Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.