Anyone else agree with me? Tarrentino is a good director, Pulp Fiction & Resivior Dogs are two of my favorite movies. I think Kill Bill wasn't near the hype. I was offended by it's claim to be "part spaghetti western" because I'm a big fan of spaghetti westerns, and Kill Bill wasn't. The music and basic scene direction were the only credible parts of the movie. The plot is shallow and cheesy, the acting is poor. I also believe that Tarrentino for some reason felt obliged to make a movie with females in power positions, which in my book doesn't work here. "Girl power!" always seemed a bit silly to me. Is it possible that he just wants a little lovin' from the ladies, so Kill Bill was meant to suck up? Just a thought.
I never really looked at Kill Bill about as some cheezy Girl Power flick. And besides, most "ladies" don't really care for it's violence. As a girl, I liked Tarantino long before this, and didn't feel he needed to suck up to me for any reason...lol
I think out of many films that were made, Tarantino, is one of the few who actually has some cool woman charcters (even before Kill Bill). Do you remember Mia Wallace's Fox Force Five pilot she talked about? Almost reminds me of what he was planning in Kill Bill. I think this is something he has wanted to do for some time, and I believe he did a superb job...
Now let's compare...Charlie's angel (cheezy plot with girl power) or Kill Bill (reminicent of a comic book plot along with great villans/herions)
I go with Kill Bill any day!!!
It's sad, but I can almost compare Charlie's Angels and Kill bill. Kill bill is just an "Adult" charlie's angels to me, with better scene direction, and less black comedy.
That's really sad how you think you could compare the Charlie's Angels movies with Kill Bill. VERY VERY sad.
Kill Bill had style, where Charlie's Angels had.. a giggling Cameron Diaz half-nude. Kill Bill had nice dialouge, where Charlie's Angels had....... a giggling half-nude Cameron Diaz. Need I go on?
I think KILL BILL is a perfect blend of 1960s spaghetti westerns and 1970s martial arts flicks. I love this movie!
I'm with you on that one too...I thought it was a great movie..one of his best.
I don't think it's spaghetti western at all. It's a comedy, not a funny comedy, a silly comedy. You might even call it a spoof, yes a spoof, of a spaghetti western / martial arts movie. If you think that kind of spoof is entertaining, fine, but don't tell me it's a "great movie" that is artistic and stylistic. It's a glorified spoof.
You know I was thinking of Kill Bill today, and I agreed with myself that Kill Bill felt like an R-rated version of Charlie's Angels. But nonetheless, Kill Bill rocked! I love it so much!
I guess this is one that will be divided...it depends on our own definition of a great movie that is artistic and stylistic. Pulp Fiction had the same feel in some ways I thought with its style. However, I felt it more like it was crouching tiger meets pulp fiction. However that is my opinion, just as you have yours...
And one woman once told me, "Opinion are like a***oles: everybody's got one."
A -spoof-?
*sigh* Nevermind. It's pointless.
One man's steak is another man's cheese
If you take the cool parts out of a hundred old movies, and cram them all together, is the result a cool movie? Every part of it must theoretically be cool...
Prove me wrong Ryan.
I personally, have never been a big Tarantino fan... He's pretty decent but his own fanboyism is his Achilles heel and he sometimes gets too caught up in his own self-adulation.
In Kill Bill his pechant for being deriative hit all new peaks. It wasn't a bad film but it wasn't really all that that amazing either, the out of sequence story telling was utterly pointless and if anything detracted from the film - it's as if he thought "Done it every other film... might as well do it here". The pacing is pretty poor but it's not a bad way to spend 90 minutes.
I think that it was gratuitiously overhyped and the whole 2 films thing - pointless, it could easily have been a single film and would almost certainly have been better for it.
While I liked parts of both "parts", the whole story didn't add up to a favorite for me. It was a series of "nice, little touches", good acting even in the small parts, cool references to all these genres that QT loves, and his fixation/love letter to Uma Thurman grafted together on an intentionally "typical genre revenge storyline"; and all the other stuff was supposed to elevate KB to the level of an epic. Nice try, but didn't quite make it in my opinion anyway.
The dialogue that Ebert and Roeper gushed about so much they reviewed part 2 on two seperate episodes (I hate how they do that with some films now, and I don't mean the recaps or those seasonal highlights clip shows) seemed to be typical QT showing off at the word processor again. What I saw of Bill's "Superman/Clark Kent" speech seemed more like a pothead/fanboy ramble (maybe it got better later on, I missed part of it because I had to p**s, and was so annoyed by the speech that I decided it was better to miss part of it than the actual ending which I knew was near). Besides he claimed Supes was the only hero who his ordinary persona (Clark Kent) was the disguise, wouldn't Thor's old Donald Blake cover count as well (BTW, does Blake still exist in comicdom)? I enjoyed Michael Parks' turn as Esteban Vihaio (didn't recognize him actually until the credits) but his long tale about young "Beel" got old quick. And that B&W Uma monologue that featured so prominently in the trailers jsut seemed so stagey (but that seemd intentional with the old-style fake looking rear projection) and just fed into the fixation I mentioned above.
I can see the "spaghetti western" homage most clearly during the Budd section on Vol 2. The setting, the cinematography, and Budd's methods (ambushing the ambusher by unexpected means when least figured to and the burial) and his final comeuppance all reminded me of elements or the style of spaghetti westerns I've seen. The burial as punishment/torture reminds me vaguely of the often brutal and unusual methods employed by characters, like the gundown with gold bullets and the ripping apart of the body to retrieve them in "Django Kill!/...If You Live, Shoot!". The rocksalt in the shotgun could invoke the machine gun in the coffin of "Django" or the various odd weapons or defenses that turn up in other films like the goofy armored car in "Dead Man's River", the chest plate in "A Fistful of Dollars", Sean's explosives and cigars in "A Fistful of Dynamite", etc. I believe ther's even a scene in "Long Live Your Death" where Eli Wallach's character winds up in a coffin and either believes he is about to be killed or has died or his death is faked as part of the plot, been too long to recall clearly (so wish I had that film anyway). IMDB lists references to musical cues and camera setup/actions in other films, as well as references to "Companeros" and "High Plains Drifter" (not a real spaghetti western, but it is a copy of "Stranger's Gundown/Django the Bastard").
The NYT article I read naming references in both part of KB only mentioned Sergio Leone's style and use of music in their section on Italian westerns, kind of lazy on that part. They named plenty of HK and Samurai films references, but I suspect the writer had help from outside research or the film's press kit might have mentioned names. No mention of giallo films was made in the article IIRC, but I'd still say the hospital section of Vol 1 was invoking those films
I see I rambled again, bad habits.............
great post Yaddo42, that pretty much summed it up. I havn't seen the second one, because I didn't like the first.