Why havn't you seen Kill Bill yet?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:25 pm

Originally posted by Xandax
Tarrentino is overrated.

Perhaps, however that isn't a good reason to ignore Kill Bill for it is excellent. I feel it is one of those movies that really doesn't require dissection since it's just so darn entertaining. Of course, the gore is the most shocking aspect for most people however I thought the most awful and horrific bit of the movie was the anime scene.

It's nice to see a director willing to be a little bit different now and again. At least it hasn't got 28 endings like *cough*spielberg *cough* movies

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:20 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Perhaps, however that isn't a good reason to ignore Kill Bill for it is excellent. I feel it is one of those movies that really doesn't require dissection since it's just so darn entertaining. Of course, the gore is the most shocking aspect for most people however I thought the most awful and horrific bit of the movie was the anime scene.

It's nice to see a director willing to be a little bit different now and again. At least it hasn't got 28 endings like *cough*spielberg *cough* movies

*sniggle*

I really think that you should take a movie for what it is, and Kill Bill is a great action flick. As I believe I already said, I love the fact that Tarantino can't be confused with any other director, he is so idiosyncratic. It's not the dialogue. Some of it does identify with the geeky audience - "Revenge is a dish best served cold," anyone? But some of it is just geek trying to be cool. Ok, there are scenes that reference other movies, but the whole thing couldn't be directed by anyone else. I didn't think the gore was that shocking, since it didn't feel real.

So what if Tarantino wanted to make his own martial arts movie? Frankly, I think he did a good job of it.

Posted by Morlock
I was entertained, I had a good time, and I am looking forward to Volume 2, but that's basicaly it.

Jeez man, what else do you want?!?!

nael · Post by **nael** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:00 pm

I thought Kill Bill was fantastic. I thought it was one of the most beautifully shot movies I have ever seen.
This will definitely be added to my DVD collection.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:30 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Perhaps, however that isn't a good reason to ignore Kill Bill for it is excellent. I feel it is one of those movies that really doesn't require dissection since it's just so darn entertaining. Of course, the gore is the most shocking aspect for most people however I thought the most awful and horrific bit of the movie was the anime scene.

It's nice to see a director willing to be a little bit different now and again. At least it hasn't got 28 endings like *cough*spielberg *cough* movies

Thinking an instructor and his movies are overrated is, for me, a very good reason not to watch them
Dusk to Dawn and Pulb Fiction are in my oppinion not any good

I don't really think that Tarrention is much different or innovative - he is just a more "mainstream" version of the "Slasher" movies we see as b-movies.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:08 am

Originally posted by Xandax
Dusk to Dawn and Pulb Fiction are in my oppinion not any good

I don't really think that Tarrention is much different or innovative - he is just a more "mainstream" version of the "Slasher" movies we see as b-movies.

Dusk Till Dawn is not a Tarantino movie per se, and I wish people wouldn't think it was...

He is a divisive director though. He has a certain style, and it isn't to everyone's taste, so if you like one of his movies you'll probably like them all... and vice versa.

Oh, and not seeing movies just because people say they're good?! Personally, I just have to see them and decide for myself.

Eerhardt · Post by **Eerhardt** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:47 pm

Originally posted by Georgi
Oh, and not seeing movies just because people say they're good?! Personally, I just have to see them and decide for myself.

My feelings exactly. Unless you've seen it for yourself, I think it's hard to judge a movie, no matter what the general public thinks.

As for Kill Bill, I liked it even though the amount of gore managed to still surprise me after the rumours I had picked up about the several gallons of blood spilt

. Personally, I liked Reservoir Dogs best, even more so than Pulp Fiction, which is generally seen as the best QT. Once I've seen Kill Bill Part Two, I'll be able to tell how Kill Bill rates as a whole, in comparison to the other QT movies, at least according to me

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:01 pm

Originally posted by Georgi
<snip>
Oh, and not seeing movies just because people say they're good?! Personally, I just have to see them and decide for myself.

