KILL BILL: zzzzzzzzzzzzz [Archive] - Kung Fu Cinema Forums

Ministry88

12-13-2006, 02:50 AM

A very odd thing just happened: I began watching KILL BILL, vol 1 on DVD for the first time (after seeing it once when it first came out in the theaters and being somewhat impressed) and I couldn't get through it! I nearly fell asleep, and was almost offended. It really hit me like a ton of bricks after the umpteenth movie in-joke/reference: Tarantino is the ultimate postmodern con artist. He's not so much an artist as an assembler. I used to think he made his influences his own in his films but KILL BILL really pushes it. I mean, does the Shawscope tag at the beginning add ANYTHING to the film? Or Daryl Hannah's THRILLER-inspired eye patch? Or the Lone wolf and cub arterial spray? Good for you Quentin! You've seen Sonny Chiba movies, Gordon Liu flicks, Brian DePalma films, Star Trek, Sergio Leone films, etc etc etc. I've seen them too, and so have thousands of other film fans. What makes you so special?

The problem with this film is it has no center, no soul. It's just a big mush of previous cinema put in a postmodern blender. To me Quentin represents what is wrong with postmodernism and our current dilemma inherent in the decadence of Western art and civilization: it creates this weird, self-referential, artificial reality so far entrenched with previous texts and art that it's hard to tell what's real or original anymore. Cleverness and gimmick value are heralded for originality. The best example of this is the scene where Thurman (or the "blood spattered bride" -- ooh, Quentin, you are so smart, you've seen Spanish horror! WOW!) refers to Julie Dreyfus's character as " a woman you'd see in Star Trek." Tarantino is rightly assuming a culture suckled on inbred media and mass-produced art will understand the reference, a reference to a character type on a TV show, not even a type of person that exists in the real world. The film is so removed from any kind of organic human reality it's really insufferable for anyone aware of their soul. Here I really do have to agree with the radical French sociologist Jean Baudrillard, who declared reality dead in the postmodernist age because mass produced art has completely penetrated our everyday reality, blurring the lines between signs (art that represents reality) and reality itself. So the violence in the film to me is truly inhuman. Not only is it purely aesthetic, its aestheticism is rife with deja vu of previous, better, unpretentious films, making it seem doubly redundant and hollow. KILL BILL's violence is far more sickening to me than more controversial films like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT or SALO: those films' scenes of violence had humanity and heartbreak, and said something about the horror of interpersonal violence and its effects (SALO especially, as it also brilliantly commented on exactly the type of inhumanity produced by a mass media capitalist society as I'm talking about here).

Perhaps the audience reaction to this film is the most telling of all, however. This film came out when I was in college and I'll tell you the hipsters were eating out of Quentin's hands. They were amazed to read on the internet about the film's influences, especially about how obscure they were. It seems these days originality is gauged by how obscure your sources you steal from are, not from a deep spiritual need for personal expression and revelations reaped from deep introspection.

Now I'm not saying every film has to be LA STRADA or ANDREI RUBLEV. Hell, I'm a huge fan of horror and cult films and have written extensively on them. But at least films like THE STREET FIGHTER were unpretentious and didn't try to be anything they weren't. And to say KILL BILL isn't pretentious is wrong in my opinion. Just look at the pitifully manufactured scenes of "emotion" like when Sonny Chiba presents Thurman with the sword. Quentin's emotional infancy is hilarious and transparent: he expects us to care about characters that are not only stereotypical, but are often only self-conscious references to other films! Sorry Quentin, can't have your cake and eat it too.

Well, I'm off to dust off my copy of STREET FIGHTER, I'm in need of some authenticity...

Markgway

12-13-2006, 03:55 AM

Wow, brilliant dissection, Ministry. I agree with you entirely, and have been trying to put into words for ages what you just wrote so elloquently.

limubai2000

12-13-2006, 05:13 AM

Interesting you put this today, last night I watched the QT interview with Jet Li on the R1 Hero disk. I thought to myself QT is such a tool, he doesn't ask any good questions, only talks about Miramax Jet Li films completely forgetting classics like Shaolin Temple, OUATIC or anything Miramax doesn't own, looks hideous - fat, waving hands everywhere, not dressed anywhere near appropriately, and I'd swear he was high or on something for this interview.

He wasted a great opportunity.

I only enjoy Kill Bill for the fight scenes, you are correct there isn't much of a soul in there. He is a hack con artist. I can understand the movie as an homage, but really if he wanted to do that the movie would have a soul like a Kurosawa film or Dragon Gate or something.

Ironic because on the same disk, Zhang sasys in his interview that the Jet Li vs Donnie Yen fight in Hero was an homage to old school wuxia films with a twist (the fight in their minds), and that to me comes across as a genuine homage whereas Kill Bill does not. Interesting to see that time hasn't been kind to the Kill Bill films even for me.

KyFi

12-13-2006, 04:29 PM

Excellent, excellent post, Ministry 88. I too found the Kill Bill movies completely cold and soulless---hipster cinematic fast food whose only purpose was to show us what movies QT really liked enough to imitate.

I really like some of the newer, big budget kf movies like CTHD, Hero, HOFD, etc., but to me its because those directors had real human emotions and themes to communicate along with the influence of their favorite kf movies.

I find more heart and soul in a 2nd rate Chang Cheh movie than I did in Kill Bill. And that's not an exagerration, because I watch a LOT of 2nd rate CC movies, over and over again :lol :

Reincarnation Of Thundering Mantis

12-13-2006, 05:22 PM

I feel the same way and have tried to say this before. But Ministry has said it better.

teako170

12-13-2006, 10:32 PM

Hmmm, a most meatiest of threads. Plenty to digest and even more to further expand on but I shant go in to deeply a subject that is reflective not just of QT's films (or films in general) but the art world as a whole -- or for that matter, society, which over the last few decades has become "soulless" through mass commercialization, etc-etc-etc.

Instead, let me play devil's advocate and just focus on this one single film. KB is what I consider fluff-fu. It has a very comic book feel (and that's not a negative as I'm big supporter of the comic book industry) and not to be taken for anything more. What I applaud QT for, in this film, is his indoctrination of the countless cinematic references. Yes, as limubai mentioned, he could have used more soulful material (like a Kurosawa film) in his attempt to pay homage to the genre but he is first and foremost a fanboy and used films he's grown an affection for over the years.

As Ministry88 states ('You've seen Sonny Chiba movies, Gordon Liu flicks, Brian DePalma films, Star Trek, Sergio Leone films, etc. etc. etc. I've seen them too, and so have thousands of other film fans') Indeed thousands have but, on the other hand, millions have not. A friend of mine (who is a very smart chap) was completely lost in KB until I pointed out the track suit and what its reference was, and then the eye-patch and then the music, and then who Gordon was and how he once fought the character he was playing in KB2. He then began to "get it."

I think one of the greatest tools a storyteller can use in his art (be it cinema, poem, novel) is to incorporate cinematic and/or literary references. I have done this in all my scripts and when I find a screenwriter throwing in some kernels of extra info and I get it, it makes the experience that much greater.

We've all read Shakespeare, Plato, etc. I was always lost in such works when I was younger. I then began to realize that in order to appreciate one specific work, one needs to have prior knowledge of previous works. I believe the artist succeeds when they inspire their recipient to seek out further works; which in turn makes them seek out even more. Art is an ever expanding entity. We can never grasp it all in a lifetime but the more we study, the longer our white beards and eyebrows grow (to use a martial arts film analogy).

Back to KB. Hopefully his obscure/obtuse references have made some viewers seek out a Sergio Leone film or a Shaw Brothers film. And from there, who knows where they'll go.

I enjoyed your post immensely Ministry and I certainly agree with what you have said. I just wanted to point out that while KB is a soulless piece of celluloid, it will hopefully yield some beneficial fruit.

Fluff-fu. Only made in America :)

limubai2000

12-14-2006, 12:23 AM

Ministry88

12-14-2006, 01:30 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful reply teako. I see what you are saying about how KB and other such films might have a positive effect in getting uninitiated viewers to seek out the films that inspired QT. BUT, I have also noted, much to my dismay, that those who seek out more obscure films after hearing about them from QT films or other such films is the viewer stays stuck in this hollow, smarmy, self-referential hipster mentality when watching the original films (like SB films, Japanese samurai films, Eurohorror, etc). It's like they want to see the original films just to see how it fits into QT's universe or something. They thus view the original films out of context and see them as a gimmick, or more dangerously so, as a reflection of the entire genre or even Chinese or Japanese culture. But such is the current state of media saturation and postmodernism: media images and those with the "cool" factor (like QT) control the interpretation of certain realities: if QT has his seal of approval on a video box of a kung fu film, then THAT, and only that, is kung fu and worth watching. Media has simply allowed the traditional power structure (kings, queens, presidents) to diffuse to a new, more ambiguous and amorphous group of celebrities, self-styled "experts", analyists, and even entire corporations who now have the type of moral and cultural authority formally characteristic of kings and despots. I have seen with my own eyes college students base their entire libido and outlook on sexuality based on the mass-produced and digitally enhanced photography of oiled and shaved "models" in Maxim magazine. I ask you, has sex (and violence) EVER been more boring than in the 21st century? Is that not inhuman and maddening, that the media has somehow done the seemingly impossible, that is, managed to dilute and deaden that what is so fundamental, fascinating, controversial, and joyful in humanity? It's like sex and violence isn't real anymore, it's so over-aestheticized and fetishtized (just look at KB's glossy violence).

