Kill Bill: Volume One

[Kal]

yeah well everyone has their opinions and arguments about why a movie is good or bad... but if you want other people to think like you do the least they need is a valid explanation... if someone loves the movie, then hates it, then just writes a lot of crap... its kinda difficult to make a point.

these type of movies are subject to many things of each individual's brain and that means every person interprets it different and may love ir or hate it and it doesnt mean shit... its the same that happened with most of the PTA movies or Mulholland Drive and many other movies...

just end the discussion about who is right and who is wrong... nobody knows... if you like it good, if you didnt but dont say why then in my opinion you're a moron, but thats just me  

[Gold Trumpet]

It does discredit your opinion a little bit.  After one viewing, you went from loving > negative > enjoying as a failure.  Your opinion of the film has obviously changed after 0 subsequent viewings so I think it's only fair that you need to see it again so that you can have your position solidified.   There is a chance that either a) false memory or b) things that you have heard/read afterwards has changed your opinion.

That's fine. You admit this doesn't discredit my opinion indefinitely and you bring up good points, so fine. My position still can stand though.

who sets the standard for what a Tarantino film should be. you?

Quite frankly, yes. Everyone has their own idea to what a Tarantino film and the benefits of his art. I'm giving my opinion on that.

Well, GT, by that token, PDL was a complete failure for a PTA movie.

No. They are different movies to say they are the same departure for both artists. Anderson did move forward.

We must allow artists to change directions when they see fit.

Certainly, but we can be critical when we feel it is not up to par.

I thought my new position was understood with the last argument, but damn, I guess I'll have to reposition my opinion:

The identity for me with Tarantino films is that when he is making escapist films, (Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction) he transforms the genre by not taking the characters out of genre, but removing the genre plot. All the characters are purposely cliche, but instead of Resevoir Dogs focusing mainly on the robbery by the criminals and the technical details, it focuses on the personas of the characters. It delves into their interactions and personas of daily life. It isn't great drama, but very interesting because the basis is the characters instead of a ham plot in which we will know everything that will happen and only seeing the characters being driven by it. Pulp Fiction further pushed this idea into a maze of character personas that didn't do a riff off one movie, but an entire genre.

Kill Bill acts for the plot. The characters are dragged by it. Half the movie is a build up to the conflict between Thurman and Lui in which it is known Thurman will go to extreme limits to kill Lui, but kill her no doubt. She is out to 'kill bill', and any indecision comes in volume 2.  All excitement is just in the exploits of the fight. As said in my first review, there is so much talent in the Japan part that further investigation of the characters need to be shown. All the character profile we are given in the Japan sequence is for build of notoriety. The 16 year old crazy girl is summed up in one scene of violence and a voice over. Lui's history is detailed in the anime sequence and her present notoriety confirmed in the head slicing scene, but where is the march with the characters like before to capture the spirit of their world?

Of course, the first argument will be that "I don't get it" and Tarantino is intentionally going for movie land action and such. But really, does this gurantee any good quality for further viewings? The basis of the movie is just the build up and action scenes and as history shows, many action scenes become do become dated with better technology and no one in the movie really is even any good fighting so the lack of talent becomes obvious. It is saying that Tomb Raider can be a work of art if it put every imaginable great stunt into one movie and exploded into multiplexes. The movie is still riding off stunts instead the memorability of good writing for characters. I think the latter is prolly going to better hold up.

[SHAFTR]

and no one in the movie really is even any good fighting so the lack of talent becomes obvious.

What about Gordon Liu?

[Gold Trumpet]

and no one in the movie really is even any good fighting so the lack of talent becomes obvious.

What about Gordon Liu?

Who is he in the movie?

[SHAFTR]

and no one in the movie really is even any good fighting so the lack of talent becomes obvious.

What about Gordon Liu?

Who is he in the movie?

He is the leader of the Crazy 88 fighters.  He was in a bunch of Hong Kong martial art films.  Same with Sonny Chiba (Hattori Hanzo).  Plus, if I'm not mistaken all women in the film were trained.

[Gold Trumpet]

He is the leader of the Crazy 88 fighters.  He was in a bunch of Hong Kong martial art films.  Same with Sonny Chiba (Hattori Hanzo).  Plus, if I'm not mistaken all women in the film were trained.

Oh ok. I realized much of the Japanese crew were trained professionals, but they had to fight against Uma Thurman who couldn't hold her own at all so the filmmakers had to resort to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon effects. From the limited number of martial art films I've seen, the sword play and fighting usually are stunning themselves, a form of mastered dance, but this film allows little. Much of the editing during the battle is a rollercoaster to keep up with all the tricks of filmmaking thrown into the fighting. With the other movies, I knew there was a general distance of the camera to capture the mastery of the fighting. Its just not here.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Just saw it twice in a 3 day span.  To me, it's still magical.

[SHAFTR]

He is the leader of the Crazy 88 fighters.  He was in a bunch of Hong Kong martial art films.  Same with Sonny Chiba (Hattori Hanzo).  Plus, if I'm not mistaken all women in the film were trained.

Oh ok. I realized much of the Japanese crew were trained professionals, but they had to fight against Uma Thurman who couldn't hold her own at all so the filmmakers had to resort to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon effects. From the limited number of martial art films I've seen, the sword play and fighting usually are stunning themselves, a form of mastered dance, but this film allows little. Much of the editing during the battle is a rollercoaster to keep up with all the tricks of filmmaking thrown into the fighting. With the other movies, I knew there was a general distance of the camera to capture the mastery of the fighting. Its just not here.

