Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reviews & Ratings

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    When I went to see Kill Bill Vol. 2, I overheard people in the lobby saying that it sucked because there was too much talking in it and not as much fighting as there was in Vol. 1. When I first saw Vol. 1, I enjoyed it but criticized the lack of cleverness that you would normally find in a Tarantino flick. One of the most interesting aspects of a Tarantino film is the unmistakably Quentinesque dialogue which was missing from Vol. 1. and, though it was fun, was less intellectually rich because of it. The two halves are very different movies.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by dusken
      When I went to see Kill Bill Vol. 2, I overheard people in the lobby saying that it sucked because there was too much talking in it and not as much fighting as there was in Vol. 1. When I first saw Vol. 1, I enjoyed it but criticized the lack of cleverness that you would normally find in a Tarantino flick. One of the most interesting aspects of a Tarantino film is the unmistakably Quentinesque dialogue which was missing from Vol. 1. and, though it was fun, was less intellectually rich because of it. The two halves are very different movies.
      I wonder if it makes the movie going experience suck a little to know so much about a particular person and the types of movies he makes. Example: I liked the movie and didn't notice Quintinesque dialogue or lack thereof. I mean some of the things in Tarantino's movies make them quite obviously his own, but I don't particularly seek these out when I go to watch a film. I guess you can say I go for the entertainment value more than to look for the nitty-gritty or learn about his style, etc. Ever watch a movie purely for entertainment or do these things just happen to jump out at you?
      The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by ckBejug
        I wonder if it makes the movie going experience suck a little to know so much about a particular person and the types of movies he makes. Example: I liked the movie and didn't notice Quintinesque dialogue or lack thereof. I mean some of the things in Tarantino's movies make them quite obviously his own, but I don't particularly seek these out when I go to watch a film. I guess you can say I go for the entertainment value more than to look for the nitty-gritty or learn about his style, etc. Ever watch a movie purely for entertainment or do these things just happen to jump out at you?
        Do not forget that I enjoyed Kill Bill Vol. 1. I can appreciate a film on its own whether I am familiar with the directors previous work or not. However, I think it is impossible to not make comparisons if you are familiar with a directors catalogue. What makes a truly good director is one who is true to himself and artistically consistent, and by that I do not mean repeatedly plagiarizing himself. This goes for all forms of artistic expression. It is a matter of development. If a person paints one real good painting, he is a person who has painted one real good painting, but it is his collective works that determine whether he is a good artist. I always watch movies for entertainment but what entertains me is a maleable concept. And these things do jump out at me; I do not really look for them.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by dusken
          Do not forget that I enjoyed Kill Bill Vol. 1. I can appreciate a film on its own whether I am familiar with the directors previous work or not. However, I think it is impossible to not make comparisons if you are familiar with a directors catalogue. What makes a truly good director is one who is true to himself and artistically consistent, and by that I do not mean repeatedly plagiarizing himself. This goes for all forms of artistic expression. It is a matter of development. If a person paints one real good painting, he is a person who has painted one real good painting, but it is his collective works that determine whether he is a good artist. I always watch movies for entertainment but what entertains me is a maleable concept. And these things do jump out at me; I do not really look for them.
          The extra fake bloodiness in Vol. 1, was that a Tarantino 'thing'.?
          The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

          Comment


          • #75
            Haha. No, not really. His movies do tend to be violent but not in that fake way. It was an homage to Japanese film.

            Comment


            • #76

              Comment


              • #77
                I watched supertroopers again. hahaahhaha. ok hillarious, everyone should rent it once.

                Comment


                • #78
                  I strongly recommend everyone to see Robert Guidiguians films, i rented his latest a while ago," Marie-Jo and her two loves", a must see!!!!!!!!
                  Last edited by Tres Bien; 04-21-2004, 12:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    I watched Lost in Translation last night. Not deserving of a Best Picture nomination but I still enjoyed it.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      I introduced a newbie to The Graduate and Easy Rider. If you haven't seen them, see them.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X