# Somebody Explain Kill Bill, please...



## two (May 1, 2007)

I finally saw this movie.

It was schlocky, granted, conceived as schlock and produced as schlock. The trouble was, I found it BORING.  That is death to all schlock.

After talking to my friends, who generally liked the movie, and reading the critics, who generally liked it, a "defense" of the movie goes something like this.

1) The plot was linear and repetitive because the kung-fu sources have linear and repetitive plots (revenge -> kill everyone, etc.).  

2)  The dialogue was intentionally stilted and "bad" because the kung-fu precursors featured really bad dialogue.

3)  The sets and color scheme were from the 60's and 70's because that's the time frame of a lot of the kung-fu precurors.

4)  The sound track was great.

5)  The blood and guts and violence was over the top and cheesy, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precusors.

6)  The "character development" and emotional involvement  in the characters is nill, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precursors.

7)  There are some stylish actions scenes.

In other words, except for 4) and 7), if something is self-knowingly "bad" or "cheesy" because it "wink winks" at a typically bad genre (sock'em kung fu), it is magically... not "bad" or "cheesy" somehow?

Explain this?

This is the self-referential laziness that I have never found digestible, in movies, or literature, or art of any kind.

If you create something that is self-knowingly bad, how it that different from the "bad" original?  (except that you KNOW it is bad when you are creating it, thus opening yourself up to the sensible criticism that, if you KNOW it is bad, why not...make it good instead?).

At most you generate a short laugh - "yeah, that old kung-fu movie dialogue really was bad."  Which is fine, if you hear a line or two. Good joke.  But 4 hours of it?  

What if, instead of stilted and lame dialogue, the movie had not just regurgitated stilted and lame dialogue, but instead... substituted some reasonably good dialogue? At least once in a while?

Ditto character development, ditto plot, ditto rather disgusting over-the-top violence, ditto time period (really, the 70's are pretty de riguer these days in movies).

I just don't see how the movie is anything but self-indulgent and ultimately a bore.

If you don't buy into the "making fun of bad stuff by being bad is cool somehow" trope, what does this movie have to offer?

(besides a good sound track and some decent but not top-of-the-line action sequences? - which is a feeble payoff for the investment of time)


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 1, 2007)

two said:
			
		

> It was schlocky, granted, conceived as schlock and produced as schlock. The trouble was, I found it BORING.  That is death to all schlock.



Um...  The plot of this movie is that a left-for-dead pregnant woman spends 3 hours on screen planning and performing her blood-soaked revenge upon those who wronged her.  You want freakin' ART from this?  You get, more or less, the only thing that CAN be gotten from a plot like this - an attempt at violence with SOME semblence of originality and style in its presentation, and not just violence for its own gratuitous sake without ANY other consideration.

That you don't care for the style... well, as I said, since you apparantly wanted ART this should be no surprise.  But even so, the style will not appeal to everyone.  I rather enjoyed it, but have friends who gave up on it in less than 10 minutes and passed judgement on the whole without having SEEN but a fraction.  They never saw the better fights nor heard the soundtrack and refuse to bother with it any further.  There simply doesn't have to BE an explanation, or a "defense" that can be laid out for you to convince you that your PERSONAL impression of the movie as inferior is wrong.

I went to see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon with those same aforementioned friends.  While I found more to like about it than they we all DID agreee that its reputation as the greatest thing since sliced sushi was UNFORGIVABLY overblown.

In short, simply explaining to you what others like about it is not going to alter what you like/don't like in general about such movies.


----------



## two (May 1, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Um...  The plot of this movie is that a left-for-dead pregnant woman spends 3 hours on screen planning and performing her blood-soaked revenge upon those who wronged her.  You want freakin' ART from this?  You get, more or less, the only thing that CAN be gotten from a plot like this - an attempt at violence with SOME semblence of originality and style in its presentation, and not just violence for its own gratuitous sake without ANY other consideration.
> 
> That you don't care for the style... well, as I said, since you apparantly wanted ART this should be no surprise.  But even so, the style will not appeal to everyone.  I rather enjoyed it, but have friends who gave up on it in less than 10 minutes and passed judgement on the whole without having SEEN but a fraction.  They never saw the better fights nor heard the soundtrack and refuse to bother with it any further.  There simply doesn't have to BE an explanation, or a "defense" that can be laid out for you to convince you that your PERSONAL impression of the movie as inferior is wrong.
> 
> ...




Um... no I didn't want ART (capitalization from you). 

As I stated in the first sentence, which you quote. 

I want nothing more or less than the movie NOT TO BE BORING.

