Tarantino's _Kill Bill_ given the Matrix/Back to the Future treatment

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 21:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I've had the script for over a year now. Never read past the first 10 pages.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 21:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Uma as action hero does seem to be stretching things, but I'll be in line.

― teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 21:33 (twenty-two years ago)

The girlfriend keeps threatening to buy the poster for this and put it up on the bedroom door (see, cause my name's Bill, so it's the whole "ha ha die" kind of humor thing).

― Tep (ktepi), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)

(I would be much more alarmed at a KILL TEP movie.)

― Tep (ktepi), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Photoshop brigade to thread!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 22:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it might be great, for people who love Hong Kong action films.

I don't, and it just looks like crap to me. Pulp Fiction get less interesting every time I see it, and Reservoir Dogs didn't do anything for me even when I was in the 15-year-old geek market that Tarantino had cornered.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 17 July 2003 00:22 (twenty-two years ago)

i think it's kind of cute that the Hong Kong action craze has cooled to the point where it can be offered up as Merchant-Ivory type material (i.e. Crouching Tiger) yet Tarantino's still obsessed with it as somehow trangressive moviemaking

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 17 July 2003 00:37 (twenty-two years ago)

when it's six years between movies, you've gotta be obsessed with something

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 17 July 2003 00:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Probably crack.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 17 July 2003 00:43 (twenty-two years ago)

maybe he was perfecting his annoying way of speaking

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 17 July 2003 00:48 (twenty-two years ago)

i've read like 5 articles about this now (okay, 2) and none of them mention that 3-hour movies "cost" theaters massive amounts of money since they can't fit as many showings in. Nothing more, nothing less, surely? Otherwise... hasn't everyone learned the lesson of Use Your Illusions I and II?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 17 July 2003 00:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Good analogy.

― Larcole (Nicole), Thursday, 17 July 2003 01:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I still like this mofo

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 17 July 2003 01:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I really want this movie to be good. Well, why wouldn't I, I guess. Not that I'm a huge fan of this guy but I saw Jackie Brown again & really liked it, way more than his other movies, and so I want him to make some more good stuff.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 02:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked it best, too, s1utsky

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 17 July 2003 02:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Very nice affected style to this movie.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 02:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Weird, I can't stand Jackie Brown (but I like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, in different ways). Had you guys read the book? (The movie could be good on its own without being good-like-the-book-was, granted, but I'm just curious.)

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 17 July 2003 02:51 (twenty-two years ago)

No but I do like Elmore Leonard; just haven't read that one. As for Pulp Fiction there was totally stuff I liked in that movie but it's hard to bring to mind with all the very loud context around it.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 02:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I won't hold either of them up as masterpieces or anything, they just both had their share of nice moments -- I like Res more now just because it doesn't suffer from the I've-seen-this-scene-homaged-and-parodied-a-million-times syndrome. (Although the tipping scene grates a little now.)

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 17 July 2003 02:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I really like the idea of splitting things up so that you can get everything down on "paper", as it were, and having something new to look forward to within a few months of each other. And it ensures that the parts, if made together, actually work, as compared to the endless machinations of films to leave open ends for potential sequels.

It also has the added benefit of appealing to own epic ambitions down the road. Heh.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 02:57 (twenty-two years ago)

but it could be annoying

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 03:00 (twenty-two years ago)

No more than anything else.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 03:30 (twenty-two years ago)

tracer hand otm; by all accounts this film is devoted to the cinema-of-marginal-coherence aesthetic fostered in midnight screenings of kung fu films with bad subtitles, even now that the genre has gone mass-market and upscale (at least temporarily). but that doesn't tell me whether the film will be good or not, so i'll go see it.

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 03:51 (twenty-two years ago)

The fact that it's a kung fu movie admittedly doesn't thrill me but I think it's projecting to assume that Tarantino believes he's making any kind of trangressive film.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 03:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Tarantino is trying to do what he's always tried to do - look cool, by means of making what he does cool, regardless of prior cultural predispositions. He usually tends to do it very well, at least for the young white male demographic.

That being said, I find his entire body of work past Reservoir Dogs to be superfluous and trite. Nonetheless, my interest in Kill Bill is higher than my interest was to see his other films.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 03:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Come on, dude doesn't make movies just to look cool--he seems genuinely, even geekily enthusiastic about what he likes and certainly that involves some idea of cool but really.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:00 (twenty-two years ago)

As I have no better way to say this, I'll keep it brief:

I totally disagree.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, making it a little longer...

