Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

One Helluva Great Review For KILL BILL VOL. 2!!

Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...

I think I’m seeing this soon. I hope I’m seeing this soon. After reading this exceptionally well-written review for VOL. 2, I can’t wait another goddamn minute. Let me just throw this last story up, and then it’s off to the airport for a trip that just might distract me from how freakin’ great this movie sounds...

Konnichi wa, Harry-san! I bring you an early review of KILL BILL vol. 2...post if you like.

Ok, it's late and I'm tired, so I'll skimp on the fancy talk and lay it out straight. This is not a perfect movie - at least, not the first time around - though Tarantino fans (and movie geeks) will definitely get their kicks.

Bad news first: It's long. 9 reels long, in fact. I remember seeing some little blurb from QT about how a 3-hour exploitation flick smacks of pretension, but two 90-minute exploitation flicks smacked of ambition. So help me do the math here - what does one 111-minute movie + one 130-ish-minute movie smack of? Whatever it is, it's more than three hours.

So what, right? It's just more movie to love, right? Well... the problem is it FEELS long. The first volume had a great pace - it was a lean, mean, fighting machine. This one, though, feels bloated. Self-indulgent. At times, it even starts to take itself a little too seriously. And this hurts the film. Though I'm sure multiple viewings (and what Tarantino film doesn't get better every time you see it?) will somehow make all those extra minutes more endearing, at first glance at 2 in the morning... it drags.

Ok, that's about it for the bad news. Here's the rest.

The action scenes, though few and far between, kick ass. The flashback to the Bride's training with Pai Mei (Gordon Liu again...in disguise!) is one of the best training sequences ever, right up there with SNAKE IN EAGLE'S SHADOW. Everything's just right, from the student's cocky cleverness to the master's humbling display of whup-ass to the grit and determination in the Bride's eyes. There's an excruciating scene (one of many lengthy, excruciating sequences in the film; see above note about self-indulgence) where she has to use chopsticks to eat but cannot force her bruised, cramped fingers to hold them... Cool stuff. And Liu is FANTASTIC - probably the only guy who could possibly make Sonny Chiba's Hattori Hanzo look like a pussy. Kung-fu fans will giggle everytime he strokes his beard and glares. Then there's the killin'... There's an early face-off with Budd that's just plain nasty, a lengthy, claustrophobia-inducing live burial sequence (serious claustrophobes may need to take a breather - for real), and then the fight with Elle Driver... which is so kick ass it'll take your breath away. Possibly the film's greatest scene. So much wit, emotion, and raw, visceral adrenalin-pumping glee went into this scene it's almost too much. And of course, there's still Bill to contend with... The violence, though not as fountain-spurtingly extreme or prevalent as in vol. 1, is still pretty heavy. Tarantino's camera has a Fulci-esque fetish for eyes, and gorehounds will certainly read this as a sign of things to come... and in a few cases, they'll be right (it's no accident that Fulci gets a shout out in the credits).

Anyway, all this leads up to - du-du-duh! - the final confrontation with Bill. But before we get to Bill (and during, and after) there's a lot of talk. A LOT of talk. Seriously, I love Tarantino's dialogue as much as the next guy, but enough is enough. Thank Eris he's got a great bunch of actors to get us through. We finally see some of Bill and the Bride's history, and eventually learn more about her daughter, and of course the aforementioned Pai Mei flashback; we also learn more about the relationships between the characters (including how Driver lost her eye). There's a deliriously enjoyable (but narratively unneccessary) scene with Michael Parks as a suavely dangerous Mexican pimp. Bill has some great scenes, though his Pai Mei story goes on a little too long. His Superman monologue is fantastic, though. There's a lot of stuff with Budd that seems (unfortunately) cut around Michael Madsen's slow, rambling delivery. If you're cool with Mr. Blonde, then sit back and enjoy. If not, you're in for a rough time. I said it before and I'll say it again - the key word here is self-indulgence. QT clearly loves his actors, loves his characters, and can't bear to part with anything he deems precious, whether it benefit the film or not. A lot of these talky scenes could have been trimmed down, and some could have been tossed entirely. But they do make the action that much sweeter.

Oh, and speaking of self-indulgence, nearly all of the final reel is credits. There are essentially three credit sequences, and while it would have been criminal not to have credited all these fine people, once is enough. It feels like 2 music videos that have been tacked on before the final crawl.

If I sound like I'm being too harsh, it's because it's late and I'm cranky. Really, if you have a little patience, the rewards will be pretty sweet. The actors save really save the day. Carradine plays his entrance scene like he's the ghost of Johnny Cash, and the harsh, high contrast black and white (complete with classic John Ford doorway shots) of his openening scene gives it all an ethereal, almost ghastly, glow. We've had a whole movie of just talking his character up, and I have to say, he doesn't disappoint. He's suave, smooth, tacky, and utterly, completely dangerous. Just watch the way he handles the toy gun toward the end. It's just a toy, but in his hands... you know he knows how to use the real thing. It's eerie.

The real winner here is Uma Thurman. It's a bit early to be saying this, but there could (and perhaps should) be an Oscar nod for her this time. We see a lot more of her this time... with Bill, with her would-be husband, with her daughter...and at different ages. Her character is considerably younger when she trains with Pai Mei, and you see it - Uma looks like a college girl. And acts like it - so naturally it's not even acting. We see so many sides to her this time: killer, mother, victim, lover, student, etc. And Uma is every one of them. And it's a huge credit to everyone - Tarantino, the DP, the editor, and of course Uma - that she gets sexier and sexier as the movie plays out. Even when she's covered in dirt and mud and blood and freshly risen from the grave you want to lick her clean and fuck her. I don't think I've ever seen a performer who's so completely ALIVE in every way, and she was a marvel to watch.

