Kill Bill vol 1

one of the worst movies i’ve saw, how do you people think this is good? the plot sucks, it’s so fake too, what’s with the blood squirting all over the place?

“one of the worst movies i’ve saw”

Well, that’s good enough for me.

Just saw it tonight. I’m going revise the below a bit and submit it as a mini-review to this local rag in my hometown

Everything about it is not just in-your-face (like maybe, Natural Born Killers
or Requiem for a Dream), it’s stentorian. It’s a blood-spattered cartoon, with
a muddied pacing that ends up just barely clicking, as the parts with crispy dialogue and disjointed story structure have to sprint like heck to catch up to the speedy flare-ups of the action sequences. Tarantino succeeds, I guess, in intermeshing his natural pace with that of the hyper-action genre, but it
doesn’t seem like he’s working inside the genre, as much as working in and
around it. I think this might effectively disguise some of the weaker points of the action sequences, which are fun to watch, and impressive, but honestly not the masterpieces that even the negative reviews are saying. It’s more like Tarentino has chosen lots of shots (many of them of swords) that could be used for 80% of another director’s masterpiece. In an interview with Richard Corliss of Time, Tarantino says that Vol. 2 will have more characterization, more dialogue, and the more reflective pacing we might have expected from him. In the meantime, he’s given us a part one built like a video game (one with
excessive back story). It showcases different levels of adversity the
protagonist has to surmount to kill Mr. Big, a task made all the more halting
by her director’s cleverness in editing room. In great action movies, the
violence becomes invested with the inner motivations of the character or the movie world itself, and when it achieves beauty, it physically connects you to that inner action, even making the ugliness of the mayhem sublime. Kill Bill is posed to try that with the revenge theme, but it never takes a real shot at the gut. It’s too simple to call it shallow, because the movie seems to take pride in giving the barest hint of inner motivation possible to the viewer. If Pulp Fiction was junk food, a dinner with pleasures that you easily forget by breakfast the next day, Kill Bill is all the ketchup (maybe you stole heaps from the restaraunt). I think though that Vol. 1 could be a great platform for Vol. 2, in other words a prelude to a great action movie, fueled by the snapping memories of callous cruelty we witness here. In that case, the complete saga of Kill Bill would turn from cartoon to graphic novel. Imagine the characters of Vol. 1, who are just barely there for our sympathy and only wreak havoc on everything around them, suddenly unholstering their hearts to wear for us on their stiff, blood-stained sleeves. Tarantino could be the kind of chef who can serve us a great meal with ketchup as the appetizer.

Typical Quentin Tarantino movie. Always leaves me with this question: How can people call that genius when he just combines everything everybody already knows or uses?

Kill Bill volume 1 was right up to what the critics said: A gem, candy for the eyes. Story… don`t expect War and Peace here. For the rest, I thought it was a classic 70s, oriental revenge plot with updated cinematics (a couple of Matrix-like moves and shots, bullet-time, Xiao Xiao silhouette fights, real-life equivalent of comic books and Anime feel, mostly).

That being said, maybe QTs genius is precisely there: the <i>montage</i>. How he sequences and adds things up. Thats where I trust always trust him to be different from anything else in existence.

Just an example. Most action films that come out nowadays have sequels that survive only if they add in more action than the previous one. In this case, KB V2 will be the exact opposite: more character development, since it would be quite hard to compress even more action in the same time than in this film. Will he pull it? I guess so.

Dont get me wrong. Even though Im still waiting for seconds for story, just for the research, effort and the way it was all packaged up, it has earned that film a guaranteed copy in my DVD-theque.

Gawd. Most of you are just clueless.

shaking head

Very instructive.

Patricia,

What kind of lame shit is that? The thread has differing opinions, so one couldn’t even guess what you might mean.
And clueless about what? Good movies? facts? Hot women? what?