You agree that the plot is ridiculous, and "You get, more or less, the only thing that CAN be gotten from a plot like this - an attempt at violence with SOME semblence of originality and style in its presentation."

I guess if you are happy with that marginal result...from a movie lasting 4 hours... well... 

I'm not.  

I'm also not really asking you to alter my thinking, or confirm it.

The thread title, "somebody explain..." was more a way to open a discussion. 

Which has been, actually fruitful so far.

If most people are happy with "an attempt at violence with SOME semblence of originality and style in its presentation" (which is, I think, a very good summation!), I can only conclude my standards are far higher.

This does not even pass the "boredom test" much less any other!


----------



## dravot (May 1, 2007)

If you think it's boring, then no explanation about it is going to change your mind.  Nor should it.  It didn't appeal to you.

And that's fine.

(I liked the first one a lot, but not the second one.)


----------



## Silver Moon (May 1, 2007)

I respectfully disagree - I think that the movies are excellent however I will add that I saw Part II a full year before I saw Part I and find that it works much better in that sequence.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 1, 2007)

Tastes differ but I am not certain what you were looking for in the first place, when you watched the movie.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 1, 2007)

If you think that movie is boring, all I can say is You Just Don't Get It. If you think it's lazy self-indulgence, you're wrong on two counts.


----------



## mmadsen (May 1, 2007)

two said:
			
		

> I just don't see how the movie is anything but self-indulgent and ultimately a bore.



When I first heard that Quentin Tarantino was going to make an homage to kung-fu and samurai movies, I felt a bit like it was being made just for me.  Then I saw it, and I found it self-indulgent and boring.  Playing "spot the allusion" is only so much fun.


----------



## Particle_Man (May 1, 2007)

Well I loved it, but then I have this "thing" for Uma Thurman, so her killing people with a katana was freakin' awesome!


----------



## Tonguez (May 1, 2007)

Personally I think Kill Bill Pt 1 was Art

it took a Schlock Pastiche, and presented it with style and originality. It was purposely shot with a sense of humour catering to those who 'got the joke'

then again I like many flavours of cheese  

However I agree that Kill Bill Pt2 was wanky self indulgence and utterly boring
afterall too much cheese can leave you bloated


----------



## Brogarn (May 1, 2007)

I'm one of the very few people who vastly preferred pt. 2 over pt. 1. Guess I'm just a fan of Qeuntin's dialogue. /shrug 

Anyways, like what's already been said, if you found it boring, no amount of discussion is going to change that opinion. You didn't like it and that's ok.


----------



## Silver Moon (May 1, 2007)

Brogarn said:
			
		

> I'm one of the very few people who vastly preferred pt. 2 over pt. 1. Guess I'm just a fan of Qeuntin's dialogue. /shrug



I agree with that as well, which is part of why I prefer to watch them in reverse order.


----------



## Tetsubo (May 1, 2007)

I consider Kill Bill to be the most perfectly executed film I've ever seen. It is one mans vision brought to the big screen. The fact that half of it is an homage to bad martial films and the other half an homage to bad westerns is just a bonus. If you can't enjoy the film, I think You Don't Get It as well...


----------



## Joker (May 1, 2007)

Personally, I thought it was a bit dull for a revenge movie.  But I've been spoiled with movies like Old Boy, Road to Perdition, Lady Snowblood, Sympathy For Mr/Lady Vengeance etc.

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist was so very much better.

Matrix Cow and Gopher Chucks , FTW indeed.

Edit:  The thing about old kung-fu flicks that appeals to me is that despite the poor dubbing, lack of plot and odd...things (burrowing ninja's with Das Boot soundscheme or flying guillotines), the action and martial arts were usually quite fun to watch.  For me, Kill Bill didn't do well in that department.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 1, 2007)

I found it interesting that I had to explain to my friends that the Bride is Evil.

Personally, I did enjoy both halves of it, but I can see why someone wouldn't.

Brad


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 1, 2007)

I agree that 2 is a much better film than 1.  It sorta depends on what mood I'm in, but I like them both for very different reasons.

As to the OP... all I can say is that Tarantino is pretty hit-or-miss with me.  The Kill Bills I happened to like, other stuff I didn't.  If you didn't like it, what can I or anyone else say to change your mind?  Nor do I feel the need to lay out some outline for why the movie holds merit.  I think there are probably critical, tangible reasons for why Kill Bill vo 1 and 2 are, in fact, good movies, but entertainment is all about opinion.


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 1, 2007)

I'm another one who liked the second more than the first, but I enjoyed them both a lot. I liked the characters, the dialogue and the plot (I'd agree that the action is a little mundane compared the the genres the movies were emulating). I'd also have to agree with GoodKingJayIII that there probably is a decent argument to be made for the quality of the movies, but it ultimately comes down to the fact that you didn't like it and that is that. It's not like you are the first person to go on the internet to take shots at a movie they didn't like.


----------



## bento (May 1, 2007)

One of Tarentino's inspirations for Kill Bill is Seijun Suzuki's "Tokyo Drifter" which I saw a couple of years ago.  

Having not seen Kill Bill, I will say that his inspiration is also boring throughout much of the story, with a few "interesting" scenes that had good composition and cinematography.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (May 1, 2007)

My friends have learned to not bring up anything by Tarentino in my presence, because I just don't care for his style.  Pulp Fiction is two hours of my life I'll never get back.  The same with Kill Bill, pt 2 (I've not seen the first one).  Some of my friends would break their necks to see Tarentino film a bowel movement and call it great.  But, everyone has their own opinion of everything, I suppose.  This is just mine regarding Tarentino.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 1, 2007)

I found Part 2 less interesting than part 1 myself. Whatever slowness in part 1 however I personally found is more than made up for in the Tokyo fight scenes. Not a great movie overall but when it is on it is on.


----------



## two (May 2, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> If you think that movie is boring, all I can say is You Just Don't Get It. If you think it's lazy self-indulgence, you're wrong on two counts.




I'm really pretty sophisticated in a lot of ways.

I'd love to hear what I "didn't get."

I'm serious.  What was I missing?

What isn't A)lazy about it, and B)self-indulgent?


----------



## two (May 2, 2007)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> I consider Kill Bill to be the most perfectly executed film I've ever seen. It is one mans vision brought to the big screen. The fact that half of it is an homage to bad martial films and the other half an homage to bad westerns is just a bonus. If you can't enjoy the film, I think You Don't Get It as well...




Please enlighten me. What am I missing?

Kow-towing to bad kung-fu and bad westerns only gets you so far.  In fact, kow-towing even to movies that are quite sophisticated and good only gets you so far.

Now, if the "vision" is very limited, yes.  The movie achieves the vision.

Do you mean QT simply had a very basic and rather simplistic notion of what he wanted to do, and did exactly that - not a bit more or less?

I could agree with that, I suppose.


----------



## two (May 2, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I agree that 2 is a much better film than 1.  It sorta depends on what mood I'm in, but I like them both for very different reasons.
> ...
> I think there are probably critical, tangible reasons for why Kill Bill vo 1 and 2 are, in fact, good movies, but entertainment is all about opinion.




I don't understand this.  I can enjoy bad movies (i.e. laugh at them, and/or with them).  I can be entertained by bad movies.  I am sometimes not entertained by good movies on occasion (wrong mood/time).  

I'm not saying Kill Bill is simply a bad movie... for me, it was a bad movie which I wasn't even able to enjoy.  That was the kicker.

What are the critical, tangible reasons it is a good movie again?


----------



## Shayuri (May 2, 2007)

Speaking just for myself, I found Kill Bill 1 hilarious. I haven't seen a lot of kung fu movies...so Kill Bill to me looked like a "live action anime" movie. I found it so over the top, in gore, in silly lines, and in the simple (hole filled) plot that I couldn't help but enjoy it on the level of a sendup, or guilty pleasure.

I can't answer charges of self-indulgence or "why was it good?" I guess that's because in my mind, it wasn't really good. It was bad. It was deliciously, hilariously bad...and it really was meant to be that way. 

As for you 'not getting it,' that's not a phrase I'd use. It suggests that there's something wrong with you, or that you're lacking something that those of us who enjoyed the movie got right, or possess. That's not really true. Kill Bill is just a very limited aesthetic, I think. People will tend to either find it great fun and love it...or find it inexplicable and a waste of time, and hate it. What precisely defines how a person will react to it is not something I care to speculate on. It's not just an appreciation of "bad movies." I know people who love Plan 9 From Outer Space...who guffaw at every episode of MST3k and still dislike Kill Bill.

I realize none of this will do much to relieve your distress and/or frustration over the movie's inexplicable appeal to a fraction of the population, but all I can say is that some people like it...and some don't...and that's pretty much that. I can say why I like it, but I can't make an argument that those qualities exist in any kind of objective reality that anyone can see and appreciate.

The happy news is that, having identified yourself as a Kill Bill Disliker, you can now refuse to spend any more moments of your life having anything to do with it.


----------



## Tonguez (May 2, 2007)

two said:
			
		

> I'm really pretty sophisticated in a lot of ways.
> 
> I'd love to hear what I "didn't get."
> 
> ...




IT IS SELF INDULGENT

Tarantino makes self indulgent movies with a 'retro-70s' spin to them
people know this and so should expect it when viewing Tarentino movies

to complain about it being self-indulgent and reminiscient of 70s-shlock is like buying Burger King and complaining that it isn't Pizza

its not Lazy because he took the premise and worked to achieve it

I like the description of live-action anime - pt. 1 achieves this, pt. 2 not quite


----------



## dravot (May 2, 2007)

two said:
			
		

> I don't understand this.  I can enjoy bad movies (i.e. laugh at them, and/or with them).  I can be entertained by bad movies.  I am sometimes not entertained by good movies on occasion (wrong mood/time).
> 
> I'm not saying Kill Bill is simply a bad movie... for me, it was a bad movie which I wasn't even able to enjoy.  That was the kicker.
> 
> What are the critical, tangible reasons it is a good movie again?




Why should I like apple pie?

Why isn't football boring?


----------



## Randolpho (May 2, 2007)

I have to agree with the original post. You can do a spoof of bad Kung Fu movies and still be a good movie. Take, for example, Kung Fu Hustle. Kung Fu Hustle was an over-the-top spoof of Kung Fu with a fairly derived plot, yet it still had amazing character development  and spectacular special effects, even as it made you laugh or at least chuckle through most of the movie. Kill Bill, on the other hand, had... well, it had Pai Mei's beard-flick and an eye plucking. 

It's also quite possible to do a dramatic Kung Fu movie correctly, even without being humorous or an homage. Cases in point: Hero and (still better) Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.


----------



## Randolpho (May 2, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> I went to see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon with those same aforementioned friends.  While I found more to like about it than they we all DID agreee that its reputation as the greatest thing since sliced sushi was UNFORGIVABLY overblown.




Hmm... I have to disagree, here. I thought CTHD was an amazing movie.

What, specifically, did you dislike about it?


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 2, 2007)

How do you define self indulgent? Why does this movies qualify, as compared to others? How is this movie lazy, compared to others?


----------



## Tetsubo (May 2, 2007)

two said:
			
		

> Please enlighten me. What am I missing?
> 
> Kow-towing to bad kung-fu and bad westerns only gets you so far.  In fact, kow-towing even to movies that are quite sophisticated and good only gets you so far.
> 
> ...




Two people look at a painting. One says, "What absolute perfection." The other replies, "What cr*p."

Which one is right?

I think Kill Bill is the most perfectly self-consistent film ever made. Every scene is perfect. It is even better if you have seen Circle Of Iron. It really makes Carradine's Bill even more enjoyable.

You disagree. That's life.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 2, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> How do you define self indulgent? Why does this movies qualify, as compared to others? How is this movie lazy, compared to others?




Good question.  I'm not sure either how it is lazy.  It was a modern day take on the kung fu genre of the 1970's.  I enjoyed the action, the story was decent, the acting was pretty good, and the characters were fun to watch on screen.  I enjoyed both parts quite a bit.  It was a classic Tarentino flick with the scenes not being shown in order and stuff like that.  I won't say you "didn't get it" since it's quite possible to get it and not enjoy it.  I never thought it was trying to be intentionally bad in any way though.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 2, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Good question.




Thanks. I get the feeling that in this discussion some of us are using the same terms but defining those terms in different ways, so asking seemed prudent.

I for one enjoyed the movie/movies. My understanding is they started as one flick, but it would have been almost four hours long so Quintin cut it in half and rearranged all the scenes and so forth to get two movies out of it.

Eventually it is supposed to be re released on DVD as a set or even as a single flick. I keep hoping this will happen and when it does I will pick it up.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 2, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Eventually it is supposed to be re released on DVD as a set or even as a single flick. I keep hoping this will happen and when it does I will pick it up.




I've been hearing that for awhile; I hope it comes about and that we get the full color House of Blue Leaves sequence that the @%$^% MPAA made him put in black and white because of the gore factor.


----------



## hong (May 2, 2007)

Shayuri said:
			
		

> Speaking just for myself, I found Kill Bill 1 hilarious. I haven't seen a lot of kung fu movies...so Kill Bill to me looked like a "live action anime" movie. I found it so over the top, in gore, in silly lines, and in the simple (hole filled) plot that I couldn't help but enjoy it on the level of a sendup, or guilty pleasure.




If you think Kill Bill was OTT, you should check out Versus. By god, that one is OTT. Absolutely hilarious fun.


----------



## Mistwell (May 2, 2007)

I think people who claim that others "just don't get it" if they didn't like these movies, just don't get why people dislike them. 

I personally like them, but I get why people would dislike them, and I don't think people who dislike them "don't get it".


----------



## Vanuslux (May 2, 2007)

Self-indulgent is a given with Tarantino, but the allegation of lazy is absurd to me and I don't even particularly like the films.


----------



## Agamon (May 2, 2007)

If everybody liked and disliked the same things, life would be pretty dull.  I have no idea why "realilty TV" is popular, but I don't wonder how it's possible that it is.  Different people are entertained in different ways.


----------



## Simplicity (May 3, 2007)

Eh... personal taste.  I found the movie spectacular.  By far my favorite Tarantino movie (and I like a lot of them).  Obviously, I didn't find it boring.

The movie was a big tongue-in-cheek love of old movies of the past.  Many of QT's movies are.  But that's not what made the movie good.  What made it good was it's style.  In style, the movie really had something going for it.  It was cinematic, and visually very interesting.  The fight scenes were good to great almost without exception.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 3, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Self-indulgent is a given with Tarantino, but the allegation of lazy...




I still wonder what they (_Randolpho, Tonguez, two, mmadsen_, etc.) mean when they use these terms, lazy and self-indulgent, when talking about a movie. Aren't most movies self-indulgent almost by definition? And how do you define lazy in terms of movie making?


----------



## paradox42 (May 3, 2007)

dravot said:
			
		

> Why should I like apple pie?
> 
> Why isn't football boring?



Not to hijack the thread, but football *IS* boring. 

And on the subject of _Kill Bill_(s), they're two of my favorite movies. But then, I'm a tarantino fan, and the only movie I've seen that had him involved, which I didn't really like, was _From Dusk Till Dawn_. I felt that was two movies trying to be one, that didn't really fit well together. But that's me- lots of other people liked it, and in fact there's even a sequel (or is it two now?) to it.

For me, I think the fine uses of irony in the movies (particularly the first one) was my favorite aspect of them. Though the two big "villian monologues" (O'Ren in movie 1 at the yakuza meeting, Bill himself in movie 2 discussing Superman) are among my favorite quotations, and illustrate this sense of irony quite nicely.

EDIT: Simplicity touches on another thing about them I like a lot; the movies were done to be pure exercises in style. The scene I think illustrates this best is the one with O'Ren walking into the House of Blue Leaves with her entourage, and "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" playing in the background. That scene has _no reason to exist_ except style. The scene just _oozes_ cool from every metaphorical pore, and yet it's nothing but an extended observation of the yakuza entering a restaurant. Tarantino's style is definitely an acquired taste, but if you like him at all this scene should get your heart thumping in anticipation of what's to come.


----------



## Tonguez (May 3, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I still wonder what they (_Randolpho, Tonguez, two, mmadsen_, etc.) mean when they use these terms, lazy and self-indulgent, when talking about a movie. Aren't most movies self-indulgent almost by definition? And how do you define lazy in terms of movie making?




Lazy - I'm not sure I was merely reflecting the question. However that somebody puts in some effort to bring their vision to the world is imho not lazy (even if others don't appreciate the effort the fact that effort wass made kind of defines not lazy)

As to self indulgent you are right all Art is self indulgent to some degree as it is about a person bringing their view of the world out for others to 'appreciate'

Tarantino in particular chooses to use stylistic devices, imagery and sets which are non-mainstream and which some members of the audience may find unsettling, upsetting and even offensive. 

In as much as Tarantino works to present to a mainstream audience a stylistic peice calculated to be unconventional and possibly offputting makes his work particulary self-indulgent

very much like this answer


----------



## WayneLigon (May 3, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> ...stylistic devices, imagery and sets which are non-mainstream and which some members of the audience may find unsettling, upsetting and even offensive. ...




I _think _ I've seen everything he's done or been involved with. *headscratch* I can't imagine why anyone would find any of those films unsettling, upsetting or offensive. I don't really know cinematagraphy or the finer points of film studies but I didn't think his style was all _that _ far outside the mainstream unless we're talking about, say, his use of fades, types of cuts, etc (I know enough to know that those and things like them are noticed and commented on by serious film buffs who will argue and scream about them like we might argue and scream about AoO's, but that's about where the knowledge ends); It has to be really, really unusual for me to notice that sort of stuff.


----------



## Tonguez (May 3, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I _think _ I've seen everything he's done or been involved with. *headscratch* I can't imagine why anyone would find any of those films unsettling, upsetting or offensive.




yeah I couldn't think of a better term so settled for tautology




> I don't really know cinematagraphy or the finer points of film studies but I didn't think his style was all _that _ far outside the mainstream unless we're talking about, say, his use of fades, types of cuts, etc (I know enough to know that those and things like them are noticed and commented on by serious film buffs who will argue and scream about them like we might argue and scream about AoO's, but that's about where the knowledge ends); It has to be really, really unusual for me to notice that sort of stuff.




You are correct - hence the self-indulgent label

Also some of the Tarantino style has been copied so that the Tarantino style is far less unique now than it was when he first emerged

Some of the features of his work include


his use of fades, types of cuts etc
choice of subject matter
non-linear narratives
mixing of genre
direct reference to pop culture
fixation with homages to 70's B-Grade movies
cartoonish levels of violence and gore
highly choreographed action sequences
lurid colour schemes


----------



## Thanee (May 3, 2007)

So you didn't like it... big deal.

Different people, different tastes.

Just watch other movies, that you like. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## mmadsen (May 3, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I still wonder what they (_Randolpho, Tonguez, two, mmadsen_, etc.) mean when they use these terms, lazy and self-indulgent, when talking about a movie. Aren't most movies self-indulgent almost by definition? And how do you define lazy in terms of movie making?



One could argue that _Kill Bill_ is self-indulgent, in that QT spent a lot of other people's money to produce something primarily for himself.  It's like one long inside joke, with all his favorite bits of obscure kung-fu, samurai, and western flicks, combined in a not-particularly clever way that is fairly boring.

Obviously we disagree on whether the final product was boring or not, but those who argue that it was "lazy and self-indulgent" feel that QT did not make the effort to fit it all together in an entertaining fashion -- that is, so that it would entertain the audience.

You may feel that some people "get" QT, and others don't, but I loved _Pulp Fiction_, and I thought that a Quentin Tarantino flick paying respect to kung-fu, samurai, and western flicks was about as perfect a fit for my tastes as was possible -- until I saw _Kill Bill 1_.


----------



## Mallus (May 3, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> One could argue that _Kill Bill_ is self-indulgent, in that QT spent a lot of other people's money to produce something primarily for himself.  It's like one long inside joke, with all his favorite bits of obscure kung-fu, samurai, and western flicks, combined...



One could counter-argue, for the sake of argument, that some people _want_ films with a discernible point of view, whether it be Tarantino's, or Scorsese's, or Kurasawa's, or Godard's... It's what they're paying for, the artist's artistry. 

You may not like what passes for Tarantino's artistry, and you'd wouldn't be alone, which is cool. But you sound you're advocating 'paint-by-numbers film making', where every frame is a conscious effort to anticipate the audience's desires, and then pander to them. 

And there's enough of that already.


----------



## Randolpho (May 4, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I still wonder what they (_Randolpho, Tonguez, two, mmadsen_, etc.) mean when they use these terms, lazy and self-indulgent, when talking about a movie. Aren't most movies self-indulgent almost by definition? And how do you define lazy in terms of movie making?




My issues isn't so much laziness as it is that the movies just aren't all that good. The characters were barely 2-dimensional, the dialog was boring, and the plot stale. Yes, it had some fun action, and Pai Mei gave me a chuckle or two, but that's not good enough for me to call the movie "good". 

You can do an homage to a genre movie and still do a good movie. I've already mentioned Kung Fu Hustle, but you don't have to limit to kung fu movies. What about zombie flicks? Shaun of the Dead had plenty of over-the-top zombie "horror", but also had humorous situations, intriguing characters, and well delivered, well written dialog.


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> If you think Kill Bill was OTT, you should check out Versus. By god, that one is OTT. Absolutely hilarious fun.



Kevin to Peggy: "Hong has great taste in movies."
Peggy to Kevin: "Why?"
Kevin to Peggy: "Hong likes 'Versus.'"
Peggy to Kevin: "And I like Hong."

but really, what _isn't_ there to like about a violent kung fu yakuza vampire zombie action swordfighting gun-fu Mexican-standoff time-traveling love story with homo-erotic overtones?

I love Kill Bill, too. But it's no "Versus."


----------



## WayneLigon (May 4, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> but really, what _isn't_ there to like about a violent kung fu yakuza vampire zombie action swordfighting gun-fu Mexican-standoff time-traveling love story with homo-erotic overtones?




The Forest of Ressurection would make an awesome setting in almost any genre.

Basically it goes...
"Zombies? Bull!"
"What do you mean?"
"We've been _dumping bodies for the Yakuza _ out here for _years _ and we've never seen any.."
"Boss, didn't we kill that guy last week?"
"$&%&$!! Blam!Blam!Blam!"


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 4, 2007)

Randolpho said:
			
		

> My issues isn't so much laziness as it is that the movies just aren't all that good. The characters were barely 2-dimensional, the dialog was boring, and the plot stale. Yes, it had some fun action, and Pai Mei gave me a chuckle or two, but that's not good enough for me to call the movie "good".




...in your opinion. Others are of the opinion (myself included) that the characters and dialog were enjoyable. To further prove how this is a matter of taste, you seem to feel that Kung-fu Hustle had strong character development; I'd say that the character development in that movie was about as corny as the movie itself. 

But honestly, I don't know why I keep letting myself get sucked into these threads in the first place.


----------



## Felon (May 4, 2007)

two said:
			
		

> If most people are happy with "an attempt at violence with SOME semblence of originality and style in its presentation" (which is, I think, a very good summation!), I can only conclude my standards are far higher.



It's funny how folks will compliment themselves for having "high standards" regarding films, books, and so forth, as if being quick to issue a thumbs-down on somebody else's work really evidences some valuable, commendable character trait. Reality check: that's only the case when you've got some accomplishments of your own under your belt. For most folks "high standards" just means being fussy and casually dismissive, taking other people's hard work for granted. And that's not a virtue, that's a flaw.

I'm curious to know what Two's favorite action movie is and what qualities make it so very..."not boring". Because the truth is, whatever your previous exposure to films consists of, Kill Bill has several exciting scenes that youu just haven't see before in a Hollwyood stuidio movie. So, you're just writing off a bunch of dynamic, innovative stuff as boring. I gotta pity that.

There's the scene where Beatrix wakes up in the hospital to find herself being pimped out by Buck is a real treat. One can really imagine wanting to kill someone for that humiliation. That's boring?

And the fight with Crazy 88 is a wild ride. I can watch that over and over again. Again, we don't get many intricately choreographed melee battle sequences in the U.S, and Kill Bill earns a place in action movie history for that one-woman-army scene. This is a snooze?

The opening fight with Vernita Green is fun as well. And it's followed by the character-defining monologue where Bea explains herself to the daughter of the woman she just killed. That's routine? Formulaic?

And while it's all wildly over-the-top, there's none of this "wink wink" nonsense. It's played to the hilt with a completely straight face.

I could go on, but what's the point? If you're calling it schlock, then it's pretty cut-and-dried. A guy saw a groundbreaking movie and took it completely for granted.


----------



## Joker (May 4, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I'm curious to know what Two's favorite action movie is and what qualities make it so very..."not boring". Because the truth is, whatever your previous exposure to films consists of, Kill Bill has several exciting scenes that youu just haven't see before in a Hollwyood stuidio movie. So, you're just writing off a bunch of dynamic, innovative stuff as boring. I gotta pity that.
> 
> There's the scene where Beatrix wakes up in the hospital to find herself being pimped out by Buck is a real treat. One can really imagine wanting to kill someone for that humiliation. That's boring?
> 
> I could go on, but what's the point? If you're calling it schlock, then it's pretty cut-and-dried. A guy saw a groundbreaking movie and took it completely for granted.




The thing is, for some of us (and I'm not being patronizing here), Kill Bill was boring, wasn't innovative and really really wasn't anything groundbreaking because we have seen these things so many times.  And so many times done with a great deal more style.  Kill Bill seemed like a dumbed down Hollywood flick.

Now to the OP and this has been said a couple of times before:  The movie can't be explained to make it satisfactory.  You didn't like it.  Although it failed the Park-Chan Wook test in less than 10 seconds* I found it enjoyable if a bit lackluster.  Just something to watch and forget.


*The time it takes for me and a friend to wonder how Park-Chan could have made it better.


----------



## hong (May 5, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Kevin to Peggy: "Hong has great taste in movies."
> Peggy to Kevin: "Why?"
> Kevin to Peggy: "Hong likes 'Versus.'"
> Peggy to Kevin: "And I like Hong."
> ...




.... homoerotic overtones?

UNSUBSCIRBE


----------



## mmadsen (May 5, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> One could counter-argue, for the sake of argument, that some people _want_ films with a discernible point of view, whether it be Tarantino's, or Scorsese's, or Kurasawa's, or Godard's... It's what they're paying for, the artist's artistry.



We don't call "a discernible point of view" _self-indulgent_; it's only self-indulgent if it's excessive, and the final work has little appeal for anyone besides the _auteur_ and his close personal friends.


			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> You may not like what passes for Tarantino's artistry...



I've been quite explicit that I loved _Pulp Fiction_ and the genres QT was pulling together for _Kill Bill_.  What I didn't like was the final product.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 6, 2007)

Randolpho said:
			
		

> Hmm... I have to disagree, here. I thought CTHD was an amazing movie.
> 
> What, specifically, did you dislike about it?



Well it's been years now since I've seen it and my memory is doubtless going to be faulty, but...

The ending was... well, inexplicable is probably the word.  Jarring jumps in time - not that flashback/forward/sideways is a problem for me (in fact I enjoy a little bit of challenge to the usual narrative structure) but it seemed quite badly handled.  Great fights, but unnecessarily over-involved plot, uneven and slow pacing.  And I thought the sound design left a good deal to be desired - dead, flat, far too whispery.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 6, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> One could argue that _Kill Bill_ is self-indulgent, in that QT spent a lot of other people's money to produce something primarily for himself.  It's like one long inside joke, with all his favorite bits of obscure kung-fu, samurai, and western flicks, combined in a not-particularly clever way that is fairly boring.



But that is Hollywood in a nutshell.  Honestly, I sincerely believe that making money is clearly secondary to ego gratification when it comes to making movies in Hollywood.  AFAIK PG-rated movies still routinely rake in more money than R-rated movies, but there are far more R-rated features made, showing to naturally smaller audiences and earning less money.  What could explain that except that money is NOT the primary interest of the typical Hollywood filmmaker?  The primary interest (and this is supported by the otherwise inexplicable focus upon the Oscars) is stroking your own ego, largely by earning the praise of your peers rather than the general public.

Now that sounds harsh but it's meant _somewhat_ less as a criticism than just as an observation.  It's literally visible in the contracts that movie stars sign.  When they become bankable stars their contracts will hold them to 2 or 3 studio films and then they are given the chance to make "their movie" which is inevitably a spendy, self-indulgent, pretentious, boring film, targetted to earn "respect" for their artistic dedication and skills, but that you can't get people to see with free beer and a subpoena.

Really, we're just fortunate that out of all that Hollywood crap we still get movies worth seeing at ALL on anything like a regular basis.


----------



## Elemental (May 8, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I've been hearing that for awhile; I hope it comes about and that we get the full color House of Blue Leaves sequence that the @%$^% MPAA made him put in black and white because of the gore factor.




What I want from a DVD version is very simple. _Commentaries_.


----------



## Felon (May 14, 2007)

Joker said:
			
		

> The thing is, for some of us (and I'm not being patronizing here), Kill Bill was boring, wasn't innovative and really really wasn't anything groundbreaking because we have seen these things so many times.  And so many times done with a great deal more style.



Meh. I'm still not hearing the names of these other superlative movies. But again, this is probably just the double-standard some folks have when it comes to Hollywood Cinema versus Asian Cinema. "Returner" and "The Storm Riders" were as dumbed-down and fromulaic as any Hollywood flick, yet I've seen endless praise heaped upon them.


----------



## Joker (May 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Meh. I'm still not hearing the names of these other superlative movies. But again, this is probably just the double-standard some folks have when it comes to Hollywood Cinema versus Asian Cinema. "Returner" and "The Storm Riders" were as dumbed-down and fromulaic as any Hollywood flick, yet I've seen endless praise heaped upon them.




I actually did mention the movies on the first page and they're not all from Asian cinema.

I have neither seen or heard of those movies.

And yes, a lot of what asian cinema pumps out is just as crappy as what comes out of Hollywood.

I hear Nigeria makes really good movies.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> "Returner" and "The Storm Riders" were as dumbed-down and fromulaic as any Hollywood flick, yet I've seen endless praise heaped upon them.




If the Returner was the movie I think it was, it was cool precisely because it had big transforming robots (that didn't actually do much).

Brad


----------



## IcedEarth81 (May 15, 2007)

A few things here.

First, I agree with those that say Part 2 was better. Both were great but Part 2 was more enjoyable to me. I guess I like QT's dialogue and the scenes with Bill were awesome to me.

Secondly, everyone has a different taste. Some watch Kill Bill and see a good movie that is stylish, fun, entertaining, etc. Some watch and see a bad movie that is self indulgent and boring. Different strokes. But, liking or disliking Kill Bill, or any other movie for that matter, doesn't make one better than another person. You don't have some keen insight into life because of your opinion of a movie, nor is that opinion better than someone else's opinion. That is a very arrogant point of view to take.

Thirdly, if you dislike Kill Bill that is fine by me, as I said in my previous point. It is a matter of taste and I, as someone who really likes those movies, can see why someone would dislike it. It's one of those kinds of movies that people either really like or really hate. However, saying that it is a dumbed down Hollywood movie is just going too far. Again, I see why some dislike it, but it is anything but a dumbed down movie.


----------



## Joker (May 16, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> ...but it is anything but a dumbed down movie.




Different strokes and all .


----------



## Lalato (May 16, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Well I loved it, but then I have this "thing" for Uma Thurman, so her killing people with a katana was freakin' awesome!




QFT!


----------

