Or some such.

Dale

Oh man, am I ever pumped for this movie. I can't wait until Oct. 10th!

However does this mean they will be considered 2 movies? Is it Kill Bill, Pt I and Kill Bill, Pt II? Or how are they doing this?

Will they have to change the ads to say "The 4th and 5th films from Quentin Tarantino"?

Have you guys/gals heard that they are going to split Kill Bill in half?

I'm very disgusted with this and will probably just wait for the whole thing to come out on DVD.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1473958/2...?headlines=true


argh.

- trevor

trevor wrote:
: Have you guys/gals heard that they are going to split Kill Bill in half?

Yes, yesterday.

http://promontoryarts.com/viewtopic.php?t=216

: I'm very disgusted with this and will probably just wait for the whole
: thing to come out on DVD.

I can't say I'm "disgusted", but the news that there may be different versions of the film for different continents does kind of annoy me. I can only hope all the versions will be on the DVD.

I rather like the idea of a "serial". In an age of sequels and prequels and other such things it will be interesting to see two films that literally are conjoined like this. (I am trying to think of another film that has been done the same way but can't.)

I wonder if the scripts have been altered to make them independent units.

[quote]Have you guys/gals heard that they are going to split Kill Bill in half? I'm very disgusted with this...
[/quote]
I'm not. From what I hear, the choice is to either make a three-hour film that DOES NOT LET UP, or give the patrons a break. Um... Gods and Generals, anyone?
[quote]
...and will probably just wait for the whole thing to come out on DVD.
[/quote]
When you do, let us know if you stop the DVD midway for a bathroom break. If you do, you are excluded from judgment.

Nick

Would this be a good thread to note that I've avoided Quentin Taratino as much as possible? I've seen Four Rooms and bits and pieces of Pulp Fiction, but that's it. What I've seen I haven't liked all that much and I've known too many people that I have no respect for who regard him as a genius.

Am I really missing a brilliant filmmaker?

He's too excessive for me to say I'm a big fan, but I do like most of Pulp Fiction very much. And I enjoyed Jackie Brown, which is his most restrained piece of work.

Somehow, I have managed to miss watching a single Tarantino film so far.

I must say I'm shocked that you've never seen Pulp Fiction, SDG! If for no other reason than I would say it is one of the most important films of the 90s, soley based on the films it has influenced.

I don't remember if it was on here (by which I mean the old board) or somewhere else where someone said that Resevior Dogs started the trend of what could be called "heist gone wrong" or "crime films" that dominated much of the 90s (and early 2000s), in such films as Snatch, Out of Sight (which IMO is the best of the bunch) and then Ocean's Eleven (2001) essentially completed the theme by making what was essentially a "heist gone right" film. Also interesting that Soderbergh made both Out of Sight and Ocean's Eleven.

<----- Yet to see a Tarantino film. :oops:

Darryl A. Armstrong wrote:
: Would this be a good thread to note that I've avoided Quentin Taratino
: as much as possible? I've seen Four Rooms . . .

Ouch. Easily the worst thing he's directed. The only segment of that film worth seeing is Rodriguez's.

: . . . and bits and pieces of Pulp Fiction, but that's it.

Only bits and pieces? Huh. FWIW, I like Reservoir Dogs a lot, and I think Pulp Fiction is pretty good too. As for Jackie Brown, I think I would agree with Owen Gleiberman's assessment, that Tarantino became overly reverent towards his icons Elmore Leonard and Pam Grier in a way that he never became reverent towards John Travolta.

: Am I really missing a brilliant filmmaker?

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'd say you're definitely missing a filmmaker worth watching.

In retrospect, seeing Pulp Fiction when I was in college was a turning point for me (although I didn't know it then). That was the movie that changed me from someone who went to see movies every once in a while into someone who LOVED movies. And now I'm hoping to start principal photography on my first film in a few months! Like all those musicians who cite seeing or hearing the Beatles as the catylist for their music career, I am hoping to join all those other indie-filmmakers who saw Pulp Fiction and said, "that's what I want to do," - not quote scripture and kill people, but direct films that are fresh, hip, bristling with energy.

All that said, enjoying Tarantino is a guilty pleasure for me because in Pulp Fiction as well as Resevoir Dogs, the criminal becomes the sympathetic hero which I don't think is a good thing for society. I know that's oversimplifying things but it's been a while since I've seen either movie and...well I'll just leave it at that.

As for splitting Kill Bill in two, is he going to call the first one Kill and the second one Bill?

LoneTomato,

I'm in agreement about Pulp Fiction. I was very reticent seeing PF in theaters, knowing the over-the-top violence was not my taste. But I pushed myself to see it, and boy, I love that film.

[quote]As for splitting Kill Bill in two, is he going to call the first one Kill and the second one Bill?[/quote]

I think the first should be called "Kill Bill" and the second should be called "Bill Killed."

Nick

LoneTomato wrote:
: All that said, enjoying Tarantino is a guilty pleasure for me because in
: Pulp Fiction as well as Resevoir Dogs, the criminal becomes the
: sympathetic hero which I don't think is a good thing for society.

Um, do you have similar reservations about The Godfather, or any of the zillion heist movies out there? Come to think of it, is it fair to say that the characters in Tarantino's films are "heroes"?

Who has seen the new trailer up on Apple? I have!

http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/kill..._bill/volume_I/

Bring on October 10th!

