Kill Bill

[Clarkmeister]

What a great [censored] movie. I don't know what else to say. If anyone is A)Cooler or B)Better than using music than Tarrantino, then I'd love to know who it is.

Goddamn, that was a fabulous flick.

[youtalkfunny]

I just wish he could could crank 'em out a little quicker than once-every-ten-years.

I *loved* Kill Bill. I second what you said about the music. I saw it almost a week ago, and I'm still whistling that song Daryl Hannah was whistling. And when it gets real quiet in the house, I hear in the back of my mind, "BangBang, he shot me down, BangBang...."

Unrelated, boring anecdote:

In the early 90's, I was dating this girl (who turned out to be my wife). I went to her place one night to eat popcorn and watch videos (we were in the military, and didn't have much money to go on dates). She rented Whoopi Goldberg's "Sister Act". Bleh!

We pop in the tape, and in the previews is a trailer for a cute little comedy about these bumbling crooks. It looks like it might be pretty funny. "In theaters now!" We decided we'd go to the theater tomorrow to check it out.

Turns out, "Reservoir Dogs" isn't the ideal "date" movie. /images/graemlins/smile.gif (Harvey Kietel had a small part in Whoopi's movie, and he must've been responsible for getting the "Dogs" trailer put on the video.)

Turned off by the profanity of the opening scene, she wanted to leave.

Fascinated by the dialogue in the opening scene, I replied, "Go ahead! I'll call you after the movie!"

(My friends are jealous that I saw the movie "in a theater!")

[Josh W]

Sick of agreeing with you, I've been lurking, waiting, hoping to find a time to disagree with you again.

Phew. I found it. I saw this on opening night, and well...hmmm.

I will see volume 2, just because it looks like it may be good, was set up well. But I'd strongly recommend AGAINST getting sucked into volume 1 in the first place....

Josh

[Rushmore]

I loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Really. I did.

I liked True Romance a whole lot. Yes, I know he didn't direct it, but you get the point--he wrote it.

Then came Jackie Brown. Peeee-uuuw! Then Dusk Til Dawn. Yeah, that was good. IF YOU LIKE CRAP!!

So, yes, I'll see Kill Bill because I long for the stuff that made those previous works worthwhile.

But I have to tell you, I'm not optimistic. I'm sure there are "empowered women" flying around Ang Lee-style doing jujitsu and punctuating every scene with a clever one-liner.

I'm also not enamored of the "Volume One" aspect of the title. OK, so it's a serial. There will be more. It's just like...

Pulp Fiction. A throwback to a better time, when villains were REALLY bad and blah blah etc etc.

I dunno. I'll go see it, because it will probably be better than, oh, say, uh...

ANYTHING ELSE PLAYING.

[Cyrus]

Quentin Tarantino is a great director of great movies and a great screenwriter. I hope his love of the movies stays aflame for a long time. He said so himself, that when he no longer loves watching movies, he will not be able to make one.

Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction were great. Jackie Brown was very good, and it got better on second viewing. The short film in Four Rooms, the one directed by Tarantino, was terrific.

His script for True Romance was great. As to the great From Dusk Till Dawn, it separates the men from the boys. (The boys in the audience loved it.)

[David Steele]

While I liked everything else by Q.T. a lot, even Jackie Brown, I was not thrilled with this.

The music is excellent, and the look fantastic, but it is a rehash of the kung-foo movie at heart with surealistic levels of violence.

The part II thing also was annoying, I don't read reviews before I go.

Here are a couple of quotes from Roger Ebert's surprising very positive thumbs up that for me are a big problem.
[ QUOTE ]

The movie is not about anything at all except the skill and humor of its making .....


......The movie is all storytelling and no story



[/ QUOTE ]

D.

[Clarkmeister]

Here's the link to the full review:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2003/10/101004.html

[Clarkmeister]

"I'm sure there are "empowered women" flying around Ang Lee-style doing jujitsu and punctuating every scene with a clever one-liner."

I dunno, the idea of any of the women in the movie being "empowered" never entered my mind. Isn't it OK for the lead character to simply be a chick who kicks ass.....without it trying to make a political statement?

I think that's all it is. The hero happens to be a woman, as opposed to him making a point about a woman being a hero. Hell, the most gruesome things in the movie happen to the women, by far. Getting butchered isn't very empowering. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Given that you liked Pulp the most of his movies, I suspect you'll like this one as well.

[Clarkmeister]

"Sick of agreeing with you, I've been lurking, waiting, hoping to find a time to disagree with you again."

So out of 4 starts, what would you have given it? Just trying to get a feel for the degree of disagreement. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Clarkmeister]

This newsgroup is a great site for reviews. For those interested, take a look.


http://tinyurl.com/rf3q

[Rushmore]

Fair enough. I should see it first, anyway, before I start posting responses here whilst hungover. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[baggins]

yeah man. i'm in total agreement with you guys. this movie was GREAT!! simply perfect. everything acheived it's purpose so well. i really enjoyed this movie! can't wait for the second part.

