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.

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.