 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.146.151.254
If there is any redeeming quality, plot, character development or cinematography here, I missed it. I am more convinced than ever that Tarantino is a talentless hack of a film maker with nothing to offer but cheap cinematic ploys, the use of shock for absolutely no purpose and of course gratuitous violence up the yin yang. I have a friend who owns both these on DVD. How anyone could revisit these films is beyond me. They're perfect examples of why Middle America disdains Hollywood.
Follow Ups:
I liked it and thought the references to martial arts / yakuza etc flicks were a hoot, but then I wasn't expecting anything more than a two dimensional action flick with the feel of a graphic novel (half expected those "wham! bash! crunch!" screens to pop up ala the old Adam West Batman series)
As someone who spent many years learning and teaching martial arts, all I can say is the the first Karate Kid movie had better martial arts then this mess of a movie.
...best films I've seen this year. It was great fun. Perhaps you're on the wrong side of the "culture war" - to enjoy these movies, that is.
a
...except you should stop criticising films you haven't seen.
Sincerely,Beanz
"Jeopardy Champ 4 Prez","He knows when to push the button and has all the right answers".
(nt)
nt
Though I'm not sure about the Middle America part.:-)
Jack
Stupid self-masturbatory exercises these films are.Regards
BF
After seing some trailers, I never had the wish to see them.
You confort me.
Same here. Both trailers turned me off, especially when I had tto sit through them more than once.
I was more lucky...I had only one dose...
I got a lot of respect for Tarrentino, though I know that's not the consensus on this board. Basically, he was able to make a film that compromised to no one, has turned a profit for his fianciers, and so he will continue to make films that please himeself and whoever cares to join him on his own terms. Some might call it self-indulgent, and I wouldn't say that's an incorrect label to attach to the Kill Bill films.I like the films, but I didn't love them.
However, the sticky issue I throw out is this. Often we watch films and complain that the studios mucked with them or held back the director to make them mainstream. And we long for the days when the director had "final cut" and could make his vision come to life as he sees it.
Yeah, we cheer when a band refuses to edit down a single just for radio playability, or when Elvis Costello changes the plan and jumps into "Radio Radio" on a TV performance, and we boo when the Stones changed words in "Let's Spend the Night Together" for a TV perforance. Kill Bill does that. So shouldn't we applaud Tarrentiono for going forward with his vision, no holds barred?
"HO, HO, HO!" - Santa Claus
I guess it all depends on whether you think Tarantino has a worthy vision or whether you think he's a talentless hack. I fall into the latter group, but I can see how someone believing there is merit to his films would want the whole shebang. If Kill Bill is the best he can do, I think his level of talent is shamefully low.
Keep in mind that many did [and still do] consider Picasso, Stella, Warhol, Monet and Serra hacks too.A primary measure of quality in Art is the ability to engender many responses and meanings. A statement that works on many levels.
You may hate Guernica too....
Later
D
It isn't the best he can do. You have heard of Pulp Fiction haven't you? Resevouire Dogs anyone? Anyone?
I actually do like Reservoir Dogs the most of Tarantino's films. But that is because of Harvey Keitel, Roth and Buscemi. What they did with that script was amazing. If not for them, it would have been trash...right from the start with the dirty story about the virgin to the end where Tarantino can't even show what happens with Buscemi.
Perhaps you take things like movies way too literally...you and 'Middle America'.You would probably despise Team America even more. I wonder how you like South Park, The Simpsons and King of the Hill.
Later
D
I love the Simpsons. Southpark is ok, but maybe I just need to give it more of a chance. I have only seen "The Passion of the Jew" which I thought was a pretty funny response to MadManMel's sadistic, anti-semitic piece of trash (do I have your permission to take "The Passion of the Christ" literally?). King of the Hill doesn't do a thing for me, though my friend from Texas loves it. Team America--you lost me. I don't know what that is.I'm not sure I took Kill Bill quite literally...how exactly does one take images of a pregnant woman being brutally beaten and then shot in the head? Or the scenario of an orderly selling the body of a woman who has been in a coma for four years to any trucker who rolls into town...or a mother having a dagger thrown into her heart and dying right in front of her young daughter. And those scenes were just the first few minutes of the first film. Not cool. Not cool at all, daddy-o. I have never seen anything remotely as disgusting, crass, tasteless and utterly pointless on the Simpson's or Southpark or King of the Hill, have you? If Team America shows that kind of crap, i'm glad I haven't seen it. You don't have to take Kill Bill literally to know it's a new lowpoint for Hollywood.