/Jacob

Patricia,
I LOVE action movies. I love Peckinpah, Siegel, Bruce Lee, Suzuki, Tsoi Hark. But there’s gotta be a point where an action movie IS shallow and surfacy. It has nothing to do with pushing the envelope, which I don’t think Tarantino actually did in Kill Bill, Vol. 1. It has to do with what is INSIDE the envelope. Volume 1 just doesn’t have a lot there. And besides, I didn’t think the fight scenes were that great, I thought parts of them were good, but no way did they live up to some martial arts/samurai “greatest hits” montage.

Compare the action to that of Near Dark, which I know you’re a fan of. Even “Point Break,” for all its stupidities, by the same director was more seamless and lyrical than Kill Bill.

Rep9210: Same opinion here. I was feeling a bit polite when I wrote my remark.

Ambrose Bierce said it best:

Art, n. This word has no definition.

To paraphraze and bastardize the Matrix, there is no clue.

Well, I saw this last night and as I’ve thought more and more about it I like it less and less.

The fight scenes were cheesy, in many places the acting seemed forced at best. Uma Thurman playing an action hero is about as convincing as Lou Ferigno playing Stephen Hawking would be.

I’m not looking forward to part II, I’m certain I’ll rent it just to see how everything ends but I can’t forsee going ot the theater for it.

STU

Stephen Hawking vs. Uma Thurman?! Great idea!:slight_smile:

Like every other Tarantino movie; if you don’t understand it, then you don’t need to. Very eclectic, though I’m looking forward to more dialogue and Michael Madsen in vol. II.

Why Patricia?

I’ll tell you one thing that whole blood gushing is so unreal. If you clean cut a person limb off there should be little or no blood at all coming out. Now if it wasn’t a clean cut that’s a diffrent story.

I was bored out of my mind throughout the whole movie. I actually thought about walking out, but I was with friends. The fighting scenes are the cheesiest I have seen in awhile. I was a huge Tarantino fan until this movie.

JackAss, what exactly did you find so unreal about Uma Thurman killing 50 men in a matter of minutes…with a sword?

That can happen…really.

fitone it’s supposed to be that way. don’t you think that someone would have noticed if it wasn’t?

R100Proof: Uma Thurman’s character better have a damn good background coming up in KB V2 to justify killing more people per minute than Musashi could ever. Ditto for swordskill. How’s a gaijin to get all that sword training technique outside of Japan?

Oh well, Hollyweird, leave brain at the door please…

Ah this movie is just pure fun! Not a perfect flick…but still it was entertaining. Unrealistic, yes…obviously. It’s a anime movie brought to life! I had fun. I think the story will make better sense after seeing number 2. Chuck common sense at the door…it really helps. :wink:

I liked it!
It didn’t rate as high for me as Pulp Fiction but very good. Tarantino is a pioneer in movies with scenes an special effects. I was under the opinion that the gushing blood was not done to make it look real, but to make it look unreal… to emphasis the horror.

The film could have used more dialog though, the kind we are used to with Tarinino. Like “Do you know what they call a Quarter pounder in Okinawa?”
I also think Bruce Willis should have made an appearance too as the Rich Ex boxer who comes in for Sushi riding his Chopper!

I have a Quentin Tarantino movie question though.
Was I the only person to notice in Pulp Fiction, the difference in dialog in the restaurant scene from the beginning of the film and the end.
The girl says
“If any of you using pricks move… I will execute very mother fucking last one of you!”
At the end of the film from Travolta position, the dialog changes. It’s like
"If any of you fucking pricks move… I will execute every one of you motherfuckers!"I don’t know if I have it quite right as I dont have the film, but it is different.
My question is why? Was it a mistake, or on purpose by Tarantino?

Just wondering?

While I was watching it, I was struck by a few things. One, Uma in the Bruce Lee outfit. Two, the scene in the sushi bar reminded me of all the old samurai epics with Toshiro Mifune. And lastly, the dialog between Thurman and Vivica A. Fox seemed kind of … stilted. Which really suprised me. I don’t care for Tarantino at all, but I expected good dialog from him.