[stephen_speicher]

I am curious what people here think about the movies Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and Vol. 2.

[danielshrugged]

I refuse to watch them, for now--mostly because I watched Tarantino's True Romance a while ago and found it to be a waste of my time.

But if people here can explain why it is worth watching, I'd like to hear it.

[Concerto of Atlantis]

I haven't seen Vol. 2 yet.

But I really did like Vol. 1. The storyline was cliched and lacked depth (it was influenced by Japanese Comics), but it was very well executed and directed. The soundtrack was stunning. The end theme is one of the most beautiful pieces of music I have ever heard.

Uma Thurman was a convincing heroine dispensing justice, and so it was a movie where good triumphs over evil. Two thumbs up.

[RationalBiker]

I really enjoyed Kill Bill Vol. 1. I like action movies, and QT movies. I looked forward to Vol. 2, then was let down when I saw it. I went into Vol. 2 expecting it to be like Vol. 1, having not read or followed anything about it prior to the viewing. The pace of the movie is considerably slower, the action is greatly reduced and it focuses much more on the QT dialouge, humor and unusual situations.

I may give Vol. 2 a second shot and try to view it from fresh perspective. While Vol. 1 is supposed to be a tribute to Japanese style martial arts films, Vol. 2 is more of a tribute to the Chinese version of that genre, based on what I have read since I saw the movie.

All that said, they are both quite obviously QT's style, and I've observed that either people like him or they don't.

VES

[Areactor]

I highly enjoyed both Kill Bill Vol 1 and Vol 2.

I was let down by the lack of QT story in Vol 1 because of it's strung out cartoonish action. Then I was let down by Vol 2 because of it's lack of strung out cartoonish action because of the QT story.

But when I went home I though about the entire movie in general and found out nothing was wrong with either movie. I bought Vol 1 and continue to enjoy it today. I really want to see Vol 2 again, sometime next week I believe.

True Romance/ Resevior Dogs are extremely slow paced and there not among my favorite QT movies.

Pulp Fiction/ Jackie Brown/ and Kill Bill are fantastic.

[Areactor]

Vol 2 actually had a more Western style. There was a couple of Western moments in Vol 1 especially with the El Paso scenes and the Shaw Brother views. Vol 2 had a couple of Japanese/Chinese martial arts scenes like Uma's time with Pei Mei.

As a whole Kill Bill is quite the brillant film in my opinion.

[Samoht]

I've only seen Vol. 1, but I was okay.

It looks like Tarantino has tried to mesh every type of movie genre into one story. Action, mystery, anime, western, kung-fu, gangster, and blackploitaion comes to mind. And that is only in Vol. 1. I think he did a good job. It's not supposed to be deep or moving, it is supposed to be a fun experience. The live action anime blood squirting was a little over the top though.

[y_feldblum]

Samoht said:

The live action anime blood squirting was a little over the top though.

I could have done without it too.

Samoht said:

it is supposed to be a fun experience

On the whole, and in nearly every detail, it is.

[JRoberts]

Stephen, have you seen it? And if so, what are your thoughts on it?

[stephen_speicher]

JRoberts, on Apr 26 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

Stephen, have you seen it? And if so, what are your thoughts on it?

I was sincerely hoping no one would ask. Or, at least, not until a large number of others had chimed in. But, now that the jig is up ...

I wil just say, without further explanation or justification, that I consider Kill Bill: Vol 1 to be one of the great films of all time, and Tarantino to have established himself as one of the great directors in the history of film.

[dondigitalia]

stephen_speicher, on Apr 26 2004, 08:52 PM, said:

I wil just say, without further explanation or justification, that I consider Kill Bill: Vol 1  to be one of the great films of all time, and Tarantino to have established himself as one of the great directors in the history of film.

Did you just come to that conclusion about Tarantino upon seeing Kill Bill, or did you hold him in high esteem from his other films?

Sadly, I haven't seen Kill Bill yet, but I have great respect for his work on other films.

[MinorityOfOne]

I'm very surprised by all of this. Based on his other movies, I consider Tarantino an utter hack, so I was avoiding Kill Bill at all costs. But maybe I'll have to check it out...

[argive99]

stephen_speicher, on Apr 26 2004, 08:52 PM, said:

I was sincerely hoping no one would ask. Or, at least, not until a large number of others had chimed in. But, now that the jig is up ...

I wil just say, without further explanation or justification, that I consider Kill Bill: Vol 1  to be one of the great films of all time, and Tarantino to have established himself as one of the great directors in the history of film.

I am shocked by this too. I saw both Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs and thought them both to be nothing more than the glorification of depravity. But w/ that kind of reccommendation for Kill Bill, I may have to rent it. Maybe QT has greater depth to him than I previously gave him credit for.

[AwakeAndFree]

stephen_speicher, on Apr 27 2004, 05:52 AM, said:

I wil just say, without further explanation or justification, that I consider Kill Bill: Vol 1  to be one of the great films of all time, and Tarantino to have established himself as one of the great directors in the history of film.

No doubt about it.

I mean - I've seen only part 1, but it was absolutely beautiful. Even the bloodiest parts. Next week a friend of mine might be throwing a private screening of parts 1 & 2 together.

The cartoon part was a little too much even for me. But then again - which is worse: being completely shocked by a murder scene, or being indifferent, or even cozy with it?

Tarantino has a talent to shock. I liked his movies long before I met Ayn Rand, and while his sense of life is probably the exact opposite - there is no doubt he is a cinematic genius.

Every shot leaves you breathless. This man is creating his own cinematic language, in a way that few others succeeded (Steven Spielberg was one of them).

[msb]

I haven't seen pt. 2, but since everyone is praising it, I thought I'd offer that I didn't like pt. 1 at all. It was very stylized, but incredibly meandering. Almost nothing happens over the course of 2 hours. It was very unselective and indulgent in almost every respect. Because of Tarantino's love of time lapses, you knew the outcome of the final battle in the first scene. Nothing was dramatized. It's basically just a long series of stylized action sequences.

[stonebuddha]

I grant that it's a well crafted, loving tribute to Asian cinema with Hong Kong style action. I understood what QT was trying to do and he succeeded. Despite the fact that all the pieces were there, I regard KILL BILL Vol. 1 & 2 to be the weakest of all his films. I enjoyed TRUE ROMANCE more (I know he only wrote the screenplay, but it felt more like a QT movie than this.)

I did enjoy Vol. 2 more than Vol. 1, but I just can't imagine wanting to see either films again. The whole KILL BILL epic has an unserious, wink at the audience feel about it. I know that's what he was going for, but that just served to take me out of the realm of movie magic. I think the biggest problem for me was the dialogue. After RESERVOIR DOGS & PULP FICTION came out, a slew of movies tried to mimic its success with sub par Tarantinian dialogue. Ten years later, that's what KILL BILL felt like for me. It has the flavor of Tarantino's dialogue, but seems like a pale imitation. I also felt emotionally detached from the whole proceedings. I didn't care for any of the characters because they felt like one note caricatures who only exist in the movies.

Even though I give it 4 stars out of 5 (mostly for technical merit), I was disappointed.

[argive99]

Can someone explain to me the appeal of Tarantino. I haven't seen the Kill Bill movies because I wrote him off after his earlier films. Pulp Fiction was a nightmare; I agree with Robert Tracinsky's review of it in the '95 TIA ('The Spider and the Worm'). Resevoir Dogs was tough to watch between the bloodshed and the meaningless philosobable (this applies to Pulp Fiction too). Without Selma Hayek, "From Dusk Till Dawn" would be just another mindless vampire film. True Romance? More mobsters. So please tell me what I'm missing.

Characters with the sense of life of mobsters, needless blood and gore, rarely a virtous character anywhere to be found, dialog that only a post-modern philosophy student would admire, etc, etc. What is great about Tarantino?

It may be that he has changed directions with Kill Bill but based on his past I can't see how he can be called great.

Also, If I'm not mistaken, he has been heavily influenced by Oliver Stone. This alone could place him on a very low rung of hell (metaphorically speaking).

[stephen_speicher]

dondigitalia, on Apr 26 2004, 07:59 PM, said:

Did you just come to that conclusion about Tarantino upon seeing Kill Bill ...

Yes, but specifically Vol. 1, not Vol 2.

[stephen_speicher]

stephen_speicher @ Apr 27 2004, on 05:52 AM, said:

I wil just say, without further explanation or justification, that I consider Kill Bill: Vol 1  to be one of the great films of all time, and Tarantino to have established himself as one of the great directors in the history of film.

erandror, on Apr 27 2004, 11:18 AM, said:

No doubt about it.

I mean - I've seen only part 1, but it was absolutely beautiful. Even the bloodiest parts. Next week a friend of mine might be throwing a private screening of parts 1 & 2 together.

The cartoon part was a little too much even for me. But then again - which is worse: being completely shocked by a murder scene, or being indifferent, or even cozy with it?

Tarantino has a talent to shock. I liked his movies long before I met Ayn Rand, and while his sense of life is probably the exact opposite - there is no doubt he is a cinematic genius.

Every shot leaves you breathless. This man is creating his own cinematic language, in a way that few others succeeded (Steven Spielberg was one of them).

Unfortunately, Vol 2 is not on the same cinematic level as Vol 1. And, lest anyone misunderstand, it is not the particular values which the film portrays (although there are some things of merit), but rather my judgment of this movie is based on every technical and artistic function in a film which elevates it towards an art form. It is the brilliance of the artistic craftsmanship to which I refer, not the philosophical value of its content.

I admit I meant this as a "shocker." Fact is, Vol. 1 shocked me.

[Kitty Hawk]

But what is the point of praising someone for using great artistic skill to portray irrational values?