f13.net

After walking out of the theater, I am ready to see it again.

Not the splatterfest I had anticipated (as in Vol. 1) , but the choreography is some the best I've seen in any film, Chinese or American. Every bit of it is amazing, and even more apparent without the blood.

Much more depth to it than the first segment, especially character-wise, and the lines are much more "blurred" from the genres he borrows from. It's not emulation. This guy's a genius.

That probably won't please anyone who likens Kill Bill to a "video game plot" though -- All I can say to that is: There are more ways to make a film than one. Storytelling is one, Commentary another. Either way, whether it's executed with style or not is more important. I'm sure critics have an appreciation for "style", but I suspect they may be limited
in how they recognize it: they don't appreciate Commentary, or don't care for or aren't even aware of what's being commentated on.

Uma, Madsen, and Hannah were terrific, but I swear, David Carradine deserves a fucking award for this. LOL, now I'm waiting for Tarantino and Shatner to team up.

Pai Mei: Gordon Liu. What can I say? This man is a Legend. If anyone here hasn't seen the 36th Chamber, then find it now. It is the greatest Kung Fu flick of all time, better than anything even Bruce did (although Gordon isn't). Gordon is kinda like "Beatrix" in that film, so it's a real treat to see him play the opposite role in KB.

After the tragedy of the first one, I'm going to have to Blockbuster/steal this one.

I hate anime. It was live action anime. Game over, man. Game over.

However, David Carradine rocks. So torn.

Check it out then. Great acting. More than you'll find in any Anime for sure.

Did anyone else see the preview for Hero and go "HOLY FUCK"?

Hero?

Think my exact words were "HOLY SHIT". Just found out it was first released in 2002, and only making it's way to America now (WTF?).



http://www.herothemovie.com

The trailers there are pretty weak compared to the Miramax one (which isn't online apparently).

If you like other QT movies like reservoir dogs and pulp fiction go see it.  It is more classic QT (abbreviating cause I hate spelling his name, not because I am trying to be cool or anything) with a lot of story through dialog scenes.  Tons of dialog.  Way more chatting than action.

There are really only two action scenes, and that is really just 1 and then two half scenes.

If you hate all of QT works then go ahead and rent it.  I liked it a lot and was very 'meh' on the first one.  I only liked it because I spent 75 cents on it.  This one was worth matinee price for sure.  Good even as a standalone movie.

Carradine was great fun in it.  Awesome dialog scenes.  I think you would like this one.  Nothing anime about it at all.

I saw the hero trailer and was pretty 'meh' about it.  Ah well.

Oh, that Hero.

Jet Li sucks ass.

Gimme Yuen Biao, Sammo "Fatso' Hung, or Chan any day.

Hero fucking rules, just watched it, such great visuals, my eyes/brain are now satisfied.

BTW, KBv2 fucking rules, saw it twice and the second time was even better. Will a third bring the same reaction? Who knows!!

GO SEE KILL BILL VOL.2 ON SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY, YOU PAY FOR THE WHOLE SEAT BUT ONLY GET THE EDGE!

meh

This pretty much sums up why I hate Kill Bill Vol. 1

The Filthy Critic's take on Kill Bill 2. (http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/killbill2.html)

It's also why I have no intention of seeing Kill Bill 2 until it's on DVD.

People that take that review seriously need to be shot in the dick.  There's a difference between being a film critic, a film snob, and a complete raging douche bag.  

It wasn't a bad movie.  If you disliked One, there's a better than average chance you'll like the second. It was highly stylized, great dialogue, good scenery, better characters and attention to plot, and some asskicking thrown in for good measure.  

If you take gass bags like this seriously, you cheat yourself of some honest to God good cinema because of one man's stupid hang ups.

*spits on the floor*

Hrmmm, you should read more of his reviews, I'd say he's spot on about 80% of the time. And seriously, Kill Bill is derivative shit to me and Uma Thurman has given some of the worst voiceovers and acting money can buy. For me to like vol. 2 it would have to be fucking amazing. I'll see it when it comes out on DVD, like I said - but til then, I stand by my opinion. Considering how much I hated the first, expecting Vol. 2 to be good would be like expecting Episode II to be good (ya know, Attack of the Clones).

