Jump to content

Kill bill


polygon_monkey
 Share

Recommended Posts

I personally had no troube believing Bill liked comics (which is the only pop culture speech in the whole movie by the way). Do you need to have a Spider-Man t-shirt and a big I'm a comic book geek' stamp on your forehead to enjoy comic books? Why can't this guy like Batman?

Like I wrote earlier, I felt they were real characters in their own crazy universe. Not only did I feel for The Bride, but also for O-Ren, for Bill, for B.B., for that little girl who lost her mother.

Just like I felt for Jackie Brown and Max, for Clarence and Alabama and for Mr. Orange who was slowly bleeding to death.

Worst dialogue writer in Hollywood is a ridiculous statement to make. It's one the main reasons why he's such a praised director. You don't win a Palm 'd Or and a best script Oscar if you can't write good sentences.

If you can write a scene like the one between Hopper and Walken you are a very gifted writer. Or the Walken speech in Pulp. Or the wonderful finale of Jackie Brown. Or the whole opening of Dogs.

The problem is that many people tried to impersonate Tarantino. And failed miserably while at it. It is lonely at the top after all.

The reason I say he's the worst script writer on hollywood is because he's a one trick pony with only one voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he has his moments, though I don't know if that comes from his writing or from the actors playing those roles.

If we take the archtypical QT charater as those quick witted, pop culture quoting cool characters in say Resevoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, you can trace those characters which go against type... mainly the bail bondsman in Jackie Brown and Jackie Brown herself. I'd also say that there are moments in the second half of KB2 where beatrix transends this QT archtype, same goes for Bill, these are mainly the scenes with their child. And maybe bud, but then that can character be traced from the one played by Robert DeNiro in JB possibly. At least the vunerability and 'quiet dangerousness'.

But then I too wish he'd do something different, I said as much before Kill Bill. And thats why The Vega Brothers project doesn't really excite me. He needs to tackle something meaty IMHO, soemthing he hasn't written and not indulge himself for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read an interesting essay once where a film historian wanted QT to do a huge epic about the rise and fall of the US or something, simply because in his eyes QT is the only American director talented enough to pull it of. And he is a great director of course. He can write, has a great eye, knows music and always gets fantastic performances from his actors. Plus he is unconventional and his movies always make money.

But it seems QT just wants to have fun. He wants to do the stuff he likes, not the stuff critics would like to see. His does it his way. I for one can't wait for Inglorious Bastards. Perhaps it is another vintage Tarantino project. But to me that's a seal of quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vemsie you remind me of cacophanus sometimes. You always seem to use websites, critics, lecturers etc to back up your arguments the same way Cacky says "well it bombed in Japan".

A film critic is just a person. A movie is just a movie. The opinion of a 15 year old games geek on here is just as valid as that of a 50 year old writer for the new york times.

I don't think QT has a good eye. I find his directing utterly predictable. I agree he draws magnificent performances from his actors, but I hate his use of music, as it is another device by which all his movies have the exact same feel. there is no coherence to his soundtracks, they are a mish mash of cool tunes, rather than having one continuing theme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note, I do agree QT has a certain style (though I don't agree they all feel the same). But I like that style. Just like old school Woo films. They all feel the same but when it's a great feeling I don't give a fuck.

Besides, he's not that predictable to me. Spielberg on the other hand is. You know his film will have a shit ending and that he tries to force emotions down your throat somewhere down the road.

I also don't agree with you when you say the opinion of a 15 year old geek is as important as the one from Rogert Ebert and his cronies. Just like the opinion of Edge to me is more important than that of the 20-year old Fifa fanboy down the street.

Make up you own mind, sure. And nobody has to like or hate a film just because critics say so. I don't like critically acclaimed films like Saving Private Ryan and Shawshank Redemption for example, and I like not very well reviewed flicks like Blade II and Con Air.

But I still value the opinion of a Pulitzer Price winning critic who knows film inside out over the opinion of a geek who only knows Angelina Jolie has great tits. I sometimes read reviews after I saw a movie and the new insights good critics can give you are great.

And yes, I link to articles a lot. Not just to back up my opnion. I'll try to point out why I think a film or game or song is great or is shite in my own words most of the time. But English isn't my native tongue and these people can express feelings similar to my own far better than I ever could.

Besides all that, I really love you man. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject, I got my Japanese Kill Bill Vol 1 last week and it's excellent.