So, Uma fans, dig in. Kung-fu fans, you might considering waiting for DVD so you can fast forward. But really, if you're a true cinema geek, this is a remarkable film, a great piece of compressed cinema history, and when Tarantino's on, he's motherfucking ON, and you'll feel the hairs on your arms stand up and KNOW that you are in the middle of glorious cinema. You might have to sit through some overly-long scenes to get to those yummy moments, but there are little treats to get you through (like Sid Haig, for no particular reason...like he needs a reason; or Rufus - "Rufus is the man!"). I seem to remember a funny rumor that Tarantino had grown so fond of these characters he was considering building a career-spanning franchise out of them... doing some other things, then dropping in on them in a decade or so... well, not to give too much away, he's certainly left himself open for that possibility, and you know, I think it would be kinda cool. I'm also really interested in seeing how vols 1 and 2 would cut together... I have a feeling that with a little rearrangement, the indulgences of part two could be smoothed out, and form one huge juicy dripping masterpiece of cult exploitation cinema... So let's hope that sometime down the road we'll get to see KILL BILL as it was originally intended... But for now, this'll do.

Ok, now it's definitely past my bedtime, so... adios.

-MonstaZero

No matter what gripes that guy had, he sounded like it was a great ride, and I can’t wait to take it.

"Moriarty" out.





Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 1, 2004, 4:58 a.m. CST

    Well, there are some spoilers in there...

    by Swithin

    I'm beginning to think that the Bride hasn't killed as many people as she thought she has. Vivica A. Fox's character might have survived, given hospitalization. O-Ren is pretty much dead... but you never know, right? And it sounds like Budd buries the Bride, not the other way around, to avoid killing her... and he's definitely the repentant type, given help, so you never know, right? Maybe Bill is the only one killed. Now *that* would be a turn. But it's just crazy enough I don't fear spoiling anything for anyone. ;) Can't wait. When does this come out again?

  • April 1, 2004, 4:59 a.m. CST

    Where is the trailer??

    by Jon E Cin

    I want to see a real trailer..not this teaser shit

  • April 1, 2004, 5:04 a.m. CST

    an Oscar nod for Uma?

    by pogo on my own

    that is laughable at best.

  • April 1, 2004, 5:06 a.m. CST

    and I fogot

    by pogo on my own

    Kill Bill was the single biggest disapointment in my film going life. That includes Nothin but Trouble, every American John Woo movie, and all the other disapointments in the last 30 years.

  • April 1, 2004, 5:39 a.m. CST

    Uma Thurman is this generations Sally Field...

    by Bcphil

    With huge ape like feet.

  • April 1, 2004, 5:40 a.m. CST

    Anyone who uses the word "Oscar" in a "KB" review definitely can

    by SmarkJobber

    I'll maintain that "KB" will be entertaining, but c'mon...awards pictures these aren't. ///// As for Peter Ustinov -- he will always be remembered by me as the dude who had the best performance in "Spartacus," and best line: (after Olivier stabs a dude in the back) "Brilliant dagger thrust...difficult angle."

  • April 1, 2004, 6:09 a.m. CST

    Sir Peter Ustinov

    by Mr Sidney James

    I agree with the others. Harry you've dropped the ball missing out on a tribute to Peter Ustinov. Hell the guy only has 87 acting credits on IMDB - not to mention Directing and other work. Come on Harry!!!!

  • April 1, 2004, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Kevin Smith takes the piss...

    by Whiney Bitch

    Had a look at Kevin Smith's 'tribute' yet? www.newsaskew.com

  • April 1, 2004, 6:23 a.m. CST

    How can a scene be to talky???

    by fevriul

    i sorry but how can you take seriously a reviews from someone who complains that a scene was to talky. FFS how old are you? Fucking MTV generation, attension span of a goldfish, one wonders how you through such gems as Citizen Kane, 12 Angry Men etc etc Too many words, hurt brain!!

  • April 1, 2004, 6:37 a.m. CST

    I bet harry makes sure that all the bad reviews for "QT's" so ca

    by jigga422

    its called selling out, baby ... oh yeah!

  • April 1, 2004, 7:51 a.m. CST

    Do you mean "TOO talky?"

    by Damer1

    I don't think you can criticize a whole generation if you can't properly use to, too, and two. It's in the rule book. Check it out.

  • April 1, 2004, 8:20 a.m. CST

    Ustinov Tribute

    by BadMOFO

    I guess the reason there's no tribute to Ustinov is 'cause he didn't star in the kind of movies Harry likes - big, dumb, juvenile, comic book, FX driven, Hollywood gunk by the moronic likes of Jim Cameron, which give him a hard on. Ustinvo was a proper actor. But u can bet Harry would write a glowing tribute to Chevy Chase or David Spade!!!!

  • April 1, 2004, 9:26 a.m. CST

    yeah, yeah, but how are her FEET?

    by Hud

  • April 1, 2004, 9:51 a.m. CST

    "Carradine is suave, smooth, tacky, and utterly, completely dan

    by JAGUART

    Well done.

  • April 1, 2004, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Yeah! What about the obrigatorial Tarantino foot fetish scene?

    by Judge Doom

    Can

  • April 1, 2004, 10:03 a.m. CST

    This reviewer is a total asshole: "you want to lick her clean an

    by Lance Rock

  • April 1, 2004, 10:05 a.m. CST

    am i the only one to say...

    by jimmychitwood

    PLANT!!! Plant!!! Hey Harry, PLANT!!

  • April 1, 2004, 10:09 a.m. CST

    What Animals?

    by Trevor Goodchild

    Help me with this. During the credits of Kill Bill vol1, there was the usual disclaimer about no animals being harmed in the making of.... I cannot remember a single animal in it.

