Would you consider Kill Bill to be a B-movie (albeit an incredibally well done one)? I mean, that's how Terintino (probably spelled wrong) meant it.
I consider it an homage/rip-off of grindhouse movies. Tarintino just takes a bunch of scenes, characters, stoylines, dialouge, etc. from other movies and puts it in his movies. Its more like a compilaton to me.
I like the Japanese cut of part one but I can't watch the end of part two again, Carradine's listtph isth stho annoying :hatred:
I consider it to be simply a very, very bad movie. One of the worst ever made. Long, boring, lousy characters that never shut up, lots of pointless sequences like the endless "driving to the tea room" part or the excruciating anime segment. If Quentin was trying to make the worst movie he possibly could he sure succeeded.
Quote from: akiratubo on December 12, 2008, 10:07:22 AM
I consider it to be simply a very, very bad movie. One of the worst ever made. Long, boring, lousy characters that never shut up, lots of pointless sequences like the endless "driving to the tea room" part or the excruciating anime segment. If Quentin was trying to make the worst movie he possibly could he sure succeeded.
Sort of agree with you. I didn't absolutley hate it, but it was no where near as good as everybody makes it out to be. It's also one of those movies I watch once, then never think about until someone brings it up.
I personally liked the Kill Bill movies. My tastes appear to be the reverse of the popular consensus, in that I actually, for the most part, can't stand Part 1.
Part 1 focused on Vivica A. Fox and Lucy Liu. Blech. Not to mention the super-blech that Uma Thurman brings to every movie she's in. The brief appearance from Sonny Chiba was welcome though. But, otherwise, Part 1 is mostly just a bunch of bad-to-mediocre actors bouncing around from action scene spectacle to action scene spectacle in a needlessly, overly non-linear plot (I have nothing against non-linear, in fact I often enjoy it... but in the Kill Bill movies, both of them, much of the non-linear structure seems to be the way it is just for the sake of being non-linear... "oooooh, look ma! look how non-linear i can be"). Meanwhile Part 2 focused on Michael Madsen, Daryl Hannah, Gordon Liu, and David Carradine (who, I think, friggin' OWNS that movie). I enjoyed Michael Park's small role as Esteban, but, as great an actor as he is and as great a job as he does playing that role, I think that the character had no reason to exist in the first place. There is no reason for that scene to be in the movie other than for Tarantino to give one of his favorite actors some more screentime.
I know most people didn't much care for the David Carradine scenes near the end, but I loved 'em. I thought Carradine really stole the show, and I think those scenes (the "Superman" scenes, the "sandwich-making" scene, etc.) are the best parts of the movie, and my only complaint about them is that they're far too brief.
Ultimately, I think Uma Thurman's character was ultimately far less interesting than Carradine. Maybe Tarantino should've made Kill Beatrix instead, and focused on Bill as opposed to Beatrix Kiddo.
I like both of the Kill Bill movies a great deal. I don't think that they're the greatest movies ever made but I enjoy them very much. And that has nothing to do with the fact that I consider Uma Thurman to be my dream woman. :wink:
I can understand people not liking one volume but enjoying the other (most of my friends loved Vol. 1 but didn't care for Vol. 2). But I really have a hard time believing that some people consider these to be some of the worst movies ever made. I realize that someone's opinion is their own, but that's something I just can't buy.
Akiratubo, I can't defend you this time... I don't like Vol. 1 very well, but I love Vol. 2 (not that I consider either of them to be "masterpieces" and agree they are certainly derivative.)
They were interesting, but frankly it should have been a tighter single film, though Carradine was amazing and over all Vol.2 I prefer, Carrdine's scenes were great, the Superman speech was great in of itself but yeah 2 or 3 out of 4? :twirl:
I found them to be as enjoyable as any other movie I've seen, although I agree that they were a little unpolished. Still, I loved them.
What the heck is "Kill Bill"?
:bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:
Quote from: Allhallowsday on December 12, 2008, 08:02:36 PM
Akiratubo, I can't defend you this time... I don't like Vol. 1 very well, but I love Vol. 2 (not that I consider either of them to be "masterpieces" and agree they are certainly derivative.)
IFC has been showing these recently;
Part 1 on right now and I'm enjoying it taking a break from my umpteenth time looking at these two movies,
Part 2 coming up at 10pm EST
I love their derivative aspect, gratuitous gore. Complete cinematic entertainment, all pretension and comic book, and just plain great filmmaking. Though I think I'm more fond of
Part 2, I genuinely enjoy both
KILL BILL flix.
Neither film is great, but I will tune in for a few minutes if they are on the tube. Volume 2 is better. I love the sandwich-making scene and every scene with Michael Madsen.
I'm surprised to find people that didn't like at least the first film (the only one I saw). I thought I was the only one. Seeing as how I'm not crazy about Uma Thurman to begin with that probably set the tone for how I'd feel about the film. But some of the dialogue was so wretched that it wasn't even bad-good.
"Silly rabbit!"
"Trix are for kids..."
I wanted to cry at that point. :bluesad:
Quote from: retrorussell on December 31, 2009, 12:14:21 AM
But some of the dialogue was so wretched that it wasn't even bad-good.
"Silly rabbit!"
"Trix are for kids..."
I wanted to cry at that point. :bluesad:
But wretched dialogue is the best thing ever! :wink:
Quote from: SPazzo on December 31, 2009, 12:34:08 AM
Quote from: retrorussell on December 31, 2009, 12:14:21 AM
But some of the dialogue was so wretched that it wasn't even bad-good.
"Silly rabbit!"
"Trix are for kids..."
I wanted to cry at that point. :bluesad:
But wretched dialogue is the best thing ever! :wink:
This can be very true!
I just felt it didn't fit in this film.
to me, the Kill Bill series of movies were long, drawn out and filled with dialog that is in a world of it's self. Don't get me wrong, I own both and watch them from time to time. They are Taratino's movies and it takes a little bit of (patience?) to watch them. I would still rather watch "Jackie Brown" though.
I certainly don't begrudge anyone their right to not like Kill Bill. I knew when I saw them both that there would not only be a division on which was the better installment, but on whether some liked the whole at all, some, or loved it. I enjoyed both films quite a bit, particularly part II. It is certainly derivative work (as is everything he does), nobody can deny that, but I think QT has a proper balance of tounge-in-cheek satire, and genuine respect for that from which he derives.
I loved both of the Kill Bill films. They certainly aren't groundbreaking or original in the least bit, but I find them to be extremely entertaining and fun, which is what matters most when it comes right down to it. I think they are easily better than 99.9% of the movies from the past 3 decades.
Regarding your question about whether or not they are B-movies, I think they can be called B-movies by today's popular definition, but if you want to get technical, I think the term B-movie was originally meant to describe the second (and usually more low-budget) movie shown at a drive-in or double feature.
the ghoul -
You may be right. I've often wondered about that. I don't that there is a "definition" of what "b-movie" means. It's a bit gray. Another definition that I like is that it's like A-list actors and B-list actors. Robert DeNiro is an A-list actor, while Michale Madsen is B-list. The movies that either star in tend to suggest A-movie or B-movie, but certainly not always. Harvey Keitel has certainly done plenty of both.
I kinda like it and kinda hate it...
I like the idea of a 2 part (cliff hanger) movie and the 1970's martial arts theme.
I dont like the Quentin Tarantino dialogue... For some reason [Quentin] is given a pass with script writing and 'talking heads'. So the dialogue does get boring at times then suddenly it seems that somebody has called army to drop some F-bombs to livin it up. (Personally I think Quentin Tarantino is better then that but its seems that he has a lazy tendency when writing his scripts and using "talking heads." But what work for Reservoir Dogs (1992) should work in all his films?... Not true you need some really good character actors to pull this off... )