Still, even Vivica A Fox went through months of training just to film that short sequence.

[modage]

The identity for me with Tarantino films is that when he is making escapist films, (Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction) he transforms the genre by not taking the characters out of genre, but removing the genre plot.

i thought tarantino said for pulp fiction the idea was to take 3 stories that you'd seen 1000 times and that was the point.  so he didnt really remove the genre plot did he?  he gave all the stories a really familiar feel while doing something new with them.  just as he did with kill bill.

Kill Bill acts for the plot. The characters are dragged by it. Half the movie is a build up to the conflict between Thurman and Lui in which it is known Thurman will go to extreme limits to kill Lui, but kill her no doubt. She is out to 'kill bill', and any indecision comes in volume 2.  All excitement is just in the exploits of the fight.

but i dont think the movie is REALLY all build up.  because at the end of the day, it isnt as important whats at the end, so much as the adventure of getting there.  that'd be like riding a rollercoaster and saying 'well, it was all buildup to the big drop and then it just sort of stopped and i got out.  i was let down'.  no, because the fun was riding it, wasnt it?  not where you went, but getting there.

[Gold Trumpet]

i thought tarantino said for pulp fiction the idea was to take 3 stories that you'd seen 1000 times and that was the point.  so he didnt really remove the genre plot did he?  he gave all the stories a really familiar feel while doing something new with them.  just as he did with kill bill.

He removed genre plot of its importance in Pulp Fiction. The beginning and end of the stories are genre, but the bulk of the movie is attention to the daily qualms and grievances that go beyond what any real genre plot would have allowed for.

but i dont think the movie is REALLY all build up.  because at the end of the day, it isnt as important whats at the end, so much as the adventure of getting there.  that'd be like riding a rollercoaster and saying 'well, it was all buildup to the big drop and then it just sort of stopped and i got out.  i was let down'.  no, because the fun was riding it, wasnt it?  not where you went, but getting there.

But, when the ride begins to get boring, (because of lack of character, story, and tension) the ride sucks.

Tarantino's fave film, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly did have a good portion of it as build up to a final shoot out. Thing is, the film followed three characters extensively so the film didn't just ride on the build up to the shoot out, but the enjoyability of the characters as characters.

[SoNowThen]

The identity for me with Tarantino films is that when he is making escapist films, (Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction) he transforms the genre by not taking the characters out of genre, but removing the genre plot. All the characters are purposely cliche, but instead of Resevoir Dogs focusing mainly on the robbery by the criminals and the technical details, it focuses on the personas of the characters. It delves into their interactions and personas of daily life. It isn't great drama, but very interesting because the basis is the characters instead of a ham plot in which we will know everything that will happen and only seeing the characters being driven by it. Pulp Fiction further pushed this idea into a maze of character personas that didn't do a riff off one movie, but an entire genre.

Kill Bill acts for the plot. The characters are dragged by it. Half the movie is a build up to the conflict between Thurman and Lui in which it is known Thurman will go to extreme limits to kill Lui, but kill her no doubt. She is out to 'kill bill', and any indecision comes in volume 2.  All excitement is just in the exploits of the fight. As said in my first review, there is so much talent in the Japan part that further investigation of the characters need to be shown. All the character profile we are given in the Japan sequence is for build of notoriety. The 16 year old crazy girl is summed up in one scene of violence and a voice over. Lui's history is detailed in the anime sequence and her present notoriety confirmed in the head slicing scene, but where is the march with the characters like before to capture the spirit of their world?

I actually agree with almost all of that. It's a fine explanation. Thing is, I could give a fuck less about the 16 year old girl or Lui. I came to this movie to see action and killing, done in a hip way. I don't think Tarantino wanted to reinvent the cinematic wheel with this one, he wanted to "make one for the fans". But you'd be quite right in saying this one was devoid of previous Tarantino deep character and clever dialogue. And thank gawd, because he did it to perfection in Jackie Brown. I'm happy to have a QT movie that is still very much "him", but from this totally different standpoint of plot over everything (kinda like the Suzuki movies that Criterion has put out). If done with passion, there is something beautiful and pure to be had by stripping out everything except power-charged kinetic plot for plot's sake.

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

Awwww, Don't be hatin' on the PDL. Especially when talking about over the top Kill Bil over here. Two opposite poles. Nevmind. My avatar is bigger than what I have to say.

did moving the symbolism from Raining Frogs to a Harmonium hurt your brain too much?? aw, po' thang.

I'm just waiting for KILL BILL Vol. 2 to make sure we don't get a 'Once Upon a Time in Mexico' craziness/lack of character-fest.

[SoNowThen]

easy, I wasn't hating anything, just trying to say that PDL was a different kinda PTA as was Kill Bill a different kinda QT.

of course, I would take Kill Bill over pdl any old day of the week, but there's no hating coming from here...

[kotte]

easy, I wasn't hating anything, just trying to say that PDL was a different kinda PTA as was Kill Bill a different kinda QT.

PDL is neurotic, quirky, funny and serious...everything PTA seems to be. I say PDL is more PTA than his other films.

Isn't Kill Bill what we expected it to be? It was for me anyway.

A friend of mine asked why the hell Tarantino didn't do that cool thing they did in the Matrix. I told him to go fuck himself and "put his dick in an nintendo"

[ElPandaRoyal]

"put his dick in an nintendo"

Twenty years from now and I will still be laughing whenever I hear/read this.