lI just don’t know how you could watch Reservoir dogs or Pulp fiction and think that anything Kill bill related was one of Tarantino’s best
Pulp Fiction is my favorite, but Kill Bill is definitely a masterpiece. I think it’s within subjectivity to call it his best.
I largely agree, but I also think that Tarantino’s work is so good across the board that most of his movies could be considered the best by someone.
Pulp Fiction usually stays at my number one, but the ambience of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and the insanity of Inglourious Basterds make them top contenders as well.
Wholeheartedly agree. As I stated elsewhere, I find the entire Kill Bill ordeal thoroughly overrated. The plot didn’t justify two movies, and the movies have only two things going for them:
- Interesting cinematography and style.
- Uma Thurman is an amazingly underrated actress.
It was only intended to be one movie, but studio intervention pushed it to two, double dipping on ticket sales. Confusingly the reverse happened with Grindhouse.
I did not know that, but it does explain a lot. I woulda thunk Tarantino was the kind of creator where the studios knew that the best approach was to just unleash him and let him do his magic free of any interference.
I mean, some people (should have) earned this status, and any studio who wants the product to succeed knows to stay away. Cameron got away with Titanic being much longer than contemporary movies. Nolan gets to fuck up the audio the way they want to. Hitchcock gets to force lead actresses through abuse of the avian variety.
FWIW, the linked article has the quote from Tarantino about this:
“I wrote and directed it as one movie — and I’m so glad to give the fans the chance to see it as one movie,” Tarantino said in a statement.
In an article from 2003, they basically say the quiet part out loud. Either Tarantino would have to cut it down to 90 minutes or make it as 2 releases and get double the ticket sales.
In the past, Weinstein has earned a reputation for urging filmmakers to cut the running time of their pictures. Cutting “Kill Bill” into two seems to be an elegant solution since Tarantino gets to release all of his three-hour pic, while Weinstein gets a 90-minute movie (albeit two of them).
The two-part plan, though, raises the stakes for “Kill Bill” and Tarantino, whose last release was “Jackie Brown” in 1995. Miramax is, in effect, asking Tarantino fans to pay twice to see his new release.
Tarantino has eras for his movies, with his later movies being bigger than his earlier ones. However, with that, they aren’t as tight as his earlier ones are.
Jackie Brown
I think it’s better in the context of it being probably the most overt about being an homage to a genre. It was a modern take on old martial arts movies, and it was really good at being that.
The pacing, the framing, the dynamics, anything that felt a bit off was a perfect emulation of the style of the source materials. It feels a bit clunky, but in the exact way that old kung fu movies felt a bit clunky.
I can see why a film geek, someone in on the meta, might like it the most
Inglorious bastards is the best hands down.
Well, I dislike the first two movies but like the last one. So it’s got that going for it. Pulp Fiction is overrated.
If Kill Bill is now one movie, then he’s got two more movies to make
I could’ve sworn he originally wanted it to be a trilogy.
