Kill Bill

[Evil]

I have the choice of seeing Kill Bill or Scary Movie 3.  What do you suggest?

I'd like to point out that the other Scary Movies where both rated R where as 3 has an easy rating of PG-13. Just keep that in mind.

[DGMacphee]

has anyone else seen four rooms?   no one  i've talked to has heard of it.  but it was cool.   plus madonna was in it.

I loathe Madonna.

QT's segment was watchable, but very sub par compared to his full length films.

The high point of Four Rooms was Robert Rodriguez's segment.

Average song lengths have increased too, though you ouldn't get an Inna Gadda Da Vida these days.

Or another Thick As A Brick.

like to say one thing: Quentin Tarantino is one of the worst actors I've ever seen.

Aye -- I thought Dusk 'Till Dawn was a great vampire film except for his performance.

[Quintaros]

He ticked me off in Alias, too.

[Shattered Sponge]

I actually don't think QT is worthy of being judged quite so harshly upon his acting ability.  Sure, he's not a good actor, but I've seen far worse performances than his, by those far more practiced in the trade.  I actually think the main problem with his appearing in films is that his persona is so strong, whenever he plays against it (as I thought he did in Dusk 'til Dawn, in particular) it's rather jarring.

I wouldn't label him as a 'loser', either - a geek, definately, but that's no bad thing, IMO.

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

I can't see kill bill alone. It's rated R. I will go with mom. \o/

[remixor]

I actually don't think QT is worthy of being judged quite so harshly upon his acting ability.  Sure, he's not a good actor, but I've seen far worse performances than his, by those far more practiced in the trade.  I actually think the main problem with his appearing in films is that his persona is so strong, whenever he plays against it (as I thought he did in Dusk 'til Dawn, in particular) it's rather jarring.

I don't know what movies you watch, man, because I'd be hard-pressed to find too many actors that are worse...

[DGMacphee]

Aye -- As far as great directors who act in films, he's very below par.

Martin Scorsese can act in films.

So can Barry Levinson.

Tarintino can't.

That's says nothing though about his talent as director and screenwriter, which is very, very high!

Call his acting his Achilles Heel, if you will.

[remixor]

Yeah, definitely.  I don't want to sound like I'm putting down his talent in general.  I friggin love his work, and he's a master of his craft.  He just needs to make sure he sticks to the right craft.

[DGMacphee]

Aye -- don't fly with the goddamn birds if you're supposed to swim like a bitchass turtle.

[taryuu]

what about QT as jimmy in pulp fiction.  i thought he was pretty good, tho i gotta say i didn't like him in resevoir dogs.  

but dead nigger storage!  classic.  

and Madonna is an old anorexic whore who wore out her welcome years ago, and that now she suddenly speaks with a British accent and she thinks she can play guitar and she should go fuck herself.

[remixor]

what about QT as jimmy in pulp fiction.  i thought he was pretty good, tho i gotta say i didn't like him in resevoir dogs.  

but dead nigger storage!  classic.  

I thought the delivery on the "dead nigger storage" passage was one of his worst in the whole movie actually.  The line was great--it's too bad it wasn't spoken by someone who could have given it the appropriate sarcasm without coming off so weakly.  The only line I felt he delivered well in that whole movie was when he was looking at Jules and Vincent in their crappy t-shirts, and The Wolf asks what they look like.  Jimmy says "Dorks!  They look like a couple of dorks!"  That line was itself delivered so nerdily that it actually worked pretty well.  It's the only time I've even begun to enjoy hearing Tarantino act in any of his movies.

[Las Naranjas]

Because that was the line he didn't need to act with.

[remixor]

Precisely!

[taryuu]

he didn't need to act either when he was talking to the wolf about hisuncle conrad and aunt ginny.  

oak's nice.

[LGM]

Evil: Just because Scary Movie 3 is PG-13 doesn't mean it's worse.

Frankly, I thought Scary Movie 2 was a waste of film-stock.. Scary Movie was okay but not as good as it was hyped up to be.

I'm actually looking forward to Number 3 cause the Naked Gun director is directing it (His name escapse my mind at the moment) and I love his kind of humor.. Oh, Zucker is his name!

Airplane was brialliant, so why wouldn't Scary Move 3 be brilliant also? (I mean, cm'on! It's got teh Leslie Nielsen!!)

[Darth Mandarb]

So I finally saw Kill Bill ...

I just got home from seeing it so I'm going to give you my first impressions.

It had great (and I mean TRUELY great) and amazing fight scenes.  The coreography, continuity, and editing.  Just amazing.

The constant switching of styles and lighting and look and feel gave it it's own look and feel that really worked well with the movie.

The one (and only) complaint that I had with the movie (and this might have been conditional) was the music.  There were parts where it was just annoying the hell outta me.

Now I say this might have been conditional because the volume was ALL the way up in the theater.  It was obnoxious in the extreme and that may be why the music was too overpowering.

In my opinion music should complement the scene ... give it life, but, it should be ... invisible.  I think music is 50% of the movie experience.  It's VERY important.  So when I say it should be invisible I mean that it should totally set the mood of the scene but you shouldn't necessarily notice it.  In my opinion that's good music.  The music (and again it might have been the volume) was very distracting to me and took away from the scene(s).

This was just in a few parts.  On the whole I love QT's music selection.

But I definately give the movie a thumbs up.

I eagerly anticipate vol. 2!

dm

[DGMacphee]

I think that's your theatre's problem and not the actual soundtrack.

The volume wasn't too overpowering when I saw it.

Theatre have been known for stuffing up stuff like this and blaming it on the film.

For example, (and Roger Ebert talks about this quite a lot) sometimes you'll probably see the boom mics hanging over the heads of actors -- This isn't the fault of the filmmakers but the fault of the projectionist.

I know this because I saw it happen in About Schmidt -- I saw it at one cinema and it had a boom mic in frame and saw it a second time in another theatre and saw no mic (and a better composed  scene too)

[Barcik]

I haven't seen a movie with so much style since Snatch. This movie is worth watching for the style alone. Each and every scene is just soaked with it.

I think Tarantino put all of his queer ideas, all his goofiness and craziness into this film, to create something basic at its core but utterly cool in its outline. This is a true lesson in cinematics. I did miss the dialogs, but I guess QT wanted to do something very much not-QT. I noticed nobody noted the chapter format - personally, I liked it a lot, I think it adds plenty to the stucture of the film.

Edit: After sleeping on it, I've noticed that the violence is not as explicit as many critics say. Not even close to it. So it had some blood sprays - so what? They were more comical than gory, and I am sure that the "average" American crowd can handle it. It's not like it is the first movie to use plenty of 'blood'. There were only two somewhat gory scenes, and they were mostly-off screen - the one with Gogo, and the one with the eye. I wouldn't call that such terrible violence. In fact, Saving Private Ryan's first scene was much more gory, and there are others as well.

Also: Pulp Fiction is WAAAAAAY too boring to sit through more than once.

How about 7 times during two months? Or 10 times overall?  

Okay to bring this back to Kill Bill I read a review on it in the newspaper today and almost killed some people.

The reviewer said the movie lacked all character and plot and was replaced by ultra violence as it's only "Hook".

"It is movies like these that are dumbing and numbing the american public to what a true movie experience can be"

Then he went on (In the Kill Bill review) to praise Mystic River saying 'This is a movie that handles violence like it should. As a true emotion. even QT earlier movie, pulp fiction, stepped out of the ultra-violence to have casual conversations and keep things interesting.'

He said Vol 1 was nothing but a long preview for Vol 2..in which I just said fuck you and put down the paper.

Under the reviewers credentials it listed him as a leader in radio show broadcasting....on politics.

Then things got oh so clear.

dick.

I have read such a review myself today. I think that both reviews really missed the point of the film, which is the greatest sin in judging a movie -to try and appreciate it for something that it isn't. This is not "violence pornography", or "even violence for the sake of violence", but "violence for the sake of style".

has anyone else seen four rooms?   no one  i've talked to has heard of it.  but it was cool.  

This movie ruled, until Quentin Tarantino's segment (the fourth one).  It really made me want to drive an icepick through my brain, it was so bad.  I love Tarantino's other movies--Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown are all great, though I haven't seen Kill Bill--but his Four Room segment was just awful.

I'd say it's shit up until QT's segment. Well, Rodriguez' "The Misbehavers" was nice, actually, but the first two were damnedly horrible. Madonna and a bunch of other half-nude witches seeking sperm? You've gotta be kidding me.
Tarantino's part, although it can't rival his full-length features, was very fun. First, the direction was excellent - I adored the one camera. The humour was much better than in all the other parts, and the ending is hilarious. This, unlike the one presented in the first part, is a true amusing situation.
By the way, I have the 4th part ("The Man from Hollywood") together with the conversation between parts 3 and 4 on tape alone, without all the rest of the movie. I just love watching it when I have free 25 minutes or so.

I know this because I saw it happen in About Schmidt -- I saw it at one cinema and it had a boom mic in frame and saw it a second time in another theatre and saw no mic (and a better composed  scene too)

You've seen About Schmidt twice?!  

bspeers - with all due respect I think you see much more in Reloaded than there really is. What I see in the last conversaion between Neo and the Architect is a load of shit, where the creators try to partonize the viewer, by putting many long words in 5 sentances, to create the illusion of depth and wisdom. But in reality, they were just meaningless.


To sum it all up: Is it February yet?

[DGMacphee]

Edit: After sleeping on it, I've noticed that the violence is not as explicit as many critics say. Not even close to it. So it had some blood sprays - so what? They were more comical than gory, and I am sure that the "average" American crowd can handle it. It's not like it is the first movie to use plenty of 'blood'. There were only two somewhat gory scenes, and they were mostly-off screen - the one with Gogo, and the one with the eye. I wouldn't call that such terrible violence. In fact, Saving Private Ryan's first scene was much more gory, and there are others as well.

Aye -- I heard critic say that the violence was pretty much in the style of Monty Python and the Holy Grail (The scene with the Black Knight).

You've seen About Schmidt twice?!  

Ah, what can I say? -- look at my avatar.

[remixor]

I'd say it's shit up until QT's segment. Well, Rodriguez' "The Misbehavers" was nice, actually, but the first two were damnedly horrible. Madonna and a bunch of other half-nude witches seeking sperm? You've gotta be kidding me.
Tarantino's part, although it can't rival his full-length features, was very fun. First, the direction was excellent - I adored the one camera. The humour was much better than in all the other parts, and the ending is hilarious. This, unlike the one presented in the first part, is a true amusing situation.
By the way, I have the 4th part ("The Man from Hollywood") together with the conversation between parts 3 and 4 on tape alone, without all the rest of the movie. I just love watching it when I have free 25 minutes or so.

Yeah, the witches scene was pretty bad.  I maintain that parts 2 and 3 were a LOT better than QT's segment, though.  Watching Quentin Tarantino trying to pull off a lead role for 20 minutes?  YOU'VE got to be kidding me.  Horrible, terrible actor (not that that should be held against his other excellent cinematic skills).  The ending was indeed extremely funny (though not the rest of it), mainly because of Tim Roth.  I don't know if I would have even sat through that whole part without Roth's bizarrely funny performance.

I know this because I saw it happen in About Schmidt -- I saw it at one cinema and it had a boom mic in frame and saw it a second time in another theatre and saw no mic (and a better composed  scene too)

You've seen About Schmidt twice?!  

Great movie--I'd see it twice.

bspeers - with all due respect I think you see much more in Reloaded than there really is. What I see in the last conversaion between Neo and the Architect is a load of shit, where the creators try to partonize the viewer, by putting many long words in 5 sentances, to create the illusion of depth and wisdom. But in reality, they were just meaningless.

True dat.  Couldn't agree more.