Somebody Explain Kill Bill, please...

[Tonguez]

I still wonder what they (Randolpho, Tonguez, two, mmadsen, etc.) mean when they use these terms, lazy and self-indulgent, when talking about a movie. Aren't most movies self-indulgent almost by definition? And how do you define lazy in terms of movie making?

Lazy - I'm not sure I was merely reflecting the question. However that somebody puts in some effort to bring their vision to the world is imho not lazy (even if others don't appreciate the effort the fact that effort wass made kind of defines not lazy)

As to self indulgent you are right all Art is self indulgent to some degree as it is about a person bringing their view of the world out for others to 'appreciate'

Tarantino in particular chooses to use stylistic devices, imagery and sets which are non-mainstream and which some members of the audience may find unsettling, upsetting and even offensive.

In as much as Tarantino works to present to a mainstream audience a stylistic peice calculated to be unconventional and possibly offputting makes his work particulary self-indulgent

very much like this answer

 

[WayneLigon]

...stylistic devices, imagery and sets which are non-mainstream and which some members of the audience may find unsettling, upsetting and even offensive. ...

I think I've seen everything he's done or been involved with. *headscratch* I can't imagine why anyone would find any of those films unsettling, upsetting or offensive. I don't really know cinematagraphy or the finer points of film studies but I didn't think his style was all that far outside the mainstream unless we're talking about, say, his use of fades, types of cuts, etc (I know enough to know that those and things like them are noticed and commented on by serious film buffs who will argue and scream about them like we might argue and scream about AoO's, but that's about where the knowledge ends); It has to be really, really unusual for me to notice that sort of stuff.

 

[Tonguez]

I think I've seen everything he's done or been involved with. *headscratch* I can't imagine why anyone would find any of those films unsettling, upsetting or offensive.

yeah I couldn't think of a better term so settled for tautology

I don't really know cinematagraphy or the finer points of film studies but I didn't think his style was all that far outside the mainstream unless we're talking about, say, his use of fades, types of cuts, etc (I know enough to know that those and things like them are noticed and commented on by serious film buffs who will argue and scream about them like we might argue and scream about AoO's, but that's about where the knowledge ends); It has to be really, really unusual for me to notice that sort of stuff.

You are correct - hence the self-indulgent label

Also some of the Tarantino style has been copied so that the Tarantino style is far less unique now than it was when he first emerged

Some of the features of his work include

1. his use of fades, types of cuts etc
2. choice of subject matter
3. non-linear narratives
4. mixing of genre
5. direct reference to pop culture
6. fixation with homages to 70's B-Grade movies
7. cartoonish levels of violence and gore
8. highly choreographed action sequences
9. lurid colour schemes

 

[Thanee]

So you didn't like it... big deal.

Different people, different tastes.

Just watch other movies, that you like.

Bye
Thanee

 

[mmadsen]

I still wonder what they (Randolpho, Tonguez, two, mmadsen, etc.) mean when they use these terms, lazy and self-indulgent, when talking about a movie. Aren't most movies self-indulgent almost by definition? And how do you define lazy in terms of movie making?

One could argue that Kill Bill is self-indulgent, in that QT spent a lot of other people's money to produce something primarily for himself. It's like one long inside joke, with all his favorite bits of obscure kung-fu, samurai, and western flicks, combined in a not-particularly clever way that is fairly boring.

Obviously we disagree on whether the final product was boring or not, but those who argue that it was "lazy and self-indulgent" feel that QT did not make the effort to fit it all together in an entertaining fashion -- that is, so that it would entertain the audience.

You may feel that some people "get" QT, and others don't, but I loved Pulp Fiction, and I thought that a Quentin Tarantino flick paying respect to kung-fu, samurai, and western flicks was about as perfect a fit for my tastes as was possible -- until I saw Kill Bill 1.

 

[Mallus]

One could argue that Kill Bill is self-indulgent, in that QT spent a lot of other people's money to produce something primarily for himself. It's like one long inside joke, with all his favorite bits of obscure kung-fu, samurai, and western flicks, combined...

One could counter-argue, for the sake of argument, that some people want films with a discernible point of view, whether it be Tarantino's, or Scorsese's, or Kurasawa's, or Godard's... It's what they're paying for, the artist's artistry.

You may not like what passes for Tarantino's artistry, and you'd wouldn't be alone, which is cool. But you sound you're advocating 'paint-by-numbers film making', where every frame is a conscious effort to anticipate the audience's desires, and then pander to them.

And there's enough of that already.

 

[Randolpho]

I still wonder what they (Randolpho, Tonguez, two, mmadsen, etc.) mean when they use these terms, lazy and self-indulgent, when talking about a movie. Aren't most movies self-indulgent almost by definition? And how do you define lazy in terms of movie making?

My issues isn't so much laziness as it is that the movies just aren't all that good. The characters were barely 2-dimensional, the dialog was boring, and the plot stale. Yes, it had some fun action, and Pai Mei gave me a chuckle or two, but that's not good enough for me to call the movie "good".

You can do an homage to a genre movie and still do a good movie. I've already mentioned Kung Fu Hustle, but you don't have to limit to kung fu movies. What about zombie flicks? Shaun of the Dead had plenty of over-the-top zombie "horror", but also had humorous situations, intriguing characters, and well delivered, well written dialog.

 

[Piratecat]

If you think Kill Bill was OTT, you should check out Versus. By god, that one is OTT. Absolutely hilarious fun.

Kevin to Peggy: "Hong has great taste in movies."
Peggy to Kevin: "Why?"
Kevin to Peggy: "Hong likes 'Versus.'"
Peggy to Kevin: "And I like Hong."

but really, what isn't there to like about a violent kung fu yakuza vampire zombie action swordfighting gun-fu Mexican-standoff time-traveling love story with homo-erotic overtones?

I love Kill Bill, too. But it's no "Versus."

 

[WayneLigon]

but really, what isn't there to like about a violent kung fu yakuza vampire zombie action swordfighting gun-fu Mexican-standoff time-traveling love story with homo-erotic overtones?

The Forest of Ressurection would make an awesome setting in almost any genre.

Basically it goes...
"Zombies? Bull!"
"What do you mean?"
"We've been dumping bodies for the Yakuza out here for years and we've never seen any.."
"Boss, didn't we kill that guy last week?"
"$&%&$!! Blam!Blam!Blam!"

 

[Darth Shoju]

My issues isn't so much laziness as it is that the movies just aren't all that good. The characters were barely 2-dimensional, the dialog was boring, and the plot stale. Yes, it had some fun action, and Pai Mei gave me a chuckle or two, but that's not good enough for me to call the movie "good".

...in your opinion. Others are of the opinion (myself included) that the characters and dialog were enjoyable. To further prove how this is a matter of taste, you seem to feel that Kung-fu Hustle had strong character development; I'd say that the character development in that movie was about as corny as the movie itself.

But honestly, I don't know why I keep letting myself get sucked into these threads in the first place.