The picture quality is, as is so often the cases with Japanese versus US/European releases, noticably superior to my R1 disc and the restoration of the House of The Blue Leaves scene to full colour and the addition of a lot more OTT violence gives the movie even more chop-socky punch.

It's not too expensive at amazon jp either, for once...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can write a scene like the one between Hopper and Walken you are a very gifted writer. Or the Walken speech in Pulp. Or the wonderful finale of Jackie Brown. Or the whole opening of Dogs.

The problem is that many people tried to impersonate Tarantino. And failed miserably while at it. It is lonely at the top after all.

would you agree though that all of his characters are the same? he writes characters that deliver all these long "cool" lines but it's weightless. it may well be deliberately crap, tongue in cheek or whatever, but it's all he can do. he has yet to demonstrate whether he can write a truly 3 Dimensional character instead of all these comic book creations. this is so noticable in Kill Bill because Vol 1 is full of action, anime, set pieces etc while Vol 2 is largely made up of dialogue and it falls apart. it buckles under it's own weighty pretensions and in the end i just wanted all the characters to shut up and die. it was so tedius.

he (Tarrantino) is the movie equivalent of Jeff Koons; all surface no feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already wrote that I don't agree with that. I felt for The Bride as a character, for Alabama in True Romance (that fight scene with her and Tony Soprano hit me hard) and for Jackie Brown (who is as 3 dimensional as characters get). And don't get me started on Mr. Orange or Bruce Willis' character in Pulp. Those are definitely not characters that talk cool all the time. Besides, it's not just talking that makes them come to life. It's in the acting as well.

Kill Bill sure as hell ain't fell apart for me. One of my favorite films ever. Easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

feeling for The Bride in Kill Bill is akin to feeling sorry for either Tom or Jerry due to the comic nature of it all. i felt no love or love lost between Beatrix or Bill. they're just boring.

I simply don't agree with that. Tom and Jerry don't bleed. Don't die. Don't lose loved ones. Just because it's fantastical doesn't mean it can't hit you. But to each his own and all that. We're beginning to run in circles. I love Kill Bill. The. Fucking. End.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note, I do agree QT has a certain style (though I don't agree they all feel the same). But I like that style. Just like old school Woo films. They all feel the same but when it's a great feeling I don't give a fuck.

Besides, he's not that predictable to me. Spielberg on the other hand is. You know his film will have a shit ending and that he tries to force emotions down your throat somewhere down the road.

I also don't agree with you when you say the opinion of a 15 year old geek is as important as the one from Rogert Ebert and his cronies. Just like the opinion of Edge to me is more important than that of the 20-year old Fifa fanboy down the street.

Make up you own mind, sure. And nobody has to like or hate a film just because critics say so. I don't like critically acclaimed films like Saving Private Ryan and Shawshank Redemption for example, and I like not very well reviewed flicks like Blade II and Con Air.

But I still value the opinion of a Pulitzer Price winning critic who knows film inside out over the opinion of a geek who only knows Angelina Jolie has great tits. I sometimes read reviews after I saw a movie and the new insights good critics can give you are great.

And yes, I link to articles a lot. Not just to back up my opnion. I'll try to point out why I think a film or game or song is great or is shite in my own words most of the time. But English isn't my native tongue and these people can express feelings similar to my own far better than I ever could.

Besides all that, I really love you man.  :D

Aye dude. good post.

I certainly didnt mean it as an insult. I admire the way you stand by your point. Often in the face of severe criticism that is usually just as cynical as your own misjudged fanaticism :D I also admire cacky in a strange way for his love of all things metal and controllable, just as I admire despin for his belief that we're all waiting for his opinion in any given film thread. The strong personalities are the ones that give this place its distinct flavour.

I disagree with your general point though. And thats cos in my experience i've found far more insightful revelations on these here forums than I have in any comsissioned piece. for example, the Matrix reloaded thread that ran on here was far more interesting and revealing than any of the pieces you linked to within it (IMO of course).