I very much like and agree what Pasolini said about this new mysterious Power when he said it was even more pernicious than fascism and how it has adversely affected Italian (and, in my opinion, all Western) youth:
"Once out of (fascist) uniform, however, the young would head to their native villages and fields, and return to being the Italians of one hundred, one hundred fifty years before. Fascism had transformed them into clowns and serfs, and perhaps had even partially indoctrinated them, but did not touch their soul, their real identity. On the contrary, consumer society, i.e. this new fascism, has deeply changed this youth, has touched them intimately and has given them other ways of thinking and living, in short other cultural models. It is no longer a question, as with Mussolini's regime, of a picturesque and superficial regimentation, but of a real regimentation which steals their soul from them."

Western (and especially American, the most debauched of it all) capitalism has created this sickening and yet fascinating feedback loop where the media creates a culture of hyper-active need and consumerism where materialism is lauded and reigns supreme and where soul and art, with its sometimes lugubrious introspection and spirituality, slows the process of consumerism and aquisition (the raison d'etre of the average American: to modify Descartes' famous quote: "I have, therefore I am") because it requires taste and selectivity. So the filmmakers these days (QT included) really are giving people what they want: souless diversion that distracts them from their desperately hollow lives, lives which they are unable to adventurously look at and enrich because they have grown (literally and figuratively) morbidly obese on capitalist prosperity, a prosperity that makes them lazy and frightened of even the most minimal emotional anguish (emotional anguish that is essential for introspection and growth). Are we becoming Nietzsche's "last men," those who have deluded themselves in believing materialistic prosperity and anaesthathizing peace are the ultimate goals of man? I sure hope not. My soul wouldn't survive.

I firmly believe that true art can only be truly appreciated by adventurous souls and those who NEED art to both heal and feel their soul. You need to know yourself deeply to feel the artist's anguish and entertain their possible solutions. But for the average Westerner (especially of the 20-ish generation), true art is redundant and entirely incomprehensible and indistinguishable from junk like THE MATRIX (at best, a confused postmodern mush of slick and sexy metaphysical mumbo jumbo already pondered over far better from everyone from Plato to Hume to Kant to Nietzsche) because the average viewer just doesn't have the emotional or spiritual maturity to see what's true art and mere mindless diversion.

So that is my long answer (very long!) to why I don't think it's necessarily a great thing that QT's films refer audiences to more obscure films. The average intended audience for QT's films (the 20ish hipsters) simply don't have the emotional or spiritual capacity to comprehend those films. At best, once these films were viewed they'd be edited into a postmodernish mush montage/trailer for that ultimate shrine of postmodernism sh*t, youtube.

**PS: Hey teako, are you British? How is this current cultural malaise and degradation this post talks about like in England? It's been my assumption that the US is leading the way in this BS, and other Western European nations are behind (but not too far behind and catching up fast) by still being somewhat sensible and realizing what is really important in life. I dunno, it just seems to me that the West is slowly dying of terminal apathy. Social and huminatarian programs have largely failed (for a great artistic resonation on this, see the film THE HOSPITAL with George C. Scott), and it seems all the West has left to occupy itself with is medical research and space exploration. Blecch...

limubai2000

12-14-2006, 02:45 AM

OMG (or Buddha for me) Min, you just totally typed out my entire outlook on Western culture these days, it predominately applies to us Americans and our culture but to a degree Western culture as a whole.

I moved to Guam (a far away territory of the US, located in Asia) to get away from some of this stuff, though at the time I didn't realize it like I do now. Even the short time I've been here, 6 years this month, I have noticed the degredation here due to these influences.

Western (and especially American, the most debauched of it all) capitalism has created this sickening and yet fascinating feedback loop where the media creates a culture of hyper-active need and consumerism where materialism is lauded and reigns supreme and where soul and art, with its sometimes lugubrious introspection and spirituality, slows the process of consumerism and aquisition (the raison d'etre of the average American: to modify Descartes' famous quote: "I have, therefore I am") because it requires taste and selectivity. So the filmmakers these days (QT included) really are giving people what they want: souless diversion that distracts them from their desperately hollow lives, lives which they are unable to adventurously look at and enrich because they have grown (literally and figuratively) morbidly obese on capitalist prosperity, a prosperity that makes them lazy and frightened of even the most minimal emotional anguish (emotional anguish that is essential for introspection and growth). Are we becoming Nietzsche's "last men," those who have deluded themselves in believing materialistic prosperity and anaesthathizing peace are the ultimate goals of man? I sure hope not. My soul wouldn't survive.

I want to add to this something here that I have just been reading about. The US public educational system is built to breed this type of people.

Read these for more -

www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt (http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt)
www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm)

There was also some related articles on how the public school system in the US and the Catholic church promote consumerism, but I don't have those links handy.

So in a way we were indoctrinated into this culture, some of us just evolved beyond it, in my case I can directly attribute it study of the Chinese martial arts, Buddhism, and that according to my Chinese zodiac being a dog I naturally look at things in a deeper more spiritual way and I can be quite discontent spiritually when I am at odds with my enviroment. I realized the latter was true after having my full zodiac done in Taiwan and it was simply a crystalization of feelings I have had a good portion of my entire life, I just lacked the words to fully describe it until 2003. I do know that films like CTHD, Hero and quite a few older films had a measured effect in this process.

Back OT, QT is a product of the enviroment and I would also agree with the way you see people who discover these older films from Kill Bill. They don't see the films in the same light as some of us do and in a way I have a small measure of pity for them as they can't enjoy them a more meaningful level due to their soulessness.

Of course I have to point out that the internet has played a large role in this process of degredation, so I hope you guys see the irony as I do in this thread. :p

Isfahani

12-14-2006, 06:30 AM

Irony, quite.

But then there's EASTERN capitalism, which for a time, possibly still is, taking over land in the western capitalist territories...

And if you have a working practical replacement for the capitalist system, please spell it out, we could use it.

Me, I am an Imperial Monarchist now.

And KB... was cute, for a while.

Iron Boat

12-14-2006, 02:50 PM

Well I am way ahead of you all, I realized Kill Bill was crap instantly. Only 20 minutes in and it was already being returned to Hollywood video.

But as for the original post...I love how you college students read a little Hegel, Marx, Baurdillard, Nietsche, or Durkheim, and can't wait to apply it. In this case to Kill Bill :lol

teako170

12-14-2006, 10:06 PM

Its just as Lenin predicted. In the early 20s he commented that the cinema was the most important medium for educating the masses in the ways, means and successes of Communism. He saw it as a propaganda tool.

Communism has, as we've seen, failed but not the tool.

Today, the small screen has become an extension of this concept and instead of selling communism, its selling capitalism. And whatever else the mighty kings and queens of mass media wish to cram down our throats -- be it a new sneaker, a soda pop or a philosophy.

Thus, the "boob tube" (and yes the net) can be used for good or evil - it just depends on who controls the reigns. TV is now the educator of our children. Its the new baby-sitter. What a scary thought.

**PS: Hey teako, are you British? Not a Brit myself but Mark and some others who frequent the board might be able to help you on that.

A bit back on topic... I leave you with a quote from one of my favorite 80s flix: "About Last Night."

Elizabeth Perkins: Worried about Western civilization? -
Rob Lowe: Not particularly. Not tonight.
Elizabeth Perkins: It's collapsing, or didn't you notice? -
Rob Lowe: I live in a pretty good neighborhood.

Ahh, ignorance is bliss, yes?

limubai2000

12-15-2006, 12:47 AM

Well I am way ahead of you all, I realized Kill Bill was crap instantly. Only 20 minutes in and it was already being returned to Hollywood video.

Actually we were discussing this stuff when it was in the theater, this is merely a more in depth revisit. So we in effect were ahead of you by virtue that we discussed it pre-video release. Neener neener :p

But as for the original post...I love how you college students read a little Hegel, Marx, Baurdillard, Nietsche, or Durkheim, and can't wait to apply it. In this case to Kill Bill

You realize that application of theory shows that he actually learned the material. As opposed to the masses who just memorize it to pass a class. It would be great if more people could apply this stuff more often, the US would be a much better place. Then again maybe I'm just getting old or more idealistic, I haven't figured that out quite yet. :p

Today, the small screen has become an extension of this concept and instead of selling communism, its selling capitalism. And whatever else the mighty kings and queens of mass media wish to cram down our throats -- be it a new sneaker, a soda pop or a philosophy.

Righty-o on that one.

Ministry88

12-15-2006, 04:39 AM

"But as for the original post...I love how you college students read a little Hegel, Marx, Baurdillard, Nietsche, or Durkheim, and can't wait to apply it. In this case to Kill Bill"

Well not exactly. I have not read "a little" of Nietzsche but have spent a sizeable part of my adult and adolescent life (at least four years now) studying him on my own (both his original works and commentaries by such translators and commentators as Walter Kaufmann and Stanley Rosen), well before college, which includes reading his books and essays in order as he intended and writing copious notes and outlines to articulately and correctly follow his thought. I actually hate learning about philosophy in college because it takes the fun out of learning about it for yourself, dilutes the epiphanous joys of newfound perception, and not to mention all the endless back-and-forth arguments and bickering in the classes about the "true" meaning. I will say with certainty that any of what I said in my original post came from self-instruction, intuition, and emotional introspection. By the time I got to college, most of what was taught to me about philosophy was redundant. And please do not detect ego in this; I am merely stating the fact. If you are a true lover of knowlege and art from an early age as I was and would rather embrace solitude by reading good books and thinking deeply instead of getting drunk at parties or passing time with assholes that you delude yourself into thinking are your friends, than by the time you reach college you'll find most of your learning is done OUTSIDE the classroom, as it has been done in High School. I will leave you with this: Truly pretentious people read Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and other "heavy" writers/philosophers in order to prove they are smart and battle their inferiority complexes. Those who aren't pretentious read them simply for the joy of thinking, elevating their spirit, and simply feeling alive. The same could be said of "heavy" directors like Tarkovsky, Bergman, Fellini, Pasolini, etc...

BUT, I know what you mean about applying a smattering of philosophy to a text (especially film). It is what is ruining a lot of film criticism these days (do we really need to read about the parallels of Charlie of Charlie and the Chocalate Factory and Julius Caesar? Yes, that is a TRUE article I heard of years ago): it is mere dusty circles of overly academic types jumping through analytic hula hoops and adding nothing new to the field, instead just rehashing old theories with seemingly new angles (like a philosopher that hasn't been used to analyze a film yet). That is why when I write film criticism I try to incorporate as many NEW facts (by interviewing the filmmakers/stars themselves) as possible and to write as unpretentiously as possible -- I have nothing to hide.

I stand by what I said about KB -- I don't think what I said was pretentious because I genuinely felt it in my heart and was actually sickened by what I saw. It hit me hard that what philosophers such as Nietzsche and Baudrillard had prophisized and are prophesizing is coming true, and it's really quite sad. It was a post more of emotional desperation and alienation than one of collegiate chest-puffing and intellectual somersaulting.

And as to Isfahani: I know exactly what you are saying about finding a working replacement for capitalism. I do not want to come across as biting the hand that feeds me. Despite all this BS that I've been talking about in the posts, it still IS possible to live a good life in the US (although it is getting harder). I LIKE not having to worry about starving. I LIKE having a/c and heating. I LIKE being able to afford my own apartment on basically a minimum wage job. I LIKE my freedoms and the fact I can read/watch anything I want to. All I'm saying is that the seams of capitalism and Western "progress" are beginning to show, and the darkside of capitalism is a loss of spirit and common humanity.

Iron Boat

12-15-2006, 03:33 PM

Hey I understand what you mean, I myself am well versed in the workings of the philosophe's and I understand your take on the Medium is the Massage. And that you mention that much of what you learn is and has been through obsevation echoes the original philosophies of Plato and Socrates. Its kind of funny because this discussion is headed toward the Matrix or the Simulacra or Simulacrum if you will. Basically I understand what your saying....

The Running Man

12-16-2006, 02:24 PM

why not complete the circle and do a review like that for Kill Bill vol 2?

Because like Kill Bill vol.1 when it ends, I am sitting here with a bit of anticipation to see what happens in the second film. In this case, what you would write about it. :D

The Amazing Psychoper

12-17-2006, 05:02 PM

But for the average Westerner (especially of the 20-ish generation), true art is redundant and entirely incomprehensible and indistinguishable from junk like THE MATRIX (at best, a confused postmodern mush of slick and sexy metaphysical mumbo jumbo already pondered over far better from everyone from Plato to Hume to Kant to Nietzsche) because the average viewer just doesn't have the emotional or spiritual maturity to see what's true art and mere mindless diversion

I think there is something you don't get here. Of course movies like the Matrix are not high art, but just the fact that it got some people to maybe dig deeper and introduced them to concept they had never been exposed to, is a noble quality. Take the exemple of "Simulacres et simulation" by Jean Beaudrillard, it's reference in the Matrix got many people to read it and from there went on to discover other works in the same veine. It pisses me off when people only sware by what they consider high art and spit on the rest. To touch the uninitiated you got to find a format to connect with them, in this case The Matrix. Don't get me wrong I don't care if you didn't like the movie, I'm just trying to defend the fact that it's usefull. Doing art that will only touch the initiated can get pointless if no effort is made to try to touch new people that didn't went to college or just weren't exposed enough to philosophy, litterature, cinema (not movies, cinema), etc... I don't know if you get my point but that was about it...

Oh yeah and for the original post I'm with you on Kill Bill. Tarrantino is a thief. There is references and there is pure and simple larceny (Just look at the ending of Reservoir Dogs ripped from City on Fire!!!). But I must confess that I still enjoy watching some of his stuff.

:evil The Amazing Psychoper

sevenhooks

12-17-2006, 10:31 PM

Oh yeah and for the original post I'm with you on Kill Bill. Tarrantino is a thief. There is references and there is pure and simple larceny (Just look at the ending of Reservoir Dogs ripped from City on Fire!!!).

There seems to be an amazing double standard among HK cineastes that consistently attack the "blatant thievery" of someone like QT,
yet always seem to look the other way whenever it's done by a HK director.
Which happens so often, I could seriously write a book on the subject.
The sheer volume of cinematic plagerism commited by HK filmmakers is immense. They pillage from western cinema constantly.
Case in point: Eastern Condors (one of my favorite films to ever come out of the colony by the way).
You're talking about The Dirty Dozen, The Wild Geese, The Deer Hunter.
And those are just the obvious ones.
Was Sammo simply "paying homage"?
I think not.
Again, this takes nothing away from my enjoyment of the film.
It's still a fun, kick ass movie. Point blank.
But I'm growing rather weary of folks that seem to think that this is somehow a one way street.

And what's up with all this stuffy intellectual yin yang?
Talk about pretentious!
I thought I accidently wandered into a Berkeley lecture hall for a minute.

Seriously, does anyone still watch movies for the fun of it anymore??

Chinatown Kid

12-18-2006, 01:05 AM

Seriously, does anyone still watch movies for the fun of it anymore??

I DO!!! :D

limubai2000

12-18-2006, 05:20 AM

I think I can safely say that I watch many movies for fun. Quite often I argue that a film is fun or just good in the modern forum while many folks tear the film to shreds because Jackie didn't do 10 awesome choreographed long fights scenes or some crap.

But I think where this issue differs is in what Ministry noted as the trend amoung viewers who see Kill Bill and then view the films QT ripped off in strictly a trendster mentality. And then well we kinda went off topic but in a good I think.

Check my Rob B Hood review for an example of my opening comments, I thought the film was fun and it made me laugh. Many folks ripped it to shreds coz they expected something else. Maybe it's just coz I try to follow a Buddhist philosophy of "expecting little or nothing", then again maybe not.

Chinatown Kid

12-18-2006, 09:32 PM

All the fans that have seen the classics that QT ripped off know better than to think they are original ideas from him and know where he got the "inspiration" from. I guess if you look at it as paying homage or respect to past classics Kill Bill is not so bad altough it pales in comparison to the films it imitates. But I do try to look at some of the positive like in that maybe if people who aren't aware of where QT got his inspiration from would possibly do some research and seek out the films that he borrowed from who might otherwise never be interested in seeing those classics. Sometimes this is the only way to reach young people who only care about the new and trendy. Is Kill Bill a great film? Not really. Am I glad Kill Bill was made? Yes and I did find it entertaining for what it was.

teako170

12-18-2006, 10:15 PM

And what's up with all this stuffy intellectual yin yang?
Talk about pretentious!
I thought I accidently wandered into a Berkeley lecture hall for a minute.

I say Perciville, who is this bloke with the long white beard?

Hmph, that is Mr. Hooks, I believe Winston. I say to you Mr. Hooks, may we be of service or did you just crash our tea & crumpets discussion for the sheer jolly of it?

That's odd Perciville. Why does he not answer?

Isn't it obvious Winston. Such high-brow deliberation is not meant for the commoners. Let us pay him no mind now and continue our dialogue on the .... what the...?

Did you see that Perciville? Mr. Hooks appears offended by your demeanor.

Ha- I scoff at this cad. Mr. Hooks, you do not intimidate nor impress, sir. Be off before I let you feel the cold sting of my saber.

Your words don't seem to sway him Perciville. But yet, eghads! What is that he has drawn from his robe?

It appears some type of throwing projectile? Ninja shuriken?

EGHADS---! No. Much worse than that I am afraid to admit.

Why it appears to be vinyl. Haha what a fool.

NO Perciville, we are the fools. Mr. Hooks is armed with heavy artillery -- 33LP!! We are doomed...!!!!

:b

Chinatown Kid

12-19-2006, 02:06 AM

I do say ole boy, what stimulating conversation. i'm going to have tea and crumpets and will be back to discuss this matter further. Goodday mate! ;)

Markgway

12-19-2006, 03:12 AM

Ha- I scoff at this cad. Mr. Hooks, you do not intimidate nor impress, sir. Be off before I let you feel the cold sting of my saber.

Ooh, and you were so close... but an Englishman would never spell SABRE as SABER. Off with this impostor's worthless head and forty lashes for his family.

sevenhooks

12-19-2006, 05:08 AM

NO Perciville, we are the fools. Mr. Hooks is armed with heavy artillery -- 33LP!! We are doomed...!!!!

Doomed indeed.

:b

teako170

12-19-2006, 12:36 PM

but an Englishman would never spell SABRE as SABER. Funny as I actually spelled it like that, at first, but then the bloody word-check changed it. :\

limubai2000

12-19-2006, 01:45 PM

So the Firefox spell check is the culprit... sure teak... sureeeeeeee. ;)

Chinatown Kid

12-20-2006, 01:24 AM

It's elementry my dear Watson!

Anybody ever watch Mr. Bean? That Brit's a hoot. He used to come on HBO but they took it off. :(

Ministry88

12-20-2006, 06:40 AM

Very interesting responses guys. Sevenhooks, you bring up an excellent point: indeed HK filmmakers do borrow (or outright steal) from other films and filmmakers. BUT, in the case of filmmakers like Ringo Lam or John Woo, they inject genuine soul and emotion, which to me signifies an authentic artist. The same goes for a filmmaker like Martin Scorcese, who in my opinion is a far more humane and savvy importer of filmic influences (like neorealism) than QT.

As for what the amazing psychoper's point of films like THE MATRIX opening new doors for viewers who have yet to be exposed to philosophical works and such, I can't really agree because I haven't met anyone who has genuinely taken an interest in Baudrillard, Nietzsche, or any other philosopher after seeing a film like THE MATRIX. Worse still, what I am really saying is that the current generation of moviegoers MISTAKE films like THE MATRIX for true art, when it's really just (marginally) smart escapism. THAT I have experienced, almost unanimously from people who have seen the film.

I also am not surprised by some posts accusing me of being pretentious and stuffy. Often on message boards it seems to be a liability to post something with far-reaching concepts or with references to "deep" things. Unfortunately, I think this is a result of the internet's impersonality; you can't detect tone of voice or body language on a message board, and what seems pretentious or mere boasting is really just an observation. But I decided to post anyway, because I was genuinely interested in what everyone else had to say, most of which has been great.

And YES, Chinatown kid, I watch films for fun. Hell, one of my favorite movies is DUMB AND DUMBER, and I've spent good money on copies of Joe Dante's THE BURBS (it's all about the Bruce Dern!), HOT SHOTS!, BASIC INSTINCT, and DIE HARD. Believe me, there is PLENTY of room for low brow AND highbrow entertainment, and I like it all.

Chinatown Kid

12-20-2006, 08:41 PM

I hear ya man, glad I'm not alone! BTW, nothing wrong with thinking deep thoughts about a film, it can lead to most interesting disscussions and alot of times learn things we never knew. ;)

teako170

12-20-2006, 10:25 PM

Stimulating dissection of a film is always a fun diversion for me Ministry88. Heck, I took film courses in college that might put some folks to sleep - but its a topic that I find engaging. Of course its not always easy to find someone at your local pub to enlist in such conservation, so the net has definitely provided me with the ability to do that very thing.

And if someone ever feels I come off stuffy, well I usually ignore it.

No, scratch that. Actually I just show them my "quart of blood technique."

You see... "cause I'm a karate man, see! And a karate man bruises on the inside!" ;)

Markgway

12-21-2006, 05:46 AM

Must confess I'm not really into all that philisophical discussion... but any fellow owner of The 'Burbs is alright by me... :p

moongirl6

12-21-2006, 08:48 AM

Ministry88, you mentioned true art--what would you say true art is?

Ministry88

12-22-2006, 04:53 AM

...anything that exites your soul and drives you to your own creative acts. It also makes you want to be a better person and strive for better things. It also poeticizes (my word!) and puts in perspective every aspect of your life, and I don't mean just the good stuff, but the mundane and even painful and boring things. True art also enriches and makes more profound your outlook on life and teaches you something about yourself that can help you grow as a person and live a richer, more informed and examined life. Plus, above all, it gives you that unmistakable, yet undefinable, life-affirming surge of joy that just makes everything in your life OK and dignified (no matter how bad your life is), even if just for a few hours. Sounds a lot like love doesn't it? Ah, but I think it's better because you can always count on it (not that love isn't absolutely exhilarating and essential either). It will never let you down like people can -- art is always there for you and will always listen and not make you feel alone. Oh boy I'm such an incurable romantic:lol

Now, before you can say "BOY, what a pretentious sorehead!", let me say that although most things don't qualify as art, there is AMPLE room for pure escapist entertainment. I don't think I could handle a steady, exclusive diet of emotionally and spiritually supercharged art. It would just be too exhausting. Some of my favorite films, music, books, etc are purely escapist (and often downright trashy and cheesy), but there is a definite charm and skill involved in this too and I love many forms of escapist entertainment as dearly as the loftiest art. Both art and entertainment are great and essential, but as I've always said since the beginning of this thread, the real danger and sadness arises when an audience (and, dare I say, an entire generation) can't tell the difference between mere entertainment and art, completely missing out on the mental, emotional, and spiritual joys of art which is essential for spirtual and emotional growth and intelligence. Basically, this leads to an emotionally stunted generation denied the capacity for joy and adventurous living, which is a real tragedy.

So there is my answer moongirl. Thanks for the question!

sevenhooks

12-22-2006, 07:19 AM

Ministry88, you mentioned true art--what would you say true art is?

The most interesting debates are often sparked the simplest of questions, or so it would seem.
I can see this becoming something quickly deserving of it's own topic, so before we get carried away, please allow me to submit to you, my own personal answer to the querry originally posed to Sir Ministry88 courtesy of one Moongirl6...

"WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TRUE ART IS?"

Something purely subjective.

limubai2000

12-22-2006, 01:22 PM

Chinese Kung Fu philosophy - "You are your art and your art is you."

Think about that, then think about the movies that had great emotional impact on you, ex TRUE art films, then think about how they permanently changed you.

Markgway

12-22-2006, 02:36 PM

Art is Fart without the F.

limubai2000

12-22-2006, 04:28 PM

Art is Fart without the F.

Gee, Mark you certainly sound like an O _ _ F a r t... ? :p

Tosh

12-22-2006, 09:09 PM

Chinese Kung Fu philosophy - "You are your art and your art is you."

Now that's a saying I can live by.

And I'm with 7, art is truly subjective, here's a saying - One mans trash, is another mans goldmine.

moongirl6

12-28-2006, 08:58 AM

Thank you all for the input. I'd say you're right, that art really is subjective--what moves and impacts upon one person may not have an effect on another. I've been trying to come up with my own definition, but haven't really been able to put it into words, although I can think of a few things I've seen that I'd definitely classify as being NOT true art (example: once I saw a student film of a variety of people eating dirt--that's all, just people eating dirt. It didn't really strike me as art--just footage of people eating dirt. I think you could have a movie of people eating dirt that is art, but I don't think that this was it!)

Reincarnation Of Thundering Mantis

12-28-2006, 11:07 PM

Yeah art is subjective and people have there like and dislikes.

But I feel there are standards of quality and depth within art and things that attempt to be artistic. Stuff that is phoney and out to make it a quick buck may be enjoyed by millions. But it isn't always high quality (some times it of very poor quality but lots of people saw it anyway) or "art" per se.

Some people think that because a film makes more money than another film or is more well known than another film that it must be a better overall film and that lesser known films are rubbish cause nobody has heard of it.

I think Tsui Hark said something like "the audience is meant to feel and not undertsand". I think this is true to some extent.

jirpy100

12-29-2006, 05:42 AM

moongirl6

12-29-2006, 09:06 AM

I haven't seen too many Shaw Brothers films, but I can say that personally, I'm very partial to the films of Jimmy Wang Yu, and I think that the One Armed Boxer and Master of the Flying Guillotine are both great films overall. I don't know if I could compare them to the directors you mentioned, but I don't know how I would compare those guys to each other either. One Armed Boxer I think is superb, among other reasons, because I like the way the shots are put together (the way the actors are arranged and the way the camera moves). And MOFG I can go on and on because I love it so much, but I think it has a marvelous story that is really well put together. (I could elaborate more if anyone's interested in hearing it.) But I think that it's sometimes hard to compare different kinds of art if they're very different and that's why I feel it's hard to compare these martial arts films to other films/directors. I don't know if this is related to what I'm saying or not, but going back to the original topic in this thread, when I first saw Kill Bill, I was told by someone that it was a martial arts movie--but that's what made me disappointed in it when I saw it, because I didn't feel that it was a martial arts movie, despite all the fighting--I felt it was something else, not a spoof or a satire really, but something more like a caricature--but not a martial arts movie. So I didn't like it as a martial arts film, and I thought a number of parts should have been sliced right out because there was too much extra crap that dragged it down, but I also thought some parts were really good. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think a film can be as great as another film if it's as good as being the kind of film that it is as another film is at being the kind of film that that film is--well, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but hopefully you'll know what I mean!

jirpy100

12-29-2006, 09:40 AM

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think a film can be as great as another film if it's as good as being the kind of film that it is as another film is at being the kind of film that that film is--well, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but hopefully you'll know what I mean!

To rephrase, you are saying that a martial arts film can be a great martial arts film, just as a drama can be a great drama, and then they both can be considered great films, regardless of genre. I agree to some extend, but remain a bit of a snob and believe drama to rule over all because of the inherent emotional content which captures part of the artists' souls.

rebelliousreign1

12-29-2006, 02:26 PM

I must say, I find Tarantino to be a confidence trickster myself. All flash and no great substance, borrowing liberally from other directors' work who are all less famous than he is. >:

peringaten

12-29-2006, 02:55 PM

do any of you consider any SB films as art? Meaning, do you think they are on the same level as work by Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorcese, Akira Kurosawa, Bernardo Bertolucci, Francois Truffaut, or any of their other contemporaries?Yes - Li Han Hsiang at his finest.

RANDY1974

01-06-2007, 05:45 AM

Hey dudes, i haven't posted in a while.I posted this long rant/diatribe on www.newsarma.com the other week in response to Grindhouse trailer and hype about that..,
I used to post here often, and i must say this dissection of KILL BILL was very eloquent, i agree 100%..

Just wanted to drop in and add my two cents, like i said i posted this on newsarama the comics site a few weeks back

the only thing that bothered me about Tarantino is his directing abiility and not giving credit to his blatant ripping off/adapting elements of other films into his own...

Pulp fiction was pretty original film, influences were obvious.

Jackie Brown was adapted from a Novel and i thought a pretty solid film all around.

Resivoir dogs, bothered me in that he basically adapted City on Fire the HK film starring Chow Yun Fat, with even certain cinematic elements being swiped wholesale.he never publicly credits his influences or swipes, i mean every director has influences they don't cite but stealing scenes and shots which brings me to Kill Bill...

Kill Bill bothered me for a few reasons, he (QT) basically without credit used the origin of Lady Snowblood for Lucy Liu's character without permission or even the blessing of the creator of the manga series Kazuo Koike, in fact the fight scene in the snow was ripped from the 1970's film adaption of the japanese manga that starred Meiko Kaji as Lady Snowblood. Koike expressed his dismay (google it) that Quenton never bothered to contact him to even ask if that was ok ( koike created the characters of Ogami Itto, Retsudo, etc for the LONE WOLF AND CUB series. LADY SNOWBLOOD, SAMURAI EXCUTIONER, HANZO THE RAZOR! ... QT also borrowed from some obscure cinema like the Christina Lindhberg vengeance film THRILLER "They Call her One Eye" and some touches of Brian Depalma style scenes as well for Daryll Hannah's character.Mainly though the best scenes in the film in my opinion were his tribute to the Shaw Brothers kung fu and Wuxia films of the 1960's, 70's and 80's (the Pai Mei stuff) which featured Gordon Liu who as a younger actor was famous for Eight Diagram Pole figher among other films.Those scenes were cool and all, but my main complaint about Kill Bill was that he had the fanboyism to cast Sonny chiba, but made him comic relief...!!!!
Chiba is still fully capable as a true Martial Artist and consulted on the choreography, but man he starred in probably 100+ Samurai films and action spy, kung fu and other films as well as TV series in Japan too! Yagyu Conspiracy, Kage No Gundan, & more...

To not at least have him swing a sword in those films...Blasphemy!!!

If you really wanna see some good films that influenced tarentino but are better in every way... hunt down some old Samurai & Yakuza Classics by directors like Hideo Gosha or Kenji Misumi, bloodier and more realistic and technically better films all around...
The 6 Lone Wolf and Cub films will blow your mind if you ahve never seen them and they are domestically available as well...as is Shogun Assassin = the american cut re-edited and horribly dubbed in the 1980's version of the Lone Wolf and cub movies 1 & 2, with the story drastically altered.This was the film that Kiddo and her daughter watched before bed in Kill Bill 2...get the real films not SA, you'll be won over instantly
Some other good site for samurai films are..

www.ninjadojo.com
www.samuraidvd.com
www.kurotokagigumi.com

As for Grindhouse, i'll probably go see it more for the Rodriguez half, it looks like fun..but he's definitley the better director..i think Tarentino is a better writer and dialogue guy than anything..but it still looks like a fun tribute to drive in cinema..
Oh yeah & Rose Mcgowan i hottttt in this...even with the machine gun leg!

Randy (owner of Collectors Corner)
www.collectorscornermd.com

sevenhooks

01-07-2007, 04:02 AM

Resivoir dogs, bothered me in that he basically adapted City on Fire the HK film starring Chow Yun Fat, with even certain cinematic elements being swiped wholesale.

Other than the mexican standoff at the end, exactly what was "swiped wholesale" from City On Fire?

Dion Brother

01-07-2007, 04:52 AM

Did Ringo Lam ever credit Boorman's POINT BLANK for FULL CONTACT? Or Richard Stark's novels in general. Plagiarism works on both sides of the ocean.

Markgway

01-07-2007, 06:36 PM

Other than the mexican standoff at the end, exactly what was "swiped wholesale" from City On Fire?

The central idea of an undercover cop infiltrating a gang of jewel robbers and turning them against each other from the inside. If you know both films well the similarities are apparent. The much-touted standoff is really just the icing on the cake.

The Running Man

01-07-2007, 09:17 PM

Other than the mexican standoff at the end, exactly what was "swiped wholesale" from City On Fire?

The entire plot and the last quarter of the movie.

CASSANOVA72

01-08-2007, 05:20 PM

Just noticed something this weekend you guys know that wailing siren noise just before Uma confronts her foes was swiped from 5 Fingers of Death (King Boxer)...

Markgway

01-08-2007, 10:54 PM

Yes, and it was swiped by King Boxer from Ironside. :lol

D1 Ma

01-09-2007, 12:12 AM

I remember reading QT's interview to some japanese(?) journalist when KB-1 was out. In this Interview QT mentioned almost a dozen films from which he got his ideas. He never credited other directors IN the film, but he was quite open about borrowing ideas in his interviews.
Oh, yeah - here it is:
www.japattack.com/main/?q=node/79 (http://www.japattack.com/main/?q=node/79)

bamboo

01-10-2007, 01:54 AM

They get a bad rap from lots of folks, but I love Kill Bill Vol. 1, and think Vol. 2 is pretty good.

sevenhooks

01-13-2007, 03:43 AM

They get a bad rap from lots of folks, but I love Kill Bill Vol. 1, and think Vol. 2 is pretty good.

I dug em both - very much so.

I just think a lot of fans of asian film (myslef included) are increasingly and inherently hostile toward any action films coming from western directors.
Why there so often seems to be such an immediate and vitriolic rush to condemn I'm not exactly sure.
Yes, most american action films nowadays suck.
But IMHO so do most asian action films nowadays.
I just sense that for the most part this hatred stems from a kind of raw, deep emotion and not from any sort of real critical perspective, and as a result, it's often uncalled for (Americans suck, the west is corrupt, etc.).
Seeing Kill Bill 1 in a NYC theater for the first time was a real fun treat, and a throwback to the good old days of my cinematic youth.
The closest I'll most likely ever get to recapturing some of that exhiliration and feeling I used to get going to see the "flicks".
Pretentious? Hardly.
Fun? F#ck yeah.
And really, innit what it's all about in the first place?

sevenhooks

01-13-2007, 10:31 AM

I've always wondered about other kung fu fans.... do any of you consider any SB films as art? Meaning, do you think they are on the same level as work by Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorcese, Akira Kurosawa, Bernardo Bertolucci, Francois Truffaut, or any of their other contemporaries?
I personally do not. I see them in the same vein as older Hollywood films or studio-based Hammer productions. They have merit, and the level of acrobatics & choreography is definitely something to consider, but ultimately I don't see any contemporary or past issues particularly well articulated or symbolised any more than other action fare.
Something like The One-Armed Swordsman does warrant a second-look, but ultimately I think any real creativity in terms of film technique and narrative was severely weakened by the studio system.

That's very interesting and I think you're right.
I definitely see some pictures in the Shaw cannon that rose above the typical genre conventions of the studio (Killer Constable, Blood Brothers, Tiger Killer, etc.).
But for the most part, the studio restrictions hampered a lot of potential creativity, there's no doubt about it.
Look at the music for example.
A film's soundtrack is supremely vital and is half of a film's identity.
Imagine Rocky, Exorcist, Jaws, Star Wars, Cinema Paradiso, Shaft or any of the James Bond films without their respective original music soundtrack.*
The vast, vast majority of Shaw Brother film music was canned.
They had a music director who simpley picked what sound library cut would go good with a particular scene.
As a result, we often hear the same music used over and over again.
While that's also one of the many charms of the Shaw "vibe" for me, I also recognize it as one of the many reasons why these films are ultimately not regarded on the same level as stuff from Kurosawa, Kubrick, etc. and never will be.
But quite honestly, that's fine with me!

* I tend to look at the way Kill Bill was made and draw several comparisons to what are now considered to be obsolete, exploitation-style film making techniques.
The film's music soundtrack being one of them.
Like the film itself, QT cut and pasted his soundtrack with pre-existing songs from every genre imaginable.
This is a part of Kill Bill that is seldom talked about, but the film's music ultimately serves the same purpose as the images themselves... evoking other movies and genres altogether in some kind of cinematic symmetry.
I remember having a chuckle the first time I saw Snake In The Eagle's Shadow, when, after the opening credits finish, we're treated to an audio snippet of The Spy Who Loved Me before the first fight commences.
I thought, "how could they do this?", but they did it.
And did it they did, time after time.
Swiping soundtracks from western films in particular became a convention of sorts in asian cinema.
A necessity even, as the Shaw Brothers themselves demonstrated, WHO could afford their own composer?

Tosh

01-14-2007, 05:04 AM

The Kill Bills - I enjoyed them, I liked the first one better than the second, My problem with it is, it should have been one movie, even one long movie, there was about a good hour plus you could of cut out of it, I think for me, it would of worked better in one sitting.

I just think a lot of fans of asian film (myslef included) are increasingly and inherently hostile toward any action films coming from western directors.

I can agree with this, I'm guilty of hating hollywood, but for me it isn't being against Western culture, as much as I like Asian culture even apart from these movies, Hollywood had balls at one time, they lost it somewhere, everything went pg -13, there been the exceptions along the way, and maybe better things to come (300 looks f'n amazing).

Music can be a films greatest asset, two examples I can give is Platoon and CTHD, two great soundtracks that can stand on their own, being able to fit the music into the right emotional setting works to a films advantage, if the viewer knows it or not, that doesn't mean I don't dig the fist full of dollar music before the final fight in Hot Cool and the Vicious. Akira Ifukube was a master, he created the original music for Godzilla and many Kurosawa films, his music found it's way into many Kung Fu and Western music over the years.

limubai2000

01-14-2007, 06:20 AM

I don't hate Hollywood as a whole. Right now I hate most of their output in particular their predaliction towards aiming all their action films firmly at the 18-24 crowd. I think that films aimed at that age group don't appeal to people not in that age group. That is most of the problem with Hollywood right now.

Daisho2004

01-15-2007, 04:05 AM

Tosh, I agree Kill Bill definitely shoulda been made into (1) movie instead of (2)the 2nd. movie just sucked it had a few good scenes in it but that was all. It woulda worked out so much better than being split into (2) movies but hey Q.T. was just trying to make a bigger buck and I'm not mad at him for that because it worked. And Sonny Chiba shoulda definitely had a bigger part in this movie.

And I'll say this about Hollywood and Action films if you look at it most of the people who see these action flicks are younger Kids. I remember when the Drive-In movie was on Saturdays and they showed all the Shaw Brothers movies I was a Teenager back than and a lot of Adults wouldn't even know what a "Five Deadly Venom" was.

On another note do you notice that every Martial Arts flick that is being released is being presented by Q.T. Tony Jaa's new release of the Protector is slated as presented by Q.T. he has nothing to do with these movies so I don't know why the Directors or Producers would let him get credit for there movies. Just because of his name. And I'm not bashing Q.T. I just don't see the logic in it of him getting credit for something he has nothing to do with.

Tosh

01-15-2007, 12:58 PM

On another note do you notice that every Martial Arts flick that is being released is being presented by Q.T.

That's because of Harvey, Qt really went to bat to get movies like Iron Monkey and Hero released on the big screen in the US, the Harvster agreed only if it had Qt presenting it, so the man's name really carries some weight, whether you like his movies or not, I think he loves the old KF movies just like us.

Skrotnissen

01-16-2007, 09:44 PM

Mabye should watch the Norwegian remake of Kill Bill. This movie is called Kill Buljo. Watch the trailer here.

www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2...88900.html (http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2007/01/15/488900.html)

VonHumboldtFleischer

02-20-2007, 04:15 AM

I didn't enjoy KILL BILL. Actually, I enjoyed the Twisted Nerve sequence (I can't actually remember what was happening in the scene, but I do remember enjoying having that music pummelled against my skull at the cinema), and I enjoyed Michael Parks, but beyond that it was a huge, huge mess. It doesn't seem so much as film as a collection of music videos which just happen to involve Uma Thurman in one way or another.

It's surprising how little people seem to be bothered by the fact that Uma Thurman gives one of the worst performances in the history of cinema. As bad as she is delivering dialogue in scene (the conversation with Vivica Fox being a particularly awful example), when she addresses the camera directly she reaches a new, previously unsuspected height of gut-wrenching cheesiness. Admittedly, it's hard to deliver lines as vomitously bad as those in the KILL BILL script without looking like a total goof, but she manages to take their ordinary everyday prosaic crappiness and turn it into a truly superhuman, almost supernatural crappiness.

I don't think it particularly helps if you "get" the references, either (has anyone here even seen THEY CALL HER ONE-EYE? Would Darryl Hannah be any less irritating if they had?). Films should stand on their merit, not on their nudging, winking, ironic references to other films. There's something really annoying about things which aren't particularly funny or clever in themselves, but which seem funny or clever if you "get" the references. The Simpsons is particularly guilty of this. It seems like a lazy writer's way of avoiding having to come up with an actual joke or idea. Instead just allude to some aspect of contemporary culture that will reassure the audience that they're hip, and they'll "get it" and feel all special and fuzzy inside.

The idea that Tarantino is a big kung fu movie fan doesn't make me feel any better about things, either. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what evidence there is for this anyway. What, because he knows who Gordon Liu is? So does my girlfriend. And I share the indignation of those who are annoyed by having his chinny face all over films he's had nothing to do with. Not because I think he's taking credit for them (Oliver Stone, Martin Scorcese and David Lynch have all "presented" movies they haven't done any work on), but because I think that anyone stupid enough to decide to buy or watch a kung fu movie based on his endorsement probably doesn't deserve to see them.

Bah.

To be fair, I don't believe that thing about Tarantino never attributing his sources. I think his sources are so outrageously obvious he really doesn't have to. RESERVOIR DOGS isn't any worse for being a padded-out replay of the last twenty-five minutes of CITY ON FIRE; it's worse because it has absurd dialogue in it like "Are you gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you going to bite?" and "Someone's been sticking a red-hot poker up our ass and I want to know who's name is on the handle." Puh-lease. JACKIE BROWN is probably his most mature and well-crafted film to date (and judging by what his forthcoming projects seem to be - more pastiche, sequels and remakes - will probably remain so for some years to come), and the only one I've really watched three or four times.

There's probably an anti-Tarantino bandwagon at work somewhere, and I'd hate to jump on it almost as much as I'd hate to jump on the pro-Tarantino bandwagon. The fact that he's fairly obnoxious as a person (or, at least, as an interviewee) makes him easy to dislike, and even detest, but as I said, we should judge his films on their merits. And KILL BILL has practically none.

Markgway

02-20-2007, 10:50 AM

The scripts for the KILL BILL films did seem like someone trying to copy Tarantino -- without the wit.

"Someone's been sticking a red-hot poker up our ass and I want to know who's name is on the handle."

That DOGS line made me laugh. It's still his best screenplay by a mile.

Chinatown Kid

02-20-2007, 10:15 PM

My favorite Tarantino film would have to be Pulp Fiction, mainly for the charismatic performances of John Travolta and Sam Jackson as the two hitmen who have philosophical debates on a regular basis. I thought the dialogue was very witty and hip with a realistic feel.

Dion Brother

02-23-2007, 05:04 AM

yeah, seeing icons like Sonny Chiba, Gordon Liu and even David Carradine demonstrates no merit whatsoever for the KILL BILL movies. I think it helps if you remember a time when it was actually exciting to go to 42nd Street or the local drive-ins or "action houses" in the 1970s(and being that many of our posters are young and not living in the US, maybe they can't conceive of it). For those of us who marveled over lurid newspaper ads or heard Adolph Ceaser's narration for kungfu and black action movies on the radio because we were too young to see these movies ourselves, KILL BILL provides a fun connection to that era. Every week, there were too many genre movies to choose from, unlike nowadays where its all about the big event releases. And if you were living near a Chinatown in the 1970s, you had double the choices. Imagine choosing between the latest New World, World Northal, Crown International, Film Ventures and Dimension (not the Miramax subsidiary) releases at your local theater. There was such a time. The majors mainly released "important" or very mainstream stuff, never anything crazy, exploitive or subversive.

Maybe remembering that time of American moviegoing helps to appreciate KILL BILL. Then again, I've met people who've never watched any kung fu or spaghetti westerns and they love the KB movies. It's all subjective.

sevenhooks

02-23-2007, 08:58 AM

KILL BILL provides a fun connection to that era.

Maybe remembering that time of American moviegoing helps to appreciate KILL BILL. Then again, I've met people who've never watched any kung fu or spaghetti westerns and they love the KB movies. It's all subjective.

I agree 100%.
I had a blast watching both KB films.
By far the most fun I had that year at the cinema.
No contest.

The Running Man

02-26-2007, 06:36 AM

Ministry88,
I asked you before on this thread for you to do a similar review to Kill Bill vol. 2.

You didn't answer that post so I am asking it again. :)

Stuntman Jules

05-01-2007, 07:07 PM

Most of the Asian movie nerd Tarantino haters are just jealous that HE gets to make movies, put references to Shaw Brothers films into them and they don't. I swear, that's what it is.

VonHumboldtFleischer

05-01-2007, 09:52 PM

I swear, it isn't.

morgoth

05-01-2007, 10:23 PM

I don't care if Tarantino copies stuff. Everybody copies. He takes an idea and adds onto it with his own ideas. If you don't like it, then that's that.

And I always love Tarantino's dialogue, but I can see how it coud bore some people.

gravedigger666

08-17-2008, 05:48 AM

Kill Bills are great flicks.for me they remind a lot of spaghetti westerns where "good" guy is not that completely and kills without mercy.some of best fight scenes seen in hollywood movies in those.tarantino may be copycat but what he does is quality stuff.

Kung Foolery

08-20-2008, 06:36 AM

Ok.. so am I the only one who thinks Reservoir Dogs destroys City On Fire?

Am I the only one who thinks Kill Bill is great stuff?

Im sure someones already mentioned this but if these movies were Hong Kong movies you guys would be praising the hell out of em.

Bad dialogue in Reservoir Dogs? Lol.

Alex

08-20-2008, 07:05 PM

Im sure someones already mentioned this but if these movies were Hong Kong movies you guys would be praising the hell out of em.

.

if kill bill was a hong kong movie it would have lower expectations and better action

Chinatown Kid

08-21-2008, 12:47 AM

My opinion on Kill Bill is that although the film was very atmosperic and stylish, the fight scenes were blah because most of the stars did not have the skills to pull it off. It was a fun movie though.

BaronK

08-21-2008, 12:52 AM

"Ok.. so am I the only one who thinks Reservoir Dogs destroys City On Fire?"

No. No you're not.

daTOAD

08-26-2008, 06:40 PM

TibetanWhiteCrane

08-27-2008, 05:21 PM

daTOAD

08-27-2008, 06:59 PM

LMAO. I knew i shouldnt have said ****. Get off them sleeping pills WhitCorn.

David Rees

08-27-2008, 07:21 PM

Anyone who loves action, exploitation cinema should love Kill Bill, sure it "borrows" from lots of films but it is done in an exciting and fresh way, with some great dialog too.;)

Markgway

08-28-2008, 12:00 AM

with some great dialog too.;)

:o

venoms5

08-28-2008, 12:42 AM

QT haters amuse me. You guys always sound like you all have a personal grudge against a man ,like he raped your daughter and punchedyour wife in the face or something. Even funnier is that you all call him thief [everybody lifts something , thats just how it is-i belive it can be called inspiration],hack, and every other name in the book yet youve obviously watched all his films. Why? He sucks remember.I ask all of the Haters[and yes you are haters] , what have YOU done? Wheres your screenplay? Your experts in cinema, right? Critics are peolple who wish they could ,but really cant.

I guess I'm sort of a QT hater. I obviously don't know the man personally but it would be nice if he'd do something original for a change and stop with the fake personality when promoting his movies. He pretended to be black while promoting JACKIE BROWN with the ridiculous swaying of his hands and uttering "know what I'm sayiiiin...?" over and over. If this is his true personality then why not do it all the time?

I was very glad when that abomination that was GRINDHOUSE died swiftly at the BO and then QT and the Weinstein's scrambled to make excuses as to why it failed. One of the best was that "People in the South don't know what a double feature is." Such horse sh*t to cover up an utter turd of a cinematic bowel movement such that QT and Company thrust upon an unsuspecting world.

I am not originally from the South but have lived here for the bulk of my life. When first moving here, me and my family used to frequent two different drive ins here. On the weekends there were double and triple features mostly of kung fu flicks. Nobody left after the first presentation. Those guys can't confess that they made a lifeless, soulless excuse of the magic of 70's (and early 80's) guerrilla exploitation filmmaking that could not match the veracity and ferociousness of any of those movies. Then QT says in an interview "I'm proud of my bomb". then says he wants to shoot a serious movie....A movie about slavery(????) So now (or at the time) he wants to do a remake of MANDINGO? Or in his case, it would more resemble the extreme exploitation nastiness of the sequel, DRUM.

Oh, and I have written three scripts, another almost finished and another barely started but have yet to sell any of them so does that at least qualify me somewhat to voice my opinion on this oddly worshipped man who can write, no doubt, but seems incapable of creating a cohesive production anymore?

PS: His newest is what EVERYBODY HAS BEEN WAITING FOR....a remake of the most likely superior Enzo G. Castellari war picture THE INGLORIOUS BASTARDS.

SlothStyleKungFu

08-28-2008, 07:09 PM

...PS: His newest is what EVERYBODY HAS BEEN WAITING FOR....a remake of the most likely superior Enzo G. Castellari war picture THE INGLORIOUS BASTARDS.

That's a common misconception but it isn't a remake in any way shape or form. He just co-opted the title (and considering the film had like a dozen alternative titles in the first place, hardly a shame). It is a WW2, guys-on-a-mission flick like the Castellari film, or Dirty Dozen, Guns of Navarrone, etc, etc, etc, but it is Tarantino's take on that particular genre.

venoms5

08-28-2008, 08:17 PM

That's a common misconception but it isn't a remake in any way shape or form. He just co-opted the title (and considering the film had like a dozen alternative titles in the first place, hardly a shame). It is a WW2, guys-on-a-mission flick like the Castellari film, or Dirty Dozen, Guns of Navarrone, etc, etc, etc, but it is Tarantino's take on that particular genre.

Yes, I've heard all that, too yet QT himself has stated before he was remaking the film. Talk of doing this film goes back as far as 1994 that I know of. Regardless of how different the movie turns out to be, remakes are seldom the exact same as the source anyways. Look at how different THE THING remake was. Completely different from the original. The title is the same as are ideas present in Castellari's film. That's pretty much a remake to me regardless of how subtle the similarities are, or will end up being.

oldeschool17

08-29-2008, 03:56 AM

I thought it was overrated as well. I initially only saw the first part when it first came out and saw most of the 2nd part recently this year.

daTOAD

08-29-2008, 03:31 PM

venoms5

08-29-2008, 08:30 PM

He pretended to be black while promoting JACKIE BROWN with the Cover and over. If this is his true personality then why not do it all the time? "

First of all," ridiculous swaying of his hands and uttering "know what I'm sayiiiin..." is pretending to be black? I could be offend by that, though I dont think you were trying to be offensive venoms5.

With all due respect, he may be that way all the time.Out of the 365 days in a year we see about 10 hours of his life, so i cant tell you how he is off camera.We just see bits and pieces of celebrities lives and then think we know everything about that person because of an appearence on Leno or a dvd interview.

Out of all the interviews I've seen him in with his roadrunner speech he's never acted this way save for the JACKIE BROWN promotion. Judging by what people have said that have worked with him, he's a fake individual whose head exploded the moment people began paying attention to him.

Man, if your a human with a brain you can voice your opinion. I dont mean any disrespect by that, Im just saying everyone has the right to ther own opinion. Ive written several screenplays ,but that doesnt mean anything.Im no more qualified than the next man to speak on whats good or bad. If you like it ,you like it.Spielberg once said he makes movies he wants to see. Simple ,but true.You think Indiana Jones is an original idea? I really believe the problem people have with QT is that they feel mislead. Pulp Fiction was QTs CTHD. It attracted people who werent fans of the genre. So now those people are in this world[cult cinema for lack of a better term], and are lost and dont know how to react to these films. Pulp Fiction and CTHD held theyre hands and guided them through, but Grindhouse and Kill Bill threw them in head first , with the understanding that the people who watch these films know what to expect.

I took it from your initial post that you took offense that people were slamming the man especially when asking "What have any of you done?" Again, I don't know the man personally, he'd be an interesting conversation piece but considering his attitude towards fans and the general public that kept him going for a number of years, he's not someone I would want to keep company with just based solely on how he's perceived on television and in magazines.

Im suprised Venoms5, cause ive seen your posters and cult movie reccomendations. You know this world. What didnt Death Proof do right as an explotation flick. Watch Fight for Your Life and Death Proof back to back and i dare you to tell me QT didnt knock the ball out of the park with this classic.

Yes, I am a massive fan of exploitation cinema and both filmmakers missed the boat with their overdone, over polished, highly stylized big budget "grindhouse" movie. And no, I wasn't being offensive but I think you know what I meant. Anyway, Rodriguez came the closest to capturing the 80's style drive in classick but QT's movie did nothing for me. To keep from having to reiterate my utter disdain for this movie below are comments I made last year after seeing it...

FINALLY finished this near two hour female MY DINNER WITH ANDRE married to DUEL and other car crash/bang'em up flicks. Far more conceited than the other movie, you get damn near 50 minutes of unlikeable drunken women having useless conversation in a bar only to be given (near) 50 more minutes of Rittilin deprived women having more useless conversation before the big car chase finale. Hell, you forget Kurt Russell is even in the damn movie.

Some of it's great, but not enough to recommend this to anybody. What the hell kind of exploitation movie was this supposed to be? No wonder people were walking out of the theaters for this one.

And why the hell does QT have to write two paragraphs of dialog for something that can be said in a few words? This one is brimming with far too much "My name is QT in case you don't remember and my writing is so fu**ing cool that I'm gonna shove it down your fu**ing throat in such a way that you'll fu**ing remember next time in case you fu**ing forgot!" diatribes that this wasted glob of funds would have been best suited as one of the faux trailers with one of THOSE being the FEATURE PRESENTATION.

And this...

I don't even think I'll bother buying this when it's released (if in fact they deem it financially worth it) as a whole film as it was theatrically. Not even for the trailer of features. Maybe if they did a long 2 hour trip down memory lane detailing THE REAL exploitation grindhouse classics as part of the package, THEN....that would make it a bit more worthwhile.

FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE isn't even in the same class as DEATH PROOF. I see no comparison there. However, I do see a comparison to VANISHING POINT and nods to stuff like DIRTY MARY, CRAZY LARRY. If you want to see some real exploitation "classicks", than the ones below are among many that will fit the true DOUBLE BILL...

POOR PRETTY EDDIE
MANDINGO
DRUM
TRUCK TURNER
LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT
I DRINK YOUR BLOOD
FOXY BROWN
DEATHRACE 2000
HUMANOIDS FROM THE DEEP
GALAXY OF TERROR
FORBIDDEN WORLD
DEATHSPORT
THE GREAT TEXAS DYNAMITE CHASE
THREE THE HARD WAY
GOODBYE, UNCLE TOM
JUNGLE HOLOCAUST
MAKE THEM DIE SLOWLY
RACE WITH THE DEVIL
WALKING TALL
RUN, ANGEL, RUN
THE LOSERS
INVASION OF THE BEE GIRLS
PIRANHA
ALMOST HUMAN
ROME ARMED TO THE TEETH
TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1973)
EATEN ALIVE (1976)
WELCOME HOME, SOLDIER BOYS

and on and on and on.......

I simply would like to see the man do something original for a change and stop with the homages. Everybody knows what he likes. Everybody knows the man can write. Why not create something special and put his skills to the best use? He can continue doing what he's doing for all I care but each subsequent film of his gets more and more pompous...

Chinatown Kid

08-29-2008, 09:53 PM

He needs to come up with something original and refreshing like when he came out with Pulp fiction and recieved so much praise. That's his best film imo although I haven't saw Jackie Brown but I need too, Pam Grier is hot! The problem with homages is that they are rarely equal to what they are paying homage to. I don't know why he felt the need to try and act Black though, seems Blacks would have been offended. :o

Markgway

08-29-2008, 11:32 PM

Not an exploitation fan but I've seen (from Venoms' list) WALKING TALL (good film) and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (lame first half, gripping second).

daisho2004

08-30-2008, 12:14 AM

I'll be honest I really enjoyed Kill Bill uncut but pt.#2 Sucked I thought not enough action after the 1st. movie I was expecting so much more. I think some of his ideas are original maybe part homage but overall I enjoy most of his movies. But as an actor himself not crazy about him, he's OK sometimes I feel he shouldn't be in his own movies if so do a walk by like Alfred Hitchcock did.

gravedigger666

08-30-2008, 02:15 AM

As actor he was really lame in From Dusk Till Dawn,luckily in Reservoir Dogs he got only few lines and that is good thing for movie.

venoms5

08-30-2008, 02:28 AM

QT pretty much derails Miike's SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO from the start. The beginning features him as a gunslinger and his dialog and acting in this sequence is both atrocious and laughable. I got the feeling the only reason he was in this movie (his character also pops up later in the film) was giving Miike a brief walk on in Eli Roth's HOSTEL.

gravedigger666

08-30-2008, 02:38 AM

SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO fthat is movie I never will see.Ok it pops up at bargain bin for 1€ I might buy it but still does not mean I necessarily watch it.Django is real classic and his name should not be used in any movie made these days.

venoms5

08-30-2008, 02:42 AM

There's not even a character named Django in the movie. At the end they mention that this baby seen in the movie grows up to be a man called Django as if they're setting up for a sequel.

gravedigger666

08-30-2008, 02:52 AM

huh:mad:

Bravery

08-30-2008, 05:00 AM

I don't know why he felt the need to try and act Black though, seems Blacks would have been offended.

I know I was offended, he almost seems to get a kick out of using the N word. As for his movies, I found none of them original, they are all exploitation movies. But, I did love Jackie Brown, I can't get enough of Pammy Grier <---so damn fine

gravedigger666

08-30-2008, 05:25 AM

I know I was offended, he almost seems to get a kick out of using the N word. As for his movies, I found none of them original, they are all exploitation movies. But, I did love Jackie Brown, I can't get enough of Pammy Grier <---so damn fine
of course/thankfully I can`t speak from behalf black skin people so dunno how much they feel they are hurt.But over here besides N word they get offended from Black and African too...what should call them?darkskinned with ethnic origin?I know I am bit racist but it is fact cameldrivers and people with dark skin commit hell lot crimes more than local folks.Law can be sued from that,I am sure in islam countries law is not gentle for rapist and thieves but over here it is,cutter head and arms should be allowed over here also.cultures should not be mixed,there is always people who cannot get along with it and that creates trouble...if tarantion gets kicks from N,sweet.

daTOAD

08-30-2008, 07:44 PM

"I know I am bit racist but it is fact cameldrivers and people with dark skin commit hell lot crimes more than local folks."

Sounds like more than a bit, go educate yourself.

"Judging by what people have said that have worked with him, he's a fake individual whose head exploded the moment people began paying attention to him."

The dudes a geek. most of the beautiful hollywood people that hang on his nuts are just doing it for a part.He tells stories of these people trying to talk about theyre film knowledge ,but really have no clue what theyre talking about.I can tell hes an awkward dude from interviews. He doesnt seem fake , just an awkward geek who gets overly animated when talking about things he loves.

"FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE isn't even in the same class as DEATH PROOF. I see no comparison there. However, I do see a comparison to VANISHING POINT and nods to stuff like DIRTY MARY, CRAZY LARRY."

Love both VP and DMCL , but the ONLY thing they have in common with DP are the cars. FFYL on the other hand creates a situation where the viewer wants the villians dead[ we hate these guys for what theyve done to this family].Not only dead ,but wants the victims to be the ones that do it -and in a viscious way. Thats the pay off for sitting through 90 mins. of rape, rascism, and cruel behavior. To me that whole film is a set up for the end-and what a great payoff it was. Same for DP- IMO the whole film is the set up for the ending when the bad guy gets what he deserves , also like Last House On The Left. IMO these films have the same intentions.

venoms5

08-30-2008, 08:06 PM

Love both VP and DMCL , but the ONLY thing they have in common with DP are the cars. FFYL on the other hand creates a situation where the viewer wants the villians dead[ we hate these guys for what theyve done to this family].Not only dead ,but wants the victims to be the ones that do it -and in a viscious way. Thats the pay off for sitting through 90 mins. of rape, rascism, and cruel behavior. To me that whole film is a set up for the end-and what a great payoff it was. Same for DP- IMO the whole film is the set up for the ending when the bad guy gets what he deserves , also like Last House On The Left. IMO these films have the same intentions.

Yes, but in DEATH PROOF you go over nearly an hour of film (maybe more) before you see Russell's character again. Meanwhile he bombards us with useless dialog about obscure movies NOBODY but a chosen few will know about and sometimes it's questionable that QT has seen some of them as he has often mixed up movies he discusses or ones he has actors discuss and if I'm not mistaken, he mixes up the name of the 60's pop rock band Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich in the movie.

Since you were discussing FFYL, as much as I enjoy a good revenge flick, I felt that the family didn't dish out enough punishment, or more accurately, the cruel villains didn't suffer as much as they should have at least not to me. It will most probably be the prime example, or most well known of the Race Hate Genre, though.

This is just my opinion of his movies, of course. I'm just not that big a fan of his movies anymore. I'll see them I just don't get all worked up over them now. I thought RESERVOIR DOGS was great (although the movie reminded me a lot of Carpenter's THE THING which was integrated ingeniously into the film) and PULP FICTION was not the first film to be shot with a disjointed structure but nonetheless, it was a fine film although I despise the over reliance on drug related ideas found predominantly in his movies. JACKIE BROWN was good, too and it was great to see Robert Forster again as ALLIGATOR is one of my favorite movies made all the more enjoyable for his screen presence. He has said JACKIE BROWN was his ode to the Blaxploitation genre but honestly, had he not made that comment, I'd never made the connection as it had none of those films audacious and over the top violence. Still, his great writing is much in evidence there.

There's also word that he's remaking Russ Myer's FASTER, PU**YCAT, KILL! KILL! Have you heard this daTOAD?

Markgway

08-31-2008, 12:01 AM

"*****CAT"?

Why does this forum have a stupid censor filter? Aren't we all adults here? I don't need protected from BAAAAD words or household pets.

peringaten

08-31-2008, 09:33 AM

"*****CAT"?

Why does this forum have a stupid censor filter? Aren't we all adults here? I don't need protected from BAAAAD words or household pets.

Yeah! What the fuck?! That shit's wack.

SlothStyleKungFu

09-03-2008, 08:17 PM

Yes, I've heard all that, too yet QT himself has stated before he was remaking the film. Talk of doing this film goes back as far as 1994 that I know of. Regardless of how different the movie turns out to be, remakes are seldom the exact same as the source anyways. Look at how different THE THING remake was. Completely different from the original. The title is the same as are ideas present in Castellari's film. That's pretty much a remake to me regardless of how subtle the similarities are, or will end up being.

Well, if he really was correctly quoted saying "remake" then it must have been some typical Tarantino verbal diarrhea because, again, like I said, its a WW2 guys-on-a-mission film like many others, but I've read the script and the plotting/characters has nothing to do with Castellari's Inglorious Bastards at all.

He pretended to be black while promoting JACKIE BROWN with the Cover and over. If this is his true personality then why not do it all the time? "...

As for his wiggerisms, that annoys me too. Buuuutttttt, according to his own accounts of his childhood, his single mom dating a black guy who took him to many movies (blaxsploitation&kung fu) with a black crowd... I think his penchant to slip into that comes from the same arrested development/childhood hangups that affect his overall film making tastes.

venoms5

09-03-2008, 08:41 PM

I've read the script and the plotting/characters have nothing to do with Inglorious Bastards at all.

Refer to my comment about THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD and Carpenter's version. The only similarities there is the setting and that's it. The same seems to go for this new QT crap. Nothing similar but the setting and seemingly some plot points, too. Somebody else on another board posted about "the script" and said the same thing you did. Why even bother calling it INGLORIOUS BASTARDS then? It can't be the "popularity" of the movie as that movie is pretty obscure as it is. You don't call it a remake, but I do. It pays some sort of homage or reference to the earlier film. Regardless of how small that notice is, it's a remake to me.

SlothStyleKungFu

09-03-2008, 10:09 PM

Refer to my comment about THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD and Carpenter's version. The only similarities there is the setting and that's it. The same seems to go for this new QT crap. Nothing similar but the setting and seemingly some plot points, too...

Unlike The Fly, Body Snatchers, or The Thing which had a general idea, reworked, but similar in the source and remakes, Bastards is just a WW2 flick, thats about it as far as similarities go. He could have called his Bastards, The Filthy Dozen, or The Machine Guns of Navarrone and it would have as many referance points to those WW2 films as it does the Castellari flick.

Somebody else on another board posted about "the script" and said the same thing you did. Why even bother calling it INGLORIOUS BASTARDS then?

I didnt get it either. The rest is an original take on the genre but I guess he just liked the title, naming a group of soldiers that, and was too freakin' lazy to come up with something better or equally cool?

You don't call it a remake, but I do. It pays some sort of homage or reference to the earlier film. Regardless of how small that notice is, it's a remake to me.

Fine by me, but its really referencing a whole, huge genre, not one specific film, so its about as much a remake as any other film he's made. Its like calling Jackie Brown a remake of Coffy or Death Proof a remake of The Swinging Barmaids.

daTOAD

09-04-2008, 07:02 PM

"Yes, but in DEATH PROOF you go over nearly an hour of film (maybe more) before you see Russell's character again. Meanwhile he bombards us with useless dialog "

True, but i have a theory for that. Kurt Is an icon. Its hard to hate Snake Pliskin. Its probably impossible for fans of these type of movies to not root for him, so you have to create someone you like or feel for a little bit more than Kurt-and cut his screen time.You had to get to know these girls. I would agree , that it didnt work and came off as long winded nothingness, but i think i saw what he was trying to do-so i gave him a pass.Just my theory.

I agree also with what you said about FFYL, but you know what i mean- the point was to get to the payoff[ending] , though it should have been better. If DP was released in 1973 , it wouldve been a drive inn classic. Same for KB. Most Drive-Inn[cult] flicks are horrible anyway and hardly ever deliver. IMO these two did.

I really dont view Jackie Brown as Blaxplotation. I see it as a caper flick. Like that movie a lot. I heard Faster *****cat was a rumour[I hope so-the original is the ****]. What i wanna know is how is QT gonna advertise using the word Bastards, for his new flick?