Kill Bill: One of the best movies ever made...

[HAPKO3]

Originally posted by The Wastrel
It is not well-made. It has style. That's it.

I wasn't being wry, there are no samurai in this film. Anyway...

Look, there is one sequence in the film that is pure samurai: the bucket fountain in the foreground while the fighters pause to reengage.

Disagree.

It was very well made, and on many different levels at that. And the fact that it "has style" as you put it is one of those levels.

Kill Bill was one of the better comedies I've seen in a long while. In a way, I am biased - I happen to have seen quite a few of the exploitation films ih references, and thus enjoyed more of the subtle humor than most of the audience.

However, like it or not, it certainly was a well made movie, especially from a cinematographic perspective. It has some of the most powerful and effective camera work I've seen in a long while in a new release.

It is by no means the best, or even one of the best movies I have ever seen. However, it is definitly well made.

[The Wastrel]

Because, he would actually be making a judgment about the content about samurai films if he was claiming that they were primarily derivative of them, so of course it doesn't matter.

Anyway, I wasn't saying the two of them were equivalent in skill. I was just saying that intention is very different from execution.

[The Wastrel]

Technical filmmaking is one area in which almost all American filmmakers excel.

And I have to say..."subtle humor"?

[HAPKO3]

On a side note,

It is definitly not a samurai movie.

At all.

However, you can certainly see some influences. The most obvious one would be the fight under the snow, with the emphasis on the fountain (as Wastrel mentioned) and the snowflakes. Another one would the the yakuza meeting with the decapitation of the rebel "boss".

Overall, though, the movie is clearly more influenced by Hong Kong exploitation cinema thatn it is by samurai films.

[HAPKO3]

By the way, here's a review written by a good friend of mine, who happens to be more knowledgeble of cinema of all the people I know.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/vinnipuh/687.html

[HAPKO3]

Originally posted by The Wastrel
Technical filmmaking is one area in which almost all American filmmakers excel.

And I have to say..."subtle humor"?

It was quite subtel, IMHO. That's probably the part I enjoyed the most. It almost seemed like there were two separate parts to the movie. One was almost repugnantly in-your-face, and the other was quite subtle and crafty.

[HAPKO3]

And, by the way, I think that the cinamatography was quite excellent on a level beyond simple technicality. There were quite a few scenes and shots that were quite beatiful and powerfull, beyond the uninspired bullshit that generally comes out of Hollywood. I can say that as an amateur photographer.

Just so you know, though, I'm pretty damn drunk right now, so I may very well be making a lot less sense than I think I am.

[Ice Queen]

I hadn't noticed. I just remember sitting there and enjoying the movie. Laughing my ass off. And my sister couldn't understand why. She almost illed me by the end of the movie.

[The Wastrel]

I think I agree with most of what your friend had to say. The problem is this:

I basically don't understand what the point of an entirely referential film is. Don't enjoy them, and I certainly don't think such needs to be called "One of the greatest films ever made".

Anyway, arguments of taste are pointless. I avoid them. I only wanted to make a point about the presence and weight about certain thematic elements.

[HAPKO3]

Well, you see, I don't think it was a purely referential film.

I would say it's more of an abstract excersize in cinematography. Without any real point or pretention. Sort of like Citizen Kane was, or let's say, some of Kislowsky's earlier work. I happen to think that both Wells and Kislowsky happen to be an order of magnitude or two more interesting than Tarantino is, but it's the same basik idea and direction in moviemaking.

[The Wastrel]

Nothing abstract about it. It's 100% cribbing. But hey, style is what he's good at.

It's no surprise that his best film is based on an Elmore Leonard novel...he had someone else do the work of story for him.

Hey...you like Kieslowski? Cool.

[HAPKO3]

I'm a big fan. Just rewatched the Decalogue, and enjoyed it even more than last time.

What I ment to say, and bing drunk as I am, I know I am not very good at expressing my thoughts, but what I meant is that I think it's an excersize more than it's a film, sort of like a musical etude (is there such a word in English?). I liked it. It was certainly not a masterpiece by any means, but it was better than the Matrix reloaded and the rest of the shit that get puked up into the big screen lately.

[The Wastrel]

Definitely, but I evaluate QT on a higher standard than that.

[HAPKO3]

Originally posted by The Wastrel
Definitely, but I evaluate QT on a higher standard than that.

Do you?

Why?

I, for one, did not think that Pulp Fiction was a mesterpiece. It was a pretty good movie, but that's about it. Same goes for Reservoir Dogs, and Jackie Brown was a step below that, if you ask me. All of these movies are interesting, but I don't really see any reason to rave about them. I have seen a whole slew of movies that are an order of magniture above anything QT ever put out.

[The Wastrel]

I evaluate him on that standard because that seems the one everyone wants to apply. Master filmmaker extraordinaire auteur...