Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Kill Bill

WOW! I just saw the film, I watched the first part last week, and WOW! But euw..... Some of the scenes were pretty nasty - but I think it's just leaped up to the top of my favourites list! My heart was racing all the way through & it's still kind of going!

It was just ok. Certainly not Tarantino's best...

Reservoir Dogs was my favorite

Have you seen Pulp Fiction yet? If you haven't, I think you'd like that one too. Also directed by Tarantino.

Kill Bill was ok, but I was a little disappointed in it -- perhaps my expectations were too high? Pulp Fiction was so fresh and new and unusual back in '94. Maybe I've just become jaded over time.

Do you plan on watching Kill Bill 2? If you liked the first one, of course you'll like this one too.

"Hero" just came out on DVD in the US yesterday, and there seems to be a fair amount of buzz about that one as well.

Tarantino's an annoying hipster, but that movie was fun.

Lindy, I love the Ringo/Lennon dialog in your signature. What's that from?

Man, everybody gives Ringo a hard time...poor guy ;(

markb, I think it was an interview with John Lennon. In it, the interviewer asked him if he thought Ringo was the best drummer in the world, to which he replied, "He's not even the best drummer in the band." So I've taken a little "poetic license" with my particular version of it. I like mine better

sarah_blueparrot - sorry about the threadjack -- back to the subject at hand!

Kill Bill 1 was mindless, self-indulgent trash, and the second one was more of the same...minus the cookie-cutter pseudo-japanese fight scenes. Although that garbage was enough to keep me awake in the first one. Tarantino needs to shape up and start making good movies again. Yes, I know I'm in the minority opinion group, but that's just how I feel. :p

Lindy,
I've seen both of them, 1st one last week, 2nd just now. I have seen the first (or was it the middle?) part of Pulp Fiction, when I was yonger, and I seem to remember I was a bit drunk and not very interested. I'll give it another go..
enlitened - I watched the first 10 minutes of Reservoir Dogs, and found it so incredibly dull that it forced me to watch 2 Fast, 2 Furious (which I don't doubt was much, much worse). It didn't hold my attention at all though.
What is 'Hero' about?

Sarah, go to blockbuster spend the buck and rent the movie again. It was an intense movie w/ excellent actors.

Great ending...

Reservoir Dogs? Or Hero? Anyway, I think I will get them both out, I should give R Dogs another try..

Stylistically, "Hero" is a quite a bit of a copy cat of some late-80's/early-90's Kung Fu fantasy "ancient costume" movies and TV-series from Hong Kong. "Craoching Tiger Hidden Dragon" is also stylistically a copy cat of earlier "ancient costume" Kung Fu movies/TV-series -- Hong Kong and Taiwan have been making films/TV like that since the 70's. But it's not until "Croaching Tiger" came along that the Western audience's attention were piqued. Now Tarantino tries to bring another copy cat to the Western audience with "Hero."

As for "Kill Bill, vol. 1" I thought that's a very interesting fushion of violent fantasy fight scenes from various Asian movies (Japanese animation included). Each scene by itself is not original, but the way the package was put together was original, and I was rather impressed! Though I have yet to see vol. 2.

I might be in the minority too, but here is my review:

My review of Kill Bill (vol. 1)

Hero is gorgeous to look at but the politics? Dodgy, dodgy..........
Zatoichi is my favourite martial arts movie at the moment. Wipes the floor with Kill Bill. - Although that was pretty in the same way as Hero - lots of lovely colour themes.

Sarah,
I haven't seen "Hero", just been hearing a lot of things about it from those who liked "Kill Bill". imdb.com says this: "A series of Rashomon-like flashback accounts shape the story of how one man defeated three assassins who sought to murder the most powerful warlord in pre-unified China." Kill Bill show's up in Hero's "suggested by the database" recommendation section.

By all means, have another go at Pulp Fiction. I'm curious how you'd like it now that you've gotten a taste for Tarantino.

I loathe one-man-army movies, so Kill Bill was a waste of time for me. I hate scenes where they have one "super person" in the middle of a circle of 50 people, and 3 jump out and get their heads chopped off while the rest jump around in the background. I can already tell from the previews that Hero is going to be the same way. Plus I found the dialogue to be pretty cheesy, with the overuse of corny catch phrases (e.g. "Silly rabbit. Tricks are for kids!).

Reservoir dogs deserves another chance, wait till you see the scene after the robery when they take the cop hostage..."can you hear me now?"

enlitened - I will watch it!

Lindy - I will watch Pulp Fiction & let you know what I think.

89th - As I may have mentioned, I disagree with almost all of your reviews, so this doesn't surprise me. But "it is a slow, annoying film"?! In what way was it slow and annoying? I don't understand how one person killing at least 90 people in the first act alone can be perceived as slow. I was gripped right from the intro. In particular I liked the picture - the use of black & white and animé lent an entirely different side to this film.

NAK - I am not normally too keen on one-man armies either, but this one is clearly the exception!

P.S. I very much enjoyed watching 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'. I love the Oriental twist to certain things - especially food and film.

Every time I watch a Quentin Tarantino movie I can't help but get annoyed every time some piece of clever dialogue comes up because I know he's sitting there thinking about how awesome he is for coming up with it.


I do want to see Kill Bill though... it's in "queue"@ Netflix!

Uh guys, hate to break it to ya, but Hero has nothing to do with Tarintino.
He just put his name "Quentin Tarantino Presents" and that's it.
He didn't direct it, produce it, act in it or do anything even remotely related to it.

I saw it, and it was good though. Definately not Quentin Tarantino, but it was good.

Remember "Natural Born killers" now Oliver Stones name was mentioned in the credits, but he had very little to do with the film.

It wasn't on big huge letters all over the movie poster and previews was it?

Point taken

Anybody here see " True Romance"? It was written by Tarantino, and I think it was the first thing he did that made it to the big screen.
It stars Christopher Walken, Dennis Hopper, Christian Slater, James Gandolfini, Michael Rappaport, etc.
There is a scene between Walken and Hopper in Hopper's trailor that is one of my all time favorite movie scenes.

