a crap approach.

Have it your way, dude. That movie was still a turd and it sucked.

I'm not going to get into a deep discussion about QT's films, because I don't think they deserve it. But, if you want to let everyone know how you feel about them, go right ahead.

It wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that good either lets be honest.

QT has made some proper good films, but I do get the impression that people want to suck him off for no good reason. Resevoir dogs and Pulp fiction were mint, but KB was meh in my eyes.

I liked True Romance alot as well, if only for Dennis Hoppers excellent racial abuse scene!

QT's films are more about entertainment than anything else and usually delivers in that department for me. I'm also a fan of his scripts like Crimson Tide. And imo Kill Bill 1 > 2. The first one had a lot more fun and a better pace and it kind of set the bar too high for the sequel.

I like that he pays homage to past films especially spaghetti westerns and its interesting to see a director focus on traditional special effects rather than investing in CGI.

But the peak of his work was by far Pulp Fiction. Hasn't been the same since.

Cane wrote:But the peak of his work was by far Pulp Fiction. Hasn't been the same since.

Agreed, although I'd proffer Inglorious Basterds was close. Something about machine gunning Hitler just warms my heart.

Khornholio wrote:Have it your way, dude. That movie was still a turd and it sucked.

I'm not going to get into a deep discussion about QT's films, because I don't think they deserve it. But, if you want to let everyone know how you feel about them, go right ahead.

You don't have to get into a deeper conversation if you don't want to. Even if it was a deeper movie, it'd still be just a movie. You're welcome to go with your gut reaction, say whether you liked it or not and think no more on the subject.

Except that isn't what you did. You tried to explain what you thought was a flaw in the movie, and when I corrected you on your misunderstanding of the setting, you didn't a response. So instead of admitting you made a mistake in your understanding of the movie, you retreated back into just blurting your overall opinion of the movie and ignoring the argument you made.

It is okay to be wrong. You can be wrong about this one point on the setting, and still hold your opinion about the movie. But accepting you made a mistake is still really important.

I'm so sorry. Let me apologize not only for myself but also for all the other idiots of the world whose opinions are different from yours. Your understanding and enjoyment of these movies was obviously the truth, and we have been like little donkeys, and we should not have enjoyed these movies ourselves. Thank you for showing us the truth in such a frank matter.

micahaphone wrote:I'm so sorry. Let me apologize not only for myself but also for all the other idiots of the world whose opinions are different from yours. Your understanding and enjoyment of these movies was obviously the truth, and we have been like little donkeys, and we should not have enjoyed these movies ourselves. Thank you for showing us the truth in such a frank matter.

I think whats he's trying to say is just because you hate a certain style of film doesn't mean that style of film can't be pulled off well. Being able to decipher the difference between the limitations of artist and his art is

an important skill to learn when applying criticism.

Thanks, cheesecat. I was rather annoyed with humanity in general when I read the first post.

micahaphone wrote:Thanks, cheesecat. I was rather annoyed with humanity in general when I read the first post.

No problem at least I think that's what Sebster meant, I hope...

Also I find the intolerant application of opinions to be very aggravating. Opinions =/= truth, 95% of the time.

micahaphone wrote:Also I find the intolerant application of opinions to be very aggravating. Opinions =/= truth, 95% of the time.

What I'm saying you can still hate a movie and realize that there was a lot of talent, skill, a good representation of the genre, etc and still hate it because you don't find the way it was depicted entertaining. Or vice versa.

Aye, you have a way with words. You speak the truth.

Also, if you honestly hated this movie because it was OOT and unrealistic, well, I really have nothing to do but face palm.

sebster wrote:

It is okay to be wrong. You can be wrong about this one point on the setting, and still hold your opinion about the movie. But accepting you made a mistake is still really important.

That's very big of you. Thank you for apologizing. I accept your apology.

Cheesecat wrote:No problem at least I think that's what Sebster meant, I hope...

I think micaphone was responding to the OP, not my own post, though I'm not certain.

And yeah, I was trying to say that you can recognise the qualities and failings of a movie objectively, whether or not you liked it. Whether you liked it or not, Kill Bill had objective strengths and objective weaknesses, same as every movie. If you don't want to analyse movies on that level you don't have to, and can simply say whether you liked it or not.