"Even stevens? I'd have to kill you, that'd be about square."

Oh, and anyone who doesn't get that, go rent Pulp Fiction, NOW!

[quote]Like all those musicians who cite seeing or hearing the Beatles as the catylist for their music career, I am hoping to join all those other indie-filmmakers who saw Pulp Fiction and said, "that's what I want to do," - not quote scripture and kill people, but direct films that are fresh, hip, bristling with energy.[/quote]
FWIW, he was butchering and embellishing (ie making up) scripture, not quoting it.

[quote]I must say I'm shocked that you've never seen Pulp Fiction, SDG! If for no other reason than I would say it is one of the most important films of the 90s, soley based on the films it has influenced.
[/quote]

That is interesting. Hasn't Tarantino been pretty open about how influenced he has been by other classic filmmakers and genres? I think his influence may be that he has been one of the standout directors of a generation of TV watchers. His films celebrate the pleasure of actually watching a movie rather than celebrate the warp and woof of film itself. I hate to throw around the term "post-modern," but Tarantino certainly approaches film the way that a 90's grad student would. He makes sure we can identify the traditions that a certain film exists in, and is fairly heavy handed with the embodied criticisms (read "criticism" as: a positive assessment of the codes underlying a narrative structure) that his movies revel in.

Think especially in terms of the "crimes gone wrong" theme that someone mentioned. Well, the power that film noir tendencies hold over film history can never be overestimated. That shadow has been cast over film since the 40's. Film Noir saved people from the meaninglessness of the "Hollywood Ending." In some sense it was a response to the pat conventions of the "films of quality" in France during the '30s and '40s. These kindly films were devoid of any true entertainment value, they were a case of form shooting itself in the foot. People like tragedy because at least that is something to give form and purpose to their otherwise meaningless experience of life. Film Noir recognized this and stepped in the gap to show us what the camera can become: the framer of meaningful tragedies.

Tarantino is a very intelligent director, he is sensitive to the history of these themes and conventions in our media-driven society and makes films that play to our well-tuned sense of story. In the same way Kill Bill will hopefully be a great expose of our fascination with the samurai flick, with the Bruce Lee flick, with all these films he is so fond of that he holds film festivals for them annually.

Otherwise I think his films are lousy.

Not that it matters much, since I'm not trying to make a reputation as a film critic, but I've never seen a Tarantino film either. Read plenty about most of them, so I'm grateful to those who have, I guess. But from what I've read, I've always felt pretty sure that unless I were going to appreciate or study the technical aspects of the movies, I wouldn't enjoy them, otherwise.

For example, the only way I managed to endure David Lynch's Blue Velvet was that I saw it following an academic presentation of certain folkloric motifs in the film...watching for those motifs gave me sufficient distance from it.

AlanW wrote:
: FWIW, he was butchering and embellishing (ie making up) scripture, not
: quoting it.

I heard a rumour that this 'scripture' quote was actually stolen from some other film, but I don't know how true that is.

(M)Leary wrote:
: Hasn't Tarantino been pretty open about how influenced he has been by
: other classic filmmakers and genres? I think his influence may be that he
: has been one of the standout directors of a generation of TV watchers.

Heh.

: In the same way Kill Bill will hopefully be a great expose of our
: fascination with the samurai flick, with the Bruce Lee flick, with all these
: films he is so fond of that he holds film festivals for them annually.

But what if one is not a fan of these genres to begin with? What sense will the film make then, I wonder. I had never seen a blaxploitation flick before Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, and to this day I don't think I've seen any except the original Shaft (though I have a weird feeling I MIGHT have seen at least one old film with Pam Grier...), so my appreciation of those films has little to do with myappreciation of their criticism of that genre.

Well, I don't mean to say that you won't "get" his films if you aren't media and film savvy. There are directors like that, most notably Greenaway for example. His stuff just won't make an ounce of sense to you unless you are familiar with media and film theory and a good bit of film history.

What Tarantino culls from all of these genres are their sheer capacity to entertain. So of course we are going to like them. Even if you are not a fan of these genre's, I think that Tarantino has the ability to distill their most likable features, and pour them into one film with his undeniable flair.

But, Kill Bill may very well be an enlightening critical experience to someone (like me) who grew up watching old school kung-fu films on Saturdays, as well as just a plain old entertaining experience.

[quote]For example, the only way I managed to endure David Lynch's Blue Velvet was that I saw it following an academic presentation of certain folkloric motifs in the film...watching for those motifs gave me sufficient distance from it.[/quote]

I think I understand what you're saying. I still haven't seen Blue Velvet because I'm not sure I am ready for it.

However, in no way would I say that Tarantino's films are like that. I think people over state the violence in Pulp Fiction. Personally I find the language much harsher than the violence.

Though the early reports I've heard about Kill Bill are that it's pretty intense on the violence scale. I'm just saying that don't avoid Pulp Fiction because you're mislead into thinking it's on a Lynchian level of depravity.

Any word on how long each of these installments will be, especially the first one? I'm still toying with whether or not I can fit the press screening of Volume 1 into my film-fest schedule.

Haven't seen this one yet, so I haven't read this thread. So I don't know if the New Yorker review quote has been posted yet. Nor do I know if it's apt. But it's certainly funny;

"This movie is what's formally know as decadence and commonly known as crap."

Ron, dude, this thread has been dead for almost two months! The thread for reviews of this film is here!