Eggplant? Cantaloupe!

Well it was slow, like when she was in the hospital. The chick fight in the beginning was the biggest piece of cr@p I have seen. The fact that she learned how to fight in 2 seconds and beat an army 50 people...

...the film was just stupid. I give Tarentino credit for creating an original movie experience, but almost every second of the movie you can just see him patting himself on the back for an 'original' line, or angle.

He reminds me of goths that walk around in all black and what not. He (and they) are just trying to be different for no reason...which is pointless and annoying.

Pulp Fiction is also overrated, although it might be his best work.

What?! You do know that she was an assassin *before* the wedding rehearsal, don't you? That's the reason why she was put into a coma in the first place. She knew how to fight. Yes, she was weak after 4 years, but she had a month in Japan to regain her strength and refresh her memory while the sword was being made.


He reminds me of goths that walk around in all black and what not. He (and they) are just trying to be different for no reason...which is pointless and annoying.


Trying to be different for no reason? I see *every* reason to be different, with regard to films. Almost every film that has ever been made can be placed into a category. Do you like that? Do you like watching a film & being able to say, "Oh, that's a thriller/comedy/action/romance/crime film"? It's dull, and makes for a dull kind of person.

I love films that are different. Take one of Francois Truffaut's films, for instance - 'Jules et Jim', or 'Le Dernier Métro'. What kind of films are they? La Nouvelle Vague - the New Wave of cinema. You can't categorise them - and that is exactly what made them so popular.

Tarantino has done a great thing here - he had mixed anime with action & thriller, and made it very touching. Yes, you could put it into a category, but not the normal category. The thing is, is that it's different. Different is good.

I guess she took a class in how to beat 50 ninjas, eh? Even if she had a machine gun, she would still probably get her @ss kicked.

I agree, different is good sometimes. Sometimes it's not.

"I Robot" was a new, but typical action movie, and it was a great/fun movie to watch! Definitely worth the ticket price. And sometimes its better to *not be different* because people have perfected certain genres, and the only way to have a good movie, is to follow suite, but with an original story.

At the same time, it is good to be different sometimes. "Gerry" a movie by Gus Van Sant (sp?), is probably the most legitimate 'different' movie I have ever seen. I loved the film, and not because it was 'different', but because it certainly presented the film in a way that would make you empathize with the actors. It's hard to explain, but basically you can be different if it has a purpose other than being 'different'.

Quentin Tarentino thinks everything he does is perfect, and he makes movies to be different. His combination of anime was pointless, (I really abhor the use of CG in movies, other than background shots like the Gladiator arena). But anyway, Kill Bill was just a stupid movie. The mom fight in the beginning? Come on...

I don't really care what the director personally thinks, as I don't actually know him and only wish to watch his art.

Of course it's unlikely that one person would be able to kill 88 people in one fight, but the way that the scene was presented was entirely realistic. And as long as it is realistic, I can symphathise with the characters.

Yes, sometimes it is good to be able to categorise a movie in order to let people know whether they might like it. But I, for one, am getting tired of the incessant similarity between films, the way that one can separate them all into "types". I think the film industry needs some new blood and a nouvelle vague to refresh itself.

You criticised 'Charlie's Angels' for being 'dumb', 'unrealistic', and 'an insult to the film industry'.
I'm not sure if you know, but one should not state one's own opinion whilst writing any kind of review. If you do want to state your own opinion, I suggest that you call your statements 'My Personal Opinion', for example, to avoid pushing your views onto other people. In your 'Goals' section, you (or your brother) stated ' "expert" opinions from critics who incorrectly rate the movies'. Firstly, "expert" critics do not make their reviews subjective without clearly stating what they are doing, and secondly - how can an opinion be incorrect anyway?!

Of course Charlie's Angels is unrealistic. Of course they had superpowers. It's a silly film, and that's what made it so popular. Don't you realise that it's aim was not to be realistic, but to show as much action and leg as possible, appealing to bikers, pilots, sky-divers, perverts, lesbians, gay men, heterosexuals, leather fetishists, hair fetishists and many more - thereby appealing to the majority of the population? In the end, films are for making money, and this one did well (it made $125,305,545, to be exact).

It seems to me that whenever you dislike a film you simply revert to calling it 'dumb' or other. (Kill Bill ('stupid'), Charlie's Angels, Once upon a time in Mexico ("the story sucked") ). There are many ways to describe a movie - why use 'dumb'? It seems to me that if you don't agree with it - it's dumb.

Some of your comments:-

Spider-Man 2 - "Even though this movie will crush box office records, and critics everywhere are loving it; this site, The College Critic, will tell you the REAL deal."
(Goes on to 'but..' it..)
Of course, because even though the whole of America, even though professional critics, love it, *you* are right.

Master and Commander - "After seeing this movie, I have concluded a few things. First of all, British people CAN'T SPEAK!! But I think we all knew this already."
Do you really find it necessary to insult 58,789,194 (2001) million people, who, incidentally, gave you the knowledge of speech? I think you should remember how for long people have been living in Britain, and for how long people have been living in America. If I was unnecessarily PC like too many people I would call you a racist.

Master and Commander - "Looks like the guys who wrote this film forgot to come to class the day when EVERY WRITER learns that endings of movies cannot be vague. Idiots."
So, you're one of those guys who likes everything to be tied up and put on a spoon. How conventional and dull.
I hardly think that Kevin Miller is an idiot. He's made it quite far, compared to the millions of people in dead-end jobs.

Men in Black 2 - "This is the epitome of sequels created ONLY to make money".
Aww, honey. Did you really believe that people make sequels to amuse the public?

Paycheck - "To mister Ben Gayfleck, you still can't act".
Just because you seeming to have an almost unreasonable hatred of this man, should not let you become biased in your reviews and insulting towards actors who happen to be more successful in their job than you will ever be.

Team America: World Police - "I don't think I've ever seen a more vulgar, offensive, and HILARIOUS movie!"
I think this sums up your taste in films quite nicely, don't you?

Figures taken from here

and here

Keith,

The whole Sicilian invasion scene with Dennis "the grass" Hopper and Walken was one of the best of all time!!

"I haven't shot anybody since 1982"

I'm an eggplant?? Well you're a cantolope!!

Want a ciggerette first Keith??

89th simply hasn't watch enough Asian kung fu/gangster/fantasy-martial arts films to grasp the kind of "movie logic" involved.

It's like you have to watch enough Road Runner and Bugs Bunny to grasp certain cartoon logic.

Watch more, 89th, that might help your movie critique gig.

Edxcellent animation shown in Kill Bill 1. #2 didn't do that much for me, maybe I expected more.

Didn't care at all for "True Romance", a waste of Gary Oldman's great talent IMHO.

It wasn't presented realistically at ALL! How was that realistic? Realistic = would happen in real life...and that obviously could not happen. If she fought 5 people she would die, let alone 88.

I agree. Thats why I like it when movies such as 'the village' and 'signs' (M. Night) come out. They may or may not be good, but they are such a refreshing change of pace from something like "Bridget Jones' Diary".

What are you talking about!? How does ANY critic give a review? How do they give a grade, or a thumbs up or down. They have to say whether or not they like it. Thats why there are many different opinions for the same movie.

Someone said "Alexander is the best movie of the year", when I saw some of it and it was one of the WORST movies of the year.

Thats why I started the site, because Brett and I were getting fed up reading horrible reviews, so we decided to give our opinion in an organized and accessible manor.

The amount of money a film makes doesn't not mean it is a good movie.

Look at Fahrenheit 9/11, that broke the 100 million blockbuster limit, yet it was a bad movie from the viewpoint of many, many people. If you like misleading propoganda, then you would have loved that film. I, on the other hand, enjoy factual discourse...thus making fahrenheit a bad movie.

Wrong, the 'whole' of america didn't love it...some did, and some didn't. I remember I thought it was a good movie, nothing special. Whats wrong with that?

It's very simple: If they are speaking your language, and you can't understand what they are saying...they CAN'T SPEAK.

You might want to look at my top ten list. Donnie Darko is on there, probably the most debated movie ever, regarding to its ending. I love that movie, and the ending was supposed to be vague.

But in master and commander, they were telling a story, and they wrapped up the end so fast, that many of the people in the theater were trying to figure out what happened. That's bad.

Aww, honey. Did you know that there actually are movies out there with planned sequels? Men in Black, was not one of them.

He is a bad actor, and a tool. He is probably ranked higher on the 'bad-acting' list than any other actor in hollywood. Just ask around.

Tell me, you think he is a good actor? Yes or no.

And I didn't know you could see my entire life in your crystal ball...tell me, how do I die? Or actually, do I ever get to perform Rach3? What kind of job do I have? I'd like to know since you told me that I'll never be as successful as Bennifer.

Do you disagree? Take a look at my top ten list, that should give you a summary of my taste in films.

You could show me every film ever made, it still will not justify the lunacy of Kill Bill.

Please, tell me how she was able to kill those 100 people in the room by herself.

If Quentin showed her getting some special powers or something, at least that would be justified, but he didn't. He made it look like an average white woman could beat up 100 ninjas by herself. That is just dumb.

So much truth in just one sentence. I'm impressed.

I meant that the way it was filmed was realistic. She wasn't flying, she was walking. Only one or two fell per blow, not 10. When I'm talking about *how* the film is presented, I don't care what the content is. I care how it is made, and this movie was realistic.

My point was that the critic should clearly state that that is *their* opinion. "Alexander is the best movie of the year" is a statement that could be taken to mean either, 'I thought that this film was the best..' OR 'This film IS the best, it's been proved, it's been voted, I'm right..'
A review should first of all give a brief description of the content of the art, and may contain a couple of lines at the end stating the critic's personal viewpoint. The review should not consist only of the critic slagging the movie and the actors off because they do not like it/them.

No, but it does show whether it is a popular movie. And that brings me back to opinions, which is mainly what I talking about.
The only exception to this is if the movie in question is a controversial movie - I went to see The Passion because I had heard so many different opinions of it.


Nothing wrong with that.. Just the way you said the first sentence. It had the aspect of the absurd.

Has it occurred to you that it may be that you can't listen? There are two sides to a brick wall.


So the endings of movies CAN be vague then..


I'm guessing that it must have been planned somewhere along the way...
And my point is that even the planned sequels are simply created for money.

I don't really have an opinion of him. I only have opinions of controversial subjects. I am indifferent to that which does not interest me.

<sigh> Quit with the name-calling.
With the first question: You will die... let me see.. you will die.. from a brain tumour. Your last few weeks will be spattered with intermittent strokes. This will be caused from the stress of learning the Rach3 - which you will finally perform, but will collapse backstage immediately afterwards, laughing hysterically, and will be rushed to hospital, where you spend your last days with your loved ones. Your death will touch the hearts of all of us here. I will miss you.

I still dont understand what you mean by realistic. Yes, she was presented as a human, with no special powers. But she still beat 100 ninjas by herself, that is NOT realistic.

If I *walked* up to a dumptruck, and tried really hard, I wouldn't be able to life the dumptruck. It just wasn't realistic in the least bit!!!

Of course everything I say there is my opinion. It would be redundant to say, "in my opinion, this movie lacked character development...".

I cant say, "This movie was really well put together and the acting was great, but in my opinion, the acting was really bad and I thought it was a bad movie."

Either I thought the movie was good, or I thought it was bad. I'm just going to tell one thing, and if my opinion doesn't match what is reality, then it is not your my. Whenever you or I watch a movie, afterwards we will say that we liked it or didn't like it. Thats the whole point of a review!!

I'm talking about quality, not how popular it is.

If you want popularity, go to www.boxofficemojo.com

If you want to see if the movie was good or bad, go to www.thecollegecritic.com

Only if you dont read the rest of the review.

I understand the english language very well, and if I cant understand what someone is saying while they are talking in english (no matter where they are from), then they CANT SPEAK.

Tell me, what does this say:

Thsief shisnnot beveree caordtuh chundastin.

Aww...you dont understand what I said? Perhaps I just cant speak english clearly. Or maybe you have a reading problem?


Obviously. I just said they could be.

But they CANT be, if the movie is trying to end the story without any vagueness. You and I both know they didn't end that story to make us "think about what might of happened." They tried to wrap it up, and did a very, very bad job at it. THUS, the writer should take a class in how to end-storied.

Some are created after the movie does well at the box office, like men in black.

Some are created as part of the story, such as Lord of the Rings.

But yet you think I have a bias against him, when at the same time you could have the same bias but dont even know it? Come on...

What name calling?

And wow, I didn't know I was David Helfgott. (sp?)

Chicago - A cinematic production of Bob Fosse's theatrical musical, directed by Rob Marshall and starring Reneé Zellweger as the charming Roxie Hart, Catherine Zeta-Jones as the jazzy '20's dancer Velma Kelly, and Richard Gere as the smooth-talking lawyer. Including favourite hits such as 'All That Jazz', the production was very smooth and satisfying. It would have made for a great movie, but I didn't like the colour of Gere's shoes. This spoiled the whole movie for me and I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. It is a bad, bad movie, the worst ever.

???

Why did you post that?

Interesting logic. Are you sure you didn't just have the volume turned down?

David

Sorry david, I was at the movie theater, the volume was way up.

Once and a while I could hear some words like:

fish
chips
take the lift to the flats
scones

(jk)

<sigh> I am going to explain this once more. When discussing whether the film is realistic, I don't care what the content is. The WAY it was filmed is important. She wasn't jumping twelve feet into the air. She was jumping two feet into the air. She didn't sprout 5 heads and start eating people. She was having a sword fight. She didn't stab one, and somehow kill them all with the one stroke. She killed all of them individually. THAT is what I mean by realistic.


"This steamed salmon is disgusting. It's inedible."
"I hate salmon. I find this steamed salmon digusting. I find it inedible."

No. If I want your personal opinion and that of your brother's, I'll go to your site. If I want a simple synopsis of a movie, I'll go to boxoffice.

I think perhaps you need to check up on your spelling, before you state that you understand our language. And I'm not talking just about the rubbish you just wrote either.



Sarah: "So the endings of movies CAN be vague then"
Isaac - "Master and Commander - "Looks like the guys who wrote this film forgot to come to class the day when EVERY WRITER learns that endings of movies cannot be vague. Idiots.""


Yes. To make money.

You quite clearly have a bias against him. I don't even have an opinion of him. How on earth could I possibly be biased?

You don't see anything wrong with that?

Please don't tell me that you think that because I don't like the colour of the actor's shoes, I should dissuade as many people as possible from going to see an otherwise perfectly watchable movie?

EXACTLY!!!!

So since she has to abide laws of physics, and no special powers, you HAVE to admit it is unrealistic for a skinny white woman to beat 100 ninjas in just a few minutes!

EXACTLY!!!

So if someone asked your opinion, you would say that you didn't like the salmon.

If someone asks my opinion about a movie (such as going to my website), then I will let them know if I liked the movie. Thats the whole *point* of a review!

EXACTLY!!!

If you want to know what the movie is ABOUT, you can get that anywhere.

If you want to know if its good or bad (which can ONLY be determined by one's opinion) then go to my website.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. But again, you disagree that if someone is speaking english and you cant understand what they are saying because of such a thick accent or slurring their words, that they cant speak english?

You might want to read the rest of my statement...I know that might be hard for you to do, but if you read the rest of it, I just addressed the topic of why some movies can be vague and some cant. My comment in the review about how writers cant have vague endings refer to this type of movie, and not a sci-fi. Please read the context before you make another false claim like that.

Which is bad.

AGAIN, please read the whole post and stop taking little snipits out here and there, thats immature.

AGAIN, did you read my post? Come on, this is like arguing with a 5 year old. Read the whole post. I said that you COULD have the same bias, but since you haven't examined his acting skills, you might not know it, thus you cant get mad at my opinion.

The way you are debating is immature. You are taking little clips here and there and not addressing my whole post in the context that it was written in. Grow up.

I dont know why you posted that random review, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

I give my opinion about movies for legit reasons, not because of shoes.

You are really trying to stretch your argument to fit your point, aren't ya?

Man, this is going on for a while.

Sarah, it is clear you do not agree with anything 89th has to offer. A valid and reasonable position. With that, I would suggest that when considering whether or not to see a movie, do not look to his site for advice. You two have very different tastes.

Personally, I find it helpful to find a reviewer with whom I share the same tastes. It has saved me time and money more than once.

89th is free to post his reviews and you are free to ignore them. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them any less helpful to someone that might.

Good post tcmod. Thank you for your articulation regarding this subject.

I have had some people come up and tell me that they agree with many of my reviews, and will use it in the future to decide between seeing a movie or not.

I have also had people come up with completely different tastes in movies (such as sarah) and say they will not use my site.

I simply created it to vent my own opinion, and to give the option of having it out there for people to refer to it if they trust it.

Every review is just my honest thought about the movie, and whether you agree with it or not, is up to you.

No hurt feelings here.

Ok. First off - thank you, tcmod, for the advice to not use 89th's site - but I am quite capable of finding my own sources for information. I was merely looking at his site and then posting my opinion on it - and making some suggestions, which he clearly didn't seem very grateful for. I know I am free to ignore them - but I do not wish to ignore them. I wish to post upon them, and that is what I am doing.

I wrote that review, and I wrote it to make a point. It obviously went whistling over your head though, as you still don't seem to understand my point. My point was that my opinion in this review is, quite frankly, completely unnecessary, and dissuades people from watching the movie in the first place. Now, I'm not sure if you understand this, even, but in this case, my personal opinion does not matter in the slightest.

Same with the salmon. I said :
"This steamed salmon is disgusting. It's inedible."
"I hate salmon. I find this steamed salmon disgusting. I find it inedible."

The first statement is misleading - it does not contain any way of showing the reader that that is my opinion, and, if read without prior knowledge of the dish, states that the dish is 'inedible'. However, in the second statement, I clearly state my opinion, thereby letting readers know that this is my viewpoint, and mine only. They know that the dish is only disgusting from my point of view. They may try the dish themselves, if they so desire.

I do not HAVE to admit anything.
Read my point again. I am not going to explain it further, although this might help - I said "When discussing whether the film is realistic, I don't care what the content is. The WAY it was filmed is important."

No. I'll go to your website only if I want to know whether *you think* it is good or if it bad.

I was talking about the fact that you have missed out numerous apostrophes, here ("they cant speak english?) and on your site, as well as other punctuation marks and innumerable capital letters.
If someone is talking English through a thick accent, or slurring their words, they are still speaking English. However, the sentence that you wrote, wasn't English, and so is completely irrelevant.

I did read your statement, and was quite aware of the context - but you made two completely contradicting comments. Now, if you feel as strongly about 'vague' endings as you seem to be, you would know what you want to say.

If I didn't take snippets out here and there, this post would be far longer than it will be already - far too long. So, the 'quote' option and then the ability to 'snip' is 'immature', is it? At least I haven't dropped down to insulting you because I have nothing else to say.. :rolleyes:

Since I haven't examined his acting skills, I cannot have an opinion of him, and therefore am not biased. I could not possibly be biased against him.

I was not getting mad about your opinions in the slightest - my point about your reviews of Ben Affleck was that you are letting your biased opinion cloud your judgement. I think that you would benefit from taking a step back, and looking at the film from an unbiased person's point of view. This is, in my opinion, quite a constructive comment for you to read, and your only response to it was a couple of insults.

The way you insult me is completely unjustified. I am attempting to have a mature and honest debate with you, and you become angry and insulting, and call me immature. I honestly fail to see how my statement above is one like a five years old's. Surely five year olds would have run out of things to say by now and would start the insults?

I don't recall seeing True Romance. I'll have to check it out.

Tarantino has a special gift for movie making. I expected to like Reservoir Dogs because of the cast, and I certainly did. I didn't expect to enjoy Pulp Fiction or the two Kill Bills, but I still did. I also thought Jackie Brown was exceptionally well done.

It seems to me that anyone who can get the kind of performances out of Uma Thurman as in Pulp Fiction as well as the two Kill Bills has to be an exceptional director.

Posted by the 89th key:
The problem with your observation(at least in this instance)is that it shows a complete and total lack of any imaginative "stretch" on your part. Maybe you're familiar with the term "The willing suspension of disbelief" which applies to an audience willing to surrender themselves to the fictitious circumstances of a play they see.
So you're just too "literal" in a situation that demands letting go of our "conventional" notions of what is realistic.

That's what makes movie viewing an often fun experience, which as a so-called "movie critic" you should understand.

Chicks fighting! Can't get enough of it. I want to see the new House of a Thousand Daggers. More cool chicks fighting. These people know what makes guys fork over the ten bucks! That's all I have to say on this topic. I thought the fight scenes in Kill Bill were very realistic. With training it could happen. Really. I don't see the problem here.

In the Kill Bill movie, the "white woman" character (i.e., "The Bride") beat up 88 Yakuza gangsters, not ninjas.

As for whether the "one white women beat 88 Yakuza gangsters" fight seen was realistic or logical -- of course not! Not if you use your every day average American life as a frame of reference for all things you consider "real" and "logical."

Every genre of movies/stories has its own set of "reality" and "logic." (It's own Matrix, if you will.)

Road Runner has its own "reality" and "logic" where the bird can run onto a highway painted on a boulder while the cayote will slam its face flat running into that same boulder; and big ACME products will arrive within seconds of the coyote dropping the mail order form into the mail box; and all ACME contraption will always work against the cayote, etc.

Vampire movies have their own "reality" and "logic" where vampires can infect human and are afraid of sun light.

Pornos have their own "reality" and "logic" where oversized sexual features are commonplace and every body loves to get kinky.

Harry Potter and movies that involve wizards and witches have their own "reality" and "logic."

007 and all the super spy, super secret agent movies have their own "reality" and "logic."

Star Trek has its own "reality" and "logic."

D.C. Comics super hero movies have their own "reality" and "logic."

Chuck Norris and Stephen Seigal movies have their own "reality" and "logic."

American high school "coming of age" teen-movies have their own "reality" and "logic."

Old western movies have their own "reality" and "logic."

So it is with the Asian kung fu/martial arts genre. If you've only seen one, you thought "gee, that's all wrong" and get all disoriented and confused. Seen enough of them and you'll look at a woman beating 88 gangsters like you look at 007 always managing to escape certain death and going on to score his enemy's kept woman, or like you look at Wild E. Cayote once again gets crushed/burnt by yet another ACME contraption mere seconds after Road Runner whizzes by.

Now I realize that many people here, even the flim critics, are not yet familiar with the Asian kung-fu/martial arts genre, and you may get terribly confused by the fight scenes because of this. To help you make sense out of those fight scene and enable you to enjoy them in the future, I provide a short animated video clip below to succinctly show you how the "fight scenes" in such movies are supposed to work (i.e., the formula):

* CLICK HERE to view or download sh....swf) format, about 1.3 MBytes in size *

Enjoy!

Ax, I've seen that thing so many times, yet it never gets boring.

That was really funny!

Jeffrey - is that 'The House of Flying Daggers'? Zhang Ziyi is so beautiful. It will probably have the same feel to it as 'Crouching Tiger' as Zhang Yimou is directing it again, but I enjoyed 'Tiger', so I'm really looking forward to this one.

What is so hard to understand about this?

MY review is MY opinion, that is exactly what a review is!

Just like how a food critic writes in his trade journal about whether he liked the restaurant or not. A *review* is someone's *opinion*, in the purest form!

What do you mean by the WAY it was filmed. There are only two things you can be talking about:

Either the techincal aspect of filming, such as lighting, camera movement, etc.

or the content.

And you cant present her as an mortal woman who abides by the laws of physics, and then turn around and have her beat 100 ninjas.

THAT IS NOT REALISTIC.

Exactly, if you want my review.

Awww, but just because I didn't put in apostrophes, you could still understand what I was saying, couldnt you?

And for the record, the misuse apostrophes does not fall under spelling mistakes.

And I dont care if they are speaking english or not, if you CANT UNDERSTAND THEM, then you CANT UNDERSTAND THEM. Understand?

At points in the movie, those british actors COULD NOT SPEAK. Period!

Do you not understand?

If the movie presents itself as a movie with a vague ending that is fine! Just like in Donnie Darko.

If it presents itself as a story that will wrap up in its conclusion (like saving private ryan or the green mile for example), then you cant have a vague ending (like master and commander).

Those aren't contradicting statements. Read it again if you need to understand better.

*** you can see by this long post, I do not have "nothing else to say"...and you were clipping out little quotes here and there and only addressing one aspect of my statement, when the other side of my statement fully addressed your issue.

So you are telling me you have never seen a Ben Affleck movie? If you have seen one, then you have examined his acting skills.

Ben Affleck was a bad actor in one movie, and he was again in that movie...thus he is a bad actor. That's not bias, that opinion.

And when have I insulted you? You need to read my statements more carefully...please show me where I insulted you...because I haven't and I will expect an apology from you for that comment.

I find it odd that whenever I am debating with someone, be it you or nunatax or whoever...apologies always seem to come my way. Thats not a boasting statement or anything, its just an interesting observation; I have to debate against people all the time that have to apologize to me for incorrect statement, which just gets annoying. Don't accuse me of things that I haven't done, such as how I insulted you. If I did, I will certainly apologize, but I didn't. And I will expect yours in return.

When a movie, like Spiderman, positions itself as a movie about fictional and superhuman actions, that is fine.

But when it presents itself as a story, like Kill Bill, you cant have inconsistant laws. She cant kill 100 ninjas by herself and turn around and be a mortal woman that can get hurt by a cut.

The movie can be as fictional as you want, but it has to have a consistant theme, regarding the range of ability in its characters.

Just showing your main point:

Ninja, gangsters, who cares...its still a white skinny woman beating them all up.

NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

If the movie presented itself as a movie that could have the woman suddenly learn how to beat up 100 ninja/gangsters, that is fine.

But it didn't, it held her to the normal restraints of life and physics, and she cant suddenly do that.

I have seen kung-fu movies and what not before, and they present themself in a way that allows weird movies, and abnormal stuff...but Kill Bill didn't, and that is why it was annoying: it was inconsistant.

I found your five comments unfair, insulting, and downright rude. Don't expect an apology for me simply telling you that I found them insulting, because if anything, I would expect an apology from you. However, I am not going to be so pedantic and holier-than-thou as to state that I wish for one - for one reason I know that it would not come anyway.
Now, go through my posts and see where I have written anything that even slightly deserves such insults. I have treated you with respect, and I have even respected your opinion. Don't tell me that you expect an apology from me.

A good film critic should care -- a good film critic should get these things straight if he/she is to critique that genre of films, just like a good critic should not confuse a "warp drive" with an "impulse drive" if he's to critique Star Trek.

Sarah, you call those insults???

Lets look at my "insults":

How is that even in the LEAST bit an insult!?!?

What I said was TRUE. You needed to read the context before you make false claims!

Again, not an insult.

When you take out snippets and dont look at my whole idea, that is immature; a cheap way to make it look like your point is valid, when I obviously addressed it in the same statement.

It is, when you ignore what I said and try to make an argument against something I *just* addressed...thats like arguing with a 5 year old.

Thats not an insult.

Not an insult either, for the same rationale as above.

Are you considering that an insult as well? Jeez, you need to to chill. You said I was insulting you and I just showed you that I never did such a thing! Again, you can apologize if you want, I dont care...I get them alot when debating people here that make false claims. Thats not a holier-than-thou statement, its just stating the truth.

You can apologize if you want, or dont, makes no difference to me...I just showed you that I haven't insulted you. Unless you consider those "5" things up there insults...and if you do, again you are acting like a 5 year old.

If a white woman is fighting ninjas, pirates, gangsters, monsters, babies, ghosts, or dinosaurs...it doesn't matter, it wasn't realistic.

Dont try and throw me into an ignorant-category, when you know what my point was.

I loved Reservoir Dogs. Haven't seen KB.
Are you guys aware of the filming mistake at the end of Reservoir Dogs?

That really was an Autorie Honsu sword

I consider it an insult because it is untrue. I do not; and will not, make any false claims. You have not described to me in sufficient detail, how I stated false information, and until you do, I will consider your 'plea' to be insulting and untrue.

Quote

thats immature.

Again, not an insult.

When you take out snippets and dont look at my whole idea, that is immature; a cheap way to make it look like your point is valid, when I obviously addressed it in the same statement.

The reason you think that I took out 'snippets' is simply because I do not have the time or the inclination to copy and paste everything single statement of yours that I want to comment on. I know which comments I was talking about, and I assume you do, as you wrote them yourself. If other people want to know what you wrote they can go to your site and read it for themselves. If they don't want to do that, they can ask you or I in what context the comment was made. I do not consider saving bandwidth as being immature.

Quote

Come on, this is like arguing with a 5 year old.

It is, when you ignore what I said and try to make an argument against something I *just* addressed...thats like arguing with a 5 year old.

Thats not an insult.

For one thing - I wasn't arguing. I was debating. If you consider the Coffee Room, and anywhere on this forum, in fact, to be a place for arguments, then I think you need to readdress the issue.

Another thing - I do not 'argue' with five year olds. Arguing (at least when or if I happen to do so) involves reasoning on my part; and 5 year olds are impossible to reason with.

I did not ignore what you said.

If I can't address an issue that you just addressed - then which issues *can* I address? The ones from 3 pages ago? They are done with, unless you care to dig them up again.

And lastly, on this topic - again, *I* considered your comment to be insulting. You may not have done. That's your opinion, and as you know, I disagree with most of your opinions.

Quote

Grow up.

Not an insult either, for the same rationale as above.

*I* considered this to be an insult, and untrue.

Quote

I haven't and I will expect an apology from you for that comment.

Are you considering that an insult as well? Jeez, you need to to chill.

No, I believe you will find, if you read my previous post, that I said that you insulted me five times. Here, I was merely reiterating what I quoted of you in the top of my post, and then I commented it upon it. I obviously did not make it clear enough for you to read correctly.

Quote

You said I was insulting you and I just showed you that I never did such a thing! Again, you can apologize if you want, I dont care...I get them alot when debating people here that make false claims. Thats not a holier-than-thou statement, its just stating the truth.

Please, stop expecting me to apologise! I do not wish to make out that I am the victim here, but I am certainly the one who has been polite throughout this discussion, whilst you have, in my opinion, insulted me. I have remained civil towards you, and in a place where adults can come together and debate in a civil manner, the least I expect from you is the same.

Quote

You can apologize if you want, or dont, makes no difference to me...I just showed you that I haven't insulted you. Unless you consider those "5" things up there insults...and if you do, again you are acting like a 5 year old.

And yet again you insult me.
If you do not consider those statements to be insulting, I think that you should bear it in mind for next time that some people, I for one, when being called 'immature', 'acting like a five year old', and being told to 'grow up', find it insulting. If you wouldn't mind being called those things yourself - fine. But I do. The least you could do is accept that, and stop even considering to push for an unneeded, undeserved and pointless apology.

I suggest that you try to be a little more polite next time someone tries to have a civil and adult debate with you.

Just because you think something is untrue, doesn't make it an insult...come on!

And you stated false information because you said I insulted you, which from a normal person's point of view, I didn't. You might get all mad because I told you to "read the context", but that's your problem, not mine.

Yeah, I'm sure your main goal was to save bandwidth.

IMPORTANT:
For example, I was saying that some movies present themselves in a manner to allow a vague ending (like donnie darko), and some don't (M&C).

YOU then came out and starting showing only a portion of what I said: "Sometimes movies CAN be vague." In which you think that that suddenly validated your claim that M&C can be vague which I CLEARLY stated that it couldn't.

I was talking about how some movies can be vague, like Donnie Darko...and you clipped out that phrase and made it look like it applied to M & C, which it obviously doesn't.

Thats where the "immature, etc..." comment came from, because they *were* immature!!!

You and I BOTH know what I meant. Jeez, again this is like arguing with a 5 year old. You are trying to win a "DEBATE" by showing how I incorrectly used the term "argument", when we BOTH know what I was talking about. GROW UP.

I am realizing that more and more as I speak to you.

And although I did "snippet" that out, you can see that the rest of your statement had no relevancy towards that statement...unlike you, when you take out a portion here and there that looks bad when seperated from the rest of my statement.

For example, my statement was someething like this:

'A is the rationale for B.'

And then you would just start talking about B, without realizing that I addressed your issue of B, with my A-statement.

Again, just because you THINK something is untrue, doesn't make it an insult. And if you do, you need to wake up and realize what a real insult is...and not freak out when I tell you to grow up in response to your childish debating tactics.


Again, you can apologize if you want, I dont care, I already know the facts.

Again, I haven't insulted you, and if you think I did, then I AM SORRY that you have such an easily-insulted mindset. You could get mad at me for saying that your hair looks nice, so I cant help what you get all bent out of shape from.

I told you not to act immature and not take snippets from my statment, and you consider that an insult...oh well!

I told you to read the context of something and you thought that was an insult.

There's nothing more I can do from my point of view, because who knows what you'll call an insult next!

89th, this is the last post that I will write in this thread. I am not going to waste my time trying to untwist my words from your incorrect statements.

I hope you enjoy having the last word; I expect it will make your mind somehow think that you have 'won', by insulting me so that I longer feel any point in conversing with you because I foolishly thought that I could have a mature and lively debate with you. It seems that I was wrong; there has certainly not been any mature and lively information from you for a long time.

P.S. I suggest that you spell-check your web site.

I think this was Tarrentino's first film, and it shows. It's loaded with continuity mistakes - handcuffs in the back, then in the front, passing the same Ace hardware store over and over during the getaway scene, also during that lovely scene where the radio plays "Stuck in the Middle of You," the radio seems to stop at the end of the song. It's been about 10 yrs since I've seen Res. Dogs, but I assume the mistake you're referring to is the Mexican Standoff scene at the end. Can't remember who, but someone got shot, and there was no gun pointed at him.

89th,

There's such a thing as "camp" in a lot of movies. Tarrentino is appealing to our senses of humor - where they exist - by purposely creating absurdities in costume, fight scenes, dialogue. IMO he does this very effectively in Kill Bill, although he's not exactly my favorite director.

Don't mean to step in the middle of Sarah's and your fun, but if there is a perceived insult, the best course is almost always to apologize for the misunderstanding, and move on.

Do I have to?

Anyone want to offer me odds on this?

(Just kidding, Sarah; be gentle with me. )


David

Anything I say, you could consider an insult, so who has the problem there?

Plus look at your statement, you hypocritically "insulted" me over and over, according to your standards. So good job with that!

And please show me what is incorrectly spelled on my website? I try and keep all the spelling correct on there, but might have slipped up...please show me where I have mis-spelled.

I know you read that, even though you dont respond, but you can PM me if you want...I dont care if you dont address the main thread topic anymore, but please show me where I have spelling errors.

Ax, you were implying that I'm not a good critic and that I was ignoring certain facts on purpose...so you can try all you want, but you weren't able to put me into that ignorant-category.

No, seriously...please make another short empty comment since you have nothing else to debate with. Please?

Phlebas, I see what you are saying, and even if thats what he was trying to do, that gets back to my main point that sarah was asking me about.

It's annoying.

You cant suddently let her break the rules of reality for one scene, and then bind her to them in another. The film has no depth in that case and is annoying, since anything can happen...it's like trying to watch a monster fight a superhero, and the superhero can turn on his 'invincibility suit' anytime...there's nothing fun about that.

That was my main grievance with the film.

Yup, one of them didn't have any guns pointed at him but he went down anyway.

89th,

Watch that movie again (carefully, and don't skip any scene), to see if the statements you made (quoted above) are accurate.

Confusing Yakuza gangsters with ninjas shows that you have insufficient understanding of those pop-culture references underlying the film, that you have no grasp of that genre. The statements you made (quoted above) show that you either did not watch the movie in full or were not paying enough attention when you were watching it -- yet you critiqued the movie on those points. Not the mark of a good film critic.

As I said, it doesn't matter if she was fighting 100 ninjas, gangsters, pirates, or elephants, she COULD NOT win.

What is so hard to understand?

I'm right over here *wave*


Folks, to be a movie critic means to analyze a film critically.
This is NOT totally subjective. You can't just offer critical analysis and call it "opinion" Then it's a movie op-ed, not a critique.

Not saying 89th is a bad film critic, but certainly if you're going to call yourself a critic, you can't hide behind the mask of "opinion". No, you're a critic, which means you've critically analyzed these films. You need to backup positions... not just say it's what I think, and therefore it's ok.
Also, realism can't be the only gauge. I've NEVER seen a realistic movie.... ever.
Romantic Comedies may follow the laws of physics, but they don't follow the laws of common sense.
I've never seen a character in a movie make decisions similar to what I would make, so I can't say that I've ever seen a film that was "realistic". By this measure, all movies must be crap.

Raising Arizona is one of the finest films ever made IN MY OPINION. But as a critic I can cite all of the technical reasons I feel that Cohen Bros. films are wonderful.

Just for the record, this will be my only post in this thread.

89th, you criticize "Kill Bill" for being unrealistic, yet you love movies like "Back to the Future", "Star Wars", and "Donnie Darko". I'm not saying those are bad choices, (I don't mind them myself), but they aren't what I would call "realistic".

I was once in an argument over "Kill Bill", and I used the exact same argument you are using right now. However, I came to realize that the reason I disliked the movie was not because of the obvious impossibility of many of the situations found in the film, but rather a dislike of the style in which the movie was done. In other words, I just did not like the movie. Maybe you're confusing our dislike for "Kill Bill" itself for hatred of unrealistic fight scenes.

To both KB and NAK, thanks for the input.

To address the "critic" aspect, my main reason for doing the site was just to voice my thoughts on the movies I saw.

I would write the reviews very quickly and would try and back up everything I said in the review. The main inspiration when writing each review was to basically give a type of review you would hear from one of your friends. A quick and honest review of the movie...a style of movie reviews that is rarely seen.

I will soon go back and redesign the site, update and clarify many reviews, etc.


As for the "realism" aspect: Of course every movie is not "real", but each movie does present itself as a movie of fiction, comedy, fact, etc...

Back to the Future, Star Wars, etc.. are all realistic as a movie, because the movie presents itself that way. It is consistant in the story and gives rationale or background for the way things are, and follows a common law. In back to the future, you cant go into the future without gas to run the DeLorean. The car cant just get up and go because the director says its ok to do so for one scene.

Thats my beef.

Kill Bill however was one of the movies where Quentin suddenly (or rather, unjustifiably) decides that this skinny white woman can beat up all of these gangsters. Thats just not fair.

Sure you can make a movie do anything, but can you present the story in an consistant and 'realistic' fashion? BTTF does. Kill Bill doesn't. Thats my point of view.

*Pulls out prog knife and stabs bill* there, now it's over with.

89 - I don't see your problem with realism. You saw the Chinese martial arts training she had to go through from a real master (in the second movie), punching from a short distance etc. Wow! It looked really hard to me. She also had the best sword from the best swordsman. That can mean a lot in these sort of fights. Also, she had more motivation. The yakuza were just fighting for money. But she was fighting for revenge and the (supposed) loss of her child. That motivation plus the secret Chinese martial arts training she underwent (plus her amazing sword) it plenty of realism for me. What martial arts training have you had? Until you know what the body can do when the mind is truly in its original state of actionless action, you have no business saying what is realistic or not. Get back to me when you have your 6th degree Aikido blackbelt and fully understand the art of Kendo, one of the four paths to Enlightenment in medieval Japan.

As I said, I love seeing chicks fighting! Can't wait for House of Flying Daggers.

Posted by 89th key:
Oh, so would you be more "satisfied" if say Kathy Bates or that heavy set actress who was on that TV series(whose first name is Camryn but whose last name escapes me right now)got cast instead so as to make it more "realistic" for ya since thin doesn't do it?

Again I reiterate my previous position that you're a real "kill" joy among movie critics if I've ever seen one. You call yourself a "movie critic" when all you offer are simplistic, narrowly unimaginative viewpoints not looked upon so favorably by any of the other respondents here.

reblder - You may not be such a bad guy after all.
I still think Terminator 2 is the best movie of all time.

Posted by Jeffrey:
Well, when we're discussing something as entertaining as "kill Bill"(or even the Terminator which I kinda liked), we're dealing with pretty "safe" stuff after all.

Which is why the "personalization"(IOW taking such things so personally)of differing viewpoints as in the previous exchange between 89th Key and Sarah Parrot turned into stikes me as so utterly ludicrous.