Kill Bill explained to folks who are accused of "not getting it"

[oLLie]

Eh, I'm sorry but I'm not seeing your interpretation as the one, concrete interpretation of the movie that would qualify as "getting it". As was said in the other thread, we're not Quentin T. so how do you know what each scene/reference means unless he said that's what it means. The rest just comes off as pseudointellectual bullsh!t, no offense. Comparisons to Kurosawa and references to Bruce Lee are completely unjustified.

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: LAUST
I still don't see why so many scene's had to draw out so damn long... I could have got up and left 37 times and when I came back it would be in the same scene and I would'nt have missed a thing... showing points we know already have to happen, and then extending it on with worthless pauses and crap till you got glossed over. This could have just been one movie instead where everything just got to the POINT instead of FILLERS forcing two movies.

I don't agree. I thought it was masterfully paced. There was a tremendous amount of content for 90 minutes.

Disagree. There was plenty of boring crap they could have pulled out of this movie. Some of the fight scenes dragged on and on, I was pretty bored/tired of them by the end.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Comparisons to Kurosawa and references to Bruce Lee are completely unjustified.

why? it's not ostentatious to assume coincidences in this film are in fact intentional references. QT is a total film nut (paricularly of the asian fighting genre).

Disagree. There was plenty of boring crap they could have pulled out of this movie. Some of the fight scenes dragged on and on, I was pretty bored/tired of them by the end.

which scene? I can see how people who don't really like the genre to begin with might not enjoy the segment where she fights the entire room of guys before getting to lucy lui. But I can't see someone who enjoyed the 36 chambers or shogun assaisin complaining about this. I loved that scene.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

BTW, I think the explanation at the top of the thread is pretentious garbage.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: oLLie
Eh, I'm sorry but I'm not seeing your interpretation as the one, concrete interpretation of the movie that would qualify as "getting it". As was said in the other thread, we're not Quentin T. so how do you know what each scene/reference means unless he said that's what it means. The rest just comes off as pseudointellectual bullsh!t, no offense. Comparisons to Kurosawa and references to Bruce Lee are completely unjustified.

In Bruce Lee's "Dangerous Game" during the climatic scene, Bruce, in contrast to the "bad guys" who are wearing more tradition costumes with natural fibers, is wearing a yellow nylon tennis sweats with a black stripe on the side. Bruce has blatantly said why he choose that costume, but heck if I can remember every thing he said. The point is he did it intentionally for certain reasons, and Bruce Lee film buffs know this sort of trivia and have seen the interviews with him.

Tarantino says he is a huge Bruce Lee film buff.

In Tarantino's "Kill Bill" during the climatic scene, Uma, in contrast to the "bad guys" who are wearing more tradition costumes with natural fibers, is wearing a yellow nylon tennis sweats with a black stripe on the side.

coincidence?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: oLLie
Disagree. There was plenty of boring crap they could have pulled out of this movie. Some of the fight scenes dragged on and on, I was pretty bored/tired of them by the end.

You go see a kung fu movie for long drawn out fight scenes....a good kung fu movie shold be one long drawn out fight seen.

The toe part people don't get and the length of time he spent on it....1) I think it was done to show how focused The Bridge was....here she is out of a 4 year coma and already set on this revenge....the scene is also from an old John Wayne movie for homage.

 

[waggy]

hmm .i really enjoyed the movie. but it was just that a movie.

i didnt look for hidden plots or special meaning. i just wanted something to keep me entertained for a few hours. wich it did very well.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: LAUST
I still don't see why so many scene's had to draw out so damn long... I could have got up and left 37 times and when I came back it would be in the same scene and I would'nt have missed a thing... showing points we know already have to happen, and then extending it on with worthless pauses and crap till you got glossed over. This could have just been one movie instead where everything just got to the POINT instead of FILLERS forcing two movies.

I don't agree. I thought it was masterfully paced. There was a tremendous amount of content for 90 minutes.

That movie can do no wrong in your eye's so there is no reasoning anyway

I don't care about the fight scene's that fine, but I don't need to see a misquito spend 3 minutes sucking her blood to wake her up, land on her and suck then she wakes up.. there done with, I don't need to watch the discovery channel at that time.

The little kid at the beginning, mom send that no talkin troll upstairs you are covered in blood and so is the lady next to you... why take up my time showing her not say a word for 5 minutes and at the same time she has to stare at you covered in blood, send her up and get on with the killin'

There was just WAYYYY to many scene's like this in that movie... silent scene's showing nothing going on. Thats not masterful to me..

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: LAUST
I still don't see why so many scene's had to draw out so damn long... I could have got up and left 37 times and when I came back it would be in the same scene and I would'nt have missed a thing... showing points we know already have to happen, and then extending it on with worthless pauses and crap till you got glossed over. This could have just been one movie instead where everything just got to the POINT instead of FILLERS forcing two movies.

I don't agree. I thought it was masterfully paced. There was a tremendous amount of content for 90 minutes.

That movie can do no wrong in your eye's so there is no reasoning anyway

I don't care about the fight scene's that fine, but I don't need to see a misquito spend 3 minutes sucking her blood to wake her up, land on her and suck then she wakes up.. there done with, I don't need to watch the discovery channel at that time.

The little kid at the beginning, mom send that no talkin troll upstairs you are covered in blood and so is the lady next to you... why take up my time showing her not say a word for 5 minutes and at the same time she has to stare at you covered in blood, send her up and get on with the killin'

There was just WAYYYY to many scene's like this in that movie... silent scene's showing nothing going on. Thats not masterful to me..

First of all, I think I'm being very reasonable here. I think the original post in this thread was an forced interpretation rather than an explanation. This is a pop flick, laced mostly with style and numerous references to other classic asian kung fu and samurai flicks. It's not so much that the film can do no wrong, but that it was extremely unusual in the fact that it did so much right.

As far as silence goes, there are other films that make us of oppressive or suggestive silence (eg: Insomnia or Lost Highway). I think the segments you pointed out are supposed be visually intense, illustrative scenes, like large spreads from a comic book. More likely than not, lots of people are probably not acclimated to this kind of exploitation of the film medium; It's easy to mistake "say nothing" for "show nothing".

If you don't like kung fu and samurai films (36 chambers, Shogun Assasain) and prefer static pacing to more dynamic meter (Lost Highway, the original Insominia, etc.), it would not be suprising that you'd find this film boring.

I've qualified my opinion, please qualify yours

 

[arcenite]

As someone with the name Bill, I have gone into hiding.

Bill

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: aRCeNiTe
As someone with the name Bill, I have gone into hiding.

Bill

lmao.

 

[new2AMD]

Originally posted by: aRCeNiTe
As someone with the name Bill, I have gone into hiding.

Bill

Best post yet.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: aRCeNiTe
As someone with the name Bill, I have gone into hiding. Bill

Is Black Mamba after you?

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: oLLie
Eh, I'm sorry but I'm not seeing your interpretation as the one, concrete interpretation of the movie that would qualify as "getting it". As was said in the other thread, we're not Quentin T. so how do you know what each scene/reference means unless he said that's what it means. The rest just comes off as pseudointellectual bullsh!t, no offense. Comparisons to Kurosawa and references to Bruce Lee are completely unjustified.

In Bruce Lee's "Dangerous Game" during the climatic scene, Bruce, in contrast to the "bad guys" who are wearing more tradition costumes with natural fibers, is wearing a yellow nylon tennis sweats with a black stripe on the side. Bruce has blatantly said why he choose that costume, but heck if I can remember every thing he said. The point is he did it intentionally for certain reasons, and Bruce Lee film buffs know this sort of trivia and have seen the interviews with him.

Tarantino says he is a huge Bruce Lee film buff.

In Tarantino's "Kill Bill" during the climatic scene, Uma, in contrast to the "bad guys" who are wearing more tradition costumes with natural fibers, is wearing a yellow nylon tennis sweats with a black stripe on the side.

coincidence?

I think you misread my statement. Nowhere did I state that there were no similarities. I know that she's wearing the Bruce Lee jumpsuit (I think you meant Game of Death when you said Dangerous Game). I said the comparison/reference was unjustified. To dress up a completely novice martial arts impersonator in the likeness of what many consider the greatest martial artist of all time is not an homage or tribute, it's an insult. And just because this movie contains a whole spiel about Japanese swords and is full of sword fighting, does not mean that comparisons to Kurosawa are justified.

*edit*
As evidenced by this thread, even other people who claim to "get it" don't agree with you. Obviously, if there is a concrete "it" to get, one of you has it wrong. That's why I think this condescending, movie-elitist stuff is so bs.

I have a quick question on the side; why were her legs severely atrophied (spelling, please?) and yet she had plenty of upper body strength?

I also thought it was strange that in some scenes she can, with seeming effortlessness, jump and hang onto the ceiling, while just a few scenes later she's struggling to pull herself onto a bannister/railing.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

I think you misread my statement. Nowhere did I state that there were no similarities. I know that she's wearing the Bruce Lee jumpsuit (I think you meant Game of Death when you said Dangerous Game). I said the comparison/reference was unjustified. To dress up a completely novice martial arts impersonator in the likeness of what many consider the greatest martial artist of all time is not an homage or tribute, it's an insult. And just because this movie contains a whole spiel about Japanese swords and is full of sword fighting, does not mean that comparisons to Kurosawa are justified.

Oh, ok. I thought you were criticizing others for being pretentious.

"I can't believe anyone would have the gall to make a reference to such greats as kurosawa or bruce lee."

 

[isaacmacdonald]

That's why I think this condescending, movie-elitist stuff is so bs.

I agree with you there. There are films that use complex metaphors and allegorical shiet to cryptically "say something" (the equivalent of Yoko Ono). I don't think they're BS, but if that's their main enterprise, they're usually quite boring. On the other hand, sometimes movies can best be described with slightly esoteric comparisons. I wouldn't waste my time trying to ascertain what Lynch was trying to "say" with Mullholland Drive, but discussing how the anachronistic scenes relate to each other (to the viewer) is, I think, quite valid and can be very interesting.

 

[slycat]

jeebus..is everyone suddenly growing a brain?!
whats up with today?

 

[SammyBoy]

the drawing the square thing I saw as a cute pulp fiction reference, and it made me giggle. Where the hell does the square become a self portait mumbo jumbo wish wash garble monger?

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

I've qualified my opinion, please qualify yours

I did.. sitting there in silence is worthless, to me it's a filler is all. Vol1 and 2 = worthless, chop the worthlessness out and have 1 flick, all kill no crap.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: SammyBoy
the drawing the square thing I saw as a cute pulp fiction reference, and it made me giggle. Where the hell does the square become a self portait mumbo jumbo wish wash garble monger?

That's what I thought as well. Just a cute reference to PF.

 

[royaldank]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

I've qualified my opinion, please qualify yours

I did.. sitting there in silence is worthless, to me it's a filler is all. Vol1 and 2 = worthless, chop the worthlessness out and have 1 flick, all kill no crap.

This is why I didn't much care for Jackie Brown. Too many sequences of useless cinematic artsy wanna-be shots. I like most of QT stuff, but he goes overboard on some stuff. Pauses like this seem to be an area I think he could do better in. He's not perfect, but he's better than average.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: royaldank

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

I've qualified my opinion, please qualify yours

I did.. sitting there in silence is worthless, to me it's a filler is all. Vol1 and 2 = worthless, chop the worthlessness out and have 1 flick, all kill no crap.

This is why I didn't much care for Jackie Brown. Too many sequences of useless cinematic artsy wanna-be shots. I like most of QT stuff, but he goes overboard on some stuff. Pauses like this seem to be an area I think he could do better in. He's not perfect, but he's better than average.

yah I know the scene's you speak of....to me it's filler for an incomplete script.. it's like the script was written on a napkin or something.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

I've qualified my opinion, please qualify yours

I did.. sitting there in silence is worthless, to me it's a filler is all. Vol1 and 2 = worthless, chop the worthlessness out and have 1 flick, all kill no crap.

hmm, that sounds like your opinion. when I ask you to qualify your opinion, I mean please tell us the relevant information about you and how you came to this conclusion.

eg: I usually enjoy action movies like die hard and hong kong movies like tai chi master, but I thought ...<your opinion on kill bill>.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

I've qualified my opinion, please qualify yours

I did.. sitting there in silence is worthless, to me it's a filler is all. Vol1 and 2 = worthless, chop the worthlessness out and have 1 flick, all kill no crap.

hmm, that sounds like your opinion. when I ask you to qualify your opinion, I mean please tell us the relevant information about you and how you came to this conclusion.

eg: I usually enjoy action movies like die hard and hong kong movies like tai chi master, but I thought ...<your opinion on kill bill>.

and others also it appears.

<your opinion on kill bill> See previous posts... I like things to get to the point (in everything in life), there is way too much dragging on for what we have already been shown, it was obvious that Lucy's charactor got killed and thats fine to go back and show how, but don't zoom in a mesquito and sit there so we can watch it suck blood and wake up Uma.. my god show it land and bite and be done... don't waste 45 seconds on something so lame in the first place

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: oLLie

I think you misread my statement. Nowhere did I state that there were no similarities. I know that she's wearing the Bruce Lee jumpsuit (I think you meant Game of Death when you said Dangerous Game). I said the comparison/reference was unjustified. To dress up a completely novice martial arts impersonator in the likeness of what many consider the greatest martial artist of all time is not an homage or tribute, it's an insult. And just because this movie contains a whole spiel about Japanese swords and is full of sword fighting, does not mean that comparisons to Kurosawa are justified.

*edit*
As evidenced by this thread, even other people who claim to "get it" don't agree with you. Obviously, if there is a concrete "it" to get, one of you has it wrong. That's why I think this condescending, movie-elitist stuff is so bs.

I have a quick question on the side; why were her legs severely atrophied (spelling, please?) and yet she had plenty of upper body strength?

I also thought it was strange that in some scenes she can, with seeming effortlessness, jump and hang onto the ceiling, while just a few scenes later she's struggling to pull herself onto a bannister/railing.

If Bruce Lee were alive I am sure he'd have been honored with the reference. The movie is supposed to be a dark comedy you realize, not an action-drama. Getting some blonde to play a bad-a$$ samurai is part of the fun.

There are justified comparisions. You need to not take this from us though, check out QT's own comments.

No one is trying to be elitest I believe, at least those 'for' the movie. It seems the elitest attitude comes with the Matrix and LoTR camps....much like ST and SW camps prior.

Another thing is in many many kung fu movies the last killing blow is extended a minute with the hero in his killing pose, covered in blood.

Her arms were also pretty atrophied, she had a major struggle getting into the Pu$$Y Wagon...that was one of the purposes of showing that drawn out.

However, it wasn't really atrophy (not counting the sex she was getting regularly due to her being 'sold), she probably had Physical Therapy work done daily to keep the muscles intact...what she suffered from more was lack of nerve control for those muscles. Again though it is a movie, and a comedy....no way she could come out after 4 years and take on all those Yakuza yet alone if she was never in a coma.

Movie = entertainment = not real always = impossible many times

 

[Schadenfreude]

It's basically a homage to a bunch of old kung fu/classic Japanese flicks (e.g. Sonny Chiba, David Carradine, Gordon Liu, the Kato masks, "The Five Deadly Viper Assassins" as to "The Five Deadly Venoms", basic plot of betrayal and revenge, the anime section, also I saw some influences from Kenshin in the live-action sequences), following the recent trend in Japanese movies and its over-the top violence (Battle Royale, Ichi the Killer).

At least that's what I thought.