I do agree though that it doesnt really matter if QT's films all have a similar feel when at the end of the day you love that feel. I'm just growing rather tired of it I guess, and I thought that after Pulp fiction we really did have a new Orson Welles in our midst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think something needs to be grounded in reality to be enjoyable. Saving Private Ryan is a realistic film but it's horribly written. Kill Bill isn't. To me. I like the story, the characters, most of the stuff they say and the way it tips it's hat to decades of genre cinema. It's a simple story but a simple story told well. IMO of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I have to side with Vemsie here - I know some of the dialogue in Kill Bill is a bit clunky, some out of place, some just daft (Superman) but I still love it. Both films pushed all the right buttons for me, I honestly enjoyed every moment of both films. I think Tarantino acheived precisely what he set out to acheive, in fact more than that - while busily emulating the silly flaws and peculiarities of the films and genres he loves, he seems to have introduced a few brand new types of flaw - the Superman speech is exactly the sort of misjudged scene that kids will chuckle at when they watch it in years to come I reckon.

It has to be said Kerraig talks a lot of sense too - if Tarantino wants to keep his place at the top he needs to do something different and less self-indulgent next time. Me and Vemsie are patient, but I imagine even we'll get bored Tarantino doesn't stretch himself a bit, and soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to be said Kerraig talks a lot of sense too - if Tarantino wants to keep his place at the top he needs to do something different and less self-indulgent next time.  Me and Vemsie are patient, but I imagine even we'll get bored Tarantino doesn't stretch himself a bit, and soon.

After I saw Vol 1, which blew me away and made me shake violently ( :D ), I really thought Tarantino had proved himself to be a God among film makers.

He'd made something totally and utterly different from his previous output. I saw the complete absence of memorable dialogue as a two-fingered salute to critics who thought he was a one-trick pony. In its place we got visceral action, beautiful visuals, indelible imagery and unbelievable violence (okay, so the last one isn't exactly new).

But I really can't understand why, having created these colourful yet one-dimensional comic-book characters, he then filled Vol 2 with rambling chit-chat. How can you make a character-based film when the characters are little more than the costumes they wear? As for the dialogue being deliberately flat and cheesy: this works fine in Vol 1, where action is the driving force, but when the dialogue is the focus, it simply makes for a flat and cheesy film.

Vol 2 was like watching the DVD deleted scenes from Vol 1. At worst it even reminded me of the cut scenes from Metal Gear Solid.

I still think Vol 1 and 2 together could make for a fantastic 2 - 3 hour film, but as two seperate parts, it's self-indulgent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that speech is self parodical. The whole obvious exchange between the Bride and Bill of how long it would take for the serum to kick in - "oh, a couple of minutes, just long enough to make my point", coupled with the Bride's exasperation at this self-indulgence, was clearly a nod from Tarantino towards the fact that this was such a blatantly "Tarantinoesque" piece of writing. Got a laugh from the audience anyway, but turned out to be a much stronger observation of the Bride's character than it initially seemed.

As for the Two Pines sequence, I found that any accusations of long-windedness were dissipated for me through the underlying sense of inevitable doom running through the entire Bill-Bride dialogue. Little flashes where you got a picture of how dangerous Bill was. And the pull out shot from the chapel to the Deadly Vipers was just fantastic.

By the way, one piece of writing that I really, really liked was Elle Driver's encyclopedia-style description of the Black Mamba. Brilliantly cold and villainous.

You make some excellent points there, the speech could very well be intentionally paridocal. Things is, I still didn't like it. If it was intentional it just didn't sit right for me.

As I said, I loved Kill Bill but those moments I described really stood out for me and tarnished it somewhat. When Bill starts bringing up comic books I did find it funny but not in an amusing way more in a 'here we go again way'. It's become Tarantino's staple, his trademark. It's like watchng a John Woo movie and waiting to see just how he will incorporate some white doves into a scene or wtaching a Tom Cruise starrer and trying to guess just when he's going to start running (for some reason or another).

And I totally get what you are saying in regards to the chapel scene. We all now it's about to kick off but that still doesn't make whatever happens before it entertaining. I also don't get the big deal about the reverse tracking shot out of the chapel. Why are so many people going on about it? The camera pulls back out of the chapel - so what? The camera work in Volume 1 was much better IMO, the tracking shot across the House Of Blue Leaves in particular.

I also expected to see some of the massacre but that's not to say I was disappointed we didn't, as it wasn't necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just as I admire despin for his belief that we're all waiting for his opinion in any given film thread.

I would have to disagree with you there.

If anything Depsin is usually most dismissive of being crowne dthe forum's resident film buff. I honestly don't think he believes anyone is waiting for his opinion(s) on any given film. If anything, it's other forumites who admire his opinion so highly (not me personally). The same can be said for you Kerraig. I have noticed how some forumites take particular heed of your opinion and advice.

