The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Although I had low expectations when going to see this last night, I can however say that despite these misgivings, I still thought it was utter unadulterated toss.
I love his previous films as much as anybody, but what we have here is massive hype all because it’s from Tarantino, the man who’s brain has been sweating in it’s own pop culture loving juices ever since Jackie Brown, and for me it delivered very little. Despite the ravings from all the beardy wannabe film studies students about all the amazing qualities of the cinematography and the style he created, it still sucks big time *in my opinion*.
The script wasn’t anything amazing. A few cool lines here and there but not the barrage of cool and quotable lines we know and love from his previous films, and overall it just wasn’t a patch on his other things. There wasn’t even really a decent story created.
The fragmented chronology loved by QT and used so effectively in his previous films just didn’t work, seemed utterly pointless and even confusing as to why he bothered.
The movie as a whole was too bitty, and played out like a load of scenes cobbled together rather than a proper flowing movie, and it just lacked something.
Most of the film just played out in too much of a clichéd ham-fisted manner, whether this is intentional I don’t really care. The characters were totally 2 dimensional and also highly clichéd. The Bride goes to Japanese sword maker, two minutes later she has a mighty blade to vanquish the evil-doers. There was no real build up to that, she just went there, got the sword and that was it. No epic journey to find an amazing sword, it was just given to her.
The last battle of vol. 1 was also a big disappointment, we had The Bride battling through hoards of Yakuza minions, and the scene is set for an excellent grand finale. We enter the highly clichéd Japanese winter garden, where an epic duel should amaze and delight the filmgoers. But the fight was naff. Hardly the epic and amazing duel we should have expected from two so-called amazing warriors. Wolf from Gladiators had better fights when he bashed the hell out of plebs with his pugil-stick.
I love kung fu, I like on-screen violence, and I liked the atmosphere Tarantino created/stole, but the whole time I just felt he was lurking behind the camera, nodding and winking to fellow film nerds when he pays homage/rips off various old school kung fu bits, all the while believing he was the greatest kung fu director in history, when he clearly isn’t. The fight scenes were ok, nothing amazing though, especially if you’re used to watching many a kung fu film. Was the violence so OTT that it was done to make up for the lack of a decent movie? I think so.
QT has tried to do something different; he’s taken his maverick style and applied it to old kung fu genre and the crossover just failed. The characters were boring, the plot simple and uninspiring, the script disappointing and the action was nothing special. It’s just lazy filmmaking; take loads of classic ideas from the Kung Fu genre and stick them all together and serve it up to the masses. But because it’s from Tarantino we shouldn’t question it, we should just say, ”it’s cool”. I don’t agree.
The anime flashback bit was pretty good, though just because Tarantino likes a bit of anime doesn’t mean he should stick a 5-minute section slap bang into the middle of his film. It’s an interesting idea, but was just out of place and reeks of self-indulgence.
If you want to watch a decent kung fu film, there’s plenty on offer, from cheesy ones to ultra violent ones, and if you want to watch a decent revenge flick, then watch Point Blank or, heck, even Commando.
I’m sure the movie-going masses enjoyed it, as they tend to lap up everything thrown at them nowadays, especially if it has any type of kung fu in it, but this viewer was disappointed he’d wasted £6 and had to bother venturing out on a cold Sunday evening for two hours of overrated pap. My brother went with an open mind, and he hated it too, and he’d wasted £6 and some petrol.
Style over substance, self-indulgence from a director, lots of blood and limbs being chopped off doesn’t make a film great, and how people could call this the best film of the year is insulting to the other great films released this year.
I’ll still go and see volume 2, purely because Michael Madsen will feature, and may be good in it, and there’s the hope that it surely can't be worse than volume 1.
I love his previous films as much as anybody, but what we have here is massive hype all because it’s from Tarantino, the man who’s brain has been sweating in it’s own pop culture loving juices ever since Jackie Brown, and for me it delivered very little. Despite the ravings from all the beardy wannabe film studies students about all the amazing qualities of the cinematography and the style he created, it still sucks big time *in my opinion*.
The script wasn’t anything amazing. A few cool lines here and there but not the barrage of cool and quotable lines we know and love from his previous films, and overall it just wasn’t a patch on his other things. There wasn’t even really a decent story created.
The fragmented chronology loved by QT and used so effectively in his previous films just didn’t work, seemed utterly pointless and even confusing as to why he bothered.
The movie as a whole was too bitty, and played out like a load of scenes cobbled together rather than a proper flowing movie, and it just lacked something.
Most of the film just played out in too much of a clichéd ham-fisted manner, whether this is intentional I don’t really care. The characters were totally 2 dimensional and also highly clichéd. The Bride goes to Japanese sword maker, two minutes later she has a mighty blade to vanquish the evil-doers. There was no real build up to that, she just went there, got the sword and that was it. No epic journey to find an amazing sword, it was just given to her.
The last battle of vol. 1 was also a big disappointment, we had The Bride battling through hoards of Yakuza minions, and the scene is set for an excellent grand finale. We enter the highly clichéd Japanese winter garden, where an epic duel should amaze and delight the filmgoers. But the fight was naff. Hardly the epic and amazing duel we should have expected from two so-called amazing warriors. Wolf from Gladiators had better fights when he bashed the hell out of plebs with his pugil-stick.
I love kung fu, I like on-screen violence, and I liked the atmosphere Tarantino created/stole, but the whole time I just felt he was lurking behind the camera, nodding and winking to fellow film nerds when he pays homage/rips off various old school kung fu bits, all the while believing he was the greatest kung fu director in history, when he clearly isn’t. The fight scenes were ok, nothing amazing though, especially if you’re used to watching many a kung fu film. Was the violence so OTT that it was done to make up for the lack of a decent movie? I think so.
QT has tried to do something different; he’s taken his maverick style and applied it to old kung fu genre and the crossover just failed. The characters were boring, the plot simple and uninspiring, the script disappointing and the action was nothing special. It’s just lazy filmmaking; take loads of classic ideas from the Kung Fu genre and stick them all together and serve it up to the masses. But because it’s from Tarantino we shouldn’t question it, we should just say, ”it’s cool”. I don’t agree.
The anime flashback bit was pretty good, though just because Tarantino likes a bit of anime doesn’t mean he should stick a 5-minute section slap bang into the middle of his film. It’s an interesting idea, but was just out of place and reeks of self-indulgence.
If you want to watch a decent kung fu film, there’s plenty on offer, from cheesy ones to ultra violent ones, and if you want to watch a decent revenge flick, then watch Point Blank or, heck, even Commando.
I’m sure the movie-going masses enjoyed it, as they tend to lap up everything thrown at them nowadays, especially if it has any type of kung fu in it, but this viewer was disappointed he’d wasted £6 and had to bother venturing out on a cold Sunday evening for two hours of overrated pap. My brother went with an open mind, and he hated it too, and he’d wasted £6 and some petrol.
Style over substance, self-indulgence from a director, lots of blood and limbs being chopped off doesn’t make a film great, and how people could call this the best film of the year is insulting to the other great films released this year.
I’ll still go and see volume 2, purely because Michael Madsen will feature, and may be good in it, and there’s the hope that it surely can't be worse than volume 1.
Page:
Bane wrote:
> Nobody mentioned From Dusk Till Dawn? Tarantino was involved in that
> too. And it sucked.
>
> The only Tarantino movie I've enjoyed is Pulp Fiction.
Heh, I thought From Dusk Till Dawn was marvelous. It totally threw me when the vampire element was introduced. Utter madness.
> Nobody mentioned From Dusk Till Dawn? Tarantino was involved in that
> too. And it sucked.
>
> The only Tarantino movie I've enjoyed is Pulp Fiction.
Heh, I thought From Dusk Till Dawn was marvelous. It totally threw me when the vampire element was introduced. Utter madness.
Bane wrote:
> Nobody mentioned From Dusk Till Dawn? Tarantino was involved in that
> too. And it sucked.
---
I liked that.
Reservoir Dogs - Excellent
Pulp Fiction - Excellent
4 Rooms - No idea, I'm not watching a multi-director segment film after "New York Stories"
Dusk Till Dawn - excellent
Natural Born Killers - excellent, if headachey
Jackie Brown - Boring.
Kill Bill - Seeing this week
> Nobody mentioned From Dusk Till Dawn? Tarantino was involved in that
> too. And it sucked.
---
I liked that.
Reservoir Dogs - Excellent
Pulp Fiction - Excellent
4 Rooms - No idea, I'm not watching a multi-director segment film after "New York Stories"
Dusk Till Dawn - excellent
Natural Born Killers - excellent, if headachey
Jackie Brown - Boring.
Kill Bill - Seeing this week
Totoro wrote:
> I wrote:
> These are the people that spend money of going to see Charlie's
> Angels and send the Italian Job remake to the top of the charts.
> These people *are* gullible.
Satisfy my curiousity, what are the last five flicks you have seen?
> I wrote:
> These are the people that spend money of going to see Charlie's
> Angels and send the Italian Job remake to the top of the charts.
> These people *are* gullible.
Satisfy my curiousity, what are the last five flicks you have seen?
Nobody mentioned From Dusk Till Dawn? Tarantino was involved in that too. And it sucked.
The only Tarantino movie I've enjoyed is Pulp Fiction.
The only Tarantino movie I've enjoyed is Pulp Fiction.
Me?
I bought that too, loved it.
Still do.
I bought that too, loved it.
Still do.
I wrote:
"I’m sure the movie-going masses enjoyed it, as they tend to lap up everything thrown at them nowadays"
These are the people that spend money of going to see Charlie's Angels and send the Italian Job remake to the top of the charts. These people *are* gullible. They will go and see any old rubbish that’s on at their local cinema and be easilly pleased by it. What’s wrong with pointing that out?
I'm talking about people who get their opinions of new films from reviews in The Sun writen by Paul Ross.
"The masses" is a simple term for these plebs.
"I’m sure the movie-going masses enjoyed it, as they tend to lap up everything thrown at them nowadays"
These are the people that spend money of going to see Charlie's Angels and send the Italian Job remake to the top of the charts. These people *are* gullible. They will go and see any old rubbish that’s on at their local cinema and be easilly pleased by it. What’s wrong with pointing that out?
I'm talking about people who get their opinions of new films from reviews in The Sun writen by Paul Ross.
"The masses" is a simple term for these plebs.
Hmm, this is the same guy that claimed I was causing the downfall of the games industry because I bought Enter The Matrix.
Totoro wrote:
> Wow, so there is somebody else out there with the power of independent
> thought, and doesn’t just follow the trend of liking it because it's
> Tarantino.
So just because I liked it, I don't have the power of independent thought?
That seems to be the implication here.
For the record
Reservoir dogs – Loved
Pulp Fiction – Loved
Four Rooms – utterly despised (part writer / director)
Jackie Brown – utterly despised
Kill Bill – Really enjoyed
Just because it’s a Tarantino flick, doesn’t make it untouchable.
> Wow, so there is somebody else out there with the power of independent
> thought, and doesn’t just follow the trend of liking it because it's
> Tarantino.
So just because I liked it, I don't have the power of independent thought?
That seems to be the implication here.
For the record
Reservoir dogs – Loved
Pulp Fiction – Loved
Four Rooms – utterly despised (part writer / director)
Jackie Brown – utterly despised
Kill Bill – Really enjoyed
Just because it’s a Tarantino flick, doesn’t make it untouchable.
Totoro wrote:
> Wow, so there is somebody else out there with the power of independent
> thought, and doesn’t just follow the trend of liking it because it's
> Tarantino.
---
Yep, and he didn't once feel the need to denegrate "the masses" and then get defensive when called on it.
> Wow, so there is somebody else out there with the power of independent
> thought, and doesn’t just follow the trend of liking it because it's
> Tarantino.
---
Yep, and he didn't once feel the need to denegrate "the masses" and then get defensive when called on it.
Totoro wrote:
> I would say I knew a few of the references, but not the totally
> obscure ones, yet you try to impress everyone with your Harry
> Knowles-esque movie buff knowledge by testing me.
---
Stop getting antsy.
I'm not trying to impress anyone, least of all you or posters here.
The reason Taratino works well for pretty much everybody is that you can either sit and watch it for what it is, or if you happen to have watched a lot of similar movies, there are loads of references and little jokes for the movie-geek.
And if you were answering Gerrod, why go look at IMDB on an unrelated question that I posed?
> I would say I knew a few of the references, but not the totally
> obscure ones, yet you try to impress everyone with your Harry
> Knowles-esque movie buff knowledge by testing me.
---
Stop getting antsy.
I'm not trying to impress anyone, least of all you or posters here.
The reason Taratino works well for pretty much everybody is that you can either sit and watch it for what it is, or if you happen to have watched a lot of similar movies, there are loads of references and little jokes for the movie-geek.
And if you were answering Gerrod, why go look at IMDB on an unrelated question that I posed?
Page: