Kill Bill Vol. 2

[ahoythematey]

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.

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

[schild]

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.

[Abagadro]

Tell us how you really feel. Quit holding back.

[schild]

Tell us how you really feel. Quit holding back.

Tarantino should be gassed.

[koboshi]

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.

[Paelos]

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

[Pineapple]

.

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

[RipSnort]

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.

[stray]

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.

[Nebu]

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.

[Morfiend]

I just don't fuckin get the negativivity. Tarentino's movies are hella fun.

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

Car Fire and all that..

[schild]

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

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.

[SirBruce]

"Good artists borrow. Great artists steal."

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

Bruce

[schild]

"Good artists borrow. Great artists steal."

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

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.

[Abagadro]

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.

[Pineapple]

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

[Nebu]

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.

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.

[ahoythematey]

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*

[schild]

...

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

Has an IQ measured at 160, despite dropping out of high school.

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:

Code:

Was planning to direct an episode of "X Files, The" (1993), but refuses to join the Director's guild of America. The guild refused his request for a waiver so that he could direct the show. [November 1996]

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

Code:

Claims that Tarantino acted in the film Dawn of the Dead (1978) or the film King Lear (1987) are incorrect. Quentin falsely listed these credits years ago on his acting resume to compensate for his lack of experience...

Code:

Director Spike Lee criticized Tarantino for the excessive use of racial slurs in his film Jackie Brown (1997). Quentin said Spike was just mad because "nobody goes to see Spike's films anymore". When Quentin said this in 1998, Spike's movie He Got Game (1998) was currently number one at the box office in the USA.

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

Code:

Was at one point in his life considering to become a novelist. He said that he tried writing two chapters of a novel about his experiences working at the Video Archives in Hermosa Beach. As can be immediately seen, novelistic narrative techniques bear a strong influence on his distinct filmmaking style.

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! -

Code:

Although he uses both elements in his films, QT strongly detests violence and drugs.

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

Code:

Often uses an unconventional storytelling device in his films, such as retrospect (Reservoir Dogs), non-linear (Pulp Fiction), or "chapter" format (Kill Bill).

Ok....
Everyone uses retrospect - hell, it's been used since 1920 in Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari (The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari)
Non-linearity has been used since Un Chien Andalou (1929). 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.

[Arnold]

Don't know if any of you have heard this before, but supposedly Quentin's friend from his videostore days, Roger Avary (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.

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.

[Ironwood]

Jackie Brown is a God Awful film.


Really, really, awfully bad.

Bram Stokers Dracula bad.

Plan 9 from Outer Space bad.


Awful.

[stray]

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.

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 based on an Elmore Leonard novel. Kinda helps.

[HaemishM]

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.

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.

[Capt_XplOrOrOr]

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.

 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.

[schild]

.

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

[Capt_XplOrOrOr]

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*

[schild]

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.

[Capt_XplOrOrOr]

ROTFLOL.

*smilie*

[WayAbvPar]

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.

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.

[Abagadro]

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

[Sky]

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

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

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

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

[Paelos]

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

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.

[Capt_XplOrOrOr]

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

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.

[Abagadro]

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

[HaemishM]

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.