Q. Tarrantino's "Kill Bill"- Good or Stinker?

monkspider · October 9, 2003, 04:17

Having loved both Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, I was naturally excited about Q. Tarrantino putting out a new flick. I haven't seen it yet, but from the previews I have seen it looks to be a little bit on the mindless side. It also saddens me to see Uma Thurman fall from being the raven-haired beauty on the cover of Pulp Fiction to the ghastly, anorexic-looking beast that we see today.

What are Apolyton's thoughts?

monkspider · October 9, 2003, 04:21

BTW, the idea to split this movie into two parts is incredibly horrible. I will still hand over my five bucks on Friday though.

Drake Tungsten · October 9, 2003, 04:22

I thought it was awesome.

monkspider · October 9, 2003, 04:25

You've seen it already?

Drake Tungsten · October 9, 2003, 04:25

No, just trying to make conversation.

It won't be out here for a couple weeks.

alva · October 9, 2003, 04:30

From the trailers it looks and bad kung-fu movie and I don't even like the good ones.
Me tinks I'll catch on the tele someday.

Quote:

Jackie Brown

Great movie, not really very known

, 'cause it is really good

FrustratedPoet · October 9, 2003, 05:18

I didn't like Jackie Brown at all, to be honest, and I'm a huge Tarantino fan.

Kill Bill doesn't look very good, I'm not optimistic, but I'll watch it anyway and I hope it suprises me.

It's supposed to be a mindless kung-fu movie - Tarantino loves all that chop-suey Hong Kong stuff - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. If the fight scenes are fun/exciting and it has a few sections of golden Tarantino dialogue then it might be worth the price of entry.

I don't really understand the rationale behind splitting it into two parts. Perhaps it'll become clearer after watching it.

MikeH · October 9, 2003, 05:29

He's got some really good stunt co-ordinators in to do the kung-fu. Which means the action should be great. I love kung-fu so I'll go and see it.

Split in 2 because otherwise it'd be 3 hours and they didn't think the public could handle it.

DanielXY · October 9, 2003, 05:36

I guess the thinking went more like: If you can charge them twice why do it only once?

Urban Ranger · October 9, 2003, 10:32

I don't like Jackie Brown.

duke o' york · October 9, 2003, 10:47

I love kung fu too so I'm going. Not on the first weekend, because the Leeds Film Festival have got some good kung fu films on this weekend and I am an infrequent visitor to cinemas at the best of times, but I'll go once the hype has subsided.

As long as it is better than From Dusk 'Til Dawn then it's can't be all bad.

Mercator · October 9, 2003, 10:57

You forgot Reservoir Dogs!

I will be seeing it (it won't be here for more than a month though).

But um... Jonathan Ross likes it, so it must be good.

SuperSneak · October 9, 2003, 11:18

True Romance is the best thing he's ever done, IMO.

FrustratedPoet · October 9, 2003, 11:32

I'd put Pulp Fiction at #1, but I certainly prefer True Romance to Reservoir Dogs.

Dis · October 12, 2003, 14:15

I hear it is ultra-violent.

And it does have similarities to Charlies Angels. Though much, much more violent.

This is basically an action film. Tarantino said he wanted to do an action film. And it will have many action film standards.

As for Jackie Brown- it was pretty good. But still not a movie I feel the need to own and watch again.

Dr Strangelove · October 12, 2003, 14:23

As far as I'm concerned Tarantino is way over-rated. The only good thing about his chef d'oevre "Pulp Fiction" was one really spiffy line: "I'm going to have to get medieval on your buttocks". The fact that that piece of garbage got Academy Awards is the best single piece of evidence that the Academy Awards are utterly meaningless.

Timexwatch · October 12, 2003, 14:38

*no spoilers in my mind, nothing more than what you can read in an average review

I saw it Friday night.

I'm hesitant to say "meh". It was better than that. Don't go expecting Pulp Fiction or even Reservoir Dogs. Think "From Dawn to Dusk" with over the top blood and samurai action.

What most people laughed at wasn't meant to be funny. It's a take off of all those Hong Kong/Kung Fu Movies and Samurai flicks. The dialog is stilted and corny to us for a reason. The only 'slick' dialog is the exchange between Uma and the guy who makes her sword.

There's also a bit of strangeness in the film involving the characters in the hospital and how she wakes up from the coma. It definitely has a Tarentino-esque quality to it.

Don't analyze it too much. It's meant to be mindless. There isn't the subtext that there was in Pulp Fiction.

For Anime fans, there's an equally over the top 10 minute sequence detailing the life of Lucy Liu's character. It's a bit jarring, but since it was in such a small dose, I didn't mind.

Dis · October 12, 2003, 15:17

I was kind of afraid it would be like from dawn to dusk. Actually it is from dusk till dawn

BTW has anyone seen once upon a time in Mexico? I liked Desperado even though that was over the top.

Tarantino has been tied to Rodriguez in a few films.

Timexwatch · October 12, 2003, 15:27

I'm only using the comparison for those who are expecting Pulp Fiction. There isn't any of the "Dusk" style humor in there, nor any Salma Hayek.

I wasn't thinking Once Upon a Time in Mexico, but upon reflection, it's closer that in terms of being based on an "ethnic" film (Samurais instead of Mariachis, swords instead of guns, "forced" dialog instead of the brodding, curtness of Banderas' dialog)...

Kaak · October 12, 2003, 15:59

ummmmmmm...........why is it in two parts, and when does volume two come out?

Dis · October 12, 2003, 16:01

volume two comes out this winter I think. Or early next year- which is still winter.

From what I heard is Tarantino has had some problems cutting the film down to under 3 hours towards 2 hours. You know how these artistic filmakers are. They agonize over every cut and edit they have to make. So Tarantino and the movie studio agreed to release it in two parts.

Oerdin · October 12, 2003, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
As far as I'm concerned Tarantino is way over-rated. The only good thing about his chef d'oevre "Pulp Fiction" was one really spiffy line: "I'm going to have to get medieval on your buttocks". The fact that that piece of garbage got Academy Awards is the best single piece of evidence that the Academy Awards are utterly meaningless.

Amen, brother. Pulp fiction was entertaining but as cinima it was't worth watching twice. The Academy Awards boil down to a popularity contest between celebs.

Dis · October 12, 2003, 16:14

heretic! burn him!

Pulp Fiction is my religion and my god

Verres · October 12, 2003, 17:02

Agreed! I personally prefer Reservoir Dogs, but anything by Mr.Tarantino has to be held in very high esteem, imo.

I agree this new film doesnt appear to have as much social commentary etc as previous works...but then he can still do gratuitous violence better than any other director I know

And lets face it, a load of people beating the **** out of each other for 90minutes isnt as bad as it sounds

Verres · October 12, 2003, 17:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I was kind of afraid it would be like from dawn to dusk. Actually it is from dusk till dawn

They were a brilliant trilogy...completely over the top, but great all the same

Once Upon a Time in Mexico was good...as far as a central American Gangster film could be. Helped by Johnny Depp (and Ben and Jerry's, of course

)

The Mad Monk · October 12, 2003, 17:27

In order to understand the Acadamy Awards, you must understand this:

The winners do not win for what it says they were nominated for.

They win for something they did previously.

Drogue · October 12, 2003, 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
BTW has anyone seen once upon a time in Mexico? I liked Desperado even though that was over the top.

Yes. Maybe 'watched it' is a little strong, although I was in my seat the cinema while it was showing

I quite liked it what I saw. It needed Johnny Depp as something a little lighter to cut through all the brooding, but was quite fun. Some good fight scenes in it though.

I wouldn't have called it Tarantino-esque at all, but I haven't seen Kill Bill yet.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaak
ummmmmmm...........why is it in two parts, and when does volume two come out?

February 2004.

Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece IMHO. It was such a different film to others like it. The dialogue didn't feel like it had to go anywhere, and there were loads of scenes that we're needed for the plot, but just added to the film immensely. If you were told the plot, it would sound confusing, with all the transitions in time, but watching it wasn't. It was just very enjoyable to see, with many lines that don't just sound good, but fitted in perfectly with the film. A very well written, directed and especially cast and acted film. Travolta and Jackson were fantastic in it. One of my all time favourite films, and easily Tarantino's best IMHO (Reservoir Dogs was very good too, but I didn't like Jackie Brown or True Romance).

Drogue · October 12, 2003, 17:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Verres
and Ben and Jerry's, of course

Ben and Jerry's makes anything go down easier

centrifuge · October 12, 2003, 17:50

I saw Kill Bill yesterday...and would definitely recomend it. It's a great action movie, has a ton of dark edge humor, and a scene or two that just make you cringe, like a lot of Tarantino's films.

Dis · October 12, 2003, 17:55

any butt rape scenes?