Perhaps Redpimp will post here and actually EXPLAIN his unfounded points of view instead of his ranting "its some totally boring and useless pile of horse dung with zero dialogue or even plausible story line to follow"

Just because you couldn't get it, doesn't mean people are not allowed to. I bet you like Battlefield Earth too.

I think its great that people can have different opinions of movies, but this guy goes too far to express his distaste.

Let it go.

Hey, hey now...
let's not be mean right outta the can..

There was a few points way back in the old forum where statements were actually quite founded once everybody calmed down a bit. Not that everyone agrees, but that's fine...

I was actually being quite serious - this open space isn't meant to be sarcastic or anything, sure I'm having fun with a post, but seriously - there's obviously a lot to be said, so I had fun and just made a slot for it...

I sure hope it didn't come across as sarcastic.. Sorry if it did..

With that said, where were we?

LMAO

You crack me up folks.... Did some one say i didnt get Kill bill, you mean there is anything in that horse crap worth delving into and claiming as a story or premise or something remotely close to a even a decent fairy tale?

Let me get this straight. Some stupid bitch has the shit beat out of her and she is seeking revenge on those who did this to her??? IS THAT A FRIGGIN STORY??? OOOHHH WAIT WAIT i guess i was supposed to be intrigued by the fact that apparently her baby survived the brutal beating she was given and i will find out more in Part two... Tell you what man screw you and Ebert, and the donkey ya'll rode in on. That movie stinks to high heaven and not even you can find a way to defend that steaming pile of horse dung

You have some fixation on horse dung.

The extent of entertainment I derive from your posts are usually limited to the creative use of insults you manage to dig up to bitch about this movie.

And for the record, "Some stupid bitch has the shit beat out of her and she is seeking revenge on those who did this to her" IS a story. You can sum up the plot of nearly every movie in one line.

I guess "a hobbit inherits the most powerful magical artifact on the planet, and in order to thwart evil he must bring it to a volcano and destroy it" makes all three of those movies suck. That was the plot.

And if you followed any KungFu Theatre, you would know that its almost a requirement for them to dish out more abuse than physically possible in their fights scenes. Someone (baby or otherwise) survives the beating of the century? Yup, thats kungfu baby.

Yeah you are right kungfu movies tend to have a fair amount of physical abuse dished out. I love violence. But it has to have context to it. Dont think that some over rated over the hill director can just get some untalented actresses (lucy Liu fresh off the failure on charlies angels 2 and Uma thurman who looks so pathetic and athletically challenged in her role) and have them throw on a kimono then VOILA...you claim you have a Samurai movie!!! yeah right. I know lack of talent when i see it. I can spot the finesse of an expert Zhang Ziyi (from crouching tiger hidden dragon) and like wise see the phony action from a bungling unathletic interloper like Uma Thurman. I know to you who grew up on teenage mutant ninja turtles, Steven Seagal is just as good as Jet Li. You lack the ability to discern the difference between the two and thats why you think the martial arts in Kill bill is even worth mentioning...

Regarding the totally useless story line in kill bill, argue as you may wish but fact is Kill bill is some flat story with no subtext to it and can not even be compared to a multi faceted story line of lord of the rings (didnt lord of the rings win one or two obscure awards called the oscars) I wonder why this so called movie that was so good as rated by roger and Ebert then did not even get a single nomination at the recent academy awards. It had some of the highest critical acclaim too. HMMM I wonder why, perharps the academy too saw it for the hot steaming pile of donkey dung still festering with freshly pupated maggots

Actually Seagal, at least in his prime, was as good as Jet Li. Completely different discipline, but Seagal is good enough in aikido to run his own dojo in Japan and the asians don't suffer whities messing with their martial arts easily. The man is a wretchedly, wretchedly bad actor but he could take you apart a good forty or fifty ways before you even had time to notice he was doing it.

