Viewing Thread:
"What was all the fuss about Kill Bill for?"

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.

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).

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.

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 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.

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.

> 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.

monkey_man wrote:
> 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.

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.

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.

Agreed, the Soundtrack is pretty great, especially in the House Of Blue Leaves Scene. Although those crazy Japanese dancers are disturbing...