The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Heh, no-one's opinion is worthless. Except maybe Forest Fan's.
I loved every minute of it. The change in pace from the opening fight to the hospital sequence, the sudden, obtrusive appearance of the anime section, the balls-out mayhem of the Crazy 88 fight flush against the serenity of the snow-drenched showdown... I don't agree that it holds no presence outside the hour and half you're watching it. It's probably one of the most beautiful, visual movies I've ever seen.
And for all the obscure kung fu references that I'll never understand (Hattori Hanzo, Sonny Chiba, Gordon Liu, Shaw Brothers, Lady Snowblood and so on) I still loved every bit of it.
I don't think there was every any dispute that the movie was split in two for financial reasons, any reason Miramax or Tarantino gives is just going to be a blatant cover. I think I read an Empire review of Vol. 2 (gave it three out of five) that said that it ended up two movies with seven stars when it could have been one with five. That probably seems about right, but I hate films that are over three hours.
And for all the obscure kung fu references that I'll never understand (Hattori Hanzo, Sonny Chiba, Gordon Liu, Shaw Brothers, Lady Snowblood and so on) I still loved every bit of it.
I don't think there was every any dispute that the movie was split in two for financial reasons, any reason Miramax or Tarantino gives is just going to be a blatant cover. I think I read an Empire review of Vol. 2 (gave it three out of five) that said that it ended up two movies with seven stars when it could have been one with five. That probably seems about right, but I hate films that are over three hours.
I`ve ordered Kill Bill for two reasons:-
1.I`ve seen the trailor and it looks pretty good.
2.I want to see Volume 1 before I see Volume 2.
1.I`ve seen the trailor and it looks pretty good.
2.I want to see Volume 1 before I see Volume 2.
I honestly just don't 'get' Kill Bill, not in the sense that the story is hard to understand (give me some credit), but I just can't see what the fuss is about - the action was ok, I guess, but just the sort of kung fu you get in countless movies with extra gore.
I'll probably get flamed for criticising Tarantino's masterpiece but my honest feeling is that if anyone other than Tarantino wrote and directed it then not everyone would eulogise over it as enthusiastically as they currently do.
I'll probably get flamed for criticising Tarantino's masterpiece but my honest feeling is that if anyone other than Tarantino wrote and directed it then not everyone would eulogise over it as enthusiastically as they currently do.
I can see why people wouldn't like it. I loved it, but I just loved the action. I bet if this wasn't made by Tarantino, it'd be pretty unpopular.
Opinions on Kill Bill seem pretty divided, but I thought it was great
The only thing I didn't enjoy was the Hattori Hanzo bit. It seemed pointlessly slow moving...
The only thing I didn't enjoy was the Hattori Hanzo bit. It seemed pointlessly slow moving...
You can argue about any part of the film (I think it's fantastic) but surely you all must agree on the greatness of the soundtrack? I wouldn't go and buy the CD, but the music adds so much to the film.
Apparently Vol 2 is a lot different and more of a standard Tarantino film which will be nice to see and seriously, how freakin' cool does Samuel L. Jackson look as The Organ Player?
Can't wait to see it tomorrow!
Oh and if you don't want to find out The Brides real name until you see the film, don't look at the cast list on imdb.com... I caught a brief glimpse of it, but moved away quickly before it had a chance to register.
Apparently Vol 2 is a lot different and more of a standard Tarantino film which will be nice to see and seriously, how freakin' cool does Samuel L. Jackson look as The Organ Player?
Can't wait to see it tomorrow!
Oh and if you don't want to find out The Brides real name until you see the film, don't look at the cast list on imdb.com... I caught a brief glimpse of it, but moved away quickly before it had a chance to register.
Agreed, the Soundtrack is pretty great, especially in the House Of Blue Leaves Scene. Although those crazy Japanese dancers are disturbing...
Well, the thing about the soundtrack is... YES, it's great BUT:
None of the kudos for that should go to Kill Bill, since it's basically a compilation of the soundtracks to other things that Tarantino has lifted.. ahem, sorry.. done a *tribute* to.
None of the kudos for that should go to Kill Bill, since it's basically a compilation of the soundtracks to other things that Tarantino has lifted.. ahem, sorry.. done a *tribute* to.
CTUbauer wrote:
> I bet if this wasn't made by Tarantino, it'd be pretty unpopular.
S'what I thought. It seemed very low-budget to me. What with all that blood coming out the heads.. verrrry real! ;) Unless that's his style, but didn't seem so in all his other stuff.
> I bet if this wasn't made by Tarantino, it'd be pretty unpopular.
S'what I thought. It seemed very low-budget to me. What with all that blood coming out the heads.. verrrry real! ;) Unless that's his style, but didn't seem so in all his other stuff.
Page: