Kill Me! (For watching this movie)

[ellsworth81]

(I'm treating this as one movie, since it was originally planned to be one movie anyway. The powers that be decided to split it and make more money. Ingenious!)

**********************
I’d give a plot summary, but that would have required me to be awake for the movie to do so. Indeed, within the first 15-20 minutes, I found my shirt covered in drool as a result of my boredom induced slumber. Yet, despite snoozing through 30 minutes of footage, I did not miss a single beat on the plot once I woke up.

But to make a long story short, which Tarantino has no idea how to do apparently, I saw no redeeming qualities in this movie whatsoever. The fighting was lethargic and typically uninspiring as I’ve come to expect from US movies that try to pull off the Hong Kong fighting action. The pace of the movie was equally slow and plodding. The dialogue was interminable and forgettable. And finally, the plot was nonexistent.

So what does that really leave to analyze? Things like cinematography and other technical aspects of filmmaking that I’m nowhere near qualified to critique. The somber, music. The gimmicky camera angles. But who really gives a shit about that anyway?

And to top if off, I don’t know what’s more agonizing: knowing that I wasted more than 4 hours of my life watching this steaming pile of shit or that all the critics and morons will herald Tarantino’s latest project as a masterpiece. Mind you these were the same critics who decried The Girl Next Door’s unabashed rip-offs of Risky Business.

Yes, the irony is not lost on me.

So do yourself a favor. Don’t kill Bill. Kill Tarantino and whatever other tools were responsible for this deplorably bad movie. There was a reason why those films that he worshipped so much never succeeded.

[hooligan]

tarantino is the biggest orientalist, ever. i watched kill bill today, it's fucking horrible.

here's a little cinematography critique. tarantino apparently like masturbating to headshots. i've never seen so many closeups of uma, it got freaking annoying. usually headshots and closeups are used to explore the psychological aspects of the characters, but when you've got a plot where the main character mercilessly cuts down anyone who gets in her way, it's hard to psychologically analyze her character. there's no growth of the characters, it's only left up to the audience to ironically learn about the past. i'd rather watch momento (er spelling).

[PropellerheadCP]

^ Memento


Anyway, when I walked into the theater, I knew what I was getting into... a nod and I wink at fans of the several genres that he definitely took from.

I was on the floor, when Pai Mei was speaking and the subtitles were totally off. Tarantino has the resources (and the obsession) to get the subtitles right, but he wanted to mimic the bad translations in old kung fu movies. Then thing is, one would need to understand Cantonese and like old kung fu movies to get the joke, which I thought was a bit of a treat for Cantonese speaking people.

I'm a bit bothered when people criticize Tarantino's flicks for not being original, because that's not what he does. Like it or hate it. I think people who thought his earlier flicks (yeah, I use "flicks" because I've never taken him seriously) were "original", were just people who haven't been exposed very many films.

Anyway, I enjoyed Kill Bill Vol. 2, a great deal. For the character development, the nod and wink to fans, as well as the fitting "cowboy-ish" end to it; but that's just my opinion. It doesn't and shouldn't reflect anyone else's.

[younggiftedandblack]

All of his movies borrow heavy from other flims. He freely admits that. He's the world's biggest fanboy (next to Kevin Smith) with a movie contract.

[robotic]

i didn't get to manage to see all of kill bill vol. 1 because my brother started laughing when the french-japanese woman had her arm ripped off. he does put off the mood a great deal. but then again ;_; i caught bits of it. i saw a bit of the animation that was included in the film, and a scene with two japanese youngsters (a rather goofy-looking boy) talking about "screwing", which was a bit disturbing...but i didn't see all of it. maybe it was trying to be a bruce lee-mimic. uma thurman was wearing the same suit that bruce lee wore in one of his films.

[younggiftedandblack]

i didn't get to manage to see all of kill bill vol. 1 because my brother started laughing when the french-japanese woman had her arm ripped off. he does put off the mood a great deal. but then again ;_; i caught bits of it. i saw a bit of the animation that was included in the film, and a scene with two japanese youngsters (a rather goofy-looking boy) talking about "screwing", which was a bit disturbing...but i didn't see all of it. maybe it was trying to be a bruce lee-mimic. uma thurman was wearing the same suit that bruce lee wore in one of his films.

It was homage to three distinct genres (Blaxplotation, Spaghetti Westerns and Martial Arts) fims and directors. If you're a deep enough movie buff you'll pick up on which movies certain scenes/elements were lifted from.

[hooligan]

i may be missing on subtle details, but when i watched the movie i was looked for symbols of asian culture and such. i picked up on some of the martial art homages paid by taratino. i think i've analyzed them too much:

* crazy japanese girl in a school girl uniform
* quiet japanese yakuza man
* kato masks + samurai swords + japanese yakuza = what the hell was tarantino thinking?
* fountains of blood which were seen in old kung fu flicks

there was a lack of a strong asian male martial arts role in the movie. even a back up actor? i mean ever martial arts movie i've watched had at least one male martial artist in it. it's hard not to think that tarantino fetishized the entire genre of martial arts films.

i think he made another genre of film : "yelloploitation" the use and abuse of asian culture. it's up there with kung pow.

[deez nuts]

you should've saved your money for soul plane, ellsworth81.

[TB4000]

I reiterate, the only redeeming thing about this flick was the anime scene of O-Ren's origin. That's the only part I think shined.

[SunWuKong]

i still really liked both movies. they were movies' movies. you should really be watching Tarantino movies for the cool editing, camera work, the dialogue that sounds as if Tarantino himself was talking, etc etc. looking for substance and character development in a Tarantino movie is like looking for substance and character development in a Jackie Chan movie, or like looking for plot in a Wong Kar Wai movie, or like looking for cool special effects in a Sophia Coppola movie. you just won't find it.

[hooligan]

i still really liked both movies. they were movies' movies. you should really be watching Tarantino movies for the cool editing, camera work, the dialogue that sounds as if Tarantino himself was talking, etc etc. looking for substance and character development in a Tarantino movie is like looking for substance and character development in a Jackie Chan movie, or like looking for plot in a Wong Kar Wai movie, or like looking for cool special effects in a Sophia Coppola movie. you just won't find it.

then again, you can watch movies with more substance for good editing. and with less exploitation.

[SunWuKong]

then again, you can watch movies with more substance for good editing. and with less exploitation.

difficult to find. most of the good movies with good cinetography and interesting camera work generally don't have much substance. but personally, that's ok to me. i'm watching a movie, not reading a book.

[ellsworth81]

i still really liked both movies. they were movies' movies. you should really be watching Tarantino movies for the cool editing, camera work, the dialogue that sounds as if Tarantino himself was talking, etc etc. looking for substance and character development in a Tarantino movie is like looking for substance and character development in a Jackie Chan movie, or like looking for plot in a Wong Kar Wai movie, or like looking for cool special effects in a Sophia Coppola movie. you just won't find it.

true. i didn't expect substance. i expected to see something along the lines of what i got from pulp fiction. memorable characters and witty dialogue. and there wasn't really any of that.

all the actors in this movie kind of just read their lines off the teleprompter.

and to re-raise the issue i mentioned in my review, how come it was alright that he ripped off from the aforementiond movie genres, but it's not ok when a "piece of shit" like Girl Next Door gets hammered for borrowing/stealing heavily?

in terms of sheer content/substance, yea, they were both empty, but why this double standard?

[kitty]

i still really liked both movies. they were movies' movies. you should really be watching Tarantino movies for the cool editing, camera work, the dialogue that sounds as if Tarantino himself was talking, etc etc.

i did. i swear though, even those 'cool' things that QT does in movies weren't really in this one. They were very much lacking in vol. 2 in particular. the camera work was pretty much point and shoot (if you don't count the uber close-ups, which were still point&shoot), there was very little unique editing, and the dialogue sounded like QT was still being a hack, just this time of himself.

I'll admit Pulp Fiction had these three things and it was good in that movie. This one just... didn't have it.

looking for substance and character development in a Tarantino movie is like looking for substance and character development in a Jackie Chan movie


But... (IMO) these are what makes a good... MOVIE. I mean, best picture films don't win Oscars for having fun camera work, they win because they have those things and tell a good story. And if we wanted to hear Tarentino talk, couldn't we just watch a four hour interview? I mean, I think QT's doing something wrong if he skips the *point* of a film by not giving any plot or character development. If he is such an expert at the film medium, why can't he use it for any purpose besides 'hey look, now I'm gonna turn on the b&w filter!!'?

[kimpossible]

I wasn't wowed by Vol. 1. The way people talked about it sent my expectations pretty high. I thought he did a great job taking different genres and making it work in a single story. Especially spaghetti Westerns and revenge tales, aside from Hammer horror films those were my faves growing up. Found the first half of Vol. 1 entertaining but after she gets her sword it all went down the shitter for me. Really enjoyed the The Bride's fight with Vernita Green but the rest kinda sucked except for Go-Go. Hoping I'll enjoy Vol. 2 a bit more.

