The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
monkey_man wrote:
> God-awful dogshit
Ha ha, im stealing that for the week.
> God-awful dogshit
Ha ha, im stealing that for the week.
> CTUbauer wrote:
> I bet if this wasn't made by Tarantino, it'd be pretty unpopular.
If it wasn't made by Tarantino we'd probably have liked it more.
I'm with snuggly. Kill Bill Pt 1 is probably the best piece of movie making Quentin has ever done, utterly amazing.
I also read the empire movie, two films at 7 stars or 1 film at 5.
The thing is there was a lot of unneccessaray goings on in part one that could have cut the film to like an hour twenty... the next film will almost certainly be the same. I could stand a 3 hour masterpiece to be honest.
> I bet if this wasn't made by Tarantino, it'd be pretty unpopular.
If it wasn't made by Tarantino we'd probably have liked it more.
I'm with snuggly. Kill Bill Pt 1 is probably the best piece of movie making Quentin has ever done, utterly amazing.
I also read the empire movie, two films at 7 stars or 1 film at 5.
The thing is there was a lot of unneccessaray goings on in part one that could have cut the film to like an hour twenty... the next film will almost certainly be the same. I could stand a 3 hour masterpiece to be honest.
But parts of it were slow moving....the whole getting the sword scene....*yawn*
It had moments of Tarantino, eg. the beginning. I enjoyed it but the simplistic plot and references that I didn't understand made me feel a bit disaponited.
Compare it to Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction and you have a poor film. Better than Jackie Brown but that isn't hard.
Still...I can't wait for the second part, which will hopefully be more Tarantiino like.
The funny thing is when tarantino is explaining that it's TWO films. Yet the trailer for KB Vol 1 says, "4th film by Tarantino" and Vol 2 doesn't say that its the 5th film by Tarantino in the trailer.
It had moments of Tarantino, eg. the beginning. I enjoyed it but the simplistic plot and references that I didn't understand made me feel a bit disaponited.
Compare it to Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction and you have a poor film. Better than Jackie Brown but that isn't hard.
Still...I can't wait for the second part, which will hopefully be more Tarantiino like.
The funny thing is when tarantino is explaining that it's TWO films. Yet the trailer for KB Vol 1 says, "4th film by Tarantino" and Vol 2 doesn't say that its the 5th film by Tarantino in the trailer.
I enjoyed it.
I wouldn't say it's my favourite tarantino effort, and I'll agree with you that making films far too long seems to be a current trend, but overall I thought it was pretty damn good.
I wouldn't say it's my favourite tarantino effort, and I'll agree with you that making films far too long seems to be a current trend, but overall I thought it was pretty damn good.
I really liked the first one, and am seeing the second at 6.30 tonight.
I heard on the radio this morning he has cut together one film, from parts 1 and too (obviously), which will be on display at the Cannes film festival.
Make of that what you will...
I heard on the radio this morning he has cut together one film, from parts 1 and too (obviously), which will be on display at the Cannes film festival.
Make of that what you will...
Haven't seen first.. might on DVD although it sounds overhyped.
NO way could it get 5 stars, 'best film ever' and 'best film this year' rants from some people if it's not as good as pulp fiction.
NO way could it get 5 stars, 'best film ever' and 'best film this year' rants from some people if it's not as good as pulp fiction.
I've slightly revised my opinion on the film after a second viewing - the rest of it is okay, but the bit where she fights the Crazy 88 really is bloody brilliant (and I mean that in every sense of the word).
I think I may just rent Kill Bill before the second installment arrives in Cinemas. I'm not really sure if I'll like it or not as it looks way over the top, and that's one of the things I didn't like about The Matrix trilogy. I'd prefer to watch some older Hong Kong flicks because the fighting is at least believable to some degree.
Also, what on Earth was Chow-Yun Fat thinking when he agreed to do Bulletproof Monk? Good old Hollywood went way over the top and made him look like an idiot.
Also, what on Earth was Chow-Yun Fat thinking when he agreed to do Bulletproof Monk? Good old Hollywood went way over the top and made him look like an idiot.
Lou Role wrote:
> Also, what on Earth was Chow-Yun Fat thinking when he agreed to do
> Bulletproof Monk? Good old Hollywood went way over the top and made
> him look like an idiot.
Hah, Stiffler and the Monk was, without doubt, the worst film I have ever seen. In terms of plot, acting, characters, sets, effects, martial arts - it stinks on every level. It has no redeeming features.
> Also, what on Earth was Chow-Yun Fat thinking when he agreed to do
> Bulletproof Monk? Good old Hollywood went way over the top and made
> him look like an idiot.
Hah, Stiffler and the Monk was, without doubt, the worst film I have ever seen. In terms of plot, acting, characters, sets, effects, martial arts - it stinks on every level. It has no redeeming features.
I`ve just got Kill Bill through the post from SR and I`ve already watched it twice once after the other.
I think it`s an excellent film,I can`t wait till volume 2 comes out on dvd.
Most of the music was good but the music by the 5,6,7,8`s was pretty crappy.
The scene with sword being handed to the bride really boring nothing much happened there.
One of my favourite parts was when the bride was fighting with all of O-ren`s fighters and when you got to see her brain.
What annoyed me was that you never got to see Bill just hear his voice. :(
I think it`s an excellent film,I can`t wait till volume 2 comes out on dvd.
Most of the music was good but the music by the 5,6,7,8`s was pretty crappy.
The scene with sword being handed to the bride really boring nothing much happened there.
One of my favourite parts was when the bride was fighting with all of O-ren`s fighters and when you got to see her brain.
What annoyed me was that you never got to see Bill just hear his voice. :(
Page: