Kill Bill - The Whole Bloody Affair DVD in November

Well no matter how much longer it is and how they edit it, it still will be just an OK movie at best. It's fun to watch one time and then forget, 'period'.

I've already forgotten about Kill Bill. Is that a track suit? I see no reason to buy this version and support Tarantino. In fact I've sold my only copy long ago, Japanese edition, to make room my Kaji Meiko collection.

Lighten up folks. This is effervescent pop-cinema bubble-gum. Nothing wrong with that from time to time. It serves the mood and time and place.

I don't understand the hate, other than some hipster-flavoured trolling.

Sheesh.

I find a lot of ASian film lovers hate Tarantino, without any reason other than "he steals from other works" which we have been hearing for years... Whatever, this is great news for me, Kill Bill is one of my favorite movies, theft or homage, I like it more than any of the movies it "ripped off."

About damn time I say. I haven't bought the films because I was waiting for this.

Swarez - ditto.

Posted by helu at June 23, 2007 02:15 PM
(Whatever, this is great news for me, Kill Bill is one of my favorite movies, theft or homage, I like it more than any of the movies it "ripped off.")

I really dont mean to insult you 'helu', but if Kill Bill is one of your favorite, then you must not be watching many good movies. I mean everyone has different tastes, but an "OK at best" is just that.
And yes most of us (I think) who are Asian Movie fans dont really care for Tarantino, for what ever the reasons. Hes just not really that great.
There are a TON of Korean/Hong Kong/Japanese movies out there that are far better than most all Hollywood CRAP (and that includes Kill Bill). I would guess Hollywood only puts out 3 - 5 good movies a year.

Sorry if the above sounds a little ruff...
But just stating it as I see it.

Cant think why anyone would want to sit through these back to back, the first one was ok for the action (which wasnt anything new) but the second one was just plain boring.

Agreed w/Asian Flix. 3-5 good Hollywood movies is pushing it for me, I would say 1-2 at best. Since my rebirth of movie watching, I've all but given up on Hollywood CRAP.

Well for many Tarantino is the reason they got in to asian cinema so don't rag on him too hard. I for instance didn't know who Sonny Chiba or John Woo were untill I saw True Romance. After what I saw there it peaked my interest to try and find these films. Tarantino brought these films to main stream America so he's done more for it that most people have.

This asian cinema eliticism makes me sick. Those that chide Tarantino as a thief and unoriginal are just deluded. The reality is that every single filmmaker you know and love from the 1970's on from every corner of the world ripoff other artists in every creative endeavor they partake in. Tarantino is just one of the few who does so with complete transparency. And by doing so he's labeled a hack? The reality is QT has done more for bringing asian cinema to the world and extolling it's virtues than almost anyone else. He brought the US wkw, not to mention we would never have gotten a theatrical release of Zhang Yimou's Hero here in the states (unmolested no less). He goes out of his way to talk up asian cinema every chance he gets. Don't forget it was his Cannes jury that gave Chan-wook Park's Oldboy the Grand Prix award and he in fact fought tooth and nail to get the film the Palm. And from what I've witnessed he is almost universally embraced but these asian filmmakers as a peer and comrade. Then you have his promotion of long forgotten filmmakers and those that were once labeled as schlock hucksters who are now being studied as true artists. Sergio Leone and spaghetti westerns have been brought to a brand new audience thanks in large part to him. Get off it.

And to imply that the man isn't one of the great filmmakers working today you'd have to know very little of cinema. I bet the same people who call Kill Bill "boring" and the Whole Bloody Affair being too long would in the very same breath shower platitudes on something like Eureka which is very good but anything but engaging for muchof it's 217min running time. Most people don't realize just how much talent it takes to mix samurai, kung fu, spaghetti western, giallo, asian extreme/gore, anime, et al in one cohesive and engaging piece. QT's ability to draw connection between such wildly disparate genres is a virtue. And again all great filmmakers do this to some extent, just open your eyes. That doesn't make these people any less great. You can not like Kill Bill because it's not your cup of tea, but you cannot deny the strength of it's craft. Try saying that one-take sequence in the House of Blue Leaves chapter isn't one of the best conceived and executed sequences cinema has ever seen. Like Pacino says in Glen Gary Glen Ross, it's something you'd know if you ever spent a day in your life. Try making a film or writing a story and see just how original you are. What makes something unique is how an artist filters an experience through their own eyes and mind.

And yes it is very easy to say that there are more quality films being made around the world in any given year than are being produced in Hollywood. One country's cinema versus the entire world isn't a fair comparison. I will challenge anyone to say that a single country's output is significantly greater than America's. The reality is that just like Hollywood, the majority of films made in any country is just average shit. They're easily digestible and quickly forgotten. Go over to Jason Gray's blog and ask him about the Japanese film industry. Here's a news flash, they ain't all Sabu, Kitano, and Kurosawa. Hong Kong? Get serious. South Korea? Don't make me laugh. The reason foreigners perceive these countries as being artistic bastions is because the olny films that get exported from these places are generally the cream of the crop. Imagine living ina country where all you got as far as US cinema was Scorsese, Spielberg, Jarmusch, Aronofsky and the like...you'd think that was representative of all American cinema.

You gotta love people who will dimiss Tarantino yet worship filmmakers who have been directly influenced by the man, especially in Asian cinema. That's like dismissing The Departed because it somehow undermines the "greatness" of Infernal Affairs. I openly admit that I watch more asian films than any other cinema by far, but that is mostly due to the fact that I have grown up around American cinema and have an entire history of foreign cinema to catch up on. At the same time of my 20 favorite films of 2006 only 4 were asian. The very best films were actually produced by Hollywood...The Fountain, Children of Men, United 93, Babel, The Departed, Little Children...the list goes on. Sure it was an aberration from previous years but it highlights the fact that globalization has been the best thing that's happened to cinema and Hollywood in a very long time. Even Pan's Labyrinth was produced by a major Hollywood studio so one can't look at a country's cinema in a vacuum. And yet again Tarantino has played a major role in this shift. He may not be the world's best filmmaker but he's in the conversation. If you think that no more than 3-5 even "good" movies come out of Hollywood in any single year then I have to question what movies you're watching. Hate Hollywood but love Halyuwood right? Riiiiight.

So yes, I will be getting this DVD set.

Amen to that. It's because of Tarantino that most of these guys get to see these films that they love.

(( Most people don't realize just how much talent it takes to mix samurai, kung fu, spaghetti western, giallo, asian extreme/gore, anime, et al in one cohesive and engaging piece.))

Very true, and QT sure as hell can't do the above either.

Yes I will agree he has helped in a minute per cent, but most of what you are saying would have happened or evolved with out him.

Asian Flix
The interesting thing is I never argued with you. I never said anything about the quality of Kill Bill, I do for the record think it's a very good film, but I didn't state this in my post yet you tried to argue that point. I enjoy many bad films and many good films, and I'd like ot think I can tell the difference. I have seen many many asian films, I love Japanese cinema in particular (Seijun Suzuki, Miike, Kurosawa, what have you,) and I don't think my love for Kill Bill at all signifies how many good films I have seen. I'm sure many of your favorite films may be films I also really enjoy.

I won't try and justify why I think Kill Bill is good, others (many others) have done that better than I could, and while I would like to change your mind, I don't think it's possible, and that's fine.

Asian Flix, the difference between someone like QT and yourself (besides the obvious disparity in talent to his advantage) is that while you may consider his contributions to Asian Cinema on the world stage you with your myopic view would actively such growth. To say that things would have "evolved" just the same without him contributing in inane. He pretty much shaped cinema WORLDWIDE in the 90's. By your rational anybody who has ever done anything to progress ANYTHING is disposable is absolutely flawed. They're words of someone who hasn't accomplished anything. I guess Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in professional sports should be dismissed as merely an eventuality? I hate to evoke such a strong analogy but I'm just trying to get my point across. Like I said before, you can dislike Kill Bill all you want, that's your prerogative, but don't dismiss the artist unless you can back it up with some intelligent argument. I seriously hope you don't like Katsuhito Ishii because then you'd really look like a moron.

It's probably a good idea to come up with a better example than Katsuhito Ishii, as he quickly grew beyond his "Tarantino wannabe" station in life. The Taste of Tea and Funky Forest are testaments to that.

Are you sure this is a new edit and not just a quick re-release that puts both previously released DVDs into a box set?

Agreed, I merely brought him up because he was on my mind. Though I'd argue Funky Forest has much in common with Kill Bill as both are epic genre mixtapes, just done in vastly different styles. Wow, now that I think about it that's an interesting way of looking at the film given his strong Tarantino influence!

Actually Ishii is a damn good example considering Tarantino's early support of his work, Ishii's obvious admiration for the man and the fact Ishii worked on the animation of Kill Bill. The guys are friends and Tarantino has had a huge - and entirely positive - influence on Ishii's career and global exposure.

Yes, there are similarities between Ishii's early films, and Tarantinos's, and they are friends. But my point is that Ishii has grown and moved on as a filmmaker, while Tarantino is still making the same movie over and over again. Hence, I think a better example than Ishii is needed.

Follow-up:

I also lost more respect in QT when he joined forces with the Weinsteins (Dragon Dynasty).

It is fact that the Weinsteins have a long history of butchering Asian movies they import to R1.

And then there is the BlockBuster crap they started, and were sued over it. You do know about the 800# they were trying to put on Seven Swords DVDs, so that if anyone rented it from anyone else except BlockBuster that they were to call the 800# and report them.
As a small local DVD Rental and retailer myself I was so glad to see that the Retail Industry had enough sense to sue Weinstein and QT as soon as the word got out about this 800# crap.
If this 800# crap would have happened it would have had the appearence that other Retailers besides BlockBuster were renting and/or selling Seven Swords illegally.

sharkbait: Tarantino certainly is not making the same movie over and over. Like any auteur, though his films maintain a certain look and feel, the films themselves are wildly different. Would you say that Takashi Miike is making the same film over and over? Even better, did Kubrick make the same film over and over? I really don't see how you can watch something like Kill Bill and think yeah that's just Pulp Fiction Redux.

Asian Flix: What the Weinsteins do with their acquisitions and general business practices has fuck-all to do with QT. Tarantino was affiliated with the Weinsteins through Miramax before they began acquiring a foreign film catalog. Any influence he's had in that front has been positive...again seeing the release of Hero uncut and in a wide release. Contrary to what you may believe, QT is not the 3rd Weinstein brother. In fact, I'd say that many asian filmmakers would prefer that their films be released under the Tarantino Presents banner because that means it will bring in a bigger audience. Yes, the Weinsteins have been very poor in handling their asian properties but to lay blame at the foot of QT is ignorant.

@ ijaffery

All I'm saying is everyone knows how bad the Weinsteins butcher foreign movies,

But yet, QT forms a partnership with them and Dragon Dynasty is the result.

ijaffery,

I guess it boils down to differing points of view, but to me, there's hardly any progress to be seen in Tarantino's filmography. The girls in Death Proof are basically the same characters as the gangsters in Reservoir Dogs, only with breasts, and even less interesting. Reservoir Dogs was okay, and Pulp Fiction was great, but ever since then it's been a case of ever diminishing returns.

Takashi Miike I've given up years ago. Perhaps if he didn't spread his talent across way too many projects each year he'd be interesting again. But he's just cranking out half-baked stuff that opens with a bang, sags in the middle and picks up again in the end. That gets old really fast.

And Kubrick I never cared for, so I guess you had a string of bad luck with your choice of examples there. Sorry. :-)

@ sharkbait

Yep, good points there.

I thought Reservoir Dogs was good, but thought Pulp Fiction was only OK.

And for Miike, he has done some good movies, but also a lot of crappy movies. I think more crappy than good.

And Kubrick has directed a few good ones during his film career.

Regarding Dragon Dynasty, that venture is still in it's infancy and so far has been much better in releasing it's films than Miramax ever was. And let's not forget that when Midway temporarily bowed out of it's sponsorship of the NYAAFF it was the Weinsteins and Dragon Dynasty that stepped in to pick up a bulk of the tab. You can't hold the past against them when they've since shown progress.

"The girls in Death Proof are basically the same characters as the gangsters in Reservoir Dogs, only with breasts, and even less interesting."

No. I can just as easily say that Ishii has shown no growth because all of his films involve extremely quirky characters, right? You're not even making sense at this point. By your rational no artist ever shows any growth because anything even resembling a artistic trademark equates to stagnation.

"But he's just cranking out half-baked stuff that opens with a bang, sags in the middle and picks up again in the end."

Big Bang Love.

...and the fact that both of you dismiss an artist on the level of Kubrick says a lot about your credibility. The man is one of the pillars of cinema and has basically shaped the face of modern cinema. I know it can be very trendy to go against majority opinion (just look at the backlash Citizen Kane has been getting after being labeled the greatest American film for a 2nd time by AFI) but some artist are beyond reproach, and Kubrick most certainly is one of them. I'd like to know whom the both of you consider great filmmakers because something is just off here.

My last post on this, I hope:

Neither I nor sharkbait dismissed Kubrick, sharkbait just does not like his movies, I think he is a very good director and has made some good movies, but all this boils down to is just a matter of "Taste", as was said before, and that is all this comes down to.

Who do I think is a great director, the first person that comes to mind is AKIRA KUROSAWA, I'm guessing anyone who knows films would have to agree on that name.

"BUT THEN AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE A MATTER OF TASTE"

Well, been fun, I'm sure we will get this started up again on another post.

"OH, LOOK, ANOTHER 'KILL BILL' POST, CATCH YOU ON THE NEXT ONE.

Have to agree with Asian Flix on this one Jaffery. Just because somebody doesn't like Kubrik doesn't mean they are full of crap. It has nothing to do with trends, just taste.

Akira Kurosawa is a perfect example. He openly admired John Ford and cribbed a lot of his style. He even got his iconic hat from the man. You can just as easily say he ripped off Ford, Capra, and especially Shakespeare. You denounce Tarantino for doing exactly the same. And if "anyone who knows films would have to agree on that name" then same can be said of Kubrick so that's why you have to distinguish personal taste from craft. That distinction is absolutely critical in any intelligent film discourse. For instance, an individual can be pro-Vietnam War but still admire the craft of a film like Apocalypse Now regardless of whether it speaks to them on a narrative level. That's the foundation of the best film analysis and criticism.

As Asian Flix correctly pointed out, I didn't dismiss Kubrick. I just don't like his style - his films, the ones I've seen, anyway, all have a very cold and mannered style, which I find very offputting. I have the same reaction to Hitchcock's movies. No doubt they both were important directors, but I can't say anything worthwhile about their growth as directors when I haven't seen all, or the majority of their movies.

As for Miike, I've stopped watching his movies too. Maybe Big Bang Love is great - who knows - but it didn't interest me much when I read about it a while back. I've seen a couple of good movies from him - Audition and Gozu, in particular - but never a great one.

I'd agree (who wouldn't?) that Akira Kurosawa was a great filmmaker. And yes, certainly he borrowed/stole (you pick) from Ford - that's common knowledge. But please note that I, at least, didn't rip on Tarantino for being a copycat. My main problem with him is the lack of growth ("Just making the same movie over and over again."), which is hardly something you can accuse Kurosawa of. If, say, Pulp Fiction is Tarantino's Seven Samurai (oddball comparison, I know, but bear with me), where is his Ikiru? Where is his High and Low? Where is his Dersu Uzala?

And finally, since Pulp Fiction and Sex, Lies, And Videotape are commonly regarded as the two movies that killed the American indie scene, why not compare Tarantino to Steven Soderbergh - an infinitely more varied and interesting filmmaker (not without his faults, but few are)? I'd even say he's beat Tarantino at his own game - Out of Sight is leagues better than anything Tarantino has put out post-Pulp Fiction (including Tarantino's own Leonard-adaptation).

But Tarantino is one of those filmmakers that doesn't really want to avert from the B-movie form. He loves the genre and that what he likes to do. Why should he want to make a heavy handed drama or something like that? Some filmmakers feel at home with certain genres and don't really want to do anything else if they are successful at it. And I say so what? If he's good at his job and likes it then all the more power to him.
Same goes with Roth and Del Toro.

Swarez,

Certainly, but like I said, I just don't think Tarantino is that good at his job. Diminishing returns.

At this point any comparisons between Tarantino and Kurosawa are ridiculous. QT has a long way to go to reach that level of mastery and most likely will never reach such heights. Then again not many have or will. It's unfair to put Kurosawa's 50 year career against Tarantino's barely 15. He's only directed 5 features, all of which are better than Kurosawa's first 5 by a mile. It's also funny that you penalize QT for not expanding his horizons past his genre obsessions when Kurosawa is best known for his genre pictures (samurai). There's also another highly praised Kurosawa who openly admits that every film he makes begins with choosing a genre to explore...Kiyoshi Kurosawa. When you say "diminishing returns" that can only be based on a personal dislike of the types of films he makes, but not about his technique. Tarantino is absolutely a better filmmaker now than he was when he made Pulp Fiction. There's no question whatsoever.

ijaffery

Did you actually read the other comments ??
No one in here compared QT to Kurosawa.
I know I didnt, and I wouldnt do that because QT is not in the same league as Kurosawa (and never will be).
The Kurosawa thing, was in reguards to you questioning who we/I thought was a good/great director. It was more in requard to the Kubrick remarks, not QT.
Read the comments more carefully.

thank you very little...

sharkbait:
"I'd agree (who wouldn't?) that Akira Kurosawa was a great filmmaker. And yes, certainly he borrowed/stole (you pick) from Ford - that's common knowledge. But please note that I, at least, didn't rip on Tarantino for being a copycat. My main problem with him is the lack of growth ("Just making the same movie over and over again."), which is hardly something you can accuse Kurosawa of. If, say, Pulp Fiction is Tarantino's Seven Samurai (oddball comparison, I know, but bear with me), where is his Ikiru? Where is his High and Low? Where is his Dersu Uzala?"

Perhaps you should be reading the comments other than your own AF. You may learn something.

Sorry, I still don't see anyone, who originaly compared QT to Akira.

ijaffery,

I already said I thought Reservoir Dogs was good and Pulp Fiction was great, didn't I? How does that translate into a "personal dislike of the types of films he makes"? I also mentioned Soderbergh's Out of Sight, which is a fantastic genre movie. Wayne Kramer's Running Scared is tremendous fun, too. And I find it telling that you don't want to acknowledge my suggestion of comparing Tarantino to Soderbergh. The "Kurosawa had a 50 year career"-argument doesn't apply there...

As for Kiyoshi Kurosawa - he's a very interesting director. I think it's great that directors want to explore genres, but again, you don't really explore much when you hardly move from the same spot you started in...

There's nothing "telling" about it. Comparing Soderbergh and Tarantino is an apples and oranges situation. Both can be accused of making films that primarily amuse them first and foremost. Of the two Tarantino's work is more accessible and lacks the pretense that Soderbergh films have in abundance. Out of Sight is very overrated in my opinion so preferring it over Jackie Brown is simply a matter of taste. I have to say that many consider Jackie Brown his best film so take that as you will. I won't even touch on that "films that killed the American Indie scene" comment because that's a whole other discussion.

For me Soderbergh hasn't been interesting for years. Everything he's done since Traffic has been a letdown on some level, outside of the Ocean's pictures which are just pure fun. He's become a director who's more style than substance. Solaris, while beautiful, is but a shadow of the original. The Good German was interesting to look at but a narrative mess. The less that's said about Bubble and Full Frontal the better. I think that's the major difference between Soderbergh and Tarantino...SS has films that can be completely dismissed while QT demands attention with everything he does. His films are an event for both audiences and the critical community, the same cannot be said about Soderbergh. Most people don't know who he is and even film buffs will openly admit that there are many of his films they haven't bothered to watch. Believe me, watching Bubble was an absolute chore.

I much prefer the Soderbergh of the early 90's who had the gal to make Schizopolis. I don't want it to seem like I don't respect the man because I do and am really interested in seeing his duel Guevara films, but his films haven't engaged me on an intellectual level for years. The man knows his craft though.

Of course both men can lay claim to having a Palm D'or on their mantle so again, apples and oranges. Is that enough or should I go on? Knocking the quality of Tarantino's films for his genre obsessions is as dubious as those that complain about Scorsese's predilection to crime pictures. Just judge the quality of the work, not the impetus that birthed it. I simply cannot convey how wrong you are in your assertion that Tarantino is simply working in the same genre or even genres, or that he's no better a filmmaker now than he was circa Pulp Fiction. I'm starting to sound like a Taranitno apologist but I just feel that he's not being given a fair shake by supposed cinema buffs who when checked really aren't informed enough to give an educated opinion on matters of artistic merit. Bottom line, he's among the most celebrated filmmakers and cultural icons of our time and has had an indelible impact on both film and culture the world over. The same can't be said about many, including one Steven Soderbergh.

ijaffery,

Most of your comments and criticisms about Soderbergh are ones I levelled, or would level against Tarantino (especially the "a director who's more style than substance" comment), which ties up this discussion rather neatly. After all, we've come full circle, and have returned to what I pointed out early on: it boils down to differing points of view. Agreed?

It made for a great read fellas. Quite enjoyed the back and forth on that one.