Ok. I'm confused...what correlation doea Wilder's film have with any of QT's films? Heh?
If you need a correlation to QT's style and inspiration see some of Samuel Fuller. There was a documentary on him too. Incredible man and incredile life. Put all of that into his writing, film and art. Some recommendations:
- I Shot Jesse James
- Steel Helmet
- Forty Guns
- The Crimson Kimono
- Underworld USA
- Shock Corridor
- The Big Red One
Overblown? Overacted? B-Movies? Nope, masterpieces. Wouldn't be many contemporary directors today without him.
"Film is a battleground. Love, hate, violence, action, death...In a word, emotion."
Well from what I can remember... two of my friends and I walked in with a 26er of rye and mixed it with the large cokes we had... I had trouble walking out of the theater at the end of the movie.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but this review from the New Republic summarizes how I feel about Tarantino more generally:
Quote:
....
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.
Funny how this anti-Semitic tantrum in this NR "review" slipped past most of the members here. I have to admit I didn't bother reading the whole thing the first time around. I came back after reading about it at another web site.
Funny how this anti-Semitic tantrum in this NR "review" slipped past most of the members here. I have to admit I didn't bother reading the whole thing the first time around. I came back after reading about it at another web site.
i hadn't noticed it the first time around either. it's quite disturbing.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but this review from the New Republic summarizes how I feel about Tarantino more generally:
Quote:
Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.
This is pretty off-topic, but it's about this portion of the review that I posted. The guy who wrote it, Gregg Easterbrook, has caught a ton of flack because of the remarks about Jewish Hollywood CEOs. He was fired from his writing job at ESPN. The New Republic didn't fire him, but condemned him in their own pages. Here is his apology.
Quote:
Monday I wrote an item about the disgusting movie Kill Bill, which so glorifies violence as to border on filth. I was indignant that a major company whose work is mainly good, Disney, would distribute such awfulness, in this case through its Miramax subsidiary. I wondered how any top executive could live with his or her conscience by seeking profits from Kill Bill, oblivious to the psychological studies showing that positive depiction of violence in entertainment causes actual violence in children. I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence.
But those running Disney and Miramax are not Christian, they're Jewish. Learning this did in no way still my sense of outrage regarding Kill Bill. How, I wondered, could anyone Jewish--members of a group who suffered the worst act of violence in all history, and who suffer today, in Israel, intolerable violence--seek profit from a movie that glamorizes violence as cool fun?
[edit]Oh, I didn't realize this had been brought up in this thread yet.
well, i saw it sunday night. we were two of only six people in the theater that night.
i liked the film. that said, i didn't LOVE the film. but i can't give a good explanation for either. i felt it was too short, like there was a scene missing. not because of the "cliffhanger" -- just seemed like something else needed to be there. maybe it was the very brief encounter with vernita green compared to the drawn-out confrontation with o-ren. just seemed out of balance to me. though, with QT's method of storytelling, we may get another half hour of vivica fox in volume 2...
plus, am i crazy, or wasn't there a brief scene in the trailer for volume 1 where uma is training with an older man, she thrusts her sword at him, he jumps up, lands on her sword, and as she looks up in bewilderment, he backflip kicks her in the face? it was in black & white in the trailer, i think.
well, anyway, i liked it enough to see volume 2 when it comes out.
p.s. i usualy tire quickly of anime, but i thought the o-ren origin scene worked very well in context (and was probably the only way the censors would have allowed part of its material... remember the rule of south park, the movie -- all's fair in war and animation).
Yeah, I remember the black & white Kung Fu scene. Hopefully that is in the second movie.
Saw the movie last Saturday in a theater with about 8 people. It's a QT film: a movie constructed out of "cool" scenes. The dialog isn't as meaningful as Pulp Fiction was, much shallower, but I found it entertaining. Not great, but entertaining.
Yeah, I remember the black & white Kung Fu scene. Hopefully that is in the second movie.
Saw the movie last Saturday in a theater with about 8 people. It's a QT film: a movie constructed out of "cool" scenes. The dialog isn't as meaningful as Pulp Fiction was, much shallower, but I found it entertaining. Not great, but entertaining.
his comments on the movie are "volume one is visceral and action oriented, volume two more cerebral and character driven."
but it's stayed with me for a while, and i'm not sure it's because of this thread, or whether it's because part two is yet to come.
but i think about stuff like why was her name bleeped every time a character says it?
yesterday i was in the grocery store and i saw a box of KA-BOOM cereal (they still make that?) and it hit me that that was the cereal vivica fox (copperhead) had her gun in. i just started laughing right there in the cereal aisle, as i didn't process the joke part of the scene in the movie cause frankly i was kind of startled by it.
also the cast of part two has some characters we've yet to meet.
Funny how this anti-Semitic tantrum in this NR "review" slipped past most of the members here. I have to admit I didn't bother reading the whole thing the first time around. I came back after reading about it at another web site.
In my reading of this . . . and I am usually quite alert to anti-semitism, this is anythingg but anti-semitism. in fact it seems to be saying that since the CEOs are Jewish, and considering recent history, then he is surprised that they do not have higher moral standards than the Christians.
He seems to assume that Jews have a higher moral bar than do Christians, and particualarly with regards to the killing of many innocents . . . that doesn't strike me as anti-semitic
You might be a Jew, I don't know and I don't care, but even so I find this pussy footing around the word 'Jew' strange. Your reaction is the kind that comes from someone who mutter the word 'Jew' because they somehow feel uncertain about its use . .. perhaps it is a 'dirty' word . . . not realising that Jews talk about themselves and each other using that term . . . and in fact, find the term Jew-ish to be more tainted with Anti Semitism: one is not 'Jew-ish', as in 'like a Jew' or 'possessing Jew-like qualities' one is a Jew and proud of it . . . no muttering the word with uncertainty.
Not every use of the term or discussion of another Jew's Moral base, particularly from a Jew who may find that other's ethics are not up to what they should be, is immediately Anti-semitic
I read this review, and I can't say whether the author is Jewish or not but to me it sounds like a lament that someone who should know better, AKA: as a good Jew: with real moral foundations rooted in a strong moral Religion and in history, should not be glorifying the killing of innocents
I'm guessing you don't read or watch him that much? Here's his headline reviews at his web site.
One thing about Ebert that people don't understand is that he reviews movies within context. That is, if Jackie Chan does the best goofy kung fo take off ever Ebert will give it a high rating. It's not high art or high drama but it does have to be good for what it is. He expect you to know if you like those type of movies or not.
i think roger ebert is not only america's best movie critic, (and like scott said he doesn't look down his nose at something at movies that some critics might feel beneath them) but he is also a great, great writer.
and if you think he likes everything, you aren't paying full attention to him.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
One, THE APARTMENT is a better film. I'd guess anything by Billy Wilder is at least ten times the movie of a QT film.
Amen. Even QT would agree.
Originally posted by dstranathan
Amen. Even QT would agree.
If you need a correlation to QT's style and inspiration see some of Samuel Fuller. There was a documentary on him too. Incredible man and incredile life. Put all of that into his writing, film and art. Some recommendations:
- I Shot Jesse James
- Steel Helmet
- Forty Guns
- The Crimson Kimono
- Underworld USA
- Shock Corridor
- The Big Red One
Overblown? Overacted? B-Movies? Nope, masterpieces. Wouldn't be many contemporary directors today without him.
"Film is a battleground. Love, hate, violence, action, death...In a word, emotion."
Well from what I can remember... two of my friends and I walked in with a 26er of rye and mixed it with the large cokes we had... I had trouble walking out of the theater at the end of the movie.
Originally posted by BRussell
I haven't seen the movie yet, but this review from the New Republic summarizes how I feel about Tarantino more generally:
....
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.
Funny how this anti-Semitic tantrum in this NR "review" slipped past most of the members here. I have to admit I didn't bother reading the whole thing the first time around. I came back after reading about it at another web site.
Originally posted by Scott
Funny how this anti-Semitic tantrum in this NR "review" slipped past most of the members here. I have to admit I didn't bother reading the whole thing the first time around. I came back after reading about it at another web site.
i hadn't noticed it the first time around either. it's quite disturbing.
Originally posted by BRussell
I haven't seen the movie yet, but this review from the New Republic summarizes how I feel about Tarantino more generally:
Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.
This is pretty off-topic, but it's about this portion of the review that I posted. The guy who wrote it, Gregg Easterbrook, has caught a ton of flack because of the remarks about Jewish Hollywood CEOs. He was fired from his writing job at ESPN. The New Republic didn't fire him, but condemned him in their own pages. Here is his apology.
Monday I wrote an item about the disgusting movie Kill Bill, which so glorifies violence as to border on filth. I was indignant that a major company whose work is mainly good, Disney, would distribute such awfulness, in this case through its Miramax subsidiary. I wondered how any top executive could live with his or her conscience by seeking profits from Kill Bill, oblivious to the psychological studies showing that positive depiction of violence in entertainment causes actual violence in children. I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence.
But those running Disney and Miramax are not Christian, they're Jewish. Learning this did in no way still my sense of outrage regarding Kill Bill. How, I wondered, could anyone Jewish--members of a group who suffered the worst act of violence in all history, and who suffer today, in Israel, intolerable violence--seek profit from a movie that glamorizes violence as cool fun?
[edit]Oh, I didn't realize this had been brought up in this thread yet.
i liked the film. that said, i didn't LOVE the film. but i can't give a good explanation for either. i felt it was too short, like there was a scene missing. not because of the "cliffhanger" -- just seemed like something else needed to be there. maybe it was the very brief encounter with vernita green compared to the drawn-out confrontation with o-ren. just seemed out of balance to me. though, with QT's method of storytelling, we may get another half hour of vivica fox in volume 2...
plus, am i crazy, or wasn't there a brief scene in the trailer for volume 1 where uma is training with an older man, she thrusts her sword at him, he jumps up, lands on her sword, and as she looks up in bewilderment, he backflip kicks her in the face? it was in black & white in the trailer, i think.
well, anyway, i liked it enough to see volume 2 when it comes out.
p.s. i usualy tire quickly of anime, but i thought the o-ren origin scene worked very well in context (and was probably the only way the censors would have allowed part of its material... remember the rule of south park, the movie -- all's fair in war and animation).
Saw the movie last Saturday in a theater with about 8 people. It's a QT film: a movie constructed out of "cool" scenes. The dialog isn't as meaningful as Pulp Fiction was, much shallower, but I found it entertaining. Not great, but entertaining.
Originally posted by THT
Yeah, I remember the black & white Kung Fu scene. Hopefully that is in the second movie.
Saw the movie last Saturday in a theater with about 8 people. It's a QT film: a movie constructed out of "cool" scenes. The dialog isn't as meaningful as Pulp Fiction was, much shallower, but I found it entertaining. Not great, but entertaining.
his comments on the movie are "volume one is visceral and action oriented, volume two more cerebral and character driven."
but it's stayed with me for a while, and i'm not sure it's because of this thread, or whether it's because part two is yet to come.
but i think about stuff like why was her name bleeped every time a character says it?
yesterday i was in the grocery store and i saw a box of KA-BOOM cereal (they still make that?) and it hit me that that was the cereal vivica fox (copperhead) had her gun in. i just started laughing right there in the cereal aisle, as i didn't process the joke part of the scene in the movie cause frankly i was kind of startled by it.
also the cast of part two has some characters we've yet to meet.
cast
Quote:
Funny how this anti-Semitic tantrum in this NR "review" slipped past most of the members here. I have to admit I didn't bother reading the whole thing the first time around. I came back after reading about it at another web site.
In my reading of this . . . and I am usually quite alert to anti-semitism, this is anythingg but anti-semitism. in fact it seems to be saying that since the CEOs are Jewish, and considering recent history, then he is surprised that they do not have higher moral standards than the Christians.
He seems to assume that Jews have a higher moral bar than do Christians, and particualarly with regards to the killing of many innocents . . . that doesn't strike me as anti-semitic
You might be a Jew, I don't know and I don't care, but even so I find this pussy footing around the word 'Jew' strange. Your reaction is the kind that comes from someone who mutter the word 'Jew' because they somehow feel uncertain about its use . .. perhaps it is a 'dirty' word . . . not realising that Jews talk about themselves and each other using that term . . . and in fact, find the term Jew-ish to be more tainted with Anti Semitism: one is not 'Jew-ish', as in 'like a Jew' or 'possessing Jew-like qualities' one is a Jew and proud of it . . . no muttering the word with uncertainty.
Not every use of the term or discussion of another Jew's Moral base, particularly from a Jew who may find that other's ethics are not up to what they should be, is immediately Anti-semitic
I read this review, and I can't say whether the author is Jewish or not but to me it sounds like a lament that someone who should know better, AKA: as a good Jew: with real moral foundations rooted in a strong moral Religion and in history, should not be glorifying the killing of innocents
So if Charlie's Angels III would be directed by Quentin, would you go see it?
You'll have to wait until February for vol. 2...
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo
Ebert gave it four stars, and I think I'll have to agree with his assessment.
As I like to say, "Two thumbs up what?"
I haven't seen Ebert dislike many movies.
One thing about Ebert that people don't understand is that he reviews movies within context. That is, if Jackie Chan does the best goofy kung fo take off ever Ebert will give it a high rating. It's not high art or high drama but it does have to be good for what it is. He expect you to know if you like those type of movies or not.
I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie
and if you think he likes everything, you aren't paying full attention to him.