It's a completely different movie (ironically for being part of the same movie).  Do rent the DVD, you might be suprised.

If you're hung up on the whole "derivative" thing, then just don't bother.  It's typical of his other work in that some of it does borrow from other cinema.  The whole Pei Mei seen is a great homage to kung fu film genre but probably produces some of the greater moments and dialog in the film (Gordon Liu was really bad ass).  

I liked Vol 1 a lot.  Everything really but his foot fetish. I don't want to see any more of Uma's feet. Ever. The fight with Oren's goons more than made up for it.  I've always been a big fan of old Kurasama sammurai flicks, kung fu movies, etc, so it was something that I hadn't gotten from modern film in a while.

See, I hated the fight with the crazy 88's.  Worst part of both movies IMO.  After the first 3 or so deaths it just became repetitive and monotonous.  I have seen that scene so many times.  Adding blood and closups of limb removal does nothing to make it better.  Just makes it stupid AND repetitive instead of just repetitive.

Best moment in the first kill bill is easily the whole sushi scene.  Really the only scene I liked in the first movie.  The second movie had 4-5 scenes as good as that one and the action was better because it was not as drawn out.  Short bursts of action wrapped in entertaining dialog.  David Carradine was just great, and the majority of the second film is devoted to him.

Volume 2 was is about tied with Pulp Fiction in my enjoyment of it.  Volume 1 had a few nice touches but overall bored me.

(http://www.f13.net/images/necropost.gif)

So I watched Kill Bill 2.

Sucked.

Edit: I figure later on today I'll get some flack for being so brief, so here - I'll wrap it in a box for everyone.

Carradine can't redeem a film. He's just not that entertaining.
Tarantino can't write dialogue. Period.
B&W isn't artsy. It's just lame.
Pai Mei's eyebrows annoyed the fuck out of me.
Michael Madsen was wasted.
Uma Thurman still sucks. And she's ugly. Bite on that.
I hope he foreshadows even more in his next movie, mouthbreathers.
Camp != Good
Kung-Fu Schlockiness != Good
Uma can't deliver a monologue.



Mr. Tarantino, you sir, are a bucket of assholes.

Edited for clarity.

How can you say such patently outrageous things and expect anyone to take your opinion seriously?

Bruce

I refuse to buy any Kill Bill DVD at the moment.  #1 has been out, and #2 just came out.  I'm waiting for about Christmas time, when they combine the two, and then add in extra shit that can't be found on either.

What's outragous about any of those?

Tarantino avoids dialogue whenever possible, because he knows he can't write it for shit.

His use of B&W for some flashbacks and not for others was stupid.

Uma Thurman sucks. You didn't offer any information to point to the contrary.

Kung-Fu Schlockiness was cool 10 years ago. It isn't anymore.

Come back and talk after you've seen Zatoichi 2003.

(http://www.mustradem.com/Mustradem/Media/photostage2003/grandformat/karine/nicolo%20et%20son%20beret%20NB.jpg)

Wannabe artcritics suck more ass than Tarantino.

I enjoyed both movies.

Reservoir dogs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105236/) had some pretty good dialogue.

Don't bother arguing with schild on this point; I've already tried.  Tarantino is KNOWN in in the industry for his particularly sharp dialogue.  Uma Thurman is KNOWN for being sexy.  B&W is KNOWN for being artsy.  Etc.

If he doesn't like a movie, that's fine, but he shouldn't paint with a broad brush just because he has bad taste.

Bruce

Wow, that is the new record holder for "Dumbest thing Schild has ever said on the forums".

Like or hate his dialog, Tarantino has made some REALLY dialog heavy films.  In fact he tends more to avoid action in order to fit in more dialog ala reservior dogs (the entire film was dialog) and the extremely short action scenes in pulp fiction bookcased by heavy dialog scenes.

The kill bill movies (the first especially) were a huge departure from all his other movies up until this point, or at least his first 2.  Both having much more action and much less dialog.  Your statement that he avoided dialog would only match one of his movies.  And that was kill bill volume 1.  And for that reason I didn't like it much.  The action didn't hold up under scrutiny.