My point to khornholio was that you can't have it both ways, try and explain the weaknesses of a film, then when your argument is found wanting retreat into 'I just didn't like it'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:That's very big of you. Thank you for apologizing. I accept your apology.

Don't be childish. Just admit that you saw a depiction of Japan you misunderstood, and this coloured your opinion of the movie. It's okay.

Oh crap, I'm sorry. I was responding to the first point. Sorry Sebster/cheesecat. I should have clarified.

micahaphone wrote:Oh crap, I'm sorry. I was responding to the first point. Sorry Sebster/cheesecat. I should have clarified.

Not a problem

I was about to write an angry response to you, 'til I noticed your post mentioned you liked the movie. Then I thought a little more about your post and realised you weren't talking to me.

Mike Noble wrote:
Also, if you honestly hated this movie because it was OOT and unrealistic, well, I really have nothing to do but face palm.

I think the strongest scenes in the movie are the cheesy ones, all of which are very well done. The Hanzo scenes, Pai Mei's scenes, and all of Bud's scene are all very good. However, I dislike almost everything else about the movies, and in particular find the fights to be over the top in a way which is not reflective of their inspiration, or good fight choreography.

Ninja Assassin and Ong Bok are both better examples of the old school Hong Kong action flicks that Kill Bill was meant to emulate, and True Grit and 3:10 to Yuma are better Spaghetti Westerns.

dogma wrote:Ninja Assassin and Ong Bok are both better examples of the old school Hong Kong action flicks that Kill Bill was meant to emulate, and True Grit and 3:10 to Yuma are better Spaghetti Westerns.

3:10 to Yuma?

That film was terrible!

sebster wrote:
3:10 to Yuma?

That film was terrible!

I loved it, Bale and Crowe were both fantastic in it.

Rotten Tomatoes has it listed at 89%, and Metacritic gave it a 76, both very good scores.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

I still enjoy the assumptions made by many here that they were 2 separate movies...

They are.

I know that they were originally a single movie, but Harvey Weinstein insisted that Kill Bill be released in two volumes so that most of the movie could remain intact, as not that many people will sit through a four hour film.

However, volume 1 and volume 2 are entirely different from one another, in every respect. Trying to argue that they aren't two different movies is like saying that the plot in The Fellowship of the Ring is the same as the plot in The Return of the King. They may have been the same entity at some point, but both volumes are so fundamentally different that they deserve to be taken on their own merits.

Indeed, it was split into two separate volumes and you may have partook in it at separate times, but it was the same story. It did not end in the first volume only to resume in the second, it simply continued. Comparing it to LotR is ridiculous and incorrect. However, comparing it to the Matrix would be a more accurate analogy as the Matrix was a continuous story with no gaps. The Star Wars original trilogy had gaps of up to 3 years in its plot and cannot be likened to either.

Your claims are flawed for the above reasons and Mr Weinstein's profit-motive is not proof nor justification for your arguement.

dogma wrote:I loved it, Bale and Crowe were both fantastic in it.

Rotten Tomatoes has it listed at 89%, and Metacritic gave it a 76, both very good scores.

I agree both leads were very good. I'm surprised it was that well received, though Westerns tend to get favourable treatment from critics.

My issue was that the movie asked us to take on Bale's predicament very seriously and earnestly and consider him a quiet hero, and that was fine. He was doing a dangerous thing for the sake of his family, it was most admirable.

The problem is that it set this quiet story into the middle of a very silly setting. The men tasked with getting Crowe to the train seem entirely indifferent to their own lives, and accept the deaths of their friends almost with disinterest, as if they knew they were extras and it was inevitable. It made it very hard for me to be interested in Bale's journey, when everyone else was acting like they were in a movie.

sebster wrote:The men tasked with getting Crowe to the train seem entirely indifferent to their own lives, and accept the deaths of their friends almost with disinterest, as if they knew they were extras and it was inevitable.

Two things.

1: It was a spaghetti western. Life is cheap in these films.

2: It was never established that the protagonist crew involved friendship, except for the on that develops between Bale and Crowe, and the film in general follows the same rule except the one that several of the deceased gang members thought existed between them until Charlie starts killing people, and the one that Charlie mistakenly believes exists between himself and Wade.

Even the eldest child and wife don't really show affection to Bale, they show a desire to continue living. And, to be honest, Wade's best friend in the film is Dan, followed by the guy he throws off a cliff, and Dan's eldest. Charlie isn't even on the list, in fact it seems like he hates him, and wants to escape him.

sebster wrote:
It made it very hard for me to be interested in Bale's journey, when everyone else was acting like they were in a movie.

It wasn't about Bale anyway, it was about Crowe.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
3:10 to Yuma?

That film was terrible!

I loved it, Bale and Crowe were both fantastic in it.

Rotten Tomatoes has it listed at 89%, and Metacritic gave it a 76, both very good scores.

Yeah, I enjoyed 3:10 to Yuma too. More so than True Grit, in fact.

I'm also another person who hated Kill Bill, though I generally enjoy Tarantino's films. Aside from the obvious greatness of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, I happen to think that Jackie Brown and True Romance (Hopper vs. Walken scene! ) are both very underrated films.

Loved Inglorious Basterds as well.

I keep thinking of other reasons why I like 3:10, but this one is probably the most important.

The original flick was noted for its unconventional villain, and the remake took it further by reducing the motives of the good guys to profit, and elevating Wade's, and even Charlie's, closer to idealism.

Wyrmalla wrote:Transformers had a sword fight?

Indeed!

It was a nod back to its origins as well I guess

Arrival from Cybertron .. I love this film



Tarantino .. bah!

AvatarForm wrote:Indeed, it was split into two separate volumes and you may have partook in it at separate times, but it was the same story. It did not end in the first volume only to resume in the second, it simply continued. Comparing it to LotR is ridiculous and incorrect. However, comparing it to the Matrix would be a more accurate analogy as the Matrix was a continuous story with no gaps. The Star Wars original trilogy had gaps of up to 3 years in its plot and cannot be likened to either.

Your claims are flawed for the above reasons and Mr Weinstein's profit-motive is not proof nor justification for your arguement.

The Lord of the Rings was originally to be released as a single novel, but the publisher felt that it was far past an acceptable length for common consumption. Comparing Kill Bill to LOTRO is perfectly acceptable in this sense, as the motive behind the split was exactly the same.

Kill Bill vol. 1 and 2 may follow the same story, but their aesthetics are completely different, and I have no idea how you could possibly fail to see this. Kill Bill vol. 1 is heavily influenced by Japanese film, with undertones of the United States' vision of the 70's and a slight Spaghetti Western feel in spots. It also contains animation inspired by Japanese anime or manga. The focal point of vol. 1 is The Bride's intense hatred for Bill, and a lot of the tenets of 70's filmmaking are extremely apparent here.

Kill Bill vol. 2 has a heavy western influence, with elements of Chinese Kung-Fu movies and some focus on Central America. The focal point of the movie is The Bride's love for Bill, as opposed to her hatred or incredible need for vengeance. Kill Bill vol. 2 also tries it's hardest to break all of the 70's references set forth by the first movie.

Though they may follow the same story (which shifts focus drastically between the two movies), every other aspect of both volumes are as different as night and day. So, yes, they are two entirely different movies. Much more different than The Matrix, or Star Wars, or The Lord of the Rings, all of which at least make an attempt to have a cohesive feel, and retain the same aesthetics from movie to movie (or book to book). If you can't recognize this, then you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

3.10 to Yuma was ace!

It was a ridiculous craic, but it was waz!

I especially liked the crippled fether suddenly being nails at the end. Sure it was absurd how Crowe miraculaously wanted to help the hero, but the film was enjoyable and fun. I liked it more than .. well.. most things mentioned here.

KB included.

It wasn't all that miraculous that he helped out the 'hero' (I'm with Dogma that the main character is Crowe), as it is foreshadowed a bit at a time that he actually kinda likes the guy, but that he also sees something in the father-son dynamic. He also only helps him because he has no doubt that nothing can really touch him and that he is just going to escape again. One also gets the impression he was a little tired of that gang of his.

Ahtman wrote:It wasn't all that miraculous that he helped out the 'hero' (I'm with Dogma that the main character is Crowe), as it is foreshadowed a bit at a time that he actually kinda likes the guy, but that he also sees something in the father-son dynamic. He also only helps him because he has no doubt that nothing can really touch him and that he is just going to escape again. One also gets the impression he was a little tired of that gang of his.

I would say Bale's character is just as important and interesting as Crowe's.

dogma wrote:I keep thinking of other reasons why I like 3:10, but this one is probably the most important.

The original flick was noted for its unconventional villain, and the remake took it further by reducing the motives of the good guys to profit, and elevating Wade's, and even Charlie's, closer to idealism.

Huh, that's true, I hadn't thought of it in that way. Thanks.

Still doesn't change my primary problem with the gilm, that most everyone that wasn't a main character seemed to be acting as if they knew they were disposable extras, and didn't even seem to care when they were disposed of by the villains.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:It wasn't all that miraculous that he helped out the 'hero' (I'm with Dogma that the main character is Crowe), as it is foreshadowed a bit at a time that he actually kinda likes the guy, but that he also sees something in the father-son dynamic. He also only helps him because he has no doubt that nothing can really touch him and that he is just going to escape again. One also gets the impression he was a little tired of that gang of his.

I don't have a problem that the villain helped out the hero. Bale's mission was a good game for Crowe, and I figure Crowe just assumed he'd break out of the train some point down the track, and carry on his merry way.

My problem is more the world they contrived to fit around that story. The other characters should have been acting plausibly, but instead I felt everyone else was just doing what they were doing because they had to for the plot to work.

sebster wrote:I don't have a problem that the villain helped out the hero. Bale's mission was a good game for Crowe, and I figure Crowe just assumed he'd break out of the train some point down the track, and carry on his merry way.

I believe near the end, though it may have been sooner, that it was explicitly stated in some form that he had escaped bfore and was bound to do so again.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:Indeed, it was split into two separate volumes and you may have partook in it at separate times, but it was the same story. It did not end in the first volume only to resume in the second, it simply continued. Comparing it to LotR is ridiculous and incorrect. However, comparing it to the Matrix would be a more accurate analogy as the Matrix was a continuous story with no gaps. The Star Wars original trilogy had gaps of up to 3 years in its plot and cannot be likened to either.

Your claims are flawed for the above reasons and Mr Weinstein's profit-motive is not proof nor justification for your arguement.

The Lord of the Rings was originally to be released as a single novel, but the publisher felt that it was far past an acceptable length for common consumption. Comparing Kill Bill to LOTRO is perfectly acceptable in this sense, as the motive behind the split was exactly the same.

I dont know where you got this gem from, but the LOTR were 7 novels, how would you ever compress it into a single novel?

As for the rest, your perceptions of the Kill Bill volumes are quite unique and entirely your own and do not offer considerable rebuttal to my own.

Ahtman wrote:
I believe near the end, though it may have been sooner, that it was explicitly stated in some form that he had escaped bfore and was bound to do so again.

Yeah, some time during the last gun fight/chase/escape scene. It had also been pretty strongly shown throughout the movie that he was just better at fighting, and killing, than any of the other characters. He wasn't staying with Dan because he had to. I mean, the name of his gun was "Hand of God".

Ahtman wrote:

Spoiler:

Doesn't Christian Bale die at the end? Crowe was just getting on the train as a show knowing that he was going to escape but allowed the father to save face. His gang shows up and guns Bale down, prompting him to sever ties (i.e. to shoot) with his gang. Or something to that effect, I saw it last in the theater when it was released.

Yeah, it was also strongly implied that Wade wanted to ditch Charlie and the gang during the bar scene early in the film.

Ahtman wrote:I believe near the end, though it may have been sooner, that it was explicitly stated in some form that he had escaped bfore and was bound to do so again.

Yeah, I believe so.

Spoiler:

Doesn't Christian Bale die at the end? Crowe was just getting on the train as a show knowing that he was going to escape but allowed the father to save face. His gang shows up and guns Bale down, prompting him to sever ties (i.e. to shoot) with his gang. Or something to that effect, I saw it last in the theater when it was released.

That's pretty much it.

