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.

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.