I didn't care for the first KB at all, but I really enjoyed the second one. Mindset may have had a lot to do with it, but I feel it was more of a "Tarentino" flick than KB1.

I want a long straight beard to flick around.

That said, I think the dialogue, though much better in KB2 than KB1, is not up to his normal excellence. I've liked all his other movies, but I think his oriental action obsession has blunted his gift for dialogue (or maybe he ran out of cool ways to say things?). I can't see a movie like Hero having the level of dialogue of Jackie Brown.

off topic...


Is Hero any good?  It has been out for awile abroad hasnt it?  Has anyone seen an import of it?

Just for clarification, he didn't have anything to do with making Hero, he is just producing the American version (i.e., bringing it here).

Anyone who can watch PF or RD and hear the interplay between Jules and Vincent, or Mr. White/Orange/Pink and think that QT can't write dialogue has no fucking clue.  QT is brought in on numerous movies to punch up scripts without credit for that very reason.  PF is one of the best/most revolutionary movies of the last 20 years.

I'm going with Schild on this one. Uma Thurman is not attractive.

I'm still digging these movies for the directing and action, but I'll admit, Kill Bill isn't all that on the writing.

Don't know if any of you have heard this before, but supposedly Quentin's friend from his videostore days, Roger Avary (http://www.avary.com/) (has since directed Killing Zoe, Rules of Attraction), was responsible for an equal amount of the dialogue/situations in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. He just didn't get any credit (think he just got a "story" credit in Pulp Fiction). Just about anything with characters talking about every day stuff (foot massages, God, etc., etc.), pop culture references (Like a Virgin, Beatles vs Elvis)..In other words, much of what Quentin is best known for..Is actually the work of Roger Avary.



Both of them wrote one huge script together at first, which was Natural Born Killers and True Romance, then called the "Open Road", all about Clarence Durley, with characters and parts from other films as well (Avary says he still sees pieces of that script coming up in newer QT films). He also helped him with Reservoir Dog's. Later on, QT divided them up, used the pieces to make several new scripts, and the rest is history.

I have a hard time believing that considering what nazis the Writer's Guild is about such things. He is credited with 'stories' for Pulp Fiction and writing the "background radio dialogue" in RD.  I also haven't seen him do much since the split, so it's not like he has proven himself to be the dialogue master without QT.

I like Tarantino, especially Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.

But you've heard my take on KB1. It fucking sucked. It was overdone shit. I'm waiting on Netflix to send me KB2, because I've heard if hated 1, 2 is better. I don't hold high hopes. Whatever magic he had with PF and RD (and it may well be Roger Avery), he lost with KB1, a film that prided itself on being fucking annoying. The switches between B&W, color and overprocessed, blown-out color seemed arbitrary and random. The violence was FUCKING STUPID. I got the joke, and it wasn't funny. The dialogue, which I liked in his other films, sounded entirely phony and forced throughout the whole thing.

Michael Madsen has been wasted as an actor since Reservoir Dogs. Fucking Species my ass. How could you screw that up?

Uma Thurman had about 10 minutes of pretty, followed by many years of "What the fuck happened to her?" And I will get stabby if I have to watch another long shot of her ugly ass troll feet.

Hero is a great movie that most American audiences are going to hate.  If you disliked Crouching Tiger because of the lack of realism, Hero will make your head explode.  

Its a fantasy film, based on the same story as The Emperor and the Assassin.  Very good, just expect a lot of long scenes with no dialogue and tons of odd visuals.

Proabably would be a good movie to see high if I were in to that sort of thing.

Saw Hero last year, very good movie if you're into wierd kung-fu dances and beautiful scenery. I liked it alot but it's probably not for everyone.



Well here I'm going to go ahead and agree with Schild. I'm not a big fan of Uma Thruman.

I have yet to see a decently choreographed sword fight. Edge-on-edge parrying? Please. I cringe whenever I see this stupidity.