Lemme put it this way - if "cool" didn't exist, neither would Tarantino.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:03 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah his enthusiasm goes right past coolness and well into geekdom.

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Because if it didn't he'd be making a Bollywood-style movie now.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:15 (twenty-two years ago)

No - I posit he wouldn't even be interested in making films. That's all.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:18 (twenty-two years ago)

But even if your premise is correct, which I'm skeptical about, so what? Would you criticize a musician in the same terms?

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:19 (twenty-two years ago)

(especially a rock musician?)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:20 (twenty-two years ago)

*tries to write a good metaphor for what he means, fails*

Look, all I'm saying is - is there a soul here? Or is Tarantino simply the greatest Hollywood illusionist in that he's essentially making a Hong Kong/blaxploitation strain of a Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer film, but that he's forgiven because he writes snappier, more bad-ass, albeit just as meaningless and shiny, dialogue?

Well, that's as best as I can do for now. You don't even wanna know where my old metaphor was/wasn't going.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:28 (twenty-two years ago)

snappier badass dialogue is more meaningful than non-snappy, non-badass dialogue, because it makes us feel snappy and badass when we watch it, or it helps us learn what snappy is, or what badass is, rather than whatever the other stuff does. michael bay or whatever. although some of the Bad Boys 2 dialogue sounds kind of funny from the previews. it sounds to me like you haven't seen Jackie Brown or Reservoir Dogs, I don't know how you could call either of those movies meaningless or "shiny". pulp fuction is "shiny" in a way, and it riffs on pop culture even more than the other two, but that just helped me connect with it even more, so i dunno, i don't get it. the two other directors you mention are reknowned for scripts that follow lumbering hollywood rules, tarantino is reknowned for his innovative script and plot structures, i mean they seem like complete opposites to me even apart from the dialogue.

s1utsky you're right, i was projecting. anyway i still think it's cute. maybe it will be very serious, in a B-movie way! i hope he peppers it with jokes, now that the whole "ancient dojo master" genre has forgotten how to poke fun at itself a la Zu Warriors or Once Upon a Time in China pt II, it is ripe for parody

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:34 (twenty-two years ago)

transgressive kung-fu = Kentucky Fried Movie

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:34 (twenty-two years ago)

what about why can't dialectics break bricks?

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Tracer Hand's last post = OTM.

My Tarantino/Bay point was to juxtapose the fact that while they do indeed look very different, their end effect generally is the same. I dunno, I guess I just can't appreciate this stuff b/c it just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that is engagable at a universal level (ie outside of a late 20th/early 21st century postindustrial overly ironic pomo society). But that's me.

And you apparently missed my RD props.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:39 (twenty-two years ago)

But what is that end effect? And will you indict anyone who works in any event or action genre as well?

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey, I'm all for knocking blockbusters that are designed as multimedia events in and of themselves (ie - "let's create a blockbuster for next year" movies). So that kills at least half of the Bay catalog.

As for action movies, I suspect what Tarantino himself has always liked were films that had something else to offer other then endless glossiness with absolutely no original style or content. I just don't see the need to remake them for 80 times their original budget. The only good thing Tarantino has done, as far as I'm concerned, is to raise the profile on some otherwise overlooked films. And even there, you can argue that he just did that to make his own stuff look more legit by comparison (and pull a Martin Scorsese "ultimate film buff" PR move).

Is some of this over the top? I have no doubt.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:46 (twenty-two years ago)

And I will totally admit to some bias here because I am surrounded by fellow film students who do nothing but masturbate to Tarantino. Well, I guess I'll be getting cancer first...

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Tarantino = the soggy biscuit of film?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I can imagine how being surrounded by Tarantino manqués would be infuriating--but really, did you see Jackie Brown?

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I confess I haven't seen the whole thing, but the hour I did see wasn't exactly changing my stance on Tarantino. Argue vis a vis Jackie Brown - I'm interested to see what exactly you think I'm missing.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, if your main beef is meaninglessness then what I'd say you're missing is well meaning! I think JB is an artfully made movie with a lotta love behind it & really really excellent characterization & it's fairly risky in an interesting way.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, I'm willing to go back and watch it, then. For now, though, I have to finish my W.C. Fields collection.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 04:57 (twenty-two years ago)

did anyone see rules of attraction? i wonder how much of tarantino is roger avary.

― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Thursday, 17 July 2003 05:05 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.film.warka.pl/images/rezyser/tarantino.jpg
http://photos.dedmorozki.com/tarantino.jpg

― Dada, Thursday, 17 July 2003 05:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Dada that was too much of a sequitur

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 05:14 (twenty-two years ago)

http://server3003.freeyellow.com/annegarber/SpiritedAway-with-NoFace.JPG

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 05:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Slutsky, I think he's trying to give you gold.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 17 July 2003 05:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Funniest Unintentional Compliment Ever:

Pulp Fiction get less interesting every time I see it ...

How many times have you seen it, milo??? Were you bored out of your mind by it the first time, and then you thought, Hmm ... maybe if I watch this again it'll be more interesting ... Nope, that time didn't do it for me either ... Let's try this again ... Nope. Well, OK, maybe THIS time ...

Sorry, just had to laugh.

― jewelly (jewelly), Thursday, 17 July 2003 20:35 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I really liked it the first time I saw it in the theater, when I was 13-14. And it's just gotten less interesting the older I get, and the more films I see. See also: Kevin Smith's career (still love Chasing Amy, though).

And I keep having to watch it, because it's still the 'cool' film for people who really don't watch many movies. I still prefer putting it in vs. the Fast and the Furious or whatever Bay/Bruckheimer POS is around (except for the Rock).

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 17 July 2003 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

i've never seen all of "pulp fiction"! i couldn't stomach the violence in "reservoir dogs" and i liked "jackie brown" a lot. some of it was forgettable, some of it has lingered a surprisingly long time.

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 20:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm a fainty wimp in the face of violence so I avoid Tarantino ordinarily, like amateurist didn't get through much of Pulp Fiction, haven't even attempted Reservoir Dogs, but loved Jackie Brown. Much of this thread just sounds like Tarantino backlash; if a guy gets too big he's gotta be torn down, etc. Why assume he's trying to be transgressive? Why assume he believes any of the hype that surrounds him? Why not just assume he's simply trying to make entertaining movies and get paid for it? What's the big fucking deal?

― jewelly (jewelly), Thursday, 17 July 2003 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, and Milo: I think if you watch ANYTHING over and over again it'll eventually get less interesting, don't you? I mean, even Chasing Amy ...

― jewelly (jewelly), Thursday, 17 July 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I've liked every Tarantino movie I've seen except "From Dusk 'Til Dawn" (which should have been called "Fucking Stupid Movie").

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 17 July 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

unfortunately jewelly we can't test your hypothesis since life is finite, but there are films i've seen dozens of time that i continue to enjoy more and more.

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

From Dusk Til Dawn converted me to Clooney love and confirmed Salma lust, but not much for it besides that

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)

From Dusk Till Dawn was directed by Robert Rodriguez. Though it contains Tarantino's only successful stab at acting.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I think my problem is that Tarantino is such a style-over-substance director, the original giggles from blowing the guy's head off or reciting fake Bible passages just don't come after a while.

Maybe it's a problem with films that are primarily gimmicky-dialogue driven (for me).

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked From Dusk 'Til Dawn in a trashy late-night cable way. The TV edit is brutal, though.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

style is substance milo!

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I mislike the "though" in slutsky's previous post. Robert Rodriguez is one of the most reliably entertaining and (sorry) passionate film directors.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Andrew, the "though" was meant to mean that although Tarantino did not direct the film, I acknowledge that he was in it. Absolutely no judgment of Rodriguez's talents (which I appreciate a great deal) was implied.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Style can be substance. Sometimes style is empty, just window dressing.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)

And sometimes substance is too!

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:23 (twenty-two years ago)

the problem with the "all style no substance" formulation is that most people who use it have the most banal definition of "substance" ever.

tarantino's limitations *are* limitations of style. i think it may be giving him too much credit (and not enough) to suggest that he's somehow mastered one side of the equation.

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Also I think it is pretty close to film r*ckism, but then again I think everything is.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Substance is mostly a personal definition - I wouldn't use the style/substance dichotomy in a paper or a review - but I think of it as Dorothea Lange's "point of departure."

Substance is giving the viewer someplace to go besides just looking at/listening to the work. With Tarantino, I think most reactions amount to "wow, that was some snappy dialogue! I'm gonna go watch wrestling now." He doesn't take you anywhere else, there are no other considerations to move onto.

As a visual medium, I think that films which are visual-style-over-substance fare better than dialogue/aural-style-over-substance. Sleepy Hollow is one of the films I watch most, just because it's so beautiful.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:53 (twenty-two years ago)

That is one film completely failed by its script.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 18 July 2003 01:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I felt something genuine and substantial about the relationship between Jackie Brown and Max Cherry (? -- Robert Forster's character) in JB.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Agreed.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:57 (twenty-two years ago)

They had SPACE. To talk. And to just sit there. Space to think things over. I was impressed that Mr Hyperactive could make such a nice slow movie. It didn't feel slow, it just felt like everybody had time to react to things. What I hated about Trainspotting and, well, lots of movies, is that the cutting just feels oppressive... maybe this is what I mean by "correct" filmmaking, everybody always cuts at exactly the same jaunty moment, using the cut for meaning where the actor could have provided it instead. "You gotta cut out the weed, you're gonna lose your ambition" "What if my ambition is to lie around on the couch and smoke pot?" He hung the whole thing on that exchange.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Like I said above, I really like that movie's visual style. All those extreme close-ups of simple actions, like coffee being poured or switches being flipped. Very measured, deliberate pacing which I really appreciate.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I just luxuriate in stuff like that! Like, just gimme 5000 small actions with synced sound. Refrigerators closing, stuff like that! I watch C-Span constantly though so my standard for "boring" probably isn't everyone else's. I'm sure I'm forgetting REALLY boring bits, I always edit movies in my head afterwards into better versions. The joke where Forster leaves like 4 different numbers for Jackie to call for instance - it was so welcome, and so recognizable, but maybe it was welcome because the stuff before it was dull? But that's life, right? Finally somebody makes an effort with the phone numbers, and the whole mood changes!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Well Tracer I think some directors do give actors space to (re)act within the fast(ish)-cutting framework: Michael Mann, Jane Campion, Hal Hartley, John McTiernan when he's not (a) sucking or (b) being a clever Eisensteinian. Even when you have long takes in a contemporary film, they are often set up for the purpose of constant movement, kineticism (display of the director's virtuosity) which often cancels out the actors (see Paul Anderson, DePalma). Curiously the one director who seems content to--as in the "old days"--hold a camera steady, show his actors from the knees up, and just watch is Woody Allen, although I think most of his recent films are 50% craptacular. I recall Tarantino giving a lot of space to Forster and Grier, like when the former visits the record store (the kind of scene which would be superfluous in a "classical" film--do you really want to give that up?).

(x-post)

T.H. you would like Sarah Burns's (Ken's daughter) student film. A really modest and lovely-looking vignette about somehow trying to defrost a car handle. Some lovely close-ups of boiling tea kettles, mittens lying on tables, etc.

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Someone trying to defrost a car handle. Actually it's a couple.

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:45 (twenty-two years ago)

That sounds like my kinda movie, amateurist

I was going to say Michael Mann next, actually! Except he washes bg music all over the damn place

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, but DePalma is going for something totally else--I mean you gotta acknowledge that he's not the best with actors (see Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, Femme Fatale)--but he's going for more of a cinema of pure motion, which is OK with me, cuz he does it so good. I guess I mean to say I don't think he does it to show off his virtuosity.

Hartley and Mann aren't such fast cutters though, I don't find; or at least, with Mann, the moments from his movies that are strongest in my mind are when he holds on his actors.

(that scene with Forster in the record store rules BTW)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:53 (twenty-two years ago)

eight months pass...

Tommorow Kill Bill vol 2 comes out and Tarintino will finally unplug all of you Kung Fu masters! Hahahah

The Matrix has you.

― Kyle Hutchinson, Thursday, 15 April 2004 14:27 (twenty-two years ago)

He's right, you know.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 15 April 2004 14:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I still want to see the movie about defrosting car door handles

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 15 April 2004 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

OMG Tep's name is Bill!!!

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Thursday, 15 April 2004 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Only my first name!

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 15 April 2004 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

oh, what a letdown.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Thursday, 15 April 2004 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.