I just have to say Julie Dreyfus... holy shit she has great Japanese.

[ellsworth81]

I just have to say Julie Dreyfus... holy shit she has great Japanese.
and she was mega-cute :redface:
what a dreamboat

[SunWuKong]

and to re-raise the issue i mentioned in my review, how come it was alright that he ripped off from the aforementiond movie genres, but it's not ok when a "piece of shit" like Girl Next Door gets hammered for borrowing/stealing heavily?

in terms of sheer content/substance, yea, they were both empty, but why this double standard?

i haven't watched Girl Next Door so i wouldn't know. but Tarantino has never tried to pass off some of the things in his movies as his original idea. it was blatant copying of techniques from different genres and he even says so. that's actually part of the point for his movies. i don't know what Girl Next Door was borrowing or stealing from, but did they try to sell this movie by saying this is what they're doing?

[ellsworth81]

i haven't watched Girl Next Door so i wouldn't know. but Tarantino has never tried to pass off some of the things in his movies as his original idea. it was blatant copying of techniques from different genres and he even says so. that's actually part of the point for his movies. i don't know what Girl Next Door was borrowing or stealing from, but did they try to sell this movie by saying this is what they're doing?

some ppl cite tom cruise in risky business for an "influence".

nah. i don't recall any of their ppl proudly proclaiming that they were ripping off a genre - and making it a selling point. but i don't see why they should that make the movie any better.

unfortunately, i dont know if the movie-watching population as whole knows just how much he copied...

[SunWuKong]

But... (IMO) these are what makes a good... MOVIE. I mean, best picture films don't win Oscars for having fun camera work, they win because they have those things and tell a good story. And if we wanted to hear Tarentino talk, couldn't we just watch a four hour interview? I mean, I think QT's doing something wrong if he skips the *point* of a film by not giving any plot or character development. If he is such an expert at the film medium, why can't he use it for any purpose besides 'hey look, now I'm gonna turn on the b&w filter!!'?

Best Picture in the Oscars? you're talking about an award that had been given to such "greats" as Titanic, Shakespeare In Love, Dances With Wolves, etc. hey, maybe it's just a difference of preference, but the Oscars hardly speaks to what i personally feel are good movies.

[indiemusic]

im taking a film studies class that compares how Asian Americans and African Americans are racialized in mainstream films. what other films besides kill bill do you think depicts them in stereotypical roles?

would you consider rush hour 2 w/jackie chan and chris tucker stereotypical because jackie chan is your martial arts kung fu guy who kicks a** but gets none while chris tucker is the sidekick character who jokes and coons it up?

thanks for any suggestions. I dont watch many mainstream films, so it's hard for me to come up with movies.

[kitty]

definitely the rush hour series... pretty much most of jackie chan's american career. kung pow. ransom. charlie's angels... oh, i could go on and on.

[ellsworth81]

any movie with an asian person has them in a stereotypical role

ok, maybe not any, but 9/10

[Irezumi Kiss]

Or if they're not "stereotypical" then they get scrutinized for not being "true" enough...it never ends.

It seems like we're being made to judge ourselves (as people of "color") OFF of Whites and then go from there...and either there is no room given to us to exist outside of living as reactions or we ourselves don't give us that room to exist because we don't like smelling the shit that our roses are blooming over.

Honestly...what would be the "ideal" Kill Bill movie?

[ellsworth81]

Or if they're not "stereotypical" then they get scrutinized for not being "true" enough...it never ends.

It seems like we're being made to judge ourselves (as people of "color") OFF of Whites and then go from there...and either there is no room given to us to exist outside of living as reactions or we ourselves don't give us that room to exist because we don't like smelling the shit that our roses are blooming over.

Honestly...what would be the "ideal" Kill Bill movie?

the ideal kill bill would've been directed by me. :cool:

in all seriousness, i'm not even talkin about racial undertones in the movie....

it just plain fucking sucked in terms of content.

its even more annoying that ppl think this shit is the best thing since sliced bread.

please. :rolleyes:

[SunWuKong]

i watched the "making of" on Kill Bill 1's DVD. Tarantino said that most of the filmming was done in Beijing and Japan (i forgot where in Japan), and he said that he specifically wanted local crews when they were on those locations instead of bringing in an American crew, so that he gets input from crews that were Chinese and Japanese. so they ended up having English-Chinese translators, English-Japanese translators, and Chinese-Japanese translators on the set.