The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sure it was made by Tarantino, but isn't that like buying trainers because they're made by Nike? What I saw (and remember, kids, this is my opinion, so you don't have to froth over your keyboard) was a bog-standard revenge plot, from an A-list Hollywood director, shot as a B-movie. How can it ever be a B-movie if he's got the backing and funding of everyone in "the industry"? And for that reason, it was also never going to be a bad movie. Tarantino can afford the crew, equipment, locations, sets, and actors to rip-off...sorry, "pay homage"...to all the Kung Fu films he watched as a kid. And how come when Tim Burton "pays homage" to Planet of the Apes he gets villanised? Sure it was a God-awful dogshit of a movie, but still...
My main gripe with the film was the protraction of every movement the characters made. No wonder they had to split the film into two parts - he hung on every shot, as if it would make the scene look more arty. He was wrong, it didn't. The use of nearly every already-over-used camera gimmick in the book didn't help either. I'm no film-making expert, but if you gave me a camera, I'd be able to come up with more or less the same results, on a smaller scale, but I wouldn't have the TarantinoTM tag to promote it. I mean, we're talking tricks and techniques they use on Hercules every week - no flair or inventiveness.
The whole concept of releasing the film in two parts stank of a marketing man's wet dream. Imagine the new TarantinoTM film, complete with the ability to double your cinema and DVD receipts. What a fantastic idea. There's no reason it couldn't have been released as one 3-4 hour film, except that he saw how well the Matrix and LOTR trilogies did, and wanted a piece of the multiple-release pie. I don't think it was a creative decision at all.
I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the film. Like I said, he can't make a bad film, but this one seemed to lack the replay value of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. They are true classics, creating unique and memorable scenes, not just in Western cinema, but the World over. The fact that he did lift so many scenes from martial arts films is both good and bad. If you haven't seen many Kung Fu films, then you're in for a visual treat of blood and colour. But if you have seen a fair few, then you know how unoriginal it was. Tarantino just claimed he was "paying his respects", or some other nonsense quote that gives him right to claim to be a master of the genre, and take what he wants.
But it was watchable. I, like so many other people, will be seeing the sequel - even though I have no pulsating urge to do so. I'll be seeing it for the same reason I buy a new pair of Adidas Campus every year: it's a comfy ride. A compentent film maker with an endless bucket of money, making films of people chopping each other up with swords. It has a certain entertainment value, but it is limited. Like the recent Dawn of the Dead film. It couldn't really be faulted, but it didn't really hold much presence outside the hour and a half you spend watching it. But if you argue that that is what the films are intended to do, then why can't Tarantino take his head out of his own chuff-tunnel and see that too?
Monkey_man's verdict: Good, but flawed.
My main gripe with the film was the protraction of every movement the characters made. No wonder they had to split the film into two parts - he hung on every shot, as if it would make the scene look more arty. He was wrong, it didn't. The use of nearly every already-over-used camera gimmick in the book didn't help either. I'm no film-making expert, but if you gave me a camera, I'd be able to come up with more or less the same results, on a smaller scale, but I wouldn't have the TarantinoTM tag to promote it. I mean, we're talking tricks and techniques they use on Hercules every week - no flair or inventiveness.
The whole concept of releasing the film in two parts stank of a marketing man's wet dream. Imagine the new TarantinoTM film, complete with the ability to double your cinema and DVD receipts. What a fantastic idea. There's no reason it couldn't have been released as one 3-4 hour film, except that he saw how well the Matrix and LOTR trilogies did, and wanted a piece of the multiple-release pie. I don't think it was a creative decision at all.
I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the film. Like I said, he can't make a bad film, but this one seemed to lack the replay value of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. They are true classics, creating unique and memorable scenes, not just in Western cinema, but the World over. The fact that he did lift so many scenes from martial arts films is both good and bad. If you haven't seen many Kung Fu films, then you're in for a visual treat of blood and colour. But if you have seen a fair few, then you know how unoriginal it was. Tarantino just claimed he was "paying his respects", or some other nonsense quote that gives him right to claim to be a master of the genre, and take what he wants.
But it was watchable. I, like so many other people, will be seeing the sequel - even though I have no pulsating urge to do so. I'll be seeing it for the same reason I buy a new pair of Adidas Campus every year: it's a comfy ride. A compentent film maker with an endless bucket of money, making films of people chopping each other up with swords. It has a certain entertainment value, but it is limited. Like the recent Dawn of the Dead film. It couldn't really be faulted, but it didn't really hold much presence outside the hour and a half you spend watching it. But if you argue that that is what the films are intended to do, then why can't Tarantino take his head out of his own chuff-tunnel and see that too?
Monkey_man's verdict: Good, but flawed.
Page:
> Mav wrote:
> Kill Bill's gore is more of a hyperbole.
> Lou Role wrote:
> A what?
> Mav wrote:
> Massive, over the top exagerration.
> :D
Ah, you learn something new everyday.
:)
> Kill Bill's gore is more of a hyperbole.
> Lou Role wrote:
> A what?
> Mav wrote:
> Massive, over the top exagerration.
> :D
Ah, you learn something new everyday.
:)
'GTA iz like so cool coz itz got blood, strip clubs, guns n' cars itz wicked' it's nothing like that is it? It's overrated crap anyway.. i mean GTA.
Lou Role wrote:
> Mav wrote:
> Kill Bill's gore is more of a hyperbole.
>
> A what?
Massive, over the top exagerration.
:D
> Mav wrote:
> Kill Bill's gore is more of a hyperbole.
>
> A what?
Massive, over the top exagerration.
:D
I partially agree with what you're saying - despite my criticisms, I thought it was just about above average.
Perhaps I should see Kill Bill 2 though, as I can't really see your point about superb storytelling and character development in the first. However, the idea of the inidentifiable villian is one of the things I liked about the film.
Perhaps I should see Kill Bill 2 though, as I can't really see your point about superb storytelling and character development in the first. However, the idea of the inidentifiable villian is one of the things I liked about the film.
Mav wrote:
> Kill Bill's gore is more of a hyperbole.
A what?
> Kill Bill's gore is more of a hyperbole.
A what?
CDouch wrote:
> You obviously never shot someones head off in it then...
Oh I have, and while it was exagerrated, Kill Bill's gore is more of a hyperbole.
Besides - GTA3 is a game.
> You obviously never shot someones head off in it then...
Oh I have, and while it was exagerrated, Kill Bill's gore is more of a hyperbole.
Besides - GTA3 is a game.
Am I to understand that quite a lot of Kill Bill is censored? If so, is the American version also censored?
If you're judging a film on how the gore looked, or whether it was displayed in monochrome or colour, then you obviously didn't get what tarantino was trying to do here.
with the massive amounts of money and advanced techniques available in film making today, do you really think tarantino had fountains of fake looking blood spurting everywhere in the name of realism?
it's a tongue in cheek japanese themed film that although has some very harrowing and indeed horrific scenes, never really takes itself seriously, and neither should you.
It's all about the story, not the fighting. Having watched both films now I am quite impressed with the way the whole story is interweaved with various sub-plots and points of view. You start off with a 1 dimensional revenge plot, and towards the end you begin to question whether there really is an indentifiable villain - apart from the bride who for the most part is a victim of circumstance, all the characters have both callous and generous qualities highlighted in various scenes. this is to flesh the characters out and show that most of them are human beings, not just another piece of sword fodder.
this is storytelling at its finest. the so called 'drawn out' scenes are in my view refreshing, and simply serve to highlight how our modern cinema-going population seems to have an ever shortening attention span. the idea behind these long scenes is to set mood and atmosphere - particularly notable is the buried alive scene in volume 2. they could have shortened this by half, but instead chose to allow the viewer more time to sense the impending danger and hopelessness of the situation.
the fight scenes are a mixed bag. in many ways they are exciting, unique and boundary pushing, in other parts they are simply tedious, low budget and ridiculous. but as it is basically a parody of a hundred different cliche film genrés from the past 50 years, you should expect a certain degree of cheesiness, predictability and seemingly out-dated presentation. it would certainly appear that the two volumes were marketed on tarantino's tried and tested shocking violence and disorientating film style, but these are a slightly different entity.
overall I was very impressed with both - they played out like two very different films, although I agree they would be far better condensed into a single epic story. I'll definitely be buying the box set.
with the massive amounts of money and advanced techniques available in film making today, do you really think tarantino had fountains of fake looking blood spurting everywhere in the name of realism?
it's a tongue in cheek japanese themed film that although has some very harrowing and indeed horrific scenes, never really takes itself seriously, and neither should you.
It's all about the story, not the fighting. Having watched both films now I am quite impressed with the way the whole story is interweaved with various sub-plots and points of view. You start off with a 1 dimensional revenge plot, and towards the end you begin to question whether there really is an indentifiable villain - apart from the bride who for the most part is a victim of circumstance, all the characters have both callous and generous qualities highlighted in various scenes. this is to flesh the characters out and show that most of them are human beings, not just another piece of sword fodder.
this is storytelling at its finest. the so called 'drawn out' scenes are in my view refreshing, and simply serve to highlight how our modern cinema-going population seems to have an ever shortening attention span. the idea behind these long scenes is to set mood and atmosphere - particularly notable is the buried alive scene in volume 2. they could have shortened this by half, but instead chose to allow the viewer more time to sense the impending danger and hopelessness of the situation.
the fight scenes are a mixed bag. in many ways they are exciting, unique and boundary pushing, in other parts they are simply tedious, low budget and ridiculous. but as it is basically a parody of a hundred different cliche film genrés from the past 50 years, you should expect a certain degree of cheesiness, predictability and seemingly out-dated presentation. it would certainly appear that the two volumes were marketed on tarantino's tried and tested shocking violence and disorientating film style, but these are a slightly different entity.
overall I was very impressed with both - they played out like two very different films, although I agree they would be far better condensed into a single epic story. I'll definitely be buying the box set.
You obviously never shot someones head off in it then...
Hardly.
Yes, it's poor effects, but GTA is cartoony styled game. And there were little squirts of blood. Not fountains.
Yes, it's poor effects, but GTA is cartoony styled game. And there were little squirts of blood. Not fountains.
Page: