Kill Bill

[Privateer Puddin']

and we all laugh at you. shuttup.

[Robert Eric]

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

[remixor]

Ha ha. I laugh at all of you.
Texas Chainsaw massacre (remake) has a bigger box office... or something.. naah naah..

...and has been panned by approximately every single person in the known universe.  I wonder which movie's going to to last...

[bspeers101]

I don't want to distract from the conversation about Kill Bill, but I just did want to speak out about Matrix Reloaded a bit.

I've never been a big action movie fan.  I like the incredible skill portrayed in a good martial arts flick... (here I was going to add another category of action movie I liked, but I can't think of one).  I didn't want to like the Matrix, or The Matrix Part II, and didn't watch them until well after the hype died down (well, as much as it did die down, anyway).

Now, having seen the 2, all I can say is that the action is more fulfilling than most action movies I have seen and is not the least bit unrealistic.  Unlike many gravity defying violence-fests the action sequences make perfect sense because they are in a video-game world.  As a film student, I was also able to percieve a logic behind almost every fight (the two weakest being the one with the assistant to the oracle and bits of the one with the werewolves)  in terms of plot, subtext, character, etc.  People live in the Matrix like we would in a fully interactive video game, with avatars that kick but and run on walls and dodge bullets.

I was also impressed with the treatment of philosophy.  People who say the movies added nothing new to the old debate have a) missed the point and b) obviously never studied the issue in depth.

For a) No movie has contributed something considerably new to this debate.  The debate predates movies--the thing that we get excited about is the treatment of the problem as an artistic achievement--since they all say about the same thing.  So saying that nothing new has been contributed is a moot point.

For b) The question of existence Except for one or two, few movies have really even attempted to address the question in a truly philosophical way.  Great movies like "Franz Kafka's the Trial" with Orson Welles, "8 1/2," "BladeRunner," "Mullholland Dr.," "Sixth Sense," "Adaptation" etc have all asked weather we exist, or positied a dream/reality scenario, a possibility of fictitously inventing our entire existance and then let the characters and situations run their course.  Even though I haven't seen it, I put something like "Waking Life" in the same category.  If it's anything like his earlier films, I have to say that putting vague philisophical quotations into the mouths of characters is not the same as contributing to a philosophical argument.

The film that I think comes closest to creating a believable thought experiment (even more so than many short films I've seen) is "The Truman Show" -- which unfortunately hinges on an unnatural vision of human interaction (in part due to the selection of Jim Carrey), and ending because of a logical technical glitch in the idea.  The truman show is too expensive to explain all of society (everyone couldn't have their own show), too limited in terms of spacial dimensions, and pre-supposes a real 'better' world on the outside, less phoney, less perfect.  Plus, it gives us no reason but reason itself to want to break from the machine.

One of the few to actually engage philosophically (not merely sophistically) is the Matrix Reloaded.  Not nearly as good a movie as something like "The Man Who Wasn't There," but an action movie with actual philosophy.  Some reviewers clearly didn't understand the nature of the classic thought experiment, but the words make perfect sense in context.

The Matrix is a fully immersive logical experiment.  We have never had the technology to imagine an entirely artificial world that could reasonably take the place of reality.  Some famous examples have posited a "dream machine" but the world of dreams doesn't seem real (even though there is no logical reason to trust our sense of perception over the more ethereal dream logic), and it's hard to imagine a game that could really fulfill all the conditions of realism.  The Matrix, however, is sufficiently advanced technoledgy wise, and some of the  special effects are as imaginively realistic as the matrix universe could be--so the art itself mirrors the ideas.

The problem with any program is that it can be hacked into.  So people can break out of the machine.  This is handled nicely, but it leaves the problem that any machine coming up with this idea would have predicted such possibilities.  Thus the matrix-within-the-matrix.  But think about what this means.  The very disheartening message of the Matrix is that the machines can create a fantasy within a fantasy, and that escaping from the fantasy only leads into another fantasy.  What this means is that even if we could "wake up" from the simulation, we could never know that we were really out, no matter how many times we broke free and felt really alive.  Even if the real world seemed entirely different from the fake, we still wouldn't know.  So the watchowskis have effectively closed the box.  There is no way to separate fantasy and reality.  Which means we may as well operate in our fantasies with more or less the same morality as we ought to in the reality.  This IS a relatively new addition to the philosophy of existence.  It's taking Lao Tzu's "Am I a butterfly dreaming I'm a man, or a man dreaming I'm a butterfly" and adding "Or am I another thing dreaming the dreams"

The Watch-out-ski's also have a layer of suptextality that surpasses most better written films.  Take a simple line like Morpheus's "Welcome to the Desert of the real." okay.  So it's lifted from Baudrilliard.  A lot of critics stopped here, thinking they'd uncovered the Watchowski's poor understanding of Baudrilliard, who after all, was speaking about our society, and preference for the hyperreality over reality (the fantasy for the true) in the Postmodern age.  But the Watchowski's actually have used his idea correctly.  The Matrix IS an attractive one.  Much more so than the matrix outside that.  We prefer the fantasy world for the powers we would have (or at least the Watowski's would like us to feel that way), and at the very least, the characters prefer the fantasy.  So the subtext loops back on itself after another reading.  We also prefer the horrible dystopia (another fantasy) because it fits with our imagined view of robot ruled wasteland.  This is even closer to Baudrilliard's notion.

The other problem is Neo.  Why would the machines allow a super-powered being to gain consciousness.  The explanation of the agents in the first Matrix was highly suspicious.  I thought it a logical error on their part.  After all, while programmers may not be able to isolate a bug, they can at least set up simple boundaries and these programmers seemed to have been to advanced to make such obvious mistakes.  About half-way through Matrix II, we realize Neo has too much power, that it no longer works logically.  However, the Watchowski's anticipate this.  We have the wonderful speech by the mayor or general or lord or whatever of Zion about whether we need machines or they need us.  This basically tells us the ending but rather subtlely, so few people recognize its significance.  We find that this was part of the plan.  The whole God/free will aspect.  This Matrix is a further trap, and Neo is not the saviour we see him as.   It's all foreshadowed, but like better film-makers, the foreshadowing is only visible when watching with a particularly analytical outlook (which anyone can do, but few use on action movies).

Anyway, I thought the philosophy of MRL was excellent, and shows how little people actually engage with philosophy as opposed to merely quoting it.  Here you're asked to interrogate your own existence socially and logically, as opposed to artistically or emotionally ("The Truman Show" having created a stronger emotionally believable effect but less logically sound).  The Matrix is not one of time's greatest movies, but it certainly isn't a pile of garbage.  It makes excellent use of some good and very bad actors, giving them a great deal to learn, and goes beyond trying to "make us think"

One final point before I jump ship.  One of the final scenes I initially thought was really cheesy, I was convinced to see as absolutely brilliant.  The last scene where Neo flies to the rescue and all the cars and things are floating behind him in a sort of silly suspended animation--looks absurd.  Looks like bad super-man stuff, cartoony.  Until you think about how fast he is literally going.  Faster than anything we have seen imagined on film, apart, obviously, from space ships, etc.  But certainly faster than any organic thing has gone.  Things are floating because we are looking at time relatively and he is beating a bullet travelling about a meter while he travels across town.  I think the odd floaty behaviour of things that have been tossed into the wake is incredibly realistic, given this context.

Oh yes, and the references to computer science are remarkably accurate.  the keymaster being the one lift from computer language that I rememeber reflecting a real thing fairly reasonably.

So there.

[bspe---]

Take a simple line like Morpheus's "Welcome to the Desert of the real." okay.  So it's lifted from Baudrilliard.  A lot of critics stopped here, thinking they'd uncovered the Watchowski's poor understanding of Baudrilliard, who after all, was speaking about our society, and preference for the hyperreality over reality (the fantasy for the true) in the Postmodern age.  But the Watchowski's actually have used his idea correctly.  The Matrix IS an attractive one.  Much more so than the matrix outside that.  We prefer the fantasy world for the powers we would have (or at least the Watowski's would like us to feel that way), and at the very least, the characters prefer the fantasy.  So the subtext loops back on itself after another reading.  We also prefer the horrible dystopia (another fantasy) because it fits with our imagined view of robot ruled wasteland.  This is even closer to Baudrilliard's notion.

And the deep irony is, Morpheus has no idea that by liberating people, he is participating in the maintanence of the machine.  A very filmic sense of tragedy.  Another tragedy is the way people in the matrix are treated as they are (as avatars) without the characters realizing that the killing of avatars is killing off the real innocent victims.  I hope they address this in the final movie.

[Sylpher]

Fair enough in some areas some I disagree..However, you skipped my number One issue.

"1. They give a list of influences. Amoung the top being..George Lucas, John Woo and Stanley Kubrick. Opinions on these people aside what about the more then dozen sci-fi authors who have brought up the exact same philosophical questions brought up in the matrix? Hey..yeah maybe they stumbled upon some of the ideas on there own but fuck them if they think they rock that much.."

Hard to do but compare Star Wars to The Matrix. Star Wars core plot is 100% non-original. If you wanted to bare bones it down it is the battle of Good Vs. Evil (Which thousands of stories are the same..I know. Work with me)..Take it a step farther evil turning to be good, related..sorta. Even though at it's core...and even most of it's characters, and objects, and you could argue even many effects were taken from many sources. Those are not the things I love about SW. I love it because the atmosphere.

Find any SW fan, may be a bit tuff they don't go outside often, and every single one of them would tell you how much they would love to run around in the SW universe. It is simple as that. George Lucas made an interesting world..which even many of the worlds attributes could be credited to varrying sources.

I am okay with that though. I can watch A New Hope and enjoy it just because it is entertainment. The problem lies however with taking the film a step further. Looking at it's various philosophical, political and religous undertones. Many of which, unless you were well read in all areas, would be difficult to track down their source upon just researching the movies alone. Lucas does not pay his dues, homage or respects to the movies/books/people in the film as well rarely in any other form. He took many ideas from many sources and put them together. Interesting form of writing as long as you pay your respect somehow. He has not and that is what pisses me off.

Same as with The Matrix. If you don't want to add to the idea at all just introduce it a new way..hey that is cool. You damn well better give credit where credit is due though..

I love both movies, as movies. That is where the line is drawn.

Oh and Kill Bill rocked. Nothing more needs be said.

[Darth Mandarb]

(anyone who found it 'boring' whilst claiming to enjoy his other films obviously only appreciated them on their most superficial level, and can't understand real depth)

I understand real depth.

Just because it had depth doesn't mean I have to like it.

... and you're mean!  (see?  Real depth)

darthMANDARB

[Timosity]

Hasn't that other movie been talked about to death, This thread is about Kill Bill, if you need to talk about the other one there's a whole 9 pages here: http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6075

maybe it would be more accepted there, just an idea

[DGMacphee]

bspeers, I take your points well and there's a lot of truth in what you say.

However, despite all that, I still found nearly everything in the Matrix Reloaded dull.

The only two parts that I liked were the Agent Smith fight (which as I said pales compared to Kill Bill, which was my point in starting this thread) and the motorbike chase.

Seems a bit superficial of me? -- True, I admit that but here's why:

Although the philosophical 'banter' in MRL seems deep and thought provoking for an action film, it's still a rehash of the concepts stated in the first film (which I liked very much).

MRL presented nothing new in terms of insight, and I think that was my main problem with it.

I think the Wachowski Bros are trying to be very intellectual in MRL, but the whole film just feels like an excuse to make money (copy the first one cause that made squillions of dollars), rather than introducing new thought-provoking ideas.

As I said though, it did present something new in terms of eye-candy -- but that can only go so far.

-----------------------------

As a side note, I love how the hardcore Matrix geeks take it all very seriously -- Like making numerous comparisons between Neo and Jesus.

Yeap, I remember the part in Mark's gospel about Jesus running along the walls before pulling uzis out and blowing Pontius Pilot away.

[Esseb]

I think I drew something similar to that for my religion class in second grade. Teacher didn't like it much.

[LGM]

I saw Kill Bill 2 days ago and absolutely loved it.

It was just so stylish and different from other movies that are out. The knife fight near the beginning was amazingly well done, if not comical at the resting point..

Movies like Kill Bill are very rare, as it is not a cookie-cutter hollywood flick and it's not really trying to mimic anything to get more sales. Q.T. is taking everything he likes in his favorite movies and shows, and dishing it out in his own style.

It was a very awsome film, albeit a bit unbelievable. That part with Buck just didn't seem real.. If you just woke up after 4 years, you think you could do THAT?

Anyways.. I forgot the spoiler code so I don't want to say much more..

Awsome film, Go see it.. NOW!

(Oh, and It's not very fair to compare a Sci-Fi action flick to a "Pulp Action Flick" (New Genre, yay!))

[Privateer Puddin']

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

id see scary movie 3, just for leslie nielsen

[Sylpher]

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.

[DGMacphee]

It's like I say: opinions are like arseholes, everyone has got one.

I think that reviewer misunderstood the nature of Kill Bill -- It's a homage to schlock Hong Kong actioners.

Yes, it's main focus is style -- but so too were the films it was a homage too.

I don't think the movie lacked plot or characters either -- The plot is a simple revenge tale, and the film does go into character backgrounds a fair bit.

For example, the anime about O-ren Ishii's past.

And I am looking forward to Mystic River -- however, I at least am aware of some of the criticism against and faults within Eastwood's film, something this reviewer doesn't seem to acknowledge.

[taryuu]

nowadays you can't make a movie like ben hur or lawrence of arabia.  because nobody is going to wait that long in a theatre anymore.  so if you want to make  a movie longer than 2 hours you have to break it up into two parts.  i see nothing wrong with that.  what's wrong is when people feel everything just HAS to wrap up nice and neat at the end.  what about the empire strikes back?  that was the best star wars movie ever, but by assface's logic, it's just a a 2 hour long set up for return of the jedi.

i was more insulted by the ending of the second matrix movie.  that was even chessier than the ending of the first one.  shitty crap crap.  and i LOVE the martix!

now kill bill was good.  it was the shiznit.  and so was jackie brown and pulp fiction and resevoir dogs and four rooms. 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.

and so what if kill bill was heavy on style and not on substance?  we can't just sit at home and watch philidelphia over and over again can we?

to sum up i like kill bill, and the anime bit was awesome.

[Las Naranjas]

That said each LOTR film is 3 hours and have proved to be as lucrative as possible. The Harry Potter films are of similar lengths, and they're aimed at the least attentive demographic, in children.

On average film lengths have actually increased into an age we associate with the soundbite, newsbars, txt language and other forms of swiftness for a saturated and impatent public. 90 minutes used to be the norm, but that's expanded to over 2 hours.

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

[remixor]

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

That's where Godspeed You Black Emperor! comes in.  

[remixor]

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 like to say one thing: Quentin Tarantino is one of the worst actors I've ever seen.  He is so bad that I almost cannot force myself to watch him.  He is an excellent screenwriter and a fantastic director, so that's what he should do.  I hated his role in Reservoir Dogs (and his role in Pulp Fiction, but that was short enough that it wasn't QUITE as bad), and his part in Four Rooms was even worse.

Anyway, not that that's out of the way (:)... Go see Four Rooms!  Tim Roth is great once you get used to his eccentric style in that movie, and the second and third segments are absolutely brilliant.  Just remember to turn it off after those

[Las Naranjas]

I think it's funny to watch Tarantino in interviews, since he's such a loser.

But then, it's always losers that can invest the effort of making things as cool as possible, just like the Wachowskis did.

[remixor]

I pretty much agree, except for the Wachowski part.