criterionforum.org

Wow, did everyone see the same Kill Bill films that I did? Those, and now Django Unchained, are the only times Tarantino has blown my mind (to paraphrase Brian C). The sumptuous use of Grade-A++ cinematography, music, setpieces, clever editing, etc etc makes the Kill Bill films hard to beat for me, period. If I just wanted to be entertained for five hours, those might be the first things I grab for out of anything on my shelf. Anything.

That's not really a sign of greatness though. Anything can just entertain particularly those films that Tarantino takes from which in the case of Kill Bill I find to be better at least in terms of pure entertainment.

It is to me, when someone's setting out to make a great piece of referential, pulpy entertainment and succeeds on each and every front

That seems a terribly low and uninteresting goal especially considering how deliberate pulp without any concern for why is such a terrible bore of a concept. I much prefer to think of it in the metatextual sense that Sausage brought up some months ago which at least presents an illuminating experience on art-artist-audience relations.

I like to watch it and have fun when I watch the fun thing

That's no better an argument than those of Michael Bay fans. Something can be both fun and illuminating as I would think you would know.

Teach me how to understand cinema
Show me how to enjoy it a lot
It hurts my little head
When I'm watching this retread
Without approaching it like a snot

The Kills Bill, to me, go beyond mindless popcorn in the same way a Tokyo Drifter does, in the use of color and kineticism and the sheer force of film making in the thing. I don't really think it needs to be seen as a visual criticism of other movies to work, though it can function that way- it's a bright glorious popping thing of a movie, and that in of itself is more than enough justification of its existence. I don't know why Tarantino uniquely has to be considered solely for his depth of theme, there are other meaningful qualities a movie can have.

I also don't really understand why depth of theme or any other consciously intellectualized way to watch a movie automatically means you aren't having fun, though. Shoot 'Em Up is certainly fun as hell and is also entirely self aware in the way it's heightening and critiquing other action movies, doing those things at the same time is one of the hallmarks of modern movies (and definitely one of the things I associate with Godard and Truffaut et al.)

warren oates wrote:Really? That's surprising to me because one of the most mature and interesting things about the film to me is its thematic interest in its characters' advancing age and how that shapes all of their choices/options. Something that Tarantino brought to the adaptation -- especially by casting Pam Grier and Robert Forster -- that was present but less important in the book. I would think you'd be even better able to appreciate that now.

Well, I'm only 34. So maybe it'll boomerang back on me when I really advance in age.

matrixschmatrix wrote:I also don't really understand why depth of theme or any other consciously intellectualized way to watch a movie automatically means you aren't having fun, though. Shoot 'Em Up is certainly fun as hell and is also entirely self aware in the way it's heightening and critiquing other action movies, doing those things at the same time is one of the hallmarks of modern movies (and definitely one of the things I associate with Godard and Truffaut et al.)

I've got nothing against watching cinema in an consciously intellectualized way, but finding a whole lot of enjoyment of something at face value without needing to go deeper each and every time I watch does not make me a moron worthy of being condescended to by a joyless bore of a film-watching philosophy

matrixschmatrix wrote:The Kills Bill, to me, go beyond mindless popcorn in the same way a Tokyo Drifter does, in the use of color and kineticism and the sheer force of film making in the thing. I don't really think it needs to be seen as a visual criticism of other movies to work, though it can function that way- it's a bright glorious popping thing of a movie, and that in of itself is more than enough justification of its existence. I don't know why Tarantino uniquely has to be considered solely for his depth of theme, there are other meaningful qualities a movie can have.

I also don't really understand why depth of theme or any other consciously intellectualized way to watch a movie automatically means you aren't having fun, though. Shoot 'Em Up is certainly fun as hell and is also entirely self aware in the way it's heightening and critiquing other action movies, doing those things at the same time is one of the hallmarks of modern movies (and definitely one of the things I associate with Godard and Truffaut et al.)

I didn't argue him as being considered solely for theme, but his visual grammar is nowhere near Suzuki (and even in Suzuki's case there is a lot of thematic material to talk about) and Mfunk wasn't making the argument that Tarantino was doing something entirely new (or whatever) but that it is a fun movie that shouldn't require thought applied. I do absolutely agree with your second paragraph though.

mfunk9786 wrote:I've got nothing against watching cinema in an consciously intellectualized way, but finding a whole lot of enjoyment of something at face value without needing to go deeper each and every time I watch does not make me a moron worthy of being condescended to by a joyless bore of a film-watching philosophy

Haha yeah but 'it's fun cause it's fun, c'mon bro' is a hard thing to have a conversation about

knives wrote:

matrixschmatrix wrote:The Kills Bill, to me, go beyond mindless popcorn in the same way a Tokyo Drifter does, in the use of color and kineticism and the sheer force of film making in the thing. I don't really think it needs to be seen as a visual criticism of other movies to work, though it can function that way- it's a bright glorious popping thing of a movie, and that in of itself is more than enough justification of its existence. I don't know why Tarantino uniquely has to be considered solely for his depth of theme, there are other meaningful qualities a movie can have.