I often disagree with the general publics verdicts of movies - for instance many seems to praise Tarrentino when he puts something on the streeth, where I've formed my own oppinion of him as being overrated (my oppinion), and he is certainly not somebody I would pay money to see a movie from.

If it gets on TV I'll likely see it - but I'm not going to waste money on a movie made by somebody I don't like - and I don't like his "style".

Then I'll rather go watch a movie by somebody I like, or if I got caught/interested by the trailer (wich I can say I haven't been, by this one).

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:35 pm

I try not to look for reasons not to see a movie- I'll see a movie if:
A. It's made by someone I like
B. It stars someone I like
C. It has a composer I like (Although here I'm pretty much a rare breed)
D. I've heard good things about it
E. Everyone says it's great
I don't mind watching a bad movie- I think it just enhances how good others are. Plus it's fun to have sometinhg to complain as much as you want about (Ask me about D&D, Scary Movie 2, Final Fantasy, The Time Machine or quite a few more and you'll get your money's worth).

And I never thought of any movie as "Not worth spending my money on"- I mean, the money is not an issue, and is totaly seperate from movie for me.

I tend to shy away from concensous, but my protest is limited to waiting a few months. I'd never refuse to see a movie simply because it's the Titanic of this month, but if I don't think I'd like it otherwise- I'd wait with it.
Best examples: Amelie, Requiem for a dream, Pulp Fiction and Fight Club.
Amelie I saw a couple of months ago, after making excuses to myself for two years. It was fantastic.
Fight Club I saw last year, after resisting it for 3 years. I thought it was great, if overrated.
Requiem for a dream I had for two years, and kept on putting it off simply because I heard people calling it the best soundtrack of 2000, and bashing Gladiator's score, which was my pick. Sure enough- I missed out on the best score of the year 2000 and one of the most original movies of recent years.
I had Pulp Fiction sitting in my drawer for 6 years, never watching it. I was always pissed off by how everyone calling it the best film of 1994, when Forrest Gump came out. I still like Forrest Gump more, but I feel like an idiot for having such a great film untouched for 6 years.

Since then- I've come to realise that the public isn't all that dumb.
And I've also come to realise that 'Titanic of the month' shouldn't have turned me off- I love Titanic.

I'll say it again- start me talking about movies.....

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:37 pm

Originally posted by Eerhardt
Personally, I liked Reservoir Dogs best, even more so than Pulp Fiction, which is generally seen as the best QT.

You'd be surprised how many people actually share your opinion, I did for a long time but I've actually got a lot more time for Jackie Brown than any other Tarantino movie.

Xan, I never believe any trailers, witness the Matrix Reloaded one which actually turns out to be a lot better than the movie (still I would have gone to watch it anyway but you get my point).

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:48 pm

I've watched so many movies for absolutely no good reason, hell, I'm watching Interview with a Vampire at the mometn even though I know it's turgid nonesense that is horribly miscast.

Another great example of this is Tomb Raider 1, what an appaling pile of crap that was but I enjoyed myself never the less since I saw it with a mate of mine and we spent the entire time laughing at how truly pants it was.

I'm also of the theory that by watching loads of crap movies that it bolsters just what makes a great movie all the better. However they haven't really ever made a good vampire movie so it's difficult to bolster any of those with Interview with a Vampire

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:04 pm

Well, I would revise what you said- they haven't made any good vampire movie in the past 70 years. Nosferatu and Dracula are two of the best horror movie ever made, especialy the former.

I think Jackie Brown was the best of the four stylisticly. I actulay thing it was brilliant stylisticly. As for the rest of it- I only saw the movie once, and not under ideal cercumstances, so I can't really judge.

I actualy sort of liked Interview with a vampire- it's dark humor I liked a lot. I think Neil Jordan is a very smart film maker, even if he doesn't always make the best films. Plus it's the first movie with the 'grown up' Tom Cruise as I call it. I can't stand Cruise in Top Gun, Far and Away, Born on the fourth of July or Rain Man, even though he's great in the last two, just because his voice, his hair, his breathing through his nose excessivly. INWAV is the first movie where he does something different, and I liked that. Although the first movie I really liked him in was Mission Impossible, which I think is underrated for it's style (And DePalma is the master of style).

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:44 pm

Interview is actually one of my favorite movies (being a sort've occult film really helps that though. I love the idea of vampires

), and thought it wasn't so badly cast. Even though I'm not a huge fan of Antonia Banderas, or Tom Cruise, I happen to think Brad Pitt made an excellant Louis.

Heh. Also, I haven't seen Kill Bill yet

Something to do with the fact my friend saw it, and he generally loves movies I tend to hate (for good reason).

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:39 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
However they haven't really ever made a good vampire movie so it's difficult to bolster any of those with Interview with a Vampire

Oh, Blade and Blade II are both better than IWAV. But then again, so is Underworld. I have very little time for IWAV. Tom Cruise is just so ridiculously melodramatic... Brad Pitt is better, but the whole movie is just laughable IMO. And Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't much better.

Posted by Aegis
he generally loves movies I tend to hate (for good reason)

He has good taste and yours sucks?

Posted by Morlock
I never thought of any movie as "Not worth spending my money on"

Heh. Tombraider 2 was not worth spending my money on. Neither was DnD. Fortunately, I didn't have to.

I had Pulp Fiction sitting in my drawer for 6 years, never watching it. I was always pissed off by how everyone calling it the best film of 1994

Well yeah, I mean Shawshank Redemption was in that year...

Pulp Fiction at least won the best screenplay Oscar though, and everyone knows that's what the film that ought to win Best Picture gets instead.

Posted by Xandax
If it gets on TV I'll likely see it - but I'm not going to waste money on a movie made by somebody I don't like - and I don't like his "style".

Ah, you see, it's not that he's overrated that puts you off, it's just the fact that you don't like his films. Which is fine.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:12 am

Originally posted by Georgi
<snip>
Ah, you see, it's not that he's overrated that puts you off, it's just the fact that you don't like his films. Which is fine.

Not quite - well, sure I don't like his movies/style.
But to me, there is a big difference of going to the cinema to watch a movie, and then watching it on TV instead.
I'm not sure I can actually explain the difference, because it is a very subjective feeling, but there is a very big difference in it.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 4:18 pm

Originally posted by Morlock
Well, I would revise what you said- they haven't made any good vampire movie in the past 70 years. Nosferatu and Dracula are two of the best horror movie ever made, especialy the former.

Ah, yes, forgotten about those, they still stand the test of time as some seriously creepy movies.

I think Jackie Brown was the best of the four stylisticly. I actulay thing it was brilliant stylisticly. As for the rest of it- I only saw the movie once, and not under ideal cercumstances, so I can't really judge.

Well, I don't know why but I just love it so much more. It's partly due to the rather laid back way it seems to progress and the intelligent writing involved (of course a lot of that is due to Elmore Leonard.

Cruise is the worst part of IWAV for me, Pitt is fairly clueless and the best acting is by Antonio Banderas as Armand...of course a lot of my disrespect from the film comes from reading the book, which is excellent.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:23 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Cruise is the worst part of IWAV for me, Pitt is fairly clueless and the best acting is by Antonio Banderas as Armand...of course a lot of my disrespect from the film comes from reading the book, which is excellent.

The Anne Rice novels are an amazing series and its a such a shame that she allowed both IWAV and that other movie to based on her books.

Shame on you Sleepy for forgetting about Nosferatu

The silent, black and white version is not only a classic but its also incredibly creepy...

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:39 pm

So is Dreyer's Vampyr. Talk about a quietly horrific film; I experienced chills when watching that movie which nothing else has provided.

Well, except Jerry Lewis films, but that's another matter, altogether.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:59 pm

Originally posted by fable
So is Dreyer's Vampyr. Talk about a quietly horrific film; I experienced chills when watching that movie which nothing else has provided.

Is that the early 1930's version, haven't had the chance to see that one yet.