Kill Bill.

Quentin Tarantino: Okay, see, here's what I want to do, okay? Y'know all those great Kung-Fu movies that we used to watch at like four in the morning after spending a night at the bars in college? Remember how they were all action and all kinds of blood and gore and rediculously repetative storylines? Remember you'd be watching for like an hour and all of the sudden there'd be a new character out of the frickin' blue that was intrical to the story line, but they'd completely neglect to even bother with any development of that character? Remember how the dialogue was horrible, but the acting was even worse? Remember how the music would be just plain rotten and there'd be these ridiculously long flashback scenes that would bore you to tears? Remember how they'd use the same symbolism and really bad effects throughout the entire movie? Yeah, that was awesome! See, what I want to do is that same type of thing but on a much higher budget for today's kids. It'll be awesome!

Larry, Bob, and Harvey: Um, okay. So you want to get like better actors, and put it to a fun story line?

QT: No, I still want the really bad actors. And the storyline will be super, super simple.

L,B,&H: Um, so you want to get a better soundtrack and make the film flow a little better?

QT: No, I still want it to be authentic. Same high-pitched, droning, depressing music and lots of dead time that people will think should have been cut from the film - like twenty minute parts at a time.

L,B,&H: Oh. So, you want to improve the characters and make them have a reason for being in the film?

QT: Oh, good lord no. I gotta have just random people thrown in there all the time. It's the way it's gotta be done.

L,B,&H: Um, so are you gonna at least fix the dialogue or at least have actors or actresses that can actually act?

QT: ARE YOU NUTS!?! That's the most important part of remaking old Kung-Fu movies! I gotta have the worst actresses I can find. In fact, I want Darryl Hannah and Uma Thurman - that's how authentically bad I want it.

L,B,&H: I thought Uma was a pretty good actress.

QT: I've been working with her for a couple months on that. I've managed to suck every last ounce of acting ability she has left in her. And just in case I didn't, I wrote her part with dialogue that would make people wish they were watching Ishtar. It's gonna be awful - but great, okay?

L,B,&H: Um, okay. So why exactly do you want to remake such crap if you're not going to improve the crappiness parts?

QT: Because kids love that retro stuff. And they love me. Trust me, they'll think it's great. That's the beauty of the whole thing. I'm gonna make as bad a movie as I can and they'll still think it's utter genius. Movie nuts are so stupid like that.

L,B,&H: Don't we know it! One last question - So why exactly do you need such an enormous amount of money to make this cheap movie?

QT: Okay, see, because I'm making the movie. And because I want the super cheap effects to look like real super cheap effects, and that costs money, y'know? And did I mention the Japanese cartoon part that'll be really well done, but will just go on for-ever? Yeah, that'll cost some cash, too.

L,B,&H: Well, okay then. You sold us. It's a go.

 

Of what, dead airtime? Remaking crap? Pathetic dialogue? Annoying soundtracks?


The good things about this movie:

Great cartoon part.
Beautifully filmed.
GREAT idea for a movie.
Small parts of almost every major scene.
The imagery.
The black and white fight scene.
The *#*#*#*#*# Wagon.
The opening credits.

Bad things about this movie (that I neglected in my above post) :
Uma Thurman's feet.
The sushi bar scene.
Major flaws in editing.

 

Besides, Reservoir Dogs was his masterpiece.

 

Same/same.

"All you white people look the same to me."

 

Nope.

I have no qualms saying something like that if that's why I hated it.

I knew going in what it was. I was expecting a QT twist on those films. I figured he'd add his fun touch to them. His trademark funny lines at serious moments were there, but they just weren't funny.

Plus, why is it considered good filmmaking to have terrible dialogue and even worse acting just because it is in 'homage' to other films with terrible dialogue and even worse acting?

Was it an accurate recreation? Yes. Is that a good thing? No.

Like I said, the cartoony part was impresive. Once that started, I was turning my opinion around a bit, but when it went on entirely too long I was back to hating it.

 

Maybe so, but that's only because I don't know what the word 'verisimltude' means.

I define good acting as believable characters. A good actor can make me forget I'm watching a movie and instead witnessing an event. They can deliver lines that make me actually think that they would say them in that situation.

I define good dialogue as flowing conversation and well matched with the character that is muttering them.

Unfortunately for you, most Americans agree with me on this one.

Because we don't like crap.

Seriously, though. What exactly made it his masterpiece? I can honestly understand how you loved it. That's not what I don't get. I just don't know how half of a movie that went out of its way to make the audience not feel sympathy for the main character's actions could be considered a masterpiece. To me, it's like someone watching Lawrence of Arabia up to the intermission and then declaring it a masterpiece and not bothering to see the second half.

What exactly was great about it?