I also don't really understand why depth of theme or any other consciously intellectualized way to watch a movie automatically means you aren't having fun, though. Shoot 'Em Up is certainly fun as hell and is also entirely self aware in the way it's heightening and critiquing other action movies, doing those things at the same time is one of the hallmarks of modern movies (and definitely one of the things I associate with Godard and Truffaut et al.)

I didn't argue him as being considered solely for theme, but his visual grammar is nowhere near Suzuki (and even in Suzuki's case there is a lot of thematic material to talk about) and Mfunk wasn't making the argument that Tarantino was doing something entirely new (or whatever) but that it is a fun movie that shouldn't require thought applied. I do absolutely agree with your second paragraph though.

What about

mfunk wrote:The sumptuous use of Grade-A++ cinematography, music, setpieces, clever editing, etc etc

I'm just having fun. If I haven't shown that I can engage with cinema on an intellectual level on this forum by now, I might as well go. But I don't understand taking points away from something because you can't apply a dozen different intellectual litmus tests to it. That seems so patronizing and, frankly, inauthentic and exhausting to have to go through each and every time you watch a film, particularly a well-made action/adventure opus like Kill Bill. Michael Bay films are sloppy, they're not well-made, they're not particularly enjoyable or entertaining experiences (unless a hammer banging against a sheet of metal for 2.5 hours is an enjoyable and entertaining experience) and the comparison was such a joke that I couldn't have a conversation about what knives wanted to have a conversation about, either. I can't talk to someone who considers my perspective on something to be that of a petulant child, just like he likely can't talk to someone who considers him more than a bit of a cinematic stuffed shirt.

Drucker wrote: What about

mfunk wrote:The sumptuous use of Grade-A++ cinematography, music, setpieces, clever editing, etc etc

Which isn't really in depth enough to respond to and doesn't mean much since that could also apply to Spielberg or somebody like that. There's no how in that sentence, plus (in what I suppose is a slight contradiction on my part) it does not add up to the visual themes being built. Even with an absolute abstraction like Fischinger one could discuss how the exact forms of music versus animation are built.

mfunk9786 wrote:I'm just having fun. If I haven't shown that I can engage with cinema on an intellectual level on this forum by now, I might as well go. But I don't understand taking points away from something because you can't apply a dozen different intellectual litmus tests to it. That seems so patronizing and, frankly, inauthentic and exhausting to have to go through each and every time you watch a film, particularly a well-made action/adventure opus like Kill Bill. Michael Bay films are sloppy, they're not well-made, they're not particularly enjoyable or entertaining experiences (unless a hammer banging against a sheet of metal for 2.5 hours is an enjoyable and entertaining experience) and the comparison was such a joke that I couldn't have a conversation about what knives wanted to have a conversation about, either. I can't talk to someone who considers my perspective on something to be that of a petulant child, just like he likely can't talk to someone who considers him more than a bit of a cinematic stuffed shirt.

You have shown that you can which makes all the more annoying whenever you try to shut down a conversation on a film because you like it just for fun which is just fine for you, but might not be for everyone in this particular case. Certainly there are movies everyone has that they watch just for the fun of it (and mine are certainly more embarrassing than Kill Bill), but not everyone is going to have the same ones so if somebody has an intelligent view on a film that I like just for fun I won't tell them they are wrong and should just like it for fun only.

You're just as guilty of trying to shut down conversations on films because you don't think the parties involved are overanalyzing them enough

Where have I done that?

cdnchris wrote:...but it bugs me he'll probably never do another one like it because of its poor reception.

I'd be very surprised if Tarantino allowed reception to form his subsequent works.

knives wrote:Where have I done that?

One example off the top of my head: When you rolled into this thread to inform me that what I find great about a movie doesn't count because it accomplishes a "terribly low and uninteresting goal"

mfunk9786 wrote:Teach me how to understand cinema
Show me how to enjoy it a lot
It hurts my little head
When I'm watching this retread
Without approaching it like a snot

Limericks have A-A-B-B-A rhyme scheme. Try again.

](*,)

This thread is so fun right now but I couldn't say why.

Noiretirc wrote:

cdnchris wrote:...but it bugs me he'll probably never do another one like it because of its poor reception.

I'd be very surprised if Tarantino allowed reception to form his subsequent works.

Nobody is immune to critical reception. As gung-ho, independent as he may be in his approach to film making, if a large group of people come out and say they don't care for his movie, fans and critics alike, certainly that had to affect him in some way.

mfunk9786 wrote:

knives wrote:Where have I done that?

One example off the top of my head: When you rolled into this thread to inform me that what I find great about a movie doesn't count because it accomplishes a "terribly low and uninteresting goal"

That shouldn't count as it was primarily to counter your steam rolling when we were already having a conversation about how Django Unchained does not or does have the problems of several other Tarantino films.