Kill Bill

[Inevitable]

There is a lot going around about this movie, and judging from the director and writer, and his track record followed by the Kill Bill cast it should be a box office smash.

[Grimlock]

Yeah that is great except making it into two parts is just a huge money grab personally i would rather pay once and sit through the three hours.

[toddiscool]

Originally posted by Grimlock@9 October 2003 - 16:43
Yeah that is great except making it into two parts is just a huge money grab personally i would rather pay once and sit through the three hours.
for that very reason I will not pay to see this movie. Not even to rent it. even if I could rent it beofre i could download it.

[ezyryder]

I second that. (what grimlock said) Saying that, i've been talking to a few friends recently who still havn't heard of kill bill, or that QT made another movie! I was shocked! (of course, it isn't exactly thier scene, but shows the marketing hasn't been up to scratch. usualy a lot have heard of movies by now)

I agree with not supporting (money wise) Britney Spears or other untallented "preformers" or steven speilberg, who churns out movies by the dozen. Tarantino on the other hand DOES not, he is a brilliant director, has made fantastic movies (few and far between), and therefore ethics along the lines of "they are making too much money, too commerical... blah blah blah" are misplaced.

[ahctlucabbuS]

I don´t mind paying to watch these two at the big screen at all. I just hope splitting it didn´t ruin the film. The words "to be continued" is a bit of a let down if you ask me.

[kAb]

then why does it look like such a bad movie?

[snowyriver]

Originally posted by ezyryder@9 October 2003 - 23:03
I second that. (what grimlock said) Saying that, i've been talking to a few friends recently who still havn't heard of kill bill, or that QT made another movie! I was shocked! (of course, it isn't exactly thier scene, but shows the marketing hasn't been up to scratch. usualy a lot have heard of movies by now)

I agree with not supporting (money wise) Britney Spears or other untallented "preformers" or steven speilberg, who churns out movies by the dozen. Tarantino on the other hand DOES not, he is a brilliant director, has made fantastic movies (few and far between), and therefore ethics along the lines of "they are making too much money, too commerical... blah blah blah" are misplaced.
Well said EZ. I too would like to see more Quentin Tarantino movies. I don't think he is selling out. He certainly has his own ideas about what makes a good movie and if he thinks Kill Bill needs to be split then I'll go with that.

[Grimlock]

Was it his idea?
was it the studios?
When he called you guys up last nite did he say hey I thought it would add to the structural integrity of the story line to chop this mother in half and make people who have to work for a living pay forty bucks to take a date to see the whole thing?

[praiseb]

Aparently it was a comprimise betwean him and Miramax. Mirimax were going to refuse to relese it since it was so long and they wanted him to chop huge chunks out of the movie. So he decided to split it into 2 parts instead. Though I find it strange that the studio that brought us The Piano refuese to let Kill Bill run for 3 hours.

[Monkeee]

is this horror? :o

[toddiscool]

Quentin was the screenwriter/director
Meaning that he has alreaddy made most of the money from this movie. Given he may have some right to a certain percentage of profits from the filem, but most would have been a pay cheque. (if my limited understanding of the movie industry serves me correctly.)


then why does it look like such a bad movie?


I also agree with this, looks cheesy. If I wanted see girls fighting I would look across my trailer ass parking lot. Not a fan of that genre at all.

[Yogi]

Can't we have a pinned KillBill-section??

So everybody can rant on about these flicks without actually seeing it??

Thumbs up for the first actual review.......



Like This?:

From IMDB:
(just as an example!!!!)


It's been 6 years since Quentin Tarantino last shot up the big screen with his blacksploitation homage and career masterwork, `Jackie Brown.' I can think of a long list of directors I would love to see take lengthy sabbaticals, and Tarantino isn't one them. Back to remind critics and audiences alike just what it means to go to the movies comes his latest fruit cocktail of movie tributes, `Kill Bill.'

The story is fairly straightforward: Having just awoken from a 4-year coma, The Bride (Uma Thurman, note-perfect throughout the film) sets out to exact revenge on the five individuals (former co-workers, to be exact, from an elite team known as `The Deadly Viper Assassination Squad') who tried to kill her on her wedding day. `Volume 1' consists of The Bride meeting up with Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) in her suburban home for a knife fight. The Bride also travels to Japan to request the finest Japanese steel from famed sword maker Hattori Hanzo (martial arts legend Sonny Chiba), and tries to remove the deadly and well-guarded O-Ren Ishi (Lucy Liu) from the face of the earth. Writing out her `Death List Five,' The Bride is slowly making her way to the team leader, Bill (David Carradine, though not actually seen in `Volume 1`), who is looking forward to his second chance to kill The Bride.

Tarantino's `Kill Bill' opens with the proclamation that the film is presented in `Shaw Scope,' before cutting to a long forgotten grind-house `Feature Presentation' reel. Right away the filmmaker is giving major clues to the ride the audience will soon be taken on. Tarantino's other films, `Reservoir Dogs' and `Pulp Fiction,' were scattered altars of worship to the cinematic jalopies of his youth. `Kill Bill' is a direct descendant. Tarantino has compiled a wish list of genres and filmmaking idolatry to work out in `Bill,' constructing a picture that is a whirlwind of love for the cinema, and big reminders of all the genres long gone from today's too-cool-for-school movie landscape. Say what you will about Tarantino's rampant cinematic theft, but he's one of the few filmmakers who can make tributes seem like his own ideas.

`Volume 1' manages to jump from pulpy 1970s revenge exploitation thriller to Italian giallo to spaghetti western in only a matter of scenes, augmented by the splendid, schizophrenic score by The RZA. There's even an extended, ultra-violent Anime sequence within the film, detailing the history of O-Ren Ishi in a way traditional, live-action filmmaking would not permit. Tarantino saves the best for last, as his homage to the Hong Kong action cinema is relegated to the last third of the film. Tarantino is a master when it comes to recreating his fanboy wet dreams, and `Kill Bill' is his Mona Lisa. It's a significant achievement in both his career as a writer/director, and a much needed memento of what pure cinema feels like. `Kill Bill' may not be for all tastes, but it does deliver plenty of bang for the buck.

Tarantino's decision to make `Kill Bill' a tribute to grind-house cinema is a curious one since the film is breathtakingly shot by Robert Richardson (`Casino'), and will be running in ultra-slick multiplexes across the globe. Quite a long way from the decrepit, rat-infested theaters which this film should rightly belong in. Regardless of those inconsistencies, Tarantino does get one thing right: the bloodshed. Those who gagged at the ear cutting scene in `Reservoir Dogs' might be well advised to skip the blood feast on display in `Volume 1.' While flesh is sliced and bullets fly throughout the film, it all culminates into a showdown between The Bride and O-Ren Ishi at The House Of Blue Leaves nightclub in Japan. Protected by a team of henchmen known as the `Crazy 88,' Ishi orders the Kato-masked men to attack The Bride all at once.

What occurs next is a cornucopia of chopped body parts and, quite literally, geysers of spurting blood, forming an orgy of ultra-violence that forces Tarantino to actually switch to B&W film for a short time to contain the extreme nature of the visuals. Like the rest of the film, the audacity of the violence is energizing, and is shot with style and a needed visceral punch. While all of Tarantino's other pictures relied on their dialog to keep the flow moving, `Kill Bill' is a film of visuals, often gloriously berserk ones at that. He has a tremendous eye, maximizing the bang of every shot. Tarantino is also one of the few in his age group to keep his edit count down; actually taking several opportunities to cover the action in long, unbroken takes.

Of course, this isn't the end of the tale. `Kill Bill: Volume 2' hits theaters next February. At first, I was irritated by the recent decision to break up the film into two parts. But once the level of carnage and cinematic fanboy texture has been revealed in `Volume 1,' it starts to make sense to divide the tale into two segments, as sensory overload would most assuredly take place if the film remained a 3-hour affair. Like `The Matrix Reloaded' and `The Two Towers,' `Volume 1'ends on a wicked tease for future events.

There are three left on the `Death List Five,' and Tarantino is now halfway to creating another classic on his short list of outstanding accomplishments. It's splendid to see him back in action. ------ 10/10

Or:


Last night I saw the greatest movie I have ever seen in my entire life: Kill Bill. This movie did everything I wanted it do and then showed me what I had no idea I wanted to see. Quentin Tarantino made the movie that I always wanted to make and did the same stuff I have dreamed to put into a movie. For this I hate him because he made my movie and it looks awesome. That being said, he's created an awesome satire on the traditional action movie with his combination and use of setting and story telling.

Tarantino uses alot of signature moves in his 4th film, for example starting the movie en medius res and detailing each point before backing up or moving on to the next. The score (which I belive is orginal) has an offbeat 70's feel to it with some very classic chords that could have been taken right out of a Bruce Lee movie.

Although at times it is a bit jumpy when it comes to the plot the movie isn't really made for the plot here. The plot is very well summed up in the title and really says it all. The visiual effects and use of multiple locations makes this a movie that could make Tarantino the icon of the 00's action movie making.


Just an idea......

:P Yogi

[{I}{K}{E}]

when I watched the trailer of this movie it reminds me of Charlie's Angels :o

[miffo]

Originally posted by ezyryder@9 October 2003 - 22:03
I second that. (what grimlock said) Saying that, i've been talking to a few friends recently who still havn't heard of kill bill, or that QT made another movie! I was shocked! (of course, it isn't exactly thier scene, but shows the marketing hasn't been up to scratch. usualy a lot have heard of movies by now)

I agree with not supporting (money wise) Britney Spears or other untallented "preformers" or steven speilberg, who churns out movies by the dozen. Tarantino on the other hand DOES not, he is a brilliant director, has made fantastic movies (few and far between), and therefore ethics along the lines of "they are making too much money, too commerical... blah blah blah" are misplaced.
Agree
He's not one of those making little crappy plastic actionfigures to make more money out of a movie-theme

allthough i had lots of fun as a kid with the original star wars figures
at least those were'nt crappy as they are nowdays

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by praiseb@9 October 2003 - 18:58
I find it strange that the studio that brought us The Piano refuese to let Kill Bill run for 3 hours.
i think they've just figured that action movie fans have a shorter attention span than people who'd pay to see an artsy movie like The Piano. altho that's usually the reason behind telling a director to chop a movie from 2 hours down to 90 minutes. studios are reluctant to release ANY movie at a 3 hour running time, no matter what audience it's intended for.

edit: ALSO, there's just the pure greed factor, on the part of studios and theaters. a 3 hour movie can only run half as many times per day, as a 90 minute movie. fewer theaters would be willing to show a movie that they can only show 4 or 5 times per day, as opposed to 8 or 10.

[ahctlucabbuS]

I don´t think theatres would miss out on a Tarantino movie no matter what the length of the film was.

edit:spelling

[Grimlock]

Did anyone actually waste their time reading that bloody review good god that was long. I think I made it through the first sentence. besides I already wrote a short review on this film two days ago or so i thought it was concise to the point and entertaining but that thread was closed because of complainers who "don't want to see a new Kill Bill thread every day" that is sad. then don't click on it. God people no one is forcing you to read (or reply for that matter).

[Yogi]

actually waste their time reading that bloody review good god that was long.


I think I made it through the first sentence.

This tells all 'bout you....not the review.

And "contradictio in terminus":

God people no one is forcing you to read (or reply for that matter).

You must be real young, if anything more than one sentence is too much......
(or real old, with bad specs.....)

I edited it, to make it more clear i ment it as an "example", okay.....??

Grtz, :blink:

Yogi

[Inevitable]

they look at taratino like a director god, but taratinto can take his talent some where else much more popular then miramax like Universal or something, and just get bundles of money from there by the way anyone see kill bill yet? it's out in theatres today!