posted
I recently watched this flick (having avoided it at the theatres according to the blood-letting that I can't stand).
I enjoyed it, in that Itchy&Scratchy kind of cartoon way (those two still gimme the heebie-jeebies, though).
Anyhow, I was talking about the 2nd installment of this thing with some people who had seen it. One person who didn't like either remarked that the problem she had with Tarantino was that his films had no real consequences. Nothing plausible.
I'd always felt a little ill-at-ease with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but grew to like the dialogue, the stylism, the shots, the craftsmanship (and the 100% genius music choices), but I found myself wondering if that criticism was what really threw me for a loop when watching these things?
Just wondering if anyone else has had that sort of reaction.
quote: Anyhow, I was talking about the 2nd installment of this thing with some people who had seen it. One person who didn't like either remarked that the problem she had with Tarantino was that his films had no real consequences. Nothing plausible.
I've never had a problem with that. I go to the movies, shell out my 8 bucks, and hope to be entertained for a couple of hours. Thats all I ask.
Part of a movie, a book, a TV show, or even a play is that suspension of disbelief. They're selling you a myth and when its done right, you can believe it whole heartedly if you're willing to. Trying to consider a movie as a story from real is ignoring large parts of whats there.
Then again, I'm easily entertained.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I though it was entertaining. Not an instant classic or anything but I thought it was highly entertaining.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw Volume 1 and got all crazy-obsessed. I've seen it four times. I mean to see volume 2 sometime this week. BOOYAHHHHH...
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
They're different kinds of movies. Volume 1 has a much weaker plot, and basically just shows people being killed. I must admitt that I though parts of that were really funny. The deaths and injures are obviously fake so I don't feel too bad about laughing.
Volume 2 has a plot and killing people isn't all that goes on. Frankly the ending suprized me.
My theory is that the chapters might not have been in the order they were in if this had been one movie. But thats just a theory.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
The main thing that would've been changed sequence-wise is the prologue to Volume 2 was actually supposed to directly follow the prologue to Volume 1 before 'Chapter I: (2)' began.
Cannes film festival is debuting the re-edited into a single film KILL BILL: THE WHOLE BLOODY AFFAIR.
I want to see this so...very...much.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only in America can a filmmaker do something that was already being beaten to death by filmmakers on the other side of the world 20 years ago and actually get accolades for it.
That said, I like the character of Bill. Having never really liked Carradine much before, I think he did an excellent job in this.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not surprised. He even does it well. I just don't think he's that amazing. The good thing about his movies is that they aren't bad raping of older styles. If that's all one needs to get accolades, then I've been doing things all wrong my whole life.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I know what you're saying about feeling a little ill at east about Tarantino. But I don't think it's no consequences. I mean...
***************PULP FICTION AND RESERVOIR DOGS SPOILERS*******************
In pulp fiction, the girl dies (or nearly does, can't remember) from drug use. In Reservoir Dogs, everyone dies but Mr. Pink. Those seem like consequences to me.
I think I don't like the way life seems so devalued in all of his films. In many action movies, people die and no one sheds a tear, but there's usually a greater good or something that makes it seem like an acceptable sacrifice. Tarantino just seems to revel in having no compassion for people. Instead shalowness, destruction, and meaningless existences are prized and glorified.
posted
some speculate Mr. Pink gets shot shortly after he goes outside. after all, the place is surrounded by cops.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the spoiler warning, i guess...except that I assumed it was for Kill Bill and now know the ending to Reservoir Dogs, which I've never seen.
yeah, turn up the volume and listen. you'll hear the cars screeching, and cops yelling, and then gun fire. you can even make out some words.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
urgh... thanks Taalcon for the TITLE spoiler to put everything in perspective.
Just as I manage to get myself in a frame of mind to enjoy volume 1 after effectively boycotting it at the theatres, I learn that volume 2 is "different" and better and beyond that there's an acommercial cut of the whole thing?
*sighs*
maybe Tarantino is a genius. That post-pulp flick, though (forget the name) was an utter bore.
amanacer,
that's kind of an interesting point. I'd never really looked to see what characters were escaping. Interesting!
quote:Just as I manage to get myself in a frame of mind to enjoy volume 1 after effectively boycotting it at the theatres, I learn that volume 2 is "different" and better and beyond that there's an acommercial cut of the whole thing?
I can pretty much guarantee an "acommercial" cut of it being of poor viewing quality, but as for the rest, I would agree with whomever told you that Vol. 2 is a better story than Vol. 1 is.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, anyone who thinks adding "The Whole Bloody Affair" to a movie called KILL BILL is a spoiler...well, it boggles the mind.
And the combined cut is NOT 'acommercial' - it was done and supervised by Tarantino, and WILL be given at least a LIMITED theatrical release after its debut in Cannes.
And remember - it was filmed as one single movie. The decision to split them into two volumes didn't occur until all the film was already in the can.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm just going to vehemently disagree with what your friend said.
I've not seen enough of pulp fiction to comment on it, and id on't really recall too much of Resevoir Dogs, perhaps because there weren't really any interesting consequences, but Kill Bill diverged from just that sort of sentiment. The Bride went off to avenge her daughter, and the life she lost. And what did she get in the end? She got her life back. Which, given the perspective of the first volume is a tad unexpected.
I would say that's an interesting consequence of the story line.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
That's an interesting thought. I am curious about the ramp-up of bloodletting in films over the course of my adulthood viewing of them. I'm also a bit concerned.
posted
It boggles my mind that there are people who think this was two movies. Completely boggles my mind.
That said, I love this movie and cannot wait to see it as "The Whole Bloody Affair." Even if I have to go to Chicago to do so (which I probably will).
Posts: 2661 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