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
but it is a rehash of the kung-foo movie at heart with surealistic levels of violence.


[/ QUOTE ]

but, see, it was SUPPOSED to be a rehashing of the whole kung fu genre. a different take, if you will, with Tarantino's tendency for over-the-top violence and humor-in-the-profane. some would use the word 'homage' but i'm not as pretentious as all that. anyway, it's certainly not like Tarantino's trying to pass off the Kung Fu stuff as an original concept.

[Josh W]

I, of course, was joking about waiting for a chance to disagree...but....

The film, I dunno...I guess it was well done, it was just the cartoonish gore that bothered me. I feel like there are some things that shouldn't be trivialized. In R. Dogs, when an ear gets cut off, it's "ooooooooh, that's gotta hurt"....In Kill Bill, it was laughable. That was what really bothered me.

What bothered me THE MOST though, was, by watching the previews, I thought that there were gonna be a lot of 14 year olds wanting to see it. It's colorful...bright yellow, simplistic name, kinda Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles meets Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. The previews, to me, were a lot like cigarette billboards outside a highschool. Because, and I think you'd agree with me, 14 year olds shouldn't be watching it.

1.5 stars, probably. But the above point is what made it that...otherwise it may have been 2.5.

Josh

[John Cole]

Why don't I like Tarrantino? Who knows. Too much surface is simply too much surface. I did, though, one time, go to a real 70s Kung-Fu movie, and I was the only Caucasian in the audience. A rather strange filmgoing experience. Change a few characters and basically ya got Titanic, replete with structured plot, good guys and bad guys, and sentimental interludes; in all, a typical Hollywood movie to which the audience responded appropriately. All in all, a fun time.

John

[Cyrus]

There's quite a bit of substance below the surface. Story-telling which leaves you content and makes you think, even long after the story-telling is over, is art. Pulp Fiction and Dogs are typical Tarantino : a lowly genre (sub-genre, as he likes to call it) with every cliche idea and familiar character thrown in. And then this trash is being turned into an intelligent, humorous, crafty and humane piece of art, adjectives that are usually very absent in standard pulp. Jim Thompson anyone?

Pulp was about a number of human qualities and of course about redemption, in all stories. Same with Dogs (eg, we find out that the --funnily, nauseatingly-- tortured cop was actually being a hero in front of our eyes but we didn't realize it).

Kill Bill I haven't seen but I don't trust Tarantion : when he says he makes an all-action, no "character development", just pure mindless fun kinda movie, I know he's lying: he is not capable of making a stupid movie, yet.

--Cyrus

PS : Taratnino's script for Killers was destroyed by that (idiotic) hack, Oliver Stone, something that didn't happen to Romance with the (better) hack Tony Scott.

[HDPM]

Yep, excellent. No matter what Cole says. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[J.R.]

A key cinematic device of any Tarantino film is shock through excess and over-dramatization, which de-sensitizes the audience and shakes them from their comfort zone, and in combination with the modern pop art the stock and banal backgrounds, forces the audience's attention to the true greatness of his work- dialogue, verbal jousting that forsakes the flowery language of poetic (and cinematic) wit for everyday language, presented with precision and brevity to achieve impact on the audience.

He makes us care, worship, revere and empathize with those that society would scorn. He deconstructs social norms and conventions in an irrevent and ballsy manner, and leaves the audience in awe.

The man has breadth: the camera angles, anime, use of color and contrast and the power of sound- the score/soundtrack was unreal. But perhaps the greatest trait- he can tell a story, and keeps building the narrative with countless false cresendos, enrapturing the audience but providing them with timely placed comedic releases and inumerable kitsch, pop and cinematic references that tease the mind.

He knows his stuff, and employs it to deliver one thing: Cool. To the extent movies are and should be escapism, he is the auteur of another world, one painted in bold hues and over-the-top excesses that stands in stark contrast to the mundane existence many of us (perhaps of courage, of discontent, or of madness) secretly crave to be freed from.

[HDPM]

Good post and I agree w/ it. I have noticed something in Tarantino's work and I have been wondering if there is a label for it or if it is discussed by the critics or people w/ knowledge of film.

I notice that one thing tarantino does well is to portray vile characters, or characters with some vile or pathetic trait, as people very comfortable with themselves. Conscience is stripped from them. They enjoy what they do and are unapologetic. their comfort with themselves gets us into the character's skin better, thus it adds to character development and telling the story. It also challenges the viewer to examine their own moral outlook and conscience by stripping it away from the characters. I can think of several examples in Kill Bill, but don't want to detail them for people who have not seen it.