Actually, I'll retract that statement for two films. The Three Musketeers and the Four Musketeers. The fights there were OK, if a bit overblown. Rapiers are a bit different matter than actual cutting swords. Ironically, they make the opposite mistake: rapiers don't cut. However, they at least get the parrying to deflect paradigm right...mostly.

As stated in another topic, Shaolin Soccer is now one of my favorite films.  I can ditch realism in a second if the movie makes no pretences in that direction.  And hero sounds just like crouching tiger, and shaolin soccer in that it happens in a comic book style definition of real.

No love for Jackie Brown? I thought that was a damn good movie.

Hmm...I thought the brief swordplay sections in The Last Samurai were well-done myself.

Hey fuckers, the few who just went contrary to what I said.

If b&w hasn't been artsy since fucking Clerks. That was 1994.

Tarantino does NOT write good dialogue. He has patches of extremely witty dialogue here and there though, and that's what people remember him for - I, too, remember some of the dialogue during his scene in 4 rooms. And a good deal of the dialogue from the beginning of Resevoir dogs, the rest of it - fucking horrible. Go back and watch it, it's really goddamn bad.

Uma Thurman fucking sucks. She sucks at acting. She's wilted worse than Courtney Cox, post-Friends. Her ability to deliver a line is about on par with Corky.


Jesus, I don't even want to talk about it anymore. Tarantino is a fucking con-artist and he has some of you hooked.

Tell us how you really feel. Quit holding back.

Tarantino should be gassed.

Here, here, Schild!
If one more person calls that plagiarist an artist I think I’m going to scream. His movies are almost scene for scene stolen images. One or two is an homage, but a whole movie, that’s thievery. Oh and as for his great writing, ha, go back and watch it again the good stuff is mostly off topic ranting, and when it's part of the story its dreck. But he curses like a sailor so he’s edgy, fuck that he's not edgy. It’s like trying to save spoiled meat with spices, even if you can make it palatable it still makes you sick to your stomach.

(http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9804/22/bitch.wurtzel/uma.thurman.jpg)

(http://www.toddsautographarena.com/jpg/chrisburke2small.JPG)

Yes, I see the similarity....freaky.

I used to think Pulp Fiction was a really dumb movie. Except for a few interesting scenes, I thought the movie was rather boring and focused on vague unimportant things. For example, discussing McDonalds in France. Who cares? I didnt see why a scene would even be put together that way, as it seemed like filler and wasting screen time.

I have read some reviews of the movie, and understand a bit more about PF now. After watching it again, I like it more.

True that the presentation perhaps leaves too much for people to piece together on their own, but I contribute it to intentional style. I accept it for what it is.

This here is a good review of the movie, and worth the long read. As I said, the movie is rather open to interpretation so this reviewer's opinion is just one opinion. But I like what he says, especially about the central character Jules.

He doesnt go on and on about that famous rumor of the soul in the briefcase. Instead, he talks about many other aspects. The presentation makes the movie what it is, despite being obscure.

http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=178_0_2_0

I just don't fuckin get the negativivity. Tarentino's movies are hella fun. Are they masterpieces? no... Film epics that will transcend time? no... But they are cool as shit and fuckin fun to watch. It's not typical hollywood formulaic bullshit, it's not a take off on some crappy sixties TV show.
You anti-Tarentino types better go see your doctor and see if he can remove that bug out of yer god damn ass.
I know when I see on of his movies its not going to be predictable hollywood bullshit it may even be corny at times but it's still better than most of the garbage spewed out in the theaters these days. He's a con-artist? Maybe's he's conned the media into thinking he's some genius or something to me he's just a lucky son of a bitch who gets to film stuff he thinks is cool.

Hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I've always been surprised with the mass appeal QT's films hold, and never expected many to get it in the first place. The fact that there are people who do is pretty cool to me, but calling him a rip-off artist is like calling Lucas and Spielberg rip-off artists for copying 1940's serial flicks: The truth is, Indiana Jones is a movie in it's own right. KB or PF have their own take on grindhouse and exploitation films as well: He (or Avary) brings these characters to life, makes them human, instead of paying tribute to the stereotypes.

I also happen to find Uma to be hot as fuck. But hey, not everyone can like something the same. I mean, I doubt very few here (if any) would agree with me on this:

The Lord of the Rings is a piece of shit (except Fellowship maybe). A drawn out, too epic for it's own good piece of shit.

Tarentino had me at 4 Rooms... then he lost me. Some funny scenes, some interesting humor, and overall a fun movie to watch.

I find it ironic that the guy that made "Pulp Fiction" may be getting rich on what most consider "Pulp Cinema".  It's mostly contentless drivel created purely for entertainment/shock value.  Just like the WWF, it's succeeding.

Im not supprised you dont get it. You used the word "Hella" in your post.

Car Fire and all that..

Tarantino only wrote the last bit of Four Rooms, which he starred in. Even that was a ripoff of a Lorre flick, at leats he admitted it.

"Good artists borrow. Great artists steal."

Origin unknown, but various artists have said variations of it... Picasso, T.S. Elliot, Stravinsky, etc.

Bruce

You take it completely out of context though. Stealing technique is not the same as stealing line by line or shot by shot - which is what Tarantino does. He is not a great artist. He's a shitty one masquerading as a human being capable of original thought.

You seem to be referring to his "theft" of things from City on Fire for RD. I watched CoF last week and while he did borrow a lot of it, he really took it to a much better level in many respects.

Some of the things in Pulp Fiction were borrowed from previous films (such as the famous "pair of pliers and a blowtorch"). However if you look over more information, you will see that Tarantino borrowed many bits from himself.

One could hardly claim that he stole from other films out of being a bad writer or being lazy. To find such tiny bits in obscure films, and combine them in the way he did, would take much more effort then just writing something simple down for that scene. It isn't done in a way of theft, it is done in a way of a movie fanatic making a movie himself.

Read over this link. A couple of the items are a bit of a stretch on the imagination by the writer, trying to link up too much together. But most of it is quite interesting and explains why people like to dig into the movie constantly.

Edit: updated the link to a better page

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/trivia

I hate it when my ignorance shows... I stand corrected.  

I agree with several people above that QT is a "taste".  Some people really get off on his stuff, some don't.  It's not really about being an elitest movie critic so much as people just having a desire for a different 2h experience. Personally, he could have done KB I just as well with less gratuitous violence.   Then again, shock value is part of his image.

I think the heart of the matter is that Quentin Tarantino is one big movie geek, and in his films he likes emulating stuff that blew him away as a viewer.  I would think it's not so different from a developement team looking at all these different games with certain bits of brilliant gameplay and deciding to make one big game with all those brilliant bits thrown in and tailored to suit their tastes.  I guess because it's a movie, though, we automatically expect everything to be entirely original.  *boggles*

I don't ever remember asking for originality. I just asked that he leave the blatent theft at the door. Though....



This just goes to show you that brains don't lead to creativity or good taste. HE NEEDS TO NOT CAST UMA THURMAN, EVER AGAIN. Shit, no one should cast her ever again. I know plywood that delivers lines better than her.

Also, upon reflection, I liked Kill Bill Vol.1 more than Vol.2. The dialogue in 1 was better. The pacing was MUCH better.

Here's some morsels for you all:


Can't imagine why he wouldn't want to join the DGA.





The above 2 don't even need comments, though...



What this really says is - He tried writing two chapters about his experiences but sucked so much cock at writing, figuring he could hide it by making films with excessive drug use and violence, but wait! -



And for some godawful reason, he gets hit with this juicy morsel:



Ok....
Everyone uses retrospect - hell, it's been used since 1920 in Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari (The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0010323/)
Non-linearity has been used since Un Chien Andalou (1929) ("http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020530/"). Admittedly though, Un Chien Andalou is so disjointed it could still be classified under 'experimental' almost 80 years later.
As for the comment about chapters. I have to brush that off as stupid. Operas have been divided into [acts] since the beginning of time. Shakespeare divided his plays into [acts]. Fuck, Tarantino was the only one stupid enough to put chapter title cards into his movie (to cover up the fact he doesn't know how to pass time on camera - exhibited by the scene where Uma is in the coffin and all we hear is breathing and dirt falling on the coffin, plz2paymeback for watching a black scren for 5 minutes, cockmonger).

Stop supporting this fucktard. Please. There are better directors out there to call talented. Tarantino is not among them. Yes, Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were entertaining. The rest, shite. It's just the reality of it.

Edit: I don't know enough about opera to know the technical term for what the acts are called. I find most (note, MOST) opera detestable. Bruno Lazzeretti and Danielle de Niese make my ears happy though.

Edit: If I'm getting a little too intense talking about this little ratfucker, someone tell me. Oh and none of my posts are really directed at anyone when it comes to Tarantino. I just like having a nice tall soapbox with an ivory tower on top of it from which I can scream. Unless someone forces me to sit down and watch Jackie Brown 5 times, I should calm down in a few days.

Then how do you explain Jackie Brown?  I think that movie has his best dialogue and character development.  There's a lot less of the showoff "look how cool I am *wink*" dialogue than there is in his more often mentioned movies.

Jackie Brown is a God Awful film.


Really, really, awfully bad.

Bram Stokers Dracula bad.

Plan 9 from Outer Space bad.


Awful.

Schild, QT's contribution doesn't lie in his use of sequencing, non-linearity, chapter division, et al. I agree, that's ridiculous. But it's like I said before: He displays otherwise stereotypical characters in their off-hours. What they do and say when they're not being hitmen (or whatever it may be)... Whether it's getting assraped, having religious epiphanies, or discussing coffee, quarter-pounders, and the lyrics of Madonna songs. Resorvoir Dog's may very well be the first heist movie that isn't even about the fucking heist.

Maybe it's been done in small doses before, but never as a conscious, stylistic choice. It's done all the time now (like in Soprano's for example), but can you think of something pre-1990 that falls under that category? Maybe some, like Godard, for instance, may have provided a model to follow, but I still don't think Tarantino is doing quite the same thing or has the same intentions.

I'll admit though, Kill Bill barely follows suit, which is why I think Avary may be telling the truth. At the very least, I think they both need each other's help.



Jackie Brown is based on an Elmore Leonard novel. Kinda helps.

I actually agree with this, except for a few bits. Jackie Brown was adapted from an Elmore Leonard book, so the story was written for him. It also had a number of really outstanding performances that made the film much better than it would have been without those performances.

Originality is overrated. In movies, it's mostly non-existent, because Hollywood doesn't want original, it wants box office, and originality is rarely supported by the masses anyway.

Tarantino takes unoriginal ideas, puts some spin on it, and sometimes it works. In Kill Bill, it not only didn't work, it was painful to watch.

 I fully agree Kill Bill 2 is a must see. It is different than Kill Bill 1, and just as nice.

 BTW, if it were not for Bruce Lee, and Lee's success both in Asia and America,  and popularizing Martial Arts films for a worldwide audiance,  Hong Kong cinema would never have had the financial power to make even better movies. 36th Chamber would never have gotten made, nor released. Jackie Chan would never have enjoyed his success, which led to Jet Lei getting looked at and his current success. It is all a domino effect, starting with Bruce Lee pushing the first domino.

   Point about Uma Thurman everyone keeps talking about - I agree she is not the "hottest" actress around. The closest Uma came to being hot and sexy was when she played Poison Ivy in one of the Batman movies a few years ago. (I think Val Kilmore was Batman? Can't remember) QT did not put her in Kill Bill 1 and Kill Bill 2 because of her outstanding looks. He put her in the Kill Bill movies, because back when QT made Pulp Fiction, Uma was the only "kinda hot" actress who would do his movie. Pulp Fiction went on to acclaim and launched Uma's career big time.

 Now with Kill Bill 1 & 2 she owes him big time. In a way QT can get her for "free". Even though QT has more money now than he did years ago. But why get a real hot actress, even though he can now afford it, when  he can get a well known name actress for "free" since she owes him big time for jumpstarting her career.

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't ban your fanboi stank ass right now.