As to the lack of subtext in kill bill, that was my main complaint with it too, but the main reason it's lacking so badly in the first film is because Tarantino never meant for Kill Bill to be split in half at all. That was a decision put on him by Miramax ... I'm withholding judgement till I see the second one, but all the early reviewers seem to be saying that the backstory and underlying subtext that was lacking in part one is getting filled in here ...

Oh, and Roger IS Ebert. Just in case you were concerned about accuracy. Or making sense.

So we disagree on the quality of this film. I don't see this as any reason to start calling names. Using a tagline like "Done with idiots" isnt going to disguise who you are.

Never once have we resorted to attacking your character or intelligence but rather your inability to admit that someone MIGHT enjoy this film. Your obsession with horse and donkey dung does concern me.

This section was created so you would have a place to vent because Dave knew you would.

Just because the Matrix movies got worse doesnt mean Kill Bill will. Bottom line is that its "not done" and has yet to be a full told story. Its not fair to judge a movie you walked out on, so why judge one that everyone knows is only half over.

There are PLENTY of films that are incredibly enjoyable and they will never win an Oscar. Films are about entertainment. Did people enjoy this movie? Yes. Is it possible that its NOT related in any way to horse excrement? Yes.

If you rate movies simply by Oscar credits, you are missing out on a whole lot of movies worth seeing. Many of my all time favourites (which I wont list just to hear you tell me they fell from a horse rectum too) were never considered for Oscars.

It's that Andrew Dice Clay movie, isn't it Rodney?

Oh no, Dice has no place in my collection. I found him far too crude, but that was his thing. I just didn't care for it.

Princess Bride, Oscar, Noises Off, Galaxy Quest, XMen(both) and Whole Nine Yards are among my favourites. All nonOscar nodders. (pretty sure)

But no Dice.

Hard to argue with you on Princess Bride and I liked Galaxy Quest a LOT more than I expected to ...

Kill Bill is a film that cannot be looked at too seriously! I personnaly do not feel it was made with the intention to wow the audience with superior story line (although, as stated numerous times above, the second installment is yet to be seen where subtext will be expanded!) How many blockbusters or popular films (excluding Matrix) have revolutionary story lines? They may be set in various parts of the world, history or space but fundalmentally most films purpose can be summed up in one sentence! The film was not to your taste redpimp, that is fair enough. But I do think you are looking to deep into a film that never intended to be looked at in depth. Tarrantino used this as a piece of "selfish" cinema. It was the type of film he always wanted and dreamt he could make! It is about taking cinematic "liberties" doing things on camera that we all know could and would never happen. It is almost a real life cartoon (reminscent of the Matrix). I think it was a good film, not a great film but a good, fun (should I say fun when about 400,000 people get killed?), interesting, enjoyable, perfectly directed piece of cinema, with yes a suspect plot and a slighty over endulgant story line. Im looking forward to the 2nd Kill Bill which will hopefully do as promised, and bring the whole thing together. By the way Tarrantine did have a lot to do with the film being in two parts. He couldnt bear to cut it, and he believes that a film should not last longer than 2-hours.

Kill Bill DVD version news is starting to come out and Tarantino is confirming that there will be a big ol' complete Kill Bill set coming - the films edited back together the way they were originally intended to appear - sometime after volume two finishes it's run. He's also saying that the one piece version will do a limited theatrical run on the art house circuit, complete with intermission, which could be pretty cool ... and he's also talking about getting the Japanese / Hong Kong version of the film (3 minutes longer and in full color) on DVD here, probably as the non-bare bones standalone version. Which means there will be more kill bill dvds around than you can shake a stick at.

I'm glad they made a spot where we can just talk about Kill Bill because I feel the same way RedPimp does; I could bitch about this movie all day. And RedPimp did explain why he didn't like the movie in some of his other posts. I also hated this movie. The characters were so lame. They didn't even look threating or anyting. I mean what if someone replaced Jason from the Friday the 13th movies with Uma Thurman. They would be so crapy. I can say a lot more things that were wrong with this movie, but I don't feel like it right now. And I hate the movie even more just because everyone seems to think that it was some kind of a masterpiece.

The reason i hate kill bill is because to me its like one of those pathetic gay ass boy bands that keep coming out like soft ass prissy music is going out of style. I dont mean to say that those of you METROSEXUALS should not enjoy your teenie bop music, and dress up like justin timberlake then go flood the nightclubs with that putrid stench that yall mistake for cologne!!! Its a whole different story when you stand on the tallest pulpit you can find and start declaring boy bands or britney spears the greatest musicians ever. Just like those lip syncing teenie boppers, Kill bill is laced with enough artificial martial arts pretenders that it does not take some kung fu afficinado to pick out such bad choreography in kill bill vol 1. Some scenes like the house of blue leaves (Uma thurman vs 100 guys or more like Uma thurman vs 1 guy while 99 guys stand around like a bunch of idiots) There were so many errors in that scene alone, i personally know 9 year old kids who could perform far better than that. (chinese of course) Then there is that whole issue of calling this a Samurai movie. Any tom dick and harry who has an inkling about Samurai lore knows that kill bill has nothing to do with Samurai. (And for the last time throwing Lucy liu in the mix wearing a kimono is not an instant qualification as a sumurai movie)
With the martial arts in this movie just being getting from bland to worse, i really fail to see what the hell people claim was the redeemable value in this movie. You all agree hands down that the story is lame as hell, the dialogue sucks and the characters are so lousy i wished all of them would die before the movie ended.

WHAT THE HELL IS THAT BS ABOUT BEING A MOVIE TARANTINO MADE FOR "HIMSELF". And why the hell didnt he let us know this from the word go so we would have avoided the mental scarring this pile of donkey dung caused us (well me)

And for that guy who said i was looking for some unfair amount of depth in kill bill the answer is no i was not. Just like i didnt expect any depth from hell boy, but the movie did not disgust me to the point of walking out in protest. It was within its element and not so stupidly over board (and we are talking about some demon boy from hell here) No kill bill just tried to do too much and became the stupidest movie i ever saw

Well, my friends saw Kill Bill 2 and from what they told me I can say that it sucked! There was some guy who like stood up on "Black Mamba's" sword while she was holding it out. So, like does gravity not apply to him? I guess not since you know he's like the grand master guy who will teach you the secrets of the universe. LAME!! And then she did some thing where she tapped Bill's chest five times and made his heart explode. What the hell?! She couldn't just shoot him or stab him, no she had to make his heart explode because she's the BIG BAD "BLACK MAMBA." That's just as bad as the whole blood spraying effect in the first one. I knew this movie would be crappy.

Complaining about a film that openly acknowledges its old school kung fu roots for using old school kung fu conventions, well, that's just not so bright. Saying that a film you haven't seen sucks is even less bright. If you don't want to see it, fine, but you can't really comment on the quality of something you haven't seen and obviously don't know much about. It's like saying that a film like Spirited Away or Millenium Actress sucks because of how anime artists draw their eyes ... Richard Roper did this once, by the way, and I've ignored his opinion on everything ever since ...

Anyway, a bit of kung fu history ... kung fu has been passed down through the ages in a pretty strict master / student oral tradition. This is why you have such distinct 'schools' of kung fu in competition with each other ie shaolin vs wu tang. Now, in most ancient cultures it was considered hugely dishonoring for a master to be surpassed by their student which meant that either kung fu masters withheld information from their students (which, incidentally, is why Bill was NOT taught the 5 point strike) or their students hid their knowledge so as not to dishonor their masters (which is why Bill didn't know that Beatrix HAD been taught the strike) ... this adds up to a general, slow decline in the mastery of the craft. People looking back over the history of kung fu would hear stories of masters who had skills well beyond anything available in their time and those masters would assume legendary status with appropriate mythologies about them and their powers building up around them. Ancient masters (Of which Gordon Liu's character is definitely one ... he was a good couple thousand years old in the film) were attributed nearly godlike powers on the basis that if THIS generation had this level of skill, then the generation before must have had more, and so on and so on.

The specific example of Liu jumping onto Thurman's sword is an example of what's called "enlightened kung fu" - it's got a long, long history and is referenced in countless kung fu films, including lots of Shaw Brothers stuff (which Tarantino was very consciously emulating) and is the type of kung fu employed in the supposed "flying" sequences in Crouching Tiger. The idea was that certain masters could lower their densities ... gravity still applies but is far less binding.

The blood spraying effect was lifted from Japanese samurai films, specifically the Lone Wolf and Cub series (also known as the Babycart films), which Tarantino specifically name-drops towards the end of part two.

You don't have to like it, but you should at least have a clue what you're talking about if you're going to criticize it in public.

Bubba, you certainly are the man! I have never ever ever seen a comeback like that on this forum, how can Joe argue back at that? Why oh why do people still try to view Kill Bill as a serious and realistic film! Oh and P.S. Joe, thanks for ruining some of the storyline for us, it hasnt been released in the UK yet!!!

Just being able to stand in Bubba's shadow or being allowed to enter his home to watch movies alone gives me the chills David!

Now if that were true the least you could do is bring me some nicely chilled frothy beverages when you come over. But no. Jerk.

Well "bubba" I don't have to see the film to know that it sucked. I read the plot on the internet so it really doesn't matter if I saw it or not bumbass. And plus I comments on certain things in the movie that I just think are stupid. I'm also tired of people saying that you can't complain about it or anything just because he gives reference to other films. So just because he says he got some ideas from older kung fu movies that's ok to have the movie not make sense? Whether he got influence or not he still tried to make it like a modern day movie so it sucked. And David, don't be such a little bitch. If I would have known you were going to cry about the spoiler then I would have warned you.

How would you know if the film made sense or not? You haven't seen it. All you've done is read somebody else's opinion, claimed it as your own and done a very bad job of putting it out there in public. I have seen the film, and it makes perfect sense. And he absolutely did NOT try to make a modern movie, he went to China to film on the old Shaw Brothers lot specifically because he wanted to tap into the old school kung fu thing, which is also why he cast Gordon Liu (the Shaw Brother's biggest star) as both Pai Mei and the head of the Crazy 88's and cast Sonny Chiba (an enormous star in 1970's Japan) as Hattori Hanzo.

Complaining about a kung fu film using kung fu conventions is just plain dumb. It's like complaining that Aliens has aliens in it. Or that Poltergeist has ghosts. Or that comedies have, you know, jokes.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that while complaining that Kill Bill doesn't make sense Joe, in an earlier post, has pointed to the Friday the 13th films as being 'good'. Jason Vorhees makes sense? Since when?

I did not read somebody elses opinion I just read the whole story of the movie. They explained what happened and everything. I was not complaining that kung fu movies are dumb because of kung fu. I'm saying that this movie is stupid because he just uses the excuse that he got influence from old kung fu movies to make a piece of crap movie. And I didn't mean that the movie didn't make sense just the part about him standing on the sword and the whole heart exploding move. Those things do not make sense whether they are kung fu or not. And I don't think Friday the 13th is good, just that it would be even crappier if Uma Thurman was supposed to be Jason. Kill Bill also was made like a modern movie; they had modern thngs. The only thing was that they used Samurai swords instead of guns.

And what kind of a name is Beatrix Kiddo? That's so cheesy, but oh it's taken from an old kung fu movie so it's ok to be lame.

Actually I'm with you on the Beatrix thing. Lousy name.

Again with the spoilers guys!!! Poor David on the other side of the pond is going to have a heart attack!!!
Can we all just agree that if we are going to divulge something from this or any movie that we type something before we post like ***SPOILER ALERT*** or along those lines so folks who haven't seen these movies won't read those posts?
Just a thought about courtesy to those who haven't seen them yet. And want to. Regardless of the inane banter.

Thank you KungFuGuy! Heart Attack saved (though that was a close one) Joe, you dont like the film fair enough, Bubba disagrees with your reasoning fair enough. But calling me a Bitch, that takes the biscuit! Why dont you get down of your high horse, stop going back on yourself and dont go watch it! Youve heard from your friends that it is crap, read the storyline, and dont like it, so DONT WATCH IT. You are lucky that you havent wasted your time watching it aren't you!? 99% of all the reviews I have read say its great, 100% of the trailers I have seen look superb and after Monday I will be able to comment in full! As much as it is a Kung Fu film, being not completely up on the Genre (unlike Bubba and KungFuGuy who know more about than anyone) a lot of the past references go over my head! I wont be watching Kill Bill 2 because of references to past films or the fact that famous kung fu actors are in it (none of which I have heard of). I will be watching it because I enjoyed the first one, think the script, dialogue and direction was superb and I just like watching abit of violence! Joe, perhaps you should go join the girls in the POTC2 forum, about your level!

GO ON MY SON!!!

Where you from KungFu? "Go on my son" is a very British phrase!

David, sht up. so now you know her name. It's not that big of a deal, I mean there isn't that much suspense around a person's name. And it's a stupid name anyway.

You see Joe, here's the thing though. If it's not that big of a deal, as you say, then why even beep out her name during Vol 1 and into Vol 2? Obviously, Quentin thought it somewhat an important element to add to the movie to add perhaps a sense of mystery to the character and her past. Admittedly, it doesn't come nearly as cool as 'Keyser Soze' does in regards to suspense around a person's name. But just maybe it did for fans of the first (and second) film. But then again you didn't like the first film. Your choice.
I anticipate your playground rhetoric and ignorance.

Well, now that the name thing has been spoiled I'll go ahead and throw my two cents in (and there will be some specifics in here, so don't read if you don't want to know ...) ...

My best guess is that the name beeping thing was meant at least partly to be a nod to the Sergio Leone Man With No Name spaghetti westerns. There are a lot of obvious nods to Leone in part two so that seems like the obvious choice. I'm pretty sure he partly did it just so he could have Bill call her by name without anybody realizing that he's calling her by name ... how many times does he call her Kiddo before you realize that's her last name? That said this is one indulgence that just doesn't work for me ... I found the beeping distracting (especially in the fight sequence at the beginning of part one) and the payoff just wasn't worth it ... I'd rather he'd not beeped it and just had nobody call her by name if he didn't want people to know. It's not like it's that difficult to do ...

And Joe - I have3 absolutely no idea why you think Tarantino's making "modern" films. Everything he's ever done - absolutely everything - is rooted firmly in the seventies. The production design, cinematography, shooting styles, acting styles, writing and genres are all lifted clean from 70's film making ... It's pretty obvious when you look at the man's filmography that he's systematically working his way through the films that he watched growing up ... you've got his gritty crime drama, his Altman-esque interwoven ensemble piece, his blaxploitation flick and his kung-fu / Leone hybrid. Next on the slate is a Dirty Dozen style war film and he's trying (unsuccessfully) to convince the Bond producers to let him do a remake of Casino Royale. The man's got no desire whatsoever to make a "modern" film ... the only real question is what part of the 70's he'll pillage next ... he's starting to run out of options ... an escape flick? Disaster film? Noir-y anti hero with a muscle car a la Steve McQueen? B grade sci fi a la Steve McQueen. Actually, pretty much all of the remaining options involve Steve McQueen. The only thing I don't see him doing is a t&a; exploitation flick 'cause he's taken a surprisingly hard stand against having sex and nudity in his films ...

Tarentino did make the movie in a modern setting and a modern time. Kill Bill was set in today's world. Not back in lke the 1800s or something. Like when "Beatrix" is wheeling through the parking lot in the first one. It was a parking lot just like any hospital parking lot today. And what make it like an old movie? Just because they have martial arts fighting? That Matrix had martial arts, but it didn't claim to be an old movie or whatever like Kill Bill. And KungFuGuy, her name is not a big deal. Would it really have mattered if they said her name in the first one? No it wouldn't. And so what if Quentin thought it was a big deal. He thinks blood sprays out of people like fire hydrents.

Joe: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm willing to bet that you're a good 10-15 years younger than I am and that you haven't seen a lot of films that are more than ten years old. Not meant as a criticism, I'm just pretty sure that you're lacking the proper frame of reference to understand what I'm saying when I say Tarantino makes 1970's style films. It has nothing to do with the time setting of the story in the film (though outside of the motorbikes in Japan and the use of cell phones Kill Bill is pretty intentionally devoid of anything that would set it in a time frame, as are all of his films) and everything to do with the way the film is made.

I love the first Matrix film, but it is VERY obviously a product of here and now, and there's a big difference between making a film that happens to include martial arts (which is what the Matrix is) and making a "grindhouse kung fu film" which is what Kill Bill is.

So ... here's a long and detailed point by point breakdown of what marks Tarantino's stuff as 70's style films as opposed to "modern" ... since you brought the Matrix up I'll use it as a point of contrast ...

1. The genres he chooses to work in. Every Tarantino film so far has been based in a genre pioneered in the 1970's. Tarantino has spawned some imitators, but all of the genres he's done had been largely abandoned by the time he got to them. The Matrix is a hybrid of styles much more recent ...

2. The way he recycles / unearths 1970's film icons every time out. Harvey Keitel, Christopher Walken, John Travolta, Pam Grier, Sonny Chiba, David Carradine and Gordon Liu all fit into this category. With the exception of Walken and Keitel all of these actors pretty much had no career anymore whatsoever when Tarantino came calling.

3. The soundtracks. As far as I can recall the only "modern" song to appear in a Tarantino film so far was the Urge Overkill track in Pulp Fiction, and that was a cover of a Neil Diamond tune from the 70's. About half the music in Kill Bill 2 was lifted directly from Ennio Morricone soundtracks to Leone westerns while vol 1 had stuff lifted straight from Kinji Fukasaku yakuza films from the 70s. The Matrix films are a prime example of soundtracks built to showcase artists on labels owned by the film studio and feature several shots that essentially function as extended music videos.

4. Use of effects. Tarantino shoots pretty much everything in-camera using effects techniques available in the 70's - which generally translates to the use of prosthetics, and in this case the big blood sprays that you dislike so much. None of his films to date feature ANY modern effects techniques or ANY noticable CGI and I doubt his films ever will. "Modern" film making prides itself on pushing the technical side i.e. all the hype arround Bullet Time.

5. A heavy focus on dialog vs action. He's built a name for himself because of the shocking nature of the violence in his films but when you get down to it Tarantino's films are almost entirely driven by dialogue. His characters talk. A lot. Less so in Kill Bill 1, but when you put the 2 parts back together as one film this is still obviously the case here ... dialog driven films were the norm in the 70's but somewhere in the 80's things started to shift towards action set pieces, sudden plot twists etc as the primary push.

6. Use of the camera and editing techniques. One of the more difficult points to explain but the most important ... look at the types of shots he uses: lots of static frames, long pull outs, slow push ins, hardly any steadicam or crane work. He sets up his scenes and lets them play out directly and as simply as possible. No jump cuts or rapid fire editing. Again, this is how films were shot in the 70s and generally are not anymore. The latest generation of film makers were obviously weaned on MTV and it's reflected in their rapid and constant camera moves and rapid fire editing. Current film making is about stringing together a run of visual moments where the 70's esthetic was about letting the scene play out gradually so as not to distract from the performances, dialog and story. Tarantino is firmly in the 70's camp.

8. Cinematography. Another difficult one to explain if you don't already know what I'm talking about ... look at the color palettes and film stocks he uses as opposed to the norm. Lots of grainy stock and he generally follows a fairly muted and washed out color scheme which matches the way films were typically shot in the 70's as opposed to the heavily processed and over saturated tones more favored now.

9. Retro tech and style. With the exception of the bikes and phones mentioned above Tarantino pretty much exclusively uses dated technology on screen. Look at the cars people drive. There's not a modern one in the lot - if the Pussy Wagon wasn't meant as a deliberate nod to 70's excess then I don't know what was. Same with the weaponry people use and other items scattered about. Think the reel to reel tape player in Pulp Fiction. Check out the clothing and hair styles - always either time neutral or deliberately retro. Also the use of deliberately dated slang in the dialog. All designed to take the film out of "modern" sensibilities and place it back a few decades, though not without a sense of irony.

The esthetic of all of Tarantino's films is meant to point back to the 70's and he's been pretty clear about that all along. His stated goal in lifting so much from earlier work is to help people 'discover' the films that he loved himself so much growing up. They're intentionally shot in a 70's style with a 70's sensibility to accomplish that. If it wasn't for the fact that everybody already knows who made them and when you could take a Tarantino film and tuck it into the lineup of a 70's film festival and nobody would be able to tell that it hadn't actually been shot back then. They've been built to appear as though they're from that era. Stuff like the Matrix could never be confused as being made any time other than now. Not only does Tarantino not care if his films don't mesh with current standards and styles, he very consciously wants them NOT to and goes to great lengths to make sure of that ...

Ok, even if Quinten did make it like a 70's film I still don't see how that makes it good. Those older, 70's films suck compared to today's films. Like those old Godzilla movies; they're not very good. And todays visual effects don't distract from the performance, dialog, and story. They add to it. Like slow motion in fight scenes an stuff. I still think Kill Bill was crappy. It was like James Bond in a way. Not the story or anything, but the whole 70's theme or whatever. And James Bond is crappy too!

ok, i gotta say -

I liked Pulp Fiction; I hated practically everything about Kill Bill.

I'll take this point by point.

It is often said that Quentin Tarantino is a master of "razor sharp dialogue". I beg to differ.

His dialogue in this movie is forced and completely unrealistic, riddled with poorly phrased profanity.

"Number one son? I do believe this tall glass of cocksucker ain't dead."

yeah, that's razor sharp. unfortunately, it's indicative of just about every other line in the film. characters in QT's world all seem to curse like retarded sailors, regardless of setting or opportunity.

but if that's your cup of tea, hey, who am i to object? maybe you come home from work and say something along the lines of:

"I'm home bitch! I hope your goddamn motherfucking cunt ain't dry, cuz i'm here to fuck!"

If it were just this film, maybe we could assume that tarantino was making a point of having ridiculous bouts of unprovoked profanity pour forth from each and every character's mouth in an homage to . . i don't know . . . brain-damaged crack dealers?

but we can't assume that, frankly, because all of his films are written this way.

From Dusk Till Dawn, for instance, includes 118 instances of the word "fuck", followed by "ass", "shit", and "pussy" at 60, 48, and 42 instances, respectively. I counted.

Please realize that he isn't writing this way to make a point. He's writing this way because the shock factor distracts you from the fact that he can barely form a complete sentence, and that he has never had an original thought in his lifetime.

That's why he only makes "tribute" films. After the alarming failure of Dusk Til Dawn (which, to this day, he likes to pretend he did not make - as evidenced by the "4th film by Quentin Tarantino" tagline in the opening credits of kill bill), he realized that he was incapable of scraping together a script without borrowing heavily (read: STEALING) from previous works.

even reservoir dogs was essentially a remake of an old asian action film (i think it was called "City On Fire"), from which he literally lifted entire scenes line for line. It was only after someone pointed this out at the Sundance Film Festival that he reluctantly admitted to doing this. Up to that point, he had attempted to pass it off as his own original work.

Pulp Fiction, arguably his best film, was written largely by someone else (Roger Avery - look it up), whom he subsequently failed to credit. You have Tarantino to thank for the style and camera work - Avery to thank for (most of) the dialogue and character development.

SPEAKING of tarantino's style - it seems to consist mainly of playing with the color, varying the camera angles, using split screens where possible, and finally, cramming in all the funky old music he can get his hands on. If that impresses you, or strikes you as creative . . . more power to you; as far as i'm concerned, the old Adam West Batman series did a better job on a much lower budget - with better dialogue.

The martial arts in this movie were subpar, but that is the most forgivable aspect of the picture i suppose. After all, it is unrealistic to try to transform Uma Thurman into a cold-blooded samurai assassin (a contradiction in itself . . thinking of ninja perhaps?) and expect anything other than awkwardness as a result. If tarantino weren't so pervishly obsessed with Uma, he might have realized this himself.

many people found the elaborate fight scenes appealing - i found them boring in the extreme. having actually WATCHED "kung fu theater" growing up . . . having seen jackie chan, jet li, bruce lee and others in action . . . well, what can i say? I guess those are big shoes to fill. "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" pulled it off admirably, with plot to spare - "kill bill" was just a farce.

to those who say "you can't take the movie too seriously" and then, in the same breath say "it's a tribute", i offer this:

If the film doesn't take itself seriously, it's not a tribute. That's called a "parody".

If it DOES take itself seriously, then you are required to take it seriously also. Otherwise, you are simply laughing at how miserably it fails to live up to its goals. As an example, consider "Plan 9 from Outer Space". Ed Wood was completely serious when he made this film - but it sucks as much as anything ever made. Consequently, we enjoy watching and laughing at Ed Wood's apalling ineptitude.

It's fine to do this with Kill Bill if you like (though i persnally believe it fails even in that humble regard). However, i don't believe it would be fair to call this film a "masterpiece".

"Garbage" might be a more applicable term.

Actually, Tarantino didn't make Dusk Till Dawn ... it was directed by Robert Rodriguez and Tarantino was brought in by Miramax at the last minute to do a bit of re-writing on what was already a pretty much complete script. That said, it does indeed suck.

And I agree wholeheartedly that Pulp Fiction is a far better film than Kill Bill ...

As for the martial arts in Kill Bill ... I'm pretty sure they were intentionally going for a mix of wire fu with realism that doesn't entirely work. I look at scenes like the one in the House of Blue Leaves where the Bride runs up the wall and jumps off the sword embedded in the post to jump up to the balconey and just about misses, leaving her to scramble up as a sign of this. When you look at the amount of time spent filming it, the fact the had Yuen Woo Ping training and choreographing all the action plus Gordon Liu and a slew of Hong Kong performers filling out the fight scenes, plus the fact that Lucy Liu is actually decently well trained herself and I just don't believe that there's anything on screen in the action sequences that Tarantino and Woo Ping didn't want there ... I just don't think their intended fusion worked all that well ...

And Chan's not actually a particularly good fighter, himself, by the way ... he's much more a gymnast / stuntman than an actual fighter. Jet Li or Donnie Yen could take him to pieces without even breaking a sweat. Chow Yun Fat (the lead in Crouching Tiger) actually isn't a fighter at all, himself ... that was his first martial arts film (hard to believe considering how many films he's made) and he had to learn the moves specifically for the film, using the same choreography / training team as was used for Kill Bill ...

Have you seen v.2 Rus? The dialog / backstory / charactertizatiopn is significantly better there. I left v.1 feeling pretty underwhelmed initially (like you I'd seen pretty much all the original stuff Tarantino was lifting from before hand so didn't have the initial wow factor kicking in) but I think a lot of that is due to it only being half a film ...

So you guys had a major argument about one of my favorite movies on my birthday, eh?