Kill Bill Series

Not getting Kubrick to me is like not getting Tarantino.

The only excuse I can understand for not seeing Tarantino's brilliance, is an extreme disposition towards violence (even in idea) and profanity.

edit-

...and I believe Paul Thomas Anderson's films will soon create hype with the best of them.
 
I hear ya'

ANd so I am told. I'm gonna have to go on a Kubrick Rental spree or something and do some soul searching
 
If there was ever a thing for anyone to do, that is the thing.

Let your interpretation begin!
 
Kubrick's directing style was totally unique (and not for everyone). He once told Speilberg that he "wanted to change the form." I don't think anyone ever accused Kubrick of being imitative.

There was definitely an "event vibe" with his releases because Kubrick was so meticulous. Speilberg, by contrast, is quite prolific.

Tarantino seems like a kid in a candy store (in a good way). As Ebert said, he could make a bad movie, but not a boring one.
 
Just FYI, Kill Bill & Jackie Brown are on Starz tonight.

That being said, QT really hits a chord with me. I think he brings a breath of fresh air to almost everything he touches. Now I am still under the opinion that his best work is made up of his early scripts, True Romance & Natural Born Killers. Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction I think are great films, but with the Kill Bill series I think he showed that he can be a PT Barnum. He can combine the sights, sounds, dialogue, and story that is the greatest show on earth. While I am not attempting to take anything away from QT, he is a showman in a world of boring Hollywood cliches. There is an originality to the man, and while I do consider him still a master of filmmaking in training, I think that he has all of the elements that combine style, energy, originality, and WTF that just makes him this generation of filmmakings Speilberg, Hitchcock, or Ford.

If Speilbergs name is on a movie, it creates some excitement. QT's name on a movie is an event. I remember seeing Pulp Fiction the day it came out and no one walked out of that theatre with their mouth not on the floor. Hell, it is even a movie that ages well, which is something that we can only attribute to a great filmmaker.

In my opinion, I think that he is the most exciting person working today with what he has given us, but relating this all back to the topic, Kill Bill is all of his previous experience combined with inspiration (kung fu films with vengence, 70's vibe) all mixed together, and shaken, not stirred, to pure excellence.
 
John_Hudson said:
I am appalled. ( Sigh )
Click to expand...

Sorry man, just not my thing (Kill Bill). To me it had no plot, and just a lot of cool stylized action/fight scenes, which for awhile were interesting then they just kind of got old.
 
Well, I don't totally agree. There was a plot. It was simple: Betrayed hit woman seeks revenge on those who betrayed her. Everything else was smoke and mirrors. Now some of those shiny things were fun to look at for a while, but how much did they advance the actual story? Did the fight scene with the crazy 88 need to be that long to show how well the bride fought? No. QT does stuff like that because he can. He tells his story his way. In the strictest sense of things, it's not classically good storytelling because the focus becomes centered on the expository device moreso than how the device drives the story.

But then again, what is a good story but a story people like? Different strokes and all that. But still, if he doesn't make a different type of movie, or learn to tell a story differently, I don't think he'll be remembered for much besides Dogs and Pulp. Not that those aren't movies he should be proud of.
 
See, I have got to disagree with the depth of the plot and that being used as a strike against this film. I think that revenge is an inate almost animalistic instinct inside all human beings. If we're wronged we seek to justify that wrong, right it, and punish those who have wronged us. Now, how many of us act upon this instinct and how many of us either let it go or bottle it up?

I think that the premise that the plot was based on was perfect, as the story unfolds we're given the background of the bride, but more importantly, we're given a view into this persons life. I think between the two volumes I actually prefer the second because it does add in the depths, but if we're to view it as one full story, it works completely.

Regarding the length of the fight scene, was it too long? That's a hard question for me to answer because at no point was I yawning during a fight sequence like I did in the second and third installments of the Matrix saga. These sequences always seemed to be moving forward and not be overindulgent (their length never pulled me out of the experience of the movie).

As with everything QT does, it is the little things that really stayed with me after the film. I will just give some examples from KBv1 since I watched it last night. First of all, she erases Bill's name from the fog in Hanzo's sword room. Before the fight sequence with Oren Ishi (Lucy Lui's best role ever) she grabs the kid in the blue room and spanks him, reinforcing that motherly instinct and what she has lost and what she is fighting for.

Ultimately, as I have said earlier, what makes QT so amazing in my opinion is his ability to balance his shot choice. This is something that as a filmmaker I struggle with, when to cut and why. A great example of this is QT's films is in Pulp Fiction where Jimmy (QT) and Mr Wolf (Keitel) are talking in the bedroom. He does this whole shot with a locked down camera on a dolly moving ever so slightly. It's a three minute sequence from a master shot outside the bedroom. If it was my sequence I would be cutting like crazy with OTS and close ups, but his method works better. I think that he is just an incredible filmmaker with visualizing a different approach to presenting his vision, but more than that, you can see where he is taking little things he has learned and applying them aptly as his career progresses.
 
vjbrennan said:
Well, I don't totally agree. There was a plot. It was simple: Betrayed hit woman seeks revenge on those who betrayed her. Everything else was smoke and mirrors. Now some of those shiny things were fun to look at for a while, but how much did they advance the actual story? Did the fight scene with the crazy 88 need to be that long to show how well the bride fought? No. QT does stuff like that because he can. He tells his story his way. In the strictest sense of things, it's not classically good storytelling because the focus becomes centered on the expository device moreso than how the device drives the story.

But then again, what is a good story but a story people like? Different strokes and all that. But still, if he doesn't make a different type of movie, or learn to tell a story differently, I don't think he'll be remembered for much besides Dogs and Pulp. Not that those aren't movies he should be proud of.
Click to expand...

Ditto, but I'd add Jackie Brown to Dogs and Pulp. I DO believe that when he's through with his homage to all the genres of cinema and finds his own particular voice we may see something really special.:thumbsup:
 
Blaine said:
Ditto, but I'd add Jackie Brown to Dogs and Pulp. I DO believe that when he's through with his homage to all the genres of cinema and finds his own particular voice we may see something really special.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

See, that's the thing about Quentin... as much as I love his films (I'm probably his biggest fan), I'm not sure that there's much more to him than homage. And I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with that, either. You can make the case that every film is an homage to something else.

I didn't invent the phrase, and I can't recall where I read it, but the author said that QT's greatest gift was synthesis. I agree with that. But, as much as I'd be curious to see what something of this that was truly original looked like... I can't help but think that it might pale in comparison to his homage-type films.

Dammit, bring on "Grindhouse." I can't wait!

David Kuznicki
Production Manager, WGTE-TV30
 
I never said the basis of the plot was bad. Revenge is right up there with boy meets girl for the best idea for a story.

I give QT huge props as a director. Synthesis is a good word for what he does. I just think his style of film-making in KB was self indulgent. A scene should be as long as it needs to be to effectively drive the plot. You can work within that framework and create very intersting scenes. The same with dialogue. Throwing in witty banter should serve a purpose. That means it needs to be either character or plot motivated. You don't put a line in a film because you think it sounds cool. That's self-indulgent. Story is substance. Everything else is style.
 
vjbrennan said:
The same with dialogue. Throwing in witty banter should serve a purpose. That means it needs to be either character or plot motivated. You don't put a line in a film because you think it sounds cool. That's self-indulgent. Story is substance. Everything else is style.
Click to expand...

I am so torn on this. I agree with what you're saying but the thing I really love about QT is his dialogue. That's one thing, you can always pick out in a movie written by him. :undecided
 
QT brings all his influences together and, much like a hip-hop artist, samples and assembles them into a completely new work of art. His mastery of mood and vibe is undeniable. When you're watching a QT film, there's no question about who is calling the shots. He hasn't let us down yet. With four or so films behind him, he's already amassed a portfolio that a lot of directors might envy.

On another note, I wish they would release Kill Bill 1&2 together as a director's cut on a special edition DVD. That would rock.
 
Vjbrennan, you really got me thinking with your comment, and as much as I agree with it as a concept, I cannot get my mind around it. It's like I know the Universe is infinite, but my mind cannot fathom a concept of infinity. Just can't grasp the possibility.

I know what you are saying about it being self indulgent, but I really feel that in a movie that is an homage to a certain culture in order to illustrate the point, it needs to go on that long. I think that you need to see every angle, every cut, every gush of blood. I cannot imagine for a moment what that sequence would have been like had all the crazy 88's run in, surrounded her, they cut to a full shot of them all around her moving in, then a close up to her eyes, and then everyone is dead on the ground gushing. I think this is one of those situations where it needs to be all or nothing, and the all of it is what you are rooting and chearing for.

Kill Bill, more than most fight scenes I have seen, has a perfect balance of length and violence shown. To go back to my comparison with the second and third incarnations of Neo in the Matrix films, these are excessive. Those fight scenes had me losing interest because of how long they went on for. Kill Bill really held my attention on the first viewing, the second viewing, and now on the 6th or 7th viewing. There is something about those scenes that works, even with being as long as they are.

I really like your sentiment about including only what progresses the story, and I do agree with this, but in everything in life you do things because they're fun and enjoyable rather than just progressing your life. Does that make sense at all?
 
In the end, if you have fans you must be connecting with them, so it's working. I guess since I am a writer first, that's what I look at.

There's a lot to like. I just don't like as much as some do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top