Roger Ebert on Kill Bill

[Zebo]

How does it compare to pulp fiction or Resivior dogs Tanrantino fans?
Better or worse?

 

[Chrono]

you know what? i was constantly talking trash about kill bill. the more i think of it, the more i realize that it was not the movie in general, it was thurman who pissed me off. she complete lacked character. so what if she runs around with a hattori hanzo sword and spoke japanese, it made me wanna kick her ass because she's so damn stiff and just lacked. i swear i wanna beat down her character so badly. like i said, it's like they were mocking heroes/stars in a kung fu film.

 

[Xenon]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: LAUST
I don't care for Ebert

he is aweful. most over-rated. the film sucked too. ebert wrote an hagiography of tarantino, not a film review. hopefully the
church of the heavenly wood will have quentin canonized soon, just to please ebert.

So YOU'RE the one that didn't like it. I wondered who you were

and I'm the two... I hate movies that make 4 minutes scene's out of something that should last 15 or 20 seconds just to be "Art"

Which 4 minute scene?

 

[CinderElmo]

Originally posted by: Zebo
How does it compare to pulp fiction or Resivior dogs Tanrantino fans?
Better or worse?

I absolutely HATED Pulp Fiction, with malice. I thought Kill Bill was a little better, with some cool fighting at the end - but overall I found it boring, with a lot of truly malicious content that was supposed to be funny. I think Ebert has gone senile with that review...

Of course the other 10 people I was with (Tarantino fans) all loved the movie so I guess if you are into his style you too will love it.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: UlricT
I find a lot of inconsistences with the review:
"To see O-Ren's God-slicer and Go-Go's mace clashing in a field of dead..."
The "god-slicer" is in the hands of The Bride, and they field before we get to the "field of dying men".

Also, The Brides legs were not paralysed... they were atrophied!

I'm not sure about the atrophied thing. If they were in fact atrophied, they would need months of exercise to return them to their original state. I think ebert is correct.

It says in the movie that her legs had atrophied.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: UlricT
I find a lot of inconsistences with the review:
"To see O-Ren's God-slicer and Go-Go's mace clashing in a field of dead..."
The "god-slicer" is in the hands of The Bride, and they field before we get to the "field of dying men".

Also, The Brides legs were not paralysed... they were atrophied!

I'm not sure about the atrophied thing. If they were in fact atrophied, they would need months of exercise to return them to their original state. I think ebert is correct.

It says in the movie that her legs had atrophied.

really? was it part of the narration? I must have missed that. I always understood atrophy to mean that muscles physically decrease in size or waste away. It didn't seem like she was weak just that she couldn't control her muscles.

 

[vi edit]

really? was it part of the narration? I must have missed that. I always understood atrophy to mean that muscles physically decrease in size or waste away. It didn't seem like she was weak just that she couldn't control her muscles.

It's safe to say that if you've been in a coma for 4 years, you are going to have some significant atrophy of muscles.

Just look at what happens to someones arm or leg when it's been in a cast for 6 weeks. Now imagine that over the course of 4 years. Sure, hospitals can do STEM treatments to work the muscles a bit...but it's the not the same.

 

[konichiwa]

Am I the only one who was disappointed with Kill Bill? It seems like Tarantino took several giant leaps backward with Kill Bill from his older films. There was none of the hilarity or character-absurdity that made Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction (and less-so Reservoir Dogs) so awesome.

Sure, the violence was funny, but in his other movies it seemed like the violence was merely a way to tell the story. In Kill Bill the story, IMO, was severely lacking -- we are thrown into this over-used revenge plot filled with types instead of characters.

There was no character development, and next to no emotion. Sure, spurting blood is funny in its absurdity, but I don't think it was enough to carry the film. Anyone else feel the same way?

 

[abaez]

I think she said her legs had ENTROPied.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: abaez
I think she said her legs had ENTROPied.

Same basic thing....both are basicly "wasting away or deterioration of". Entropy being a generic term for any substance, atrophy specifically being associated with muscle or body tissues.

 

[her209]

omg, that movie sucked big time. what the hell was he thinking. blech!!!

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: abaez
I think she said her legs had ENTROPied.

Same basic thing....both are basicly "wasting away or deterioration of". Entropy being a generic term for any substance, atrophy specifically being associated with muscle or body tissues.

That was a joke about movies miss using medical and scientific language.

 

[datalink7]

Didn't read the review because I haven't seen the movie yet... I need to go check it out.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That would make me actually want to watch it, if not for the fact that ebert also recommended mulholland drive - arguably the most wasted 2 hours of my life.

OMG ditto. Also, he raved about About Schmidt. Not as bad as Mulholland Drive, but still very very boring with almost no point.

Kill Bill is really an awesome movie though. I think Ebert decides thumbs-up or -down by rolling some dice.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Chrono
you know what? i was constantly talking trash about kill bill. the more i think of it, the more i realize that it was not the movie in general, it was thurman who pissed me off. she complete lacked character. so what if she runs around with a hattori hanzo sword and spoke japanese, it made me wanna kick her ass because she's so damn stiff and just lacked. i swear i wanna beat down her character so badly. like i said, it's like they were mocking heroes/stars in a kung fu film.

Considering that her character spent most of movie either fighting\killing people, in a coma, or being beat up, and shot I thought that Thurman did a good job.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: her209
omg, that movie sucked big time. what the hell was he thinking. blech!!!

did you like pulp?

 

[SSP]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Chrono
you know what? i was constantly talking trash about kill bill. the more i think of it, the more i realize that it was not the movie in general, it was thurman who pissed me off. she complete lacked character. so what if she runs around with a hattori hanzo sword and spoke japanese, it made me wanna kick her ass because she's so damn stiff and just lacked. i swear i wanna beat down her character so badly. like i said, it's like they were mocking heroes/stars in a kung fu film.

Considering that her character spent most of movie either fighting\killing people, in a coma, or being beat up, and shot I thought that Thurman did a good job.

She was awesome in this movie.

 

[slydecix]

Uma has a damn sexy voice too, and I loved the Pulp Fiction reference- "that would be just about square..."

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: UlricT
I find a lot of inconsistences with the review:
"To see O-Ren's God-slicer and Go-Go's mace clashing in a field of dead..."
The "god-slicer" is in the hands of The Bride, and they field before we get to the "field of dying men".

Also, The Brides legs were not paralysed... they were atrophied!

I'm not sure about the atrophied thing. If they were in fact atrophied, they would need months of exercise to return them to their original state. I think ebert is correct.

i think its like sleep paralysis, you know where you wake up wrong and cannot move your body for a bit?

 

[Hubris]

Her legs were atrophied. They do some PT for coma patients, but nothing can compare to the workout legs get simply from bearing the weight of the rest of the body. That's why her arms worked; because arms don't nomrally support the weight of the entire body, so PT would be able to keep them fairly well conditioned. And yes, normally it takes months and months of rehab to get muscle strength back, but that was the point. Her need fo revenge and will were so great that she was able to "will" her legs back into shape. It's part of the campiness glory of the movie, not a medical textbook cure.

I loved the flick. I don't worship at the altar of Tarantino, by any means, and he can't act for sh!t, but I've liked all his movies so far. And Kill Bill had a very hot Uma Thurman, which is always good.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Am I the only one who was disappointed with Kill Bill? It seems like Tarantino took several giant leaps backward with Kill Bill from his older films. There was none of the hilarity or character-absurdity that made Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction (and less-so Reservoir Dogs) so awesome.

Sure, the violence was funny, but in his other movies it seemed like the violence was merely a way to tell the story. In Kill Bill the story, IMO, was severely lacking -- we are thrown into this over-used revenge plot filled with types instead of characters.

There was no character development, and next to no emotion. Sure, spurting blood is funny in its absurdity, but I don't think it was enough to carry the film. Anyone else feel the same way?

There was not supposed to be much of a plot...revenge is the plot! Those who didn't grow up watching Bruce Lee movies are just plain not going to get this movie. As for character development...didn't they spend half the movie showing the origins of each of the characters to show where they're coming from?

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: UlricT
I find a lot of inconsistences with the review:
"To see O-Ren's God-slicer and Go-Go's mace clashing in a field of dead..."
The "god-slicer" is in the hands of The Bride, and they field before we get to the "field of dying men".

Also, The Brides legs were not paralysed... they were atrophied!

I'm not sure about the atrophied thing. If they were in fact atrophied, they would need months of exercise to return them to their original state. I think ebert is correct.

i think its like sleep paralysis, you know where you wake up wrong and cannot move your body for a bit?

that's what I think. I mean her big toe ("the hard part") wasn't supporting a huge load in the back seat. I don't think it was the miniscule amount of strength required to wiggle her toe that was the problem, I think it was actually getting herself to be able to get her muscles to react.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Zebo
How does it compare to pulp fiction or Resivior dogs Tanrantino fans?
Better or worse?

I saw Kill Bill last week and watched Pulp Fiction again last night and I liked Pulp Fiction a lot better. However to be fair I, like everybody else, only saw half of Kill Bill. When Vol2 is released then maybe I might have a different opinion

 

[Gravity]

Too long to read...the movie was too long to watch.

Gravity

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Am I the only one who was disappointed with Kill Bill? It seems like Tarantino took several giant leaps backward with Kill Bill from his older films. There was none of the hilarity or character-absurdity that made Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction (and less-so Reservoir Dogs) so awesome.

Sure, the violence was funny, but in his other movies it seemed like the violence was merely a way to tell the story. In Kill Bill the story, IMO, was severely lacking -- we are thrown into this over-used revenge plot filled with types instead of characters.

There was no character development, and next to no emotion. Sure, spurting blood is funny in its absurdity, but I don't think it was enough to carry the film. Anyone else feel the same way?

There was not supposed to be much of a plot...revenge is the plot! Those who didn't grow up watching Bruce Lee movies are just plain not going to get this movie. As for character development...didn't they spend half the movie showing the origins of each of the characters to show where they're coming from?

Well I guess I fall into that category, as I certainly didn't grow up watching Bruce Lee movies.

As for character development, all the characters in the movie were simple archetypes -- unoriginal characters that have been used over and over again. Sure he introduced them, but there was next to nothing original about any of them...