Kill Bill Vol. 1 (Page 2 of 2)

I absolutely loved this episode.  One of the best podcasts yet.  Everyone sounded like they had a good time watching it and there were some really funny lines.

Also, I can't remember where (because Tarantino will talk to anyone with ears), but I've heard QT say he has created two movie universes.  One for Pulp and Dogs and one for KB, Death Proof and maybe Basterds (not sure which universe that is).  He describes KB and Death Proof as the movies that Jules, Mr. Pink, Vega, etc see in theaters.  I guess its the same universe, one just subsumes another.

Last edited by oTom (2011-08-31 20:34:07)

I admit I find that kind of thing hilarious. A similar thing has been said in the anime world about the various Macross shows by the creator. The various TV series and Macross Plus are "real", the Macross movie is a Hollywood version of the real events of the first series which those characters would have seen in theaters, and Macross II is just bad fiction from that world

That's awesome, but there is some tenuous shit in there. Character crossovers are one thing, but a Weyland-Yutani logo links Firefly to Angel because some company in Angel mentions WY as a client?

False syllogism. Tommy might be dreaming of St Elsewhere from within a universe that includes everything else. Lennie Briscoe might exist in Tommy's actual world and be incorporated into Tommy's fantasy along with GM cars and Coca-Cola and Wolf Blitzer.

*grabby hand* PULITZER PLEASE

Last edited by Zarban (2011-09-01 00:50:48)

After reading your post about DRVE, I have to ask, what's with all the negativity? Are you merely having a bad day? Do you need a hug? I'm here for you.

Anyway, I'll try to watch the rest, but right away, I got 2:37 into that first link before I had to pause and come back here. This is another case of someone stating their opinion as fact. To anyone who has ever done this, or might do this: DON'T! It does favors for no one, and makes you sound like an asshole.

I'm of course referring to the beginning of that first vid where the author says "No Country For Old Men is obviously bad!" but doesn't explain why, and also says he doesn't need to because it's so obviously bad. Right off, this author has lost me. He's basically saying, "My word is law. I am an authority on this. Listen to me." Why? Why should I? Just because you make bold, declarative statements without any evidence to back them up? Sorry, but that's not how this works.

Roger Ebert has a book called "Your Movie SUCKS!" It's sort of a joke title. If you opened the paper to see what he said about the latest blockbuster and all he said was, "It sucks", you'd be pissed, right? I would, because that's not a review. That tells me nothing. I can't potentially learn anything about storytelling from that. Thankfully, Ebert's book isn't just a Jack Torrance special. It goes in depth on why he feels these particular movies are not good.

So, when some guy (who I have no idea what his credentials are, by the way or if he even has any) opens with, "X is obviously bad", that just makes me respond, "Obviously not, since I can't just take your word for it, and especially when I disagree on the face of it."

In regards to Kill Bill (and the 2 and a half minutes of this review I've seen), I feel the author's opinions might work better applied to Death Proof. I'll keep watching, but I'm very, very concerned.

EDITED TO ADD: Okay, while many of the points made in the video are valid, funny and would possibly make the movie better, I disagree that what we got in the first place is bad. I like Kill Bill as is (Volume 1 at least, not so much Volume 2).

Last edited by johnpavlich (2011-10-19 09:41:20)

Confused Matthew thinks CRYSTAL SKULL is a good movie. His argument is invalid.

Oh man, I know what it's like to be sick and crabby. I once had a fever of 106. I was 16 and miserable because my family was out at the time, so I had to overcome it all by myself.

Anyway, yeah I watched the whole Kill Bill video, which is why I added my thoughts to my first post. Thanks for the link to his other videos. I'll check them out, as they're well edited and I like getting different perspectives on movies (obviously). Although, given what Dorkman just pointed out, I'm probably not going to like/agree with much of what this guy says. We'll see.

EDITED TO ADD: Uh-oh! There's a video on the main page where Confused Matthew explains what he means when using the word, "objective" in his reviews. Within that, he sticks his nose up at Howard The Duck. Stay away, Brian Finifter!

Last edited by johnpavlich (2011-10-19 19:45:01)

I discovered that kid a while back and liked some of his reviews, but a lot of them come off like he's consciously using things that aren't faults in the films as faults in the film to justify his opinion. In his Lion King review, he can't get over the fact that Simba is a naive selfish brat. It's been a while since I've seen that movie, but is that not kinda the point of the first part of the movie? Naive selfish brat is manipulated by his uncle so that said uncle can assassinate his brother - the brat's father - when he comes to rescue him yet again. Brat runs away from his problems, grows up, comes back and faces his kinda fucked up past, but also his guilt over being such a selfish naive brat and getting his father killed when he was a kid. The movie is about being able to forgive yourself and move on. Right? I mean, the other characters never blamed him to begin, even though they must have known that Mufasa died trying to save his naive selfish dickwad of a son.

Confused Matthew understood that aspect of the film, but didn't get that it was written that way on purpose. I think he tends to not really care much about characters or their motivations, which is why he doesn't seem to get why characters do things

I dunno, he hated Transformers 2, so that's good.