Hmmm.... I think you still have a unique site due to the fact no one has attempted to copy it. Aka it's still original. Which there is a shortage of these days. *thumbs up*

Your COMPLETELY UNINFORMED asskissing has spared you. As such you are allowed to post with these guidelines:

Do not start a SW:G thread.
Do not post in an SW:G thread.
Do not talk about SW:G in any other thread.
Do not compare movies to Star Wars.
Do not express your opinion on anything Star Wars Related.
Do not talk about space, or the infinite horizon beyond.

This message is left up as a public service. If anyone notices any transgressions to the above rules, shoot to kill.

Oh, Kill Bill sucks. Tarantino sucks a donkey wang.

ROTFLOL.

*smilie*

How could you tell? I was so busy trying to gouge my eyes out with my soda straw to avoid having to watch any more of that POS to notice. I am pretty sure that she looked better in Dangerous Liasons and Jennifer 8, if only because she nuded up.

Oh, and Schild? You are far more merciful than I. I like your guidelines though- shouldn't take more than a few hours to be rid of him.

If you want hot Uma, you need to go watch Dangerous Liasons.  Her perfect boobies are spectacular (although all too briefly shown).

She was quite hot as Venus in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

Roobles! He does make some good, albeit opposing, points. (blatant posterior kissing aside)

I have to agree that they are indeed the finest set of breasts I have ever seen in any film ever. They are PERFECT in both size and shape, and I tip my hat to you sir for bringing the movie up. Probably one of my favorite movies of all time for the performance that John Malkovitch does.

  Are you guys sure those weren't Michelle Pheiffer's chest in Dangerous Liasons you both are talking about? Her stripped chest in that movie matches the description by Paelos.

Quite certain. It is in the bed scene where Malkovich is teaching her sexual techniques.

So, I finally caught this on DVD last night.

Fucking ugh. Best thing I can say about it... it was better than the first.

But it was goddamned painful to watch. Painful in the way that makes me scream at the TV "JUST HURRY UP AND TELL ME GODDAMNIT!" I see no reason, and I mean ZERO reason this couldn't have been condensed into a 2-hour movie, and even that long would have been self-indulgent.

I am more convinced than ever that Quentin Taratino needs an editor/producer that will tell him to "Get his bitch ass in the kitchen and make me a PIE!" There are completely wasted minutes of the film doing nothing, such as the inordinately long amount of time spent in the fucking dark as the Bride is buried alive, or the scenes of her stumbling out in the desert towards Bud's house. The completely wasted use of the potential badassery that is Michael Madsen is a tragedy, but let's face it, he's been letting Hollywood do this to him since that pile Species. He and Bill were the only characters worth giving a shit about in the whole thing. Pei Mei was just stupid, obvious ripoffs, oh excuse me HOMAGES, to old kung-fu movies. Why not just have the lips not match the subtitles since we're going so far as to rip off ENTIRE SHOTS from old kung-fu movies as well as the assinine sound effects? The resolution was unsatisfactory and completely anti-climactic, as well as being foreshadowed in the most ham-fisted way possible.

And yes, MORE GODDAMN FEET. SAVE THE FOOT FOOTAGE FOR YOUR PERSONAL WANK SESSIONS, QUENTIN!

Total pile. Quentin has one more movie to make me believe that Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs weren't just lightning in a bottle. Jackie Brown doesn't count because it was someone else's story that he adapted.

But, but, IT'S ART.

Nah, I don't buy it either. It's total shite for the lobotomized viewer.

It's neither. It's self-aggrandizing masturbation on film. "Ooo, look at me, I can do a shot just like some obscure Asian guy that's dead and no one ever knew! I'm so cool!"

Stretching a one-sentence plot into two fucking movies, both of which were too long for what they portrayed is a goddamn crime against film and a whorish money grab. Of course Miramax thought they should break the film up into two films instead of one long one.

YOU CAN SELL MORE DVD'S that way. And fanbois will buy it in multiple versions because geeks are iminently susceptible to the flash, as evidenced by how much shit we've swallowed directly from the crack of George Lucas's ass.

LOL! I'm glad to see there's people here who agree with my views of Lucas' complete lack of talent (I guess now that Akira Kurosawa's dead and there's no more people to Puff-Daddy movies from, we get a chance to see Mr. Lucas' true colours - brown).