This is in no a way a bad thing of course. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't get the big deal about the reverse tracking shot out of the chapel. Why are so many people going on about it? The camera pulls back out of the chapel - so what? The camera work in Volume 1 was much better IMO, the tracking shot across the House Of Blue Leaves in particular.

Its not a technically spectacular shot, but it just looks wonderful. Very Spaghetti-western, these are the four horseman of the apocalypse, bad stuff's going down stylee. There is a lot of understated brilliance in this film compared to the first's insanity. The use of sound and light in the burial scene, for example, is totally convincing, horrifying in a really claustrophobic sense. Even if you dislike Kill Bill's script, it is clear to see that Tarantino has devoped as a visual director in a major way with this film. I could never have imagined that he was capable of such dynamism and flair as he's shown with this film. Great as they are, his first three were hardly as fluid and ambitious as this, were they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to disagree with you there.

If anything Depsin is usually most dismissive of being crowne dthe forum's resident film buff. I honestly don't think he believes anyone is waiting for his opinion(s) on any given film. If anything, it's other forumites who admire his opinion so highly (not me personally). The same can be said for you Kerraig. I have noticed how some forumites take particular heed of your opinion and advice.

This is in no a way a bad thing of course. ;)

I wrote that in reference to his comment in the eternal sunshine thread. the one where he goes "oh calm down everyone. I didn't think it was that great"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not a technically spectacular shot, but it just looks wonderful. Very Spaghetti-western, these are the four horseman of the apocalypse, bad stuff's going down stylee. There is a lot of understated brilliance in this film compared to the first's insanity. The use of sound and light in the burial scene, for example, is totally convincing, horrifying in a really claustrophobic sense. Even if you dislike Kill Bill's script, it is clear to see that Tarantino has devoped as a visual director in a major way with this film. I could never have imagined that he was capable of such dynamism and flair as he's shown with this film. Great as they are, his first three were hardly as fluid and ambitious as this, were they?

Again, I can see what you mean but I've heard/read an awful lot about that shot in particular and feel that it's not 'all that' IMO.

I agree with though in terms of Tarantino's visual flair maturing. The visuals in both films are amazing.

Oh and Kerraig, I must apologise, I hadn't read all of that thread as I haven't seen Eternal Sunshine (I know, I know....) :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that found Kill Bill (Vol 1 and 2) utter twaddle?

I did watch it while having to endure the constant rabbiting of SWMBO about how much she hated this kind of film though, and that she was "off to bed". This went on for about an hour and a half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that found Kill Bill (Vol 1 and 2) utter twaddle?

I did watch it while having to endure the constant rabbiting of SWMBO about how much she hated this kind of film though, and that she was "off to bed". This went on for about an hour and a half.

So she hated it yet sat through most of volume 1?

Odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about Kill Bill, both of them, is that they're the only films I've watched in ages that have made me leave the cinema thinking "Dammit. I should be making movies."

Whatever my personal feelings on Tarantino, his earlier films, his abilities or lack of them, Kill Bill shone for me because it was obviously a labour of love, a montage of everything one movie goer loved about cinema. Things were done just because they were cool and he could do them. I sat through both with a huge grin on my face for that reason and that reason alone.

Uma Thurman can't do Kung Fu for shit though. And Superman is no one's favourite superhero. He's rubbish. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went see Kill Bill Vol. 2 last night and absolutely loved it.

I loved the whole training sequence, I thought Pai Mei was ace. The fight with Elle was fantastic too. Sure, there is a lot of talking, and some scenes could have been a bit shorter (the pimp scene for one), but it still was excellent.

Out of the people I went to see it with, the girl who was there loved it too, but the 2 guys thought it was just okay.

I laine, I know what you're like. There's going to be one part of the Elle/Uma fight that you're going to want to look away on. All I'll say is - ewwww!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved It.

But aside from that, to the tarrentino critics, surely looking for tarrentinos move to full 3d characters in a stylised vanity project like kill bill is looking in the wrong place. To make those developed characters in this homage/interpritation/piss take would be to undermine what he is obviously trying to do with the film. Its almost as stupid as criticising airplane for having characters that say lines for comic effect, (yes blatant reductium as adsurdum, I know).

Of course, disliking the premise and intention of the film is different and perfectly valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.