AvatarForm wrote:I dont know where you got this gem from, but the LOTR were 7 novels, how would you ever compress it into a single novel?

You are entirely wrong here. LotR was and is one single novel, at first separated to three books. Nowadays it is quite often published in one book, as was the author's original intent.

Jani wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:I dont know where you got this gem from, but the LOTR were 7 novels, how would you ever compress it into a single novel?

You are entirely wrong here. LotR was and is one single novel, at first separated to three books. Nowadays it is quite often published in one book, as was the author's original intent.

This is true.

Jani wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:I dont know where you got this gem from, but the LOTR were 7 novels, how would you ever compress it into a single novel?

You are entirely wrong here. LotR was and is one single novel, at first separated to three books. Nowadays it is quite often published in one book, as was the author's original intent.

However there was 7 rings given to the dwarfs.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Jani wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:I dont know where you got this gem from, but the LOTR were 7 novels, how would you ever compress it into a single novel?

You are entirely wrong here. LotR was and is one single novel, at first separated to three books. Nowadays it is quite often published in one book, as was the author's original intent.

This is true.

Both incorrect.

LOTR was written as 7 separate novels, each entailing a part of the journey.

Your generation only ever received it as a trilogy.

I know this because I own the original 7 novels, which contain the story which you now have presented to you as the trilogy.

AvatarForm wrote:LOTR was written as 7 separate novels, each entailing a part of the journey.

Your generation only ever received it as a trilogy.

I know this because I own the original 7 novels, which contain the story which you now have presented to you as the trilogy.

To be more precise, LotR has three volumes and seven books in them. The three-volume-edition was the first and was published between 1954 and 1955. I do not know which revision you have, but it cannot be the first one.

Main point is: it does not matter if it is split into three or seven books; it is one complete novel. It has been published in several books because of publisher's wishes, not the author's. After the war, there was paper shortage and that is the main reason in splitting them. It has nothing to do with Tolkien's writing.

About Kill Bill, we are talking about the same kind of thing. Businesswise it was not smart to release one five hour movie. It does not change the fact that it is one continuous story. We may evaluate them as two different films if wanted. As well, we may compare different books of LotR with each other if wanted. Still, it is one story, which begins from the Shire, goes up to Mordor and then goes back to Shire again. The books were not meant to be individual stories and make little sense if separated.

AvatarForm, you are mistaken in your terminology. A single novel (particularly a long one) is often subdivided into several internal "books" which are never intended for separate publication or to stand alone in any way, but merely to indicate sections of the narrative. Tolkien wrote LotR as ONE novel, with seven books within it. The publishers required that it be split up and published as a trilogy. I don't think it's ever been published with the seven "books" being separated as standalone volumes. That would be crazy.

Mannahnin wrote:AvatarForm, you are mistaken in your terminology. A single novel (particularly a long one) is often subdivided into several internal "books" which are never intended for separate publication or to stand alone in any way, but merely to indicate sections of the narrative. Tolkien wrote LotR as ONE novel, with seven books within it. The publishers required that it be split up and published as a trilogy. I don't think it's ever been published with the seven "books" being separated as standalone volumes. That would be crazy.

Yet, I own the 7, produced 1987. They are printed and covered as 7, not 3, and they stand alone together on my shelf.

Why does this feel like an argument over whether or not George Lucas wrote all the Star Wars movies at once?

AvatarForm wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:AvatarForm, you are mistaken in your terminology. A single novel (particularly a long one) is often subdivided into several internal "books" which are never intended for separate publication or to stand alone in any way, but merely to indicate sections of the narrative. Tolkien wrote LotR as ONE novel, with seven books within it. The publishers required that it be split up and published as a trilogy. I don't think it's ever been published with the seven "books" being separated as standalone volumes. That would be crazy.

Yet, I own the 7, produced 1987. They are printed and covered as 7, not 3, and they stand alone together on my shelf.

1987; so 33 years after the original publication in three volumes.

Huh! Sounds kind of neat. First I've heard of it. But I'm sure they were produced and sold as a set, not separately. Do you have a pic, or a link to a site online which shows them? I'm not doubting; I've just never heard of it and am surprised anyone would print it like that.