"new lowpoint for Hollywood", "talentless hack", this is all so melodramatic and silly.My friend and I enjoyed Kill Bill I in the theater, then went back to see Kill Bill II. Ate popcorn both times. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
I also so Pulp Fiction 3 times before it ever left the theaters. Never saw it on video. Never saw Kill Bill on video. Probably won't.
When limbs are chopped off and blood spurts out like a fountain, in rhythm to the still-beating heart, we laughed. I still laugh when I think about it.
I definitely think you'd better stay away from Team America.
No one asked Tarantino to tackle subject matter such as the brutal beating and shooting of a pregnant woman, murder of a mother in front of her daughter, or rape of a woman in a coma. He chose to tackle those subjects, and turn them into entertainment. Think about that before you accuse me of being melodramatic. All of those scenes looked pretty darn realistic to me. Didn't look like a spoof of anything.Yes, I laughed when Daryl Hannah had her remaining eye plucked out and writhed and kicked on the floor in frustration, blindness and agony. I laughed when the eyeball squished between Uma's toes and the optical fluid leaked out. I was eating chocolate chip cookies. But unlike you, I'm not proud of my reaction.
in a way of what Tarantino manages to muster from some of his films. Take Pulp Fiction, they're in the back of the car the gun goes off and blows brain matter over everyone. This should be a totally horrifying thing to see - it's vile, repugnant, gory, etc and yet it elicited a huge laugh from virtually everyone in the theater. It's not like the kid deserved it etc and it happened fairly early in the film.Tarantino uses violence to an absurd level as did George Romero in Dawn of the Dead - arguably the goriest horror film to that date. Romero manages with his gory zombies to make them virtualy forgotten and later sympathized.
Tarantino is so over the top with his gory violence that it's cartoon like - heck he even has a cartoon sequence in the film and that scene is arguably the most horific morally in the whole film. I think the film is a whole lot smarter than it gets credit for - but yes the surface of it is a howler.
for laughing at those horrible things. But before you beat yourself up too much over it, try to remember it really is only a movie. None of this actually happened. I would not enjoy at all documentary footage of eyes popping out. But over-the-top cinematic effects? I laughed too. There are plenty of serious things in real life to get upset over. Gory movies don't upset me.
I don;t think you should be linking one film with others in this manner. Roger Ebert gave the Kill Bill Films 4 stars each and Team America 1 star.I loved Pulp Fiction and it's housed in my top ten of all time Reservoir Doigs on the other hand with a similar style and beat I don't recommend - even though there is a huge fan base I've tried Dogs several times.
Tarantino is walking a fine line with his movies and they can be taken a number of ways.
I remember the film "Life Is Beautiful" had bipolar reaction to the line it was walking with humour and the holocaust. I felt the line was not crossed and it worked resoundingly well - others were quite miffed by it's blend of comedy romance and the holocaust. I suppose it's that there is a growing film snobbery that art should only immitate horror and general downer stories. It seems to permeate several artistic fields - artistry, music, writing, poetry. If it's depressing = mastepiece, if it is hopeful or happy or has any sentiment in it whatsoever it's manipulative drivel.
So of course the Title "Life is Beuatiful" is already in trouble before the first frame. Tarantino is about style but moreso about dialog and scenes of montages that hold some sort of story together. You either buy into that sense that he puts on the screen or you don't - I accept the worlds he creates much of the time - they;re a lot of fun (oops films are not suppose to be fun either if they're going to be considered high art) no we need the boring Citizen Kane all show no heart movie making or the howlingly laughable dialog in Casablanca. Too few are honest enough and have not been brainwashed by the film courses they took at University.
...with The Iron Giant?Clue: begins with initials "B.B."
big....boobs?
Brad Bird.SIgh. At least you tried. (*Snort*.)
I liked his answer much better. :)Brad Bird? Enlighten me.
