930 Forums

Tarantino

markie
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 03:48 PM UTC #
Mankie, keep your hair on…..

I dont think Quentin is tortured at all. I think he is a middle class tool.

I gave plenty of reasons for not liking Kill bill, you did not justify your enjoyment of it at all. I found that frustrating.

Please, if you can bothered, think about what you enjoyed so much about the movie. If its just chicks and fighting, I will just continue to think you are a prat.

Does that make sense?
mankie
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 03:56 PM UTC #
I like the story lines, they are very unique and "out of the box" to use a term I hate. The humour within the story cracks me up too. It's almost as if he's taking the piss out of movie making while making movies…if you know what I mean. You can tell a QT movie apart from any other.

You think I'm a prat regardless though, when did you ever need to give a reason?
markie
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:02 PM UTC #
Originally posted by mankie:
You think I'm a prat regardless though, when did you ever need to give a reason?
No not really, you're Ok normally.

OK good reasons tp like it. But someow this felt closer to a pastiche to me. Closer to ot shots 2 than to pulp fiction. But that is being overly critical. I guess the deft touches were there.

I think I am just frustrated by the fact that he had five years to make this movie and he his no grandiose statement to make. The big egg head has nothing to say. There is no point, moralistic or otherwise. Its just chicks fighting to street fighter 2 backgrounds.

What do you think about that?
mankie
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:08 PM UTC #
Originally posted by markie:
Originally posted by mankie:
You think I'm a prat regardless though, when did you ever need to give a reason?
No not really, you're Ok normally.

OK good reasons tp like it. But someow this felt closer to a pastiche to me. Closer to ot shots 2 than to pulp fiction. But that is being overly critical. I guess the deft touches were there.

I think I am just frustrated by the fact that he had five years to make this movie and he his no grandiose statement to make. The big egg head has nothing to say. There is no point, moralistic or otherwise. Its just chicks fighting to street fighter 2 backgrounds.

What do you think about that?
I haven't seen Kill Bill yet. We're not big movie goers so wait for stuff to come out on dvd/video. If it has Lucy Lui in it that's already a strike against it in my book though.
nkotb
Joined: August 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 6500
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:09 PM UTC #
I personally have never been a big fan of grand statements…in any entertainment. If I like something, I like it, regardless of the deep hidden meaning or message. That doesn't necessarily mean I hate songs or movies with messages; sometimes it can enhance the experience. However, I don't think they're needed to be enjoyable.

As for Kill Bill, I personally loved it. I thought the cinematography was spectacular, and really enhanced the movie. My personal favorite part is how the feel and style of the movie changed based on what was happening (ie. becoming a kung-fu movie when she took on Lucy Lui - who, I might add, I thought was fantasic). I'm hoping part 2 does the same as she takes on the rest. And I really liked the story and how he presented it. Plus, I am a sucker for old kung fu movies :D

One thing I love about Tarantino's movies is how fucking cool they are. Everything about them (look, dialogue, clothes, music, etc.) is just so hip.

Originally posted by markie:
Originally posted by mankie:
You think I'm a prat regardless though, when did you ever need to give a reason?
No not really, you're Ok normally.

OK good reasons tp like it. But someow this felt closer to a pastiche to me. Closer to ot shots 2 than to pulp fiction. But that is being overly critical. I guess the deft touches were there.

I think I am just frustrated by the fact that he had five years to make this movie and he his no grandiose statement to make. The big egg head has nothing to say. There is no point, moralistic or otherwise. Its just chicks fighting to street fighter 2 backgrounds.

What do you think about that?
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:11 PM UTC #
Originally posted by markie:
I think I am just frustrated by the fact that he had five years to make this movie and he his no grandiose statement to make. The big egg head has nothing to say. There is no point, moralistic or otherwise. What do you think about that?
If you want to send a message, use Western Union.
markie
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:15 PM UTC #
NKOTBie,

What you are saying then is that it had style over substance and you applaud him for that?

Look at really great movies and the have a point, yes or no?

think seven samurai and full metal jacket…….hell even when harry met Sally.

Kill bill, was than just disposable fluff.


Sorry mankie, I thought you had seen the movie.
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:18 PM UTC #
Originally posted by markie:
Look at really great movies and the have a point, yes or no?

think full metal jacket???
Full Metal Jacket is far from being a "great" movie.
markie
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:22 PM UTC #
Really Dupek?

I beg to differ.

But I will play along, name a feature of it that you find less than great?
nkotb
Joined: August 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 6500
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:22 PM UTC #
No, I'm not saying that the movie was all style and no substance. Granted, one of my personal favorite parts of Taratino's work is the style that it's done in, but that's not the only reason.

I thought the storyline in Kill Bill was great. The way he tells a story piece by piece really makes it enjoyable (to me at least), and keeps things relatively up in the air. You know the Bride is going to take everyone down, but if the movie was completely linear, everything that happens would be telegraphed. At least this way, the audience is kept on it's toes to some degree as the movie unfolds.

Personally, I think the revenge storyline, while not original, really makes a great flick. Also, I think you get a good bit of character development as you go through the movie. With each chapter, you learn about her former partners, and more about the main character.

And while I was saying the movie doesn't have a meaning, I didn't mean it didn't have a point. The point is pretty simple; she needs to kill Bill. What I meant was that a movie doesn't have to have a moral to be effective. Sometimes, it just tells a story.

Originally posted by markie:
NKOTBie,

What you are saying then is that it had style over substance and you applaud him for that?

Look at really great movies and the have a point, yes or no?

think seven samurai and full metal jacket…….hell even when harry met Sally.

Kill bill, was than just disposable fluff.


Sorry mankie, I thought you had seen the movie.
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:26 PM UTC #
Originally posted by markie:
Really Dupek?

I beg to differ.

But I will play along, name a feature of it that you find less than great?
Didn't we already hash this out months ago? That it was two movies, and not one. That the first half owned, but the second half didn't. Shot on location, in Somerset. Need more? Don't get me wrong. It was very watchable, just not of STAGECOACH, METROPOLIS, BICYCLE THIEF caliber.

<img src="http://www.howstrange.com/gallery/emperor.jpg" alt=" - " />

Don't you just love how I can pull these Film Appreciation-101 titles out of my ass?
markie
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:35 PM UTC #
Originally posted by nkotbie:


I thought the storyline in Kill Bill was great. The way he tells a story piece by piece really makes it enjoyable


And while I was saying the movie doesn't have a meaning, I didn't mean it didn't have a point. The point is pretty simple; she needs to kill Bill. What I meant was that a movie doesn't have to have a moral to be effective. Sometimes, it just tells a story.

to address those two points…

i) The darting around in the timeline is cool. But I thought it was somewhat unnececessary in this movie. It just seemed to me to be a device to cover up a shoddy plot. I thought haing chapter mumber and them scribbled out was very ham fisted.

ii) But that gets to the heart of a what a story is. A good story, book or film should make you think something about the world or life or yourself. Dont you think? Or else they are not good? Kill Bill just made me think I like to watch girls kill girls, Oh wait, now I feel like the joke is on me.
markie
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:40 PM UTC #
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
[QB]
Originally posted by markie:
[qb] Didn't we already hash this out months ago? That it was two movies, and not one. That the first half owned, but the second half didn't. Shot on location, in Somerset. Need more? Don't get me wrong. It was very watchable, just not of STAGECOACH, METROPOLIS, BICYCLE THIEF caliber.


Ok Dupek, I think you are right. We had this out before. But I dont think you can tell it was shot in the UK the NAM scenes are great. Perhaps it should have been two movies? Familiarity with it makes that hard to judge for me. They just seem to belong together now.

I dont think I have seen stagecouch…..I will go and look it up.
nkotb
Joined: August 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 6500
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:44 PM UTC #
I think it'd be pointless to try and argue about whether a movie should enlighten you or not, since it's obviously a personal preference. However, to give my side, I don't really think they need to. As you know, I'm a pretty big Star Wars geek. Every time I watch it, I don't think about the world around me and how the I fit, and this and that. I think, wow, this movie gets me pumped everytime.

To me, a movie is just a device to tell a story. Now, that device can be done in an artsy way (personally, I think Kill Bill and all of Tarantino's movies are shot in a very artistic way, but aren't necessarily art films), and can convey a deeper meaning, enhancing your understanding of the world and your place in it. But most importantly, a movie should be enjoyed.

Yes, Schindler's List was a great film and made me more aware of the world at large, but I didn't enjoy the viewing experience. Maybe it's a simple-minded view, but it's what works for me. And it's not just for escapism, on my part. I loved the Virgin Suicides, which isn't a feel good movie at all. It was beautifully shot, had a good story, AND made you think. It's all relative…

However, it seems this debate boils down to an even scarier topic: whether a specific movie is art or entertainment.

to address those two points…

i) The darting around in the timeline is cool. But I thought it was somewhat unnececessary in this movie. It just seemed to me to be a device to cover up a shoddy plot. I thought haing chapter mumber and them scribbled out was very ham fisted.

ii) But that gets to the heart of a what a story is. A good story, book or film should make you think something about the world or life or yourself. Dont you think? Or else they are not good? Kill Bill just made me think I like to watch girls kill girls, Oh wait, now I feel like the joke is on me. [/QB]
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:49 PM UTC #
Originally posted by markie:
the NAM scenes are great. Perhaps it should have been two movies? Familiarity with it makes that hard to judge for me. They just seem to belong together now.
The holy trinity of Nam flicks, IMO, is:

HAMBURGER HILL
FLIGHT OF THE INTRUDER
OFF LIMITS
markie
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:50 PM UTC #
I think t is so boiled down now that everything is art, be it a urinal or a white canvas….

I think Star Wars has some pretty interesting features, its not just an all out action movie, right?
markie
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:53 PM UTC #
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
The holy trinity of Nam flicks, IMO, is:

HAMBURGER HILL
FLIGHT OF THE INTRUDER
OFF LIMITS
Born on the Fourth of July
Platoon
heaven and Earth

Just kidding….. perhaps.

Apocalypse now for me please.
nkotb
Joined: August 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 6500
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 04:57 PM UTC #
You're right about Star Wars. I love the movie for more reasons than just the action, so that was a bad example. I think you get my point though…

As for the art vs. function argument, that's an insane argument to even start. What's the cut off? I doubt anyone would say that Independence Day is art, while I doubt anyone would argue that (insert the name of an independant artsy movie that everyone would love…my 2+ hour commute this morning has left my brain quite unable to think of one) isn't art. But both movies are made in pretty much the same way and with the same equipment. In the end, it really becomes a matter of personal choice and elitist judgement (and I'm not saying that in a bad way).

Originally posted by markie:
I think t is so boiled down now that everything is art, be it a urinal or a white canvas….

I think Star Wars has some pretty interesting features, its not just an all out action movie, right?
markie
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino November 06, 2003 at 06:35 PM UTC #
falklands war…..

There were some OK BBC mini-series. I dont remember any real films though.


NKOTBie,

Personally I think everything is art, just that some of it is good, re worthwhile and some is poor, re worthless.

So far Kill Bill has great style, some good pastiches and some entertaining value…… Now that sounds like independance day.
← Back to board