Saw Kill Bill 1 & 2 for the first time this weekend

This was my favorite film of Quentin Tarantino's I've seen so far. I know the movie pays a lot of homage to the old samurai films as well as more recent ones like "crouching tiger hidden dragon" or whatever the hell that movie was called. I didn't see any of the samurai films but I could immediately tell this kind of material has been done before. I like how Kill Bill 1 is artistically driven, while Kill Bill 2 is character driven. A lot of people have suggested and made fan edits mixing the two together to make them feel more consistent, but I think they work better being independent of each other stylistically. I like how Tarantino played out the story with a lot of twists and turns. It could have gotten predictable and boring really quick, but they kept the material fresh until the end.

I was not a big fan of Tarantino's"Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs". I'll admit I have never really sat through the entirety of either one of those movies, but they are just boring and confusing to me. Maybe one of you could help explain to me how those films are good? The first half of Pulp Fiction is completely different from the second half and I still haven't figured out the relevance. As far as Reservoir Dogs, I didn't find the first 10 minutes amusing and left the TV after that so I can't say much about that movie.

You know, you don't have to start a thread every time you see a movie.  Why not just post in the Last Movie Seen thread?

^This.

TV's Frink said:

You know, you don't have to start a thread every time you see a movie.  Why not just post in the Last Movie Seen thread?

---

Also, how can you say you don't like a movie when you won't even sit through it?  Of course Pulp Fiction confused you if you didn't watch the whole thing, it jumps around the timeline so much you have to see the whole thing!  Same thing with Reservoir Dogs.

I did sit through the whole movie,  I still didn't like Pulp Fiction.   I fail to see the need in jumping around the timeline.  Whatever happened to telling a story linearly?

Bill's dead to me.

ChainsawAsh said:

TV's Frink said:

You know, you don't have to start a thread every time you see a movie.  Why not just post in the Last Movie Seen thread?

---

 

Also, how can you say you don't like a movie when you won't even sit through it?  Of course Pulp Fiction confused you if you didn't watch the whole thing, it jumps around the timeline so much you have to see the whole thing!  Same thing with Reservoir Dogs.

Ha-ha, I didn't even bother to read past the first sentence of the OP so I missed that...

ChainsawAsh said:

TV's Frink said:

You know, you don't have to start a thread every time you see a movie.  Why not just post in the Last Movie Seen thread?

---

 

Also, how can you say you don't like a movie when you won't even sit through it?  Of course Pulp Fiction confused you if you didn't watch the whole thing, it jumps around the timeline so much you have to see the whole thing!  Same thing with Reservoir Dogs.

 I disagree. The storytelling method a movie uses (linear vs nonlinear) is no excuse to be dull or unentertaining.

If I found "Memento" to be dull it has no more of an excuse to be dull than "Tron 2." If the filmmaker is trying something complicated but it's not gripping, then he's failed at something complicated.

"It all makes sense at the end!" only counts if the movie is worth sitting through.

Personally, I make three distinctions with movies:

- Liked it/it was good
- Didn't like it/it was bad
- Couldn't finish it

I won't say I did or didn't like a movie unless I've watched the whole thing, regardless of how good or bad the first half hour/hour/whatever was.

For example, I've never finished Lost in Translation.  I don't have much desire to, either.  But I don't know if it's a bad movie or not, because I haven't seen the whole thing.

ChainsawAsh said:

Personally, I make three distinctions with movies:

- Liked it/it was good
- Didn't like it/it was bad
- Couldn't finish it

I won't say I did or didn't like a movie unless I've watched the whole thing, regardless of how good or bad the first half hour/hour/whatever was.

Many years ago I walked out of "Mortal Kombat: Anhilation" with maybe 30-40 minutes left in the film. I've yet to see the end.

Am I justified in maintaining that movie is utter poop? I feel confident that I am.

I think there's at least a small difference between seeing Pulp Fiction all the way through and...say...Meet the Spartans.

Agreed.  Part of the fun of Pulp Fiction (and, to a lesser extent, Reservoir Dogs) lies in seeing how it all fits together in the end.

TV's Frink said:

I think there's at least a small difference between seeing Pulp Fiction all the way through and...say...Meet the Spartans.

 I wouldn't argue. Just that a movie being non-linear and having some kind of twist/big payoff at the end doesn't mean the movie can slack on being entertaining during the movie.

 If a movie isn't compelling you to finish it, then I think it's safe to say you thought it was a bad movie.

So I come on here and find out I have 5 ignores including Moth3r. I wonder if this is the one that did it. I suppose I should have thought more before making this thread.

I would love to see Moth3r's ignore list.

Paging Mr. Moth3r....

I would like to see either of his ignore lists, American or Japanese doesn't matter.

I saw both versions Skyjedi, I saw the American version on TV and I saw the Japanese version with no black and white during the fight scenes and more gore. I would say I might actually prefer the American version. I liked the black and white transitions during the fight scenes. That was some pretty impressive work at the end of the movie with Uma Thurman fighting the crazy 88. The camera stayed on the same shot for a lot longer than most movies during fight scenes. They must have had a shit ton of rehearsal to get those shots as good as they did.