Later
D
you should ask your friend why he liked it - or read some of the critics like Roger Ebert to find out why they liked it. Note: That does not mean I'm saying your wrong and they're right - but usually people have a reason for liking films Like Pulp Fiction(which is in fact a story about something --- Redemption).Kill Bill Vol 1 and 2 I enjoyed - I walked out of both with a silly grin - I am not a fan of the martial arts genre and I don't recall watching very many when I was young. I plan on buying the 2 movie set which will eventually come out. Is it about a whole lot more than what it seems to be about - is it just stylized shock value violent entertainment - is it just a homage to a weak genre?
I don't think so I think Vol 2 is one of the two best films I've seen this year.
I agree that Pulp Fiction was about something--or tried to be about something when you cut through all the nonlinear presentations and other cheap ploys...I thought it was about honor and loyalty among thieves more than redemption. It was fairly fresh and free of cliches but even then I recognized Tarantino as an "artist" who would prefer to show you a cheap thrill or trick than real character development or plot. When faced with real questions about his characters at various points in a film, he will usually shy away from a defining answer in favor of superficial nonsense. That is why, for me, his films don't live up to repeat viewings, though I find them entertaining. Until now.
I can agree - but I don;t think it's a cheap trick to present a film in a nonlinear fashion - there was nothing difficult about following Pulp Fiction and the device was chosen likely for pacing. I also don't think it would work linearly because we would not be able to get a read on the characters as well. Several people in the film are on continuums in their thieving lives. The Tarantino character who is obviously worked away from his prior thieving life - he's the ex con married a nurse away but can be trusted as a safehouse - we have the boxer who isn;t really the crook - until now.Can a film work from the dialog outwards is the key - like I say you either buy into Tarantino's diolog fictitious worlds or you don't. I mean Kill Bill Vol 1 i was watching and literally cringing at how ridiculous and paper thin it seemingly is.
It reminded me of the scene in Pulp Fiction where Uma Thurman was talking about being in a failed pilot when she was in the Fox Force Five - Kill Bill Vol 1 seems to be a film spawned from that scene in Pulp. It was howlingly ludicrous - and yet I came out with a grin. I can;t really explain it and I certainly understand why people loathe everything about it. But not every film needs to be about anything of major importance - which explains perhaps the success of Seinfeld.
Jazz - I have to agree with you here. Even the excessive violence, martial arts and all-star cast couldn't save this overhyped POS. I only saw part II, but I could not imaging sitting through both. In fact, I am still surpised that so many folks went to part II after seeing the first one.
I think these movies are for movie people...in other words someone who has seen all the Japanese Samuri movies, those really bad Hong Kong marital arts movies, Spagetti Westerns, etc. Kill Bill follows the patterns of these movies & has many references to them (e.g., the old guy with the white beard, a staple of every marital arts movie).So, no Kill Bill is not for people who just want to "watch a movie."
I'm familiar with some Japanese Samarai movies, as well as the old Shaw brothers movies and spagetti westerns etc., so when I heard that these movies were a tribute to them, I had my hopes up. Unfortunately, they weren't really a tribute to them as much as a *characature* of them. QT only took the *worst* aspects (bad dialog etc.)of the genres and put them in KB.
I was greatly disapointed.
Jack
That's Tarentino's problem - he gets a great idea and then runs it into the ground until its no fun any more. Kill Bill coulda been one 90 minute movie, and a damn fine one at that, had Tarentino the discipline to quit while he's ahead.But I do so love Uma Thurman. She's about as good as it gets!
Her feet betrays her.
I get the references. I'm a movie buff, if not a total martial arts fanatic.But all I could think about, catching KBI & II in theaters, was: "what a waste of talent."
I admire the execution of KB, but man, it has to be the weakest QT script in a long time. Can Tarantino quit wanking himself and make the really good movie so many people think he's capable of? I sure don't know, but KB wasn't it. After Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and (especially) Jackie Brown, I thought maybe he was gonna do something special.
I'm OK with genre movies, pulp, noir, chop-saki et al. But I'm still waitin' for QT to justify all the praise heaped upon his balding head. Can he make amovie for grown-ups? I wish he'd try.
Ok, I agree that it is not as good as previous attempts, but I still got a laugh out of KB...especially the old guy with the beard!
I'll agree with you there.QT has real movie chops. The execution in KB was occassionally brilliant. I just wish all that money and energy had been expended on something more...substantial. I have movie friends that *LOVE* KB - that's OK. But I was a pretty frustrated watching 4+ hours of these movies. Dammit...I want more!
What is it with movie directors that refuse to grow up?
Yes, he shirked every opportunity to write meaningful dialogue, develop a character non-gratuitous reasons, or use special effects to further the story. It was all like a child saying "looky what I can do" with my cast, my crew and my red-dyed corn syrup.Even the scene in question, which I admit on its own merits was entertaining, showed a man playing make-believe doting father and loving husband. I couldn't get past my impatience as a viewer who had to sit through four plus hours of horrendous crap. I just wished we could watch bill die and see the credits roll. So he cut the crust off the sandwich for his daughter and he cared what the truth was coming from Kiddo (of course he had to shoot her with a dart containing something more powerful than sodium pentathol to trust she wouldn't lie). BFD. By that point, the characters were so shallow and repulsive I just wanted it to end.
David Carradine making a sandwich, expostulating, waving that huge knife around and lovingly cutting off the crust for the Pepsi kid is a GREAT SCENE in it's context. Otherwise both movies were throw-aways.
Tarantino did not make this film for the average film goer whose film experience does not include Asian martial arts films. Tarantino loves the martial arts genre, and Kill Bill Vol. I (which I have seen)and Vol. II (which I have not) are homages to that genre, with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Unless you are, at minimum, familiar with that genre, and more particularly a fan of that genre, then it's attributes will be missed. And the scene with Lucy Liu and Uma Thurman in the garden with the snow falling is absolutely beautiful.
I am SO tired of hearing that. I AM familiar with the Martial Arts genre, both the older Shaw Brothers style and the newer current Wuxia/wire-fu type martial arts. I am a big fan of the newer stuff. Quite frankly, Kill Bill is to those movies, what Homer Simpson is to the average American.
Jack
Hmm - after watching the election I think the majority of Americans are in the Homer Simpson/Ned Flanders Camp.
.
I saw a couple dozen of the films, took Tae Kwan Do classes, ordered all the weapons and throwing stars from those martial arts magazines...by age 16 I was burnt out. So I know the genre. The scene you mention in the snow could have been impeccable. Instead, Tarantino let the camera stay on the dripping fountain too long and let the heroine stay on the ground too long. Master film makers know how to use the camera to add suspense and slow down time. Tarantino is a far cry from being a master. And I never saw that type of stylization in any Eastern martial arts movie. The scene ended of course, with Lucy Liu's scalp flying across the rock garden and her brains showing. You call that beauty? And we had to watch scores of people maimed in a never-ending orgy of blood-spurting violence just to get to this scene. It was overblown to the point of sheer inanity.
Do I call Lucy Liu's head flying in the air beautiful? No. I call it a humorous take on the genre, a nice juxtaposition with what took place before. Read my earlier post. This movie was clearly made with tongue in cheek. That scene was made to be funny in it's own wicked way. That is the point. Begin with a beautiful scene, dark, sparkling snow in a garden, the light hitting snow and garden perfectly, creating an air of tranquility and peace. Then enter the violence. That scene was in the film for it's own sake. Notice how it never snowed anywhere else in the movie? Why only there? Because it had to snow for the scene to work. The beauty of that scene gave the scalping more impact. And it worked. You either appreciated it or you did not. Have you seen that type of scene before? Probably not.This is the same reason why different people think different jokes are funny. For the same reason that someone did not get a joke does not make the joke bad, and merely because you did not appreciate Kill Bill does not make it bad. With an "R" after your moniker, I assume you appreciate the opinions of reviewers. Well, more than eight of ten reviewers thought Vol. I was a good film. Or are reviewer's opinions not worth the ink? Present company excluded, naturally.
I saw the two movies as a send up the various movie genres, overdone to make a point. Much in the way Ichy & Scratchy (on the Simpsons) make fun of all the cartoon violence where no one gets hurt.Does Kill Bill have the best story line ever? NO. In fact it invites parody of itself as well...which has been done.
But like many have said, the rest was eminently forgettable. Apart from Nancy Sinatra's opening tune 'Bang Bang'. Which is on the lp I think. Which I have. Somewhere.
Big J.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
