The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
Sorry to post such a small reply after your monsterous post but: -
*shrug* I really, really enjoyed it. :)
*shrug* I really, really enjoyed it. :)
The thing is Kill Bill as ONE film is a 5 star Tarrantino masterpiece which is BETTER than Pulp Fiction.
As two films you get two great movies....
As two films you get two great movies....
Cool, lots of people did. It just seemed a bit pretentious to me. "I watch these films, so if I take all the techniques and bundle them together in one film, surely that should make the best film ever?". No thanks, Quentin.
It is a great film but I think it's overhyped a lot.
I disliked Vol. 1 with a passion, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time/money/energy going to see Vol. 2.
An awful, awful pile of self-indulgent overrated toss.
An awful, awful pile of self-indulgent overrated toss.
i quite enjoyed it, but i totally agree about replay value, it's certainly not on pulp fictions level for my money...
although i'll happily watch the animated sequece about a billion times, i thought that section was wonderful, absolutely wonderful.
although i'll happily watch the animated sequece about a billion times, i thought that section was wonderful, absolutely wonderful.
Well I'm going to see the second one, because it probably is meant to be viewed as a whole piece of work. But then why did he release it as two parts if it's so unwatchable as a whole? It helps enforce my theory of "double the sales", and I would be hugely insulted if that were true.
monkey_man wrote:
> Cool, lots of people did. It just seemed a bit pretentious to me.
> "I watch these films, so if I take all the techniques and bundle
> them together in one film, surely that should make the best film
> ever?". No thanks, Quentin.
I just though it was his way of paying tribute to the movies he grew up with. He's not making it for anyone else IMHO, he's making it for himself in the same way Jackson is doing his childhood love next "King Kong". If people don't like the ride he's taking them on, they don't. I can understand the pretentious comment, especially in the "extravagant show" context, but that's the nature of these sort of flicks.
I think It'll be a return to the Tarantino everone expects in his next movie. Not because it's expected, but because he's got his pet project out of the way.
Please don't thing I's disagreeing with you here, just voicing my personal (and worthless) opinion.
> Cool, lots of people did. It just seemed a bit pretentious to me.
> "I watch these films, so if I take all the techniques and bundle
> them together in one film, surely that should make the best film
> ever?". No thanks, Quentin.
I just though it was his way of paying tribute to the movies he grew up with. He's not making it for anyone else IMHO, he's making it for himself in the same way Jackson is doing his childhood love next "King Kong". If people don't like the ride he's taking them on, they don't. I can understand the pretentious comment, especially in the "extravagant show" context, but that's the nature of these sort of flicks.
I think It'll be a return to the Tarantino everone expects in his next movie. Not because it's expected, but because he's got his pet project out of the way.
Please don't thing I's disagreeing with you here, just voicing my personal (and worthless) opinion.
monkey_man wrote:
> Well I'm going to see the second one, because it probably is meant to
> be viewed as a whole piece of work. But then why did he release it
> as two parts if it's so unwatchable as a whole?
The rumour is the studio demanded cuts. He refused. The compromise was a movie in two parts. Since a single would have been half an hour longer than Return of the King, I can see their point. I could hardly walk after that one. Certainly a money grabbing move on the studio's part, although I still have suspicions.
> Well I'm going to see the second one, because it probably is meant to
> be viewed as a whole piece of work. But then why did he release it
> as two parts if it's so unwatchable as a whole?
The rumour is the studio demanded cuts. He refused. The compromise was a movie in two parts. Since a single would have been half an hour longer than Return of the King, I can see their point. I could hardly walk after that one. Certainly a money grabbing move on the studio's part, although I still have suspicions.
Page: