the_grip on 21/9/2007 at 15:11
Coming in late here...
Kill Bill Vol. 1 was not that great except for the end scene... Vol. 2 sucked ass.
i am a big fan of the Shaw Bros. 70's kung fu flicks, and i found Q.T.'s attempt to pay a little homage a bit underwhelming (even though Gordon Liu was in Vol. 2). If you go watch a few Shaw Bros. flicks, you can witness the greatness that Q.T. tried to emulate.
For the more violent side, Q.T. went after Lady Snowblood - another flick i own and love. If you want the hardcore edge of Kill Bill Vol. 1 done right, check out that movie. It really is amazing, gritty, and brutal. It pulls no punches.
i have not seen DOA yet, but i was not a big fan of Charlies Angels - i think it had more to do with my dislike of Cameron Diaz as an actress more than anything else.
How's that for a party pooper :)
Thirith on 21/9/2007 at 15:11
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Seeing it doesn't necessarily mean enjoying more. Some movies - especially these type of movies, IMO, no matter who directs them - are purely for no-brain entertainment.
I never said otherwise about the enjoyment, but I simply can't take people seriously who say, "Tarantino's films? Biggest pile of crap since I last took a dump!"
And I wouldn't agree on the second part. Something that's exquisitely crafted can be enjoyed on more than one level. Yes, you *can* enjoy (or not) Kill Bill as no-brain entertainment, but you can also enjoy the sheer craft. So many famous paintings aren't admired or enjoyed for their content matter ("Ho hum, yet another fat nobleman sitting on a horse...") but for the sheer mastery of the medium that their creators had. And it's on that level that there is a difference between Charlies Angels, DOA and Kill Bill. Still doesn't have to mean anything as far as enjoyment is concerned (Russian Ark is a very well crafted film, yet I found it offensively boring), but while I might like a hamburger better than some intricate Nouvelle Cuisine dish, I can still acknowledge that the latter is of higher quality. :)
Vasquez on 21/9/2007 at 17:18
Well, I admit I don't know that much about filmmaking. I enjoy how some beautiful and/or strange scenes make me feel, or really good acting or story that makes you shiver (the best if all 3 are combined, obviously), but I can't necessarily see the "craft" of how the package is made. In general it's difficult to point what makes a movie an overall-enjoyable experience on personal level.
And if I don't much enjoy what's happening in the movie, it doesn't make me feel good no matter how great the craftmanship is, thus I don't want to bother watching it. And if the content is hack'n'slash presented in "Isn't this so Artsy you could just fart in French right now, eh!?" -form, I might even find it simply silly.
(I did watch both Kill Bills, anyway, and found them somewhat entertaining.)
Martek on 21/9/2007 at 20:29
To me, Kill Bill was an homage of that type of movie that QT lliked; while the CA's were more of a "fun, frolicking parody" of spy action movies (similar in vein to Our Man Flint & In Like Flint). DOA was a basic popcorn high-action MA movie with just enough (if a bit weak) plot to move it along.
I enjoyed all of them; on different merits.
Martek
BEAR on 25/9/2007 at 18:20
Quote Posted by Muzman
Kill Bill is tedius self indulgent trash which I'm sure would be a revelation to anyone who'd never seen anything made before 1986. It does however have a lot more personality than the overlong fashionshoot/commercials that are the other two. 6/10 (5 if you're unfortunate enough to watch both parts back to back)
(just call me the echo boy)
God I know! Have these people even
heard of Pans Labyrinth????
Thirith on 25/9/2007 at 18:43
Your brain might explode if you find out that there are people who love both Kill Bill movies as well as Pan's Labyrinth.
Vasquez on 26/9/2007 at 09:17
Yeah, or DOA and Dancer in the Dark :)
What we like or dislike is basically pretty random and a combination of countless little things, many of them subconscious.
ercles on 26/9/2007 at 10:41
Although I agree that he has been in a steady decline, I honestly believe that Pulp Fiction is brilliant. Although it has to be one of the most ridiculously hyped films of all time (every moron and his dog quotes Samuel L Jackson ad nauseum) the script, acting, soundtrack, and general vibe were excellent.
I honestly don't get why everyone hated the second two Matrix films so much. I honestly couldn't give a shit about the series, I wasn't especially looking forward to either film, and never saw a single one in the cinema. I thought that the second two movies still had a lot of the philosophy and stance of the first film. Whilst the action scenes certainly weren't as origional as the first film (this tends to happen in sequels) and those twins were incredibly gay, personally it wasn't the action sequences that drew me to the series in the first place, and as such I didn't see it as such a problem. Could someone please explain what the general issues with the two films are (something logical rather than snyde would be greatly appreciated).
Vasquez on 26/9/2007 at 11:29
Quote Posted by ercles
Could someone please explain what the general issues with the two films are (something logical rather than snyde would be greatly appreciated).
I can't speak for the general issues, but personally I liked the tongue-in-cheek attitude in the first Matrix movie, whereas the two sequels seemed more "Oh this is soo deep and intellectual and serious, we're really creating new mythologies here". Which made it just silly.
Scots Taffer on 26/9/2007 at 11:41
The Matrix was just a slickly packaged piece of action that happened to capitalise on some well worn sci-fi precepts but managed to shoehorn in a couple of philosophical standpoints into the battle, granting the whole sci-fi drudgery some kind of grandeur. The slick packaging was an excellent selection of pretty, barely emotive faces wrapped in leather, fighting and spitting grandstanding lines to a pounding soundtrack with blistering special effects and stunning set pieces that will stand tall among the action movie legends.
The Matrix Reloaded took the only thing that was applied subtly in the original, the philosophical aspects, and tried to expand them into a movie in itself. The script suffered as people spouted pseudo-intellectual nonsense, entire characters just served to deliver lines that furthered the barely comprehensible plot, action suffered as it was merely window dressing to the oh-so important philosophical battle (and not vice versa, which is what made the original so good), the once bleeding-tech special effects were pushed beyond the envelope with totally unnecessary set-ups and the end effect looked and felt like a video game. The only part that really stands out was the much-hyped motorway sequence and even that kind of sucked, because there was a complete lack of emotional engagement therefore the impact of the action was muted.
The less said about The Matrix Revolutions the better, I barely remember anything about it beyond the retarded ressurrection shit, the Oracle being hamfistedly replaced, Agent Smith continuing his double routine (and yep, it still sucked), the terribly cliched and utterly woeful BATTLE crap in Zion, replete with peppy lil' wannabe soldier and grizzled veteran who dies. Jesus fucking Christ it was just absolutely terrible.