  • April 1, 2004, 10:16 a.m. CST

    More like one helluva BULLSHIT review

    by Rcamacho2278

    how the fuck your gonna say a movie is too Talky?? Like someone else else . it's this A.D.D filled generation that can't see a fucken movie without their brains being filled with CG eye candy scene after scene. Forget the story I want explosions, The same bitches that will talk during dialogue scenes. This reviewer is an ass, Im gonna love the movie on my own accord but don't tell me 90 min feels too long for a fucken film.

  • April 1, 2004, 10:55 a.m. CST

    I agree with Frank_Black_Rules wholehartedly!!!

    by Eye_H8_U

    How can you assholes who consider yourselves fans of this genre not be impressed with what QT has accomplished here. I know that the film is incredibly long and self-indulgent but that's the whole fuckin' point you morons! QT has never made any bones about that. Most true cinema buffs will revel in the fact that a great movies running time is longer as opposed to shorter. When the first part came out he was criticized that there was not enough dialogue (ala Pulp Fiction) and too much action in it. And now this one is overly talky?! WTF?!It honestly seems as though the guy could never satisfy you whiny biatches. As for the accusation that Kill Bill doesn't have a single original idea and is taken from other films-- name me a fuckin movie that is 100% original. There are none assholes. Remember- imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

  • April 1, 2004, 11:10 a.m. CST

    HEY EVERYONE!!! IT'S OFFICIAL. STAR WARS EPISODE 3 IS CALLED 'TH

    by TheGinger Twit

  • April 1, 2004, 11:20 a.m. CST

    It's not about original ideas.

    by Silver Shamrock

    Was Star Wars all that original? How about The Matrix? No, huge chunks of those movies were lifted from other sources. Every director does it. No movie is ever created in a vacuum. As Picasso said, "All artists borrow, great artists steal."

  • April 1, 2004, 11:21 a.m. CST

    ANYONE ELSE HATE APRIL FOOLS DAY AND THE RIDICULOUS LIES?

    by NotchJohnson

    I don't know about you, but I HATE APRIL FOOLS DAY. Everyone and their mother on the Internet tries to pull off a "false story." YOU KNOW WHAT? For the rest of us who really could care less, can you put a "Moron Alert" next to the April Fools stories, and let the rest of us just read what is legit or supposedly legit? SAVE HOWARD STERN. I didn't like Stern's joke this morning either, pretending he was off the air. SAVE HOWARD STERN. Notch out.

  • April 1, 2004, 11:30 a.m. CST

    RIP Michael J Fox

    by trafficguy2000

    You will be missed by many! Truely one of the "Frighteners" now.

  • April 1, 2004, 11:31 a.m. CST

    by trafficguy2000

    That's for you Notch! :P

  • April 1, 2004, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Objectivity

    by usually_great

    There is no question for me that your website is by far the best source for movie tips, news and usually great reviews. However, you guys should stop reviewing Tarantino movies, or at least try and seem more objective. I say this because, despite my excitement to see Kill Bill Volume 2, I felt Kill Bill Volume 1 was a terrible piece of uninspired filmmaking. QT is a great filmmaker, but Kill Bill Vol. 1 was awful. I am not trying to say I don't believe you really feel his movies are the shit, but I think your (the website's) obvious close 'film geek' personal relationship with Quentin Tarantino taints the glowing reviews you give him. When I read your reviews for KBV1 I was stoked and thought THE MAN was back, but instead the movie was uninspiring and I have yet to meet someone who thought the film was watchable, let alone any good at all. So the great reviews have begun to be posted and I hope KBV2 is great, but I can't trust the reviews by any of the regular contributors to this site because they reek of gladhanding. At the very least in order to at least put up appearances as serious reviewers you should put up some bad reviews, if indeed there are any, to balance your obvious bias. This will maintain the integrity of all the other reviews you do that are well written and, seemingly, extremely objective.

  • April 1, 2004, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Too talky

    by JimboLo

    Nothing wrong with saying a film is too talky. This can be a big problem with films especially when they are just scene after scene of characters delivering speech after speech back and forth for two hours. One of the first lessons a screenwriter learns is to show restraint, don't drown your screenplay with superfluous rambling. Get to the point.

  • April 1, 2004, 11:59 a.m. CST

    P.s... What's this about J. Fox snuffing it?

    by JimboLo

  • April 1, 2004, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah, April first. Very funny.

    by JimboLo

  • April 1, 2004, 12:21 p.m. CST

    This guy sure is trying hard to like the film....

    by Rupee88

    ..I love these reviews where the reviewer names 100 things he doesn't like about the film, but says it is really good. He is trying to convince himself and us that it is cool, because he doesn't want to risk being uncool by disliking it.

  • April 1, 2004, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Tarantino apologists, start your engines...

    by Durendal

    ...As we come up on another massive circle jerk for Tarantino's next ego project. I really couldn't find anything to like in the first one, and I like campy gore-fests. Sure, there are people who really watched it and genuinely liked it, but there's also an assload of apologists who will love ANYTHING Tarantino gives them. He could film himself getting buttfucked by Harry and people would gush over how brilliant it is. He could give them chunks of his own shit and they would eat it up without even tasting it. Just the belief that it's good is enough for them, just like Kill Bill.

  • April 1, 2004, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Funny stuff

    by Daryl van Horn

    I do get a little weary when people say there is too much talk in a movie while admitting the dialogue is good. If the dailogue is good, then no, there is no such thing as 'too talky'. If the dialogue is bad, or serves no purpose or both, THEN it is too talky. But this guy says it's good and doesn't say it's useless except for a very few spots. So then when I hear 'too talky' I hear 'he's just waiting for the action sequences'. Oh and Tarantino treats violence as cartoon violence, but then he doesn't at the same time. Few movies show the results of violence as much as he does. As for 'Passion', I don't even see how that can be compared to this. Totally different thing. And the violence there was meaningless because a: most of if was pulled out of either Gibson's ass, or out of the fever dreams of some whacko nun who believed Jews strangled christian kids and did 'diabolical things with their blood'. And b: it was rendered useless because Mel managed to remove every shred of context from it all. Making a conscious, ugly decision to make this movie exclusively for the people who share his faith. Anyway enough of that crackpot (who says is wife is practically a christian saint but is still going to hell for no belonging to his particular little cult of fanatics. And practically shrugs when saying it.) I did not expect to like Kill Bill 1, except on a very visceral level and my wife did not expect to like it at all. But we both came out of the theater pretty awed. There was a great sense of power in it, not just physically. It had that movie magic feel. Tarantino is a great story teller even when there's not much story. I am looking forward to the second. Oh and PETER USTINOV IS DEAD HARRY. EVER HEAR OF HIM??? Could you BY NOW at least post a little thing that says either 'sorry, dropped the ball', 'sorry this is late' or 'here is why I don't mention a movie legend: he was never in a godzilla movie'??

  • April 1, 2004, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Stealing?

    by Tigernan

    It's always interesting to me when people accuse Tarantino of ripping off other genres. Sure, he's not the best director in the world, but he does some interesting stuff. You may as well point out that Stephen King basically recycled many vampire/werewolf/ghost story plots -- it was Tolstoy who said that there were really only two stories -- a man comes to town, and a stranger goes on a journey. All else was interpretation. Tarantino clearly has a love for certain genres, and wants to play in those universes, much the same way that Kevin Smith loves comics and played in that one. And the man does have a way with giving characters memorable lines or speeches. Perfect? Not even a little bit, not even Kill Bill, which I loved, loved, loved. It had it's faults aplenty, but I'm far more willing to forgive a filmaker who is following his "art" (for lack of a better term) than someone trying to wring money out of tired ideas.

  • April 1, 2004, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Toooo Looooong

    by Gangar

    I'm curious to see what Moriarity makes of KB2 because I tend to find his reviews to be the most thoughtful and less susceptible to the Golly Gee Wizz factor that drag down Harry's reviews. As I recall, it was Moriarity who said that he thought that KB1, while good, was too long. I couldn't agree more. Scenes simply went on too long and there was too much repetition. I believe the key to success in any action or exploitation flick is to leave the audience wanting more. As cool as the Bride's final battle was, there was a saturation point where it just went on too long. Her fight against the gang would have been more effective if the fights leading up to it had been tightened up a bit. I haven't seen KB 2 yet, and inevitably, I will, but I can't help feeling that Quentin screwed the pooch by not making this one film. I think it was either greed or self indulgence that got in the way of a more judicious vision and this is what keeps 'Kill Bill' from being the Grindhouse Epic it could have been.

  • April 1, 2004, 2:46 p.m. CST

    MalwynOY2k's right on the money

    by slone13

    Love him or hate him, Tarantino is still the most over-rated, over-hyped director in Hollywood. There I said it. I'm not sure why everyone else is so afraid to. Yes, he makes good movies, but so do a lot of other directors. And you don't see them behaving as if their God's gift to the cinema.

  • April 1, 2004, 2:53 p.m. CST

    ...and HULK sucked because there wasn't enough action?

    by Veraxus

    I am SICK of these ADD-ridden school-age motherfuckers who so readily preach how much a movie sucks because there's "not enough action" or theres "too much talking." The best (read dumbest) thing I've ever heard about the film is "The whole thing was just people talking." Yeah... that's what a motherfucking movie IS... people talking... with the exception of Castaway or a number of unoriginal/uninteresting worthless explosion-fests. 90% of Pulp Fiction was just people delivering dialogue... and 99% of Reservoir Dogs was the same. Tarantino is the motherfucking Shakespeare of our time. He can right dialogue like the English Master, he can sculpt characters like Michealangelo, and he can tell a story like noone else. You know, it helps a lot if you actually listen to what fuck the characters are saying. That's what ears are for, after all. Motherfucking retards.

  • April 1, 2004, 2:54 p.m. CST

    SIMPSONS walkout! (Off the topic, but there's no talkback for i

    by FrankDrebin

    http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4139

  • April 1, 2004, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Tarantino is too graphic for me, i'd say...

    by greyspecter

    ...but not because of the violence (or rather, not solely b/c of violence). no, it's the graphic langauge that i find distasteful. and some of the concepts. i mean, the coma raping thing? one question: why?? what purpose did it serve in the plot, that is, of avenging herself on the team? maybe i missed that while dry heaving but o well. and i enjoy "talky" movies. i watch Ken Branagh Shakespearean adaptations, or Movies like Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead (a brilliant movie, by the way: Tom Stoppard Rules!) and 12 Angry Men is one of my all time favs. so if the dialogue is thoughtful and clever, and forwards the plot or characters, then bring it on! we aren't all like Britney Spears who came out of a movie complaining that she didn't like it b/c "she had to think about it". the death knell of the MTV culture being taken seriously, as far as i'm concerned. Peter Ustinov is great. Watch Topkapi and Blackbeard's Ghost, and split your sides. i'm out

  • April 1, 2004, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Am I the only one who enjoyed the scene with Sonny Chiba?

    by koomoReborn

    Even people who liked KBv1 seem to hate that scene. I thought it was wonderful...Uma charmed me like she charmed Hanzo, and Chiba played a great middle-age character...turned-on by Uma's sexuality, flirted with her a bit, but kept it down..do you understan? Kill Bill Vol 1 was, by far, the best film I saw in a theater last year and I'm excited as all get out about Vol 2. ResDogs is, and always will be, a classic (ripoff it may be)..PulpF was utterly amazing but hasn't dated too well (I saw all these when they were released, and can understand Pulp not sitting too well who've watched it for the first time recently...it's been so copied, and absorbed, by Hollywood that it can't have the impact it used to...although IMHO no one will ever top the poptart scene)...JBrown didn't work for me, but then I've read almost all of Leonards books and he's hard to do right (I thought Out of Sight was "ehh"). Now, the best movie I saw last year, and perhaps the greatest film I've ever seen (and I'm old enough to be yo daddy, maybe even yo pappy) was a bootleg video of Bresson's Au Hazard Balthazar (Balthazar By Chance)..it'll be out on Criterion late this year or early next...prepare to fall to your knees. Peace, film fans.

  • April 1, 2004, 3:52 p.m. CST

    People are still interested in Kill Bill?????????

    by MontyPigeon

    Shows that good movies dont get made anymore or that people cant be bothered to look for them.

  • April 1, 2004, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Completely off topic!

    by underscore_only

    I just saw the Harry Potter trailer and I got an idea. Let Robert Rodriguez direct the fuck out of that shit! Picture this: Antonio Banderas as Harry, Salma Hayek as Hermione, Steve Buscemi as Ron. Harvey Keitel can play Dumbledore, Danny Trejo can play Snape and halfway through the movie, Sirius Black (played by George Clooney) and Professor Lupin (Tarantino himself) take the kids on a field trip that pits them against vampires for a whole night. . . . . . . . . . . Oh yeah, Cheech Marin will play all other roles. What do you think?

  • April 1, 2004, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Chiba-san!

    by Gangar

    I'm glad someone mentioned that bit about Chiba. I agree that it was a real treat to see him in KB1. I thought he was wonderful, very warm and goofy. He projected real star quality in his little role. Naturally, I'm sure this was a bigger kick for those of us who were already Chiba fans, but it is testament to Tarantino's ability to pull great performances out of actors, even in small roles. I look forward to seeing Gordon Leu in KB2

  • April 1, 2004, 4:55 p.m. CST

    This "plants" conspiracy

    by Sixgun

    Does every poster on this site have "plants" on the brain, or what? If someone writes a breathlessly good review, it's a plant! If they really hated something, it's a plant from a competing producer! Come on, guys... you're really out of touch with reality if you think some movie exec is taking the time to search out hamster brains to write barely coherent reviews like the one above, ferverently believing that something posted to Harry's personal little cinema blog is going to make or break a movie. Some of you guys are still whining about Blade 2 and calling each other "homo", for crying out loud.

  • April 1, 2004, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Monty Python

    by Eye_H8_U

    "You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person! I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English knights!I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a!"

  • April 1, 2004, 5:03 p.m. CST

    I heard Uma hides some throwing stars

    by PlantBoy!

    in those huge fucking nostrils of hers, and she whips them out at her intended groom at the end.

  • April 1, 2004, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Fantasy

    by Gangar

    I'd pay to watch Uma sling razor sharp throwing stars at Ethan Hawke. Wtaching that droopy eyed slack jawed mouth breathing moron stagger around in blind agony with rivulets of blood streaming down his face would be a hell of a lot more entertaining than watching try to act! That guy has all the talent of a load wet grass clippings and only half the appeal. Hahahahah!

  • April 1, 2004, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Has nothing to do with Python

    by MontyPigeon

    Weird how Python has not been lost on the masses though. Shame about Tarantino though, making films about rehashed kung fu flicks seen countless times during the 70s and 80s. The one thing about Python is they were original, now come back to me when Tarantino can ever be called Original. I will be waiting a long long time. Maybe the Miramax boss will stop using Tarantino's anus for a hand warmer and allow the PUPPET to do a film his way. Kill Bill Vol 1 - Seen it all before, Kill Bill Vol 2 - Another chance to see it all again.....AGAIN. Lack of Originality = Death of film.

  • April 1, 2004, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Monty Python vs QT

    by Eye_H8_U

    Look obviously you hate QT-- that much is obvious! I do love the old Monty Python sketches for their sheer ludicridity but really what the fuck have any of them done lately that is original or even good? And how can you say that Pulp Fiction wasn't original for its time. True that it has been much imitated since but back when it was released most people hadn't seen anything quite like it. I guess it all goes back to my original question: Who the fuck does anything that is 100% original? Art inspires other art.

  • April 1, 2004, 6:08 p.m. CST

    I dont hate QT

    by MontyPigeon

    I liked his work (Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction) then he gave in to a Miramax boss for $$$$$$ and lost all credibility. He was a good director but now he is just another puppet for the studios. The more QT listens to the idiots at Miramax, the less you will see QT films. Tarantino should stand up for himself and what he believes in. The number one asshole in the world is the head of Miramax, even the Pope knows this.

  • April 1, 2004, 6:20 p.m. CST

    QT a puppet?

    by Eye_H8_U

    Kill Bill is hardly a corporate Hollywoodish film. It's a homage to many styles of movies but it's hardly something that studio execs go gonza over because in many ways its a nitch film. I mean after 6 years in hiatus who the hell else has the guts to stay true to his vision so much that he releases a film that is over 4 hours in length in two seperate releases? (true this is also a marketing ploy) Plus the fact that there is enough violence and gore in it that it barely avoided the dreaded NC17 rating? This film by no means was a guaranteed hit. In my opinion QT still has a huge set of balls-- big brass ones!!!

  • April 1, 2004, 7:03 p.m. CST

    all you QT bashers are ungrateful peices of shit

    by horseloverfat723

    This talkbalk thread clearly demonstrates how sadly, most of ain't-it-cool website visitors are brainwashed by shitty american blockbuster film culture. Anyone with a fucking brain knows that Tarantino is one of the few people left in the mainstream American film industry with any balls or real integrity, and love for true filmmaking. Kill Bill, while it wasnt as deep as Pulp Fiction, was a celebration of film history in and of itself, with its homages to spaghetti westerns, rio bravo, and japanese cinema, and was a just plain entertaining fun revenge story. Any true film fan would APPRECIATE a film like this, especially in this day and age of the shit-saturated new american film industry. as for the film being 'overlong'???? woooooo a movie that goes past 90 minutes, oh my god, you A.D.D. mtv-raised kiddies must be sooooo bored! urgghh you make me want to vomit.

  • April 1, 2004, 7:08 p.m. CST

    this review is dead-on

    by Patroncito

    I saw this one a couple of weeks back...the review is legit and dead-on. It's a far more satisfying film than the first, which was entertaining but ultimately little more than a Tarantino jerk off session. But for fuck's sake, someone get Harvey Scissorhands to live up to his rep and make Quentin edit twenty minutes out of Vol. 2. There are three or four scenes that take ten minutes when they should take two...in once scene Bill tells the legend of Pai Mei to Uma by a camp fire but stops three times to play his stupid Chinese flute for over a minute. YAWN. It can be very long-winded at times and Quentin insists on using the most static camera setups he can which make certain scenes feel even longer and more bloated than they are. But when the film wants to kick arse, it certainly does. The fight scene between Uma and Daryl Hannah will go down as one of the all-time classics. It makes the one with Lucy Lui in Vol. 1 look like needlepoint.

  • April 1, 2004, 7:31 p.m. CST

    this si what ronny yu is doing next. totally off subject but thi

    by slappy jones

    this is taken from an interview on Dark Horizons "He's next doing "Snakes on a Plane", described as "About a plane on the way from Honolulu to Los Angeles, and when they're halfway [into their flight], 500 poisonous snakes get released, and the first one to get killed is the pilot"." Count me in.....

  • In all things, balance.

  • April 2, 2004, 2:48 a.m. CST

    QT the Shakespere of our time???

    by Man w No Name

    A master of the English language someone said earlier...Ha!!! He only knows french...."fuck", "shit", "ass", "bitch", "bastard". Those are his contributions to the english language....he can't go 2 sentences in a movie w/ out a hardcore explicitive. Throwing the word 'fuck' into every line in your movies doesn't make you a modern day shakespere, and a master of the english language.

  • April 2, 2004, 3:56 a.m. CST

    FUCK KILL BILL! ZATOICHI RULEZ!

    by DustyBooze

    Can't believe there is no Review of Beat Takeshis new Samurai Movie 'Zatoichi'. It fucking rocks and pisses all over Kill Bills Wannabe Badness... Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • April 2, 2004, 4:21 a.m. CST

    uh ok

    by SNAFU06

    This sounds a little bit different. But then again they did say it was the salute to spaghetti westerns in a desperate attempt to differentiate the two movies... I mean, because that's what QT intended from the start. Oh whatever, it's going to suck.

  • April 2, 2004, 6:56 a.m. CST

    "Even when she's covered in dirt and mud and blood and freshly r

    by godoffireinhell

    I'm sorry but that's just ... freaky.

  • April 2, 2004, 7:40 a.m. CST

    gawd

    by Thumper2k1

    Listen all you fucktard QT fans. Kill Bill is a shit movie. Get over it. We all have our share of lousy movies that for some reason we enjoy. But please, spare us the "he pays tribute to all movies, he's a genious!" crap. Paying tribute just means one thing. He's too fucking stupid to write his own material.

  • April 2, 2004, 10:19 a.m. CST

    dont ask - personal shit

    by Wideboy

    Please take no notice. Have no other way of printing of my work at the moment. Toby Foster 20/03/04 World Cinemas: Research Report For this report I have based my research around contemporary Mexican Cinema, and in particular among a selection of its films Amores Perros (2000, Inarritu), and Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001, Cuaron). I feel the first essential thing to define in relation to the notion that comes with World Cinema, is that of having a certain quality, one that 'permits' and defines its international reception. In the case of Hollywood, its films certain quality is in their expensive and mass-appealing nature that dominate in international markets. But in more culturally defined countries, such as Mexico or France (France exclusive from World Cinema), where for example, to be blunt there is not a capitalist mentality reflected in its film market, it is understood that the films are more artistically and culturally expressive. From my research, it would seem that in this sense New Mexican Cinema as with all World Cinema, certainly comes with a sort of 'Arthouse' tag in the UK. The website Kamera for example, consisting of critics who fundamentally appreciate this 'category' of cinema, acknowledges in its review of Amores Perros, the category of reception it naturally falls into: "there is a glimmer of hope that Amores Perros might branch out from the art house cinemas, getting the general release it thoroughly deserves" (Hayden-Smith: 01) Then in Sight and Sound magazine for example, its article on Amores Perros, 'Pup Fiction' describes and embelishes upon the theoretical, thematical attributes and such that are expressed in the film: "a painstaking exploration of the hold domestic spaces have over us - shot through with a line of dark absurdist humour that brings to mind Bunuel's treatise on bougeois entrapment, The Exterminating Angel" (Bernado: 01) In the critical construction of Sight and Sounds review of the same film, the consideration of cinematography or style; can be seen, where it describes the following: "The films washed out colour scheme, its use of real locations and its handheld camerawork achieve a spontaneity that obscures the care and skill behind mise-en-scene" (Arroyo: 40)) This is also the case with Kamera's review: "shot on a blackened, otherworldly landscape that recalls Pasolini's Theorem, the film's visual style is as arresting as its jigsaw narrative." (Hayden-Smith: 01) This artistic consideration in not unique to Amores Perros. Elsewhere in Sight and Sound, in an article on the Mexican film Japon (Reygadas, C, 2003) entitled 'A good place to die', Demetrious Matheou concerns him self with the comparison between the directors work and Tarkovskies,and describes how "visually, Reygadas alternates between static, classically framed shots" (Matheou: 10) and " other that astutely employ a mobile camera" (Matheou: 10). I have focused on these particular sources because they best define the extent to which the notion of 'Arthouse' or 'Artistic' impacts upon their critical response. It is now important then to point out the different 'layers' of critical reception and construction that operate in respect of this reception. (Artisitc, entertainment, marketing). Sight and Sound is of course a film magazine for the more 'academically' minded who regardless of the tag that comes with a film appreciate the artistic ideal to cinema. Writers for Kamera.co.uk and paper 'The Guardian' also to an extent share this appreciation. But the critical reception and construction on the wider scale also belongs to the far more entertainment, media based sources (such as television guide reviews, or on-line film entertainment guides) One example is the website IO Film Review UK, where 'The Wolf' sets out in his review of Y Tu Mama Tambien that "Two randy teenagers and a sophisticated older woman sounds like orgasmic delight at the box office" ('The Wolf': 01). Despite the specific function of informing and appealing to popular culture in mind, with such sources, here it seems that this inescapable 'arthouse' tag is acknowledged in the reviewers reception. But the actual construction, or rather say the interpretation of the film in this respect, varies at a low level. Jim Kershaw, a writer for the BBCi film website in his review of Amores Perros recognises and finds credit in "colourful characterisation" (Kershaw: 01) and "natural performances" (Kershaw: 01) at play, but where Sight and Sound acknowledges a thematic and constructive link between the separate narrative strands, here he states; "Sometimes there is a clear reason for dividing a film into distinctive chapters, each following the distinctive but overlapping stories of unrelated people. Here it feels like the structure was used because no one storyline was long enough to stand on its own" (Kershaw: 01)) Here he is acknowlodging that a films narrative can exist outside of a certain popular convention, but in his construction of the film finds this arguably difficult. This could simply be down to his strong artistic opinion rather than a certain rejection to the films qualities, but it hardly seems so when he infers that a film must "justify its two-and-a-half-hour running time" (Kershaw: 01). And in the end, he concludes his critical formulation with an audience-friendly reminder that "the faint-hearted might find it a little gory" (Kershaw: 01). The unnamed writer for the film section of the website Tiscali.co.uk concludes his review of Amores Perros as such: "I don't need life sugar-coated, however I would have welcomed some contrast. I appreciate that love can be a bitch, but when she takes a piss, I'm not sure I need to be the lamppost." (Unknown: 01) It is almost as if the viewer is acknowledging a particular power to the film; yet in the end it matters to them more that the film is hopeful in contrast (based on their opinion), and that it to some extent comforts or entertains the viewer in this respect. Going back to 'The Wolfs' review of Y Tu Mama Tambien, he informs how "after a dallience in Hollywood" "director Alfonso Cuaron returns home for a little hand-held realism", but then only discusses technical devices again when dictating how the film "uses narrative voice-over to interrupt proceedings and give trivial bits of information" which "soon gets irritating" ('The Wolf': 01). This particular case, compared upon the difference in impact upon to more artistic minded sources, brings up the issues surrounding culture and its pre-conceived notions in films. So far I have used contemporary Mexican films as an example for World Cinema in general. The real advantage of focusing on a specific segment of World Cinema though, is how it allows one to see the way in which a countries specific culture, with its own sets of ethics and issues, impacts upon the UK. Often what defines films such as Mexico's under the category of World Cinema, is the more extreme states of their country, for which they are often 'an allegory for the politics and culture for the country in which they are made' More than often in the case of contemporary Mexican films and UK critics, this specific identification is of Mexican culture of course, and the political-economic issues surrounding the country. Marketing for the films is particularly reflective of this. The UK trailer for Amores Perros could have been given various scores or soundtrack, but uses one that displays Mexican language. True to the sexual and comedic content of the film but also shaping it in the viewers mind through the association with its country, the UK trailer for Y Tu Mama Tambien contains cartoon images of 'cacti-penises'. Both its UK poster and DVD cover contains in its colour scheme those of the Mexican flag; and as with Amores Perros, its image is saturated to communicate the sun baked atmosphere one might associate with the country. They also both in addition to the this saturation, appeal to or through the label of Arthouse in their covers graphic design, both of which display film festival awards. Japon in comparison, which is titled (Japan) so as not to be necessarily conceived of in light of its filmmakers country, or for that matter, to be conceived of in any sense of the title. In this respect the poster, in predicting and shaping its films reception and diffusion into the UK, through the sedative and almost 'minimalist' design communicates an artistic form of cinema, but does not in anyway attempt to point out that it is a Mexican film This cultural notion can also be seen as typically receptive in reviews and articles again with both Amores Perros and Y Tu Mama Tambien, and constructive where the critics are concerned with its relevance. IOFilm's review of Y Tu Mama Tambien makes reference in part to Mexico's culture in jokingly saying "no way, jose!" 'The Wolf': 01) at the beginning, applying this context for an objectively entertaining purpose. This is where the impact ends though. One Guardian reviews states that the film is "an exhilirating adventure" "in social commentary" (Bradshaw: 01). Another observes that "the film uses a device that places what were seeing in a larger context", whereby "a male narrator feeds us information, often sardonically expressed, about the backgrounds of the people involved and comments on the dubious state of democracy in Mexico" (French: 01). This is same device already discussed in the IO Films' review where it was seen as pointless. The reviewer did not make the essential association, and so in this sense, on a particular level of critique World Cinema can often impact in this way, where its films filter or diffuse in their meaning when placed outside of their cultural context. The alternative as with The Guardian newspaper is more positive. Kamera's review of Amores Perros simply places the films culture in context of the films subject matter in its introduction; "The three stories, which cut across the socio-economic spectrum of Mexico City's indigenous population, are linked by one single incident" (Hayden-Smith: 01) It later in the review then discusses part of the films quality in relation to this: "he (Inarritu) never offers Mexico up as the 'other', a murky world of undesirables, whose only function appears to be making the lives of the politicians and citizens of its wealthier neighbour, hell" (Hayden-Smith: 01) The notion in the receptors eyes of the films being cultural and political allegories on this level of critical response has a huge impact in their construction. Again, Sight and Sounds coverage of Amores Perros exemplifies this. Firstly both the reviewer and the interviewer for the article 'Pup Fiction' are Mexican (I assume by their names and so logistically), showing the magazine has taken into account the specific cultural understanding and interpretation that is of importance. In addition to this, the interviewer poses more than one question or statement to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu about how his film relates to the state of Mexico: " Most film-makers living in Mexico City turn a blind eye to its problems or treat them superficially" (Perez-Solair: 30) In this case the matters of culture and "allegory for politics and culture of the country in which they are made" I feel is key in the identification of how World Cinema 'diffuses' in meaning from its native land to the UK.

  • April 2, 2004, 10:20 a.m. CST

    dont ask - personal shit

    by Wideboy

    Amores Perros Reviews: Korsner, Jason - BBCi Films, WWW page at URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/05/03/amores_perros_2001_review.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) Newman, Kim - Empire, WWW page at URL: http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/incinemas/ReviewInFull.asp?FID=6828 (accessed 20/03/04) 'The Wolf' - IO FIlm WWW page at URL: http://www.iofilm.co.uk/films/a/amores_perros.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) 'El Topo" - IO Film, WWW page at URL: http://www.iofilm.co.uk/films/a/amores_perros_r2.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) 'Nic O' - IO Film, WWW page at URL: http://www.iofilm.co.uk/films/a/amores_perros_r3.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) Hayden-Smith, Ian - Kamera,WWW page at URL: http://www.kamera.co.uk/reviews_extra/amores.php (accessed 20/03/04) Unknown - Tiscali, WWW page at URL, http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/reviews/amores_perros.html (accessed 20/03/04) Arroyo, Jose (2003) 'Amores Perros' Sight and Sound, XX, 39-40 (included in photocopy) Critical Articles: Perez Solair, Bernardo - Sight and Sound, WWW page at URL: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/2001_05/amores_peros.html (accessed 20/03/04) (included in photocopy) Marketing: Inarritu, AG (2001) Amores Perros DVD, UK: Optimum

  • April 2, 2004, 10:23 a.m. CST

    dont ask - personal shit

    by Wideboy

    Amores Perros Reviews: Korsner, Jason - BBCi Films, WWW page at URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/05/03/amores_perros_2001_review.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) Newman, Kim - Empire, WWW page at URL: http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/incinemas/ReviewInFull.asp?FID=6828 (accessed 20/03/04) 'The Wolf' - IO FIlm WWW page at URL: http://www.iofilm.co.uk/films/a/amores_perros.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) 'El Topo" - IO Film, WWW page at URL: http://www.iofilm.co.uk/films/a/amores_perros_r2.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) 'Nic O' - IO Film, WWW page at URL: http://www.iofilm.co.uk/films/a/amores_perros_r3.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) Hayden-Smith, Ian - Kamera,WWW page at URL: http://www.kamera.co.uk/reviews_extra/amores.php (accessed 20/03/04) Unknown - Tiscali, WWW page at URL, http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/reviews/amores_perros.html (accessed 20/03/04) Arroyo, Jose (2003) 'Amores Perros' Sight and Sound, XX, 39-40 (included in photocopy) Critical Articles: Japon Reviews: Bradshaw, Peter - The Guardian, WWW page at URL: http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,4267,899355,00.html (accessed 20/03/04) Bradshaw, Peter - The Guardian, WWW page at URL: http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_review/0,4267,901069,00.html (accessed 20/03/04) 'The Wolf' - IO Film, WWW page at URL: http://www.iofilm.co.uk/fm/j/japon_2002_r2.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) Dawson, Tom - BBCi Films, WWW page at URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/02/05/japon_2003_review.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) Critical Articles: Matheou, D (2004) 'A good place to die' Sight and Sound, XX,10-12 (included in photocopy) Marketing: Poster - Sight and Sound XX, Back Cover (Included in photocopy)

  • April 2, 2004, 10:24 a.m. CST

    dont ask - personal shit

    by Wideboy

    Y Tu Mama Tambien Reviews: 'The Wolf' - IO Film, WWW page at URL: http://www.iofilm.co.uk/fm/y/y_tu_mama_tambien_2001.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) Bradshaw, Peter - The Guardian, WWW page at URL: http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_Film_of_the_week/0,4267,682544,00.html (accessed 20/03/04) French, Philip- The Guardian, WWW page at URL: http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_Film_of_the_week/0,4267,683978,00.html (accessed 20/03/04) (included in photocopy) Bushnell, Laura - BBCi Films, WWW page at URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/04/03/y_tu_mama_tambien_2002_review.shtml (accessed 20/03/04) Marketing: Cuaron, Alfonso (2001) Y Tu Mama Tambien, DVD, UK, Warner

  • April 2, 2004, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Emphasis

    by Tigernan

    As I tell my students in their essays all the time, let your words have their own emphasis, and don't rely on the font to do the work for you. In other words, Saying THINGS like THIS really doesn't MAKE the author SOUND that INTELLIGENT. LOUDER DOESN'T EQUAL RIGHT. Pet peeve, that's all. (Is someone actually doing their homework on this board? That's kind of funny)

  • April 2, 2004, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Uma's the bomb

    by PullMyFinger

    Bring on KB2

  • April 2, 2004, 8:23 p.m. CST

    They word things very ambiguously sometimes here...

    by YoureAllFreaks

    Does "a great review of Kill Bill" mean that the review is great, well-written and a joy to behold? Or does it mean that the review itself reflects a positive opinion of the movie (ie, the movie itself is great)? I think a "great review" means the review itself is great. However, here at AICN it seems that they don't look at it that way. Oh yeah, and sorry but Uma Thurman is just NOT that hot. Sometimes she is just flat out average-looking. And this, mind you, is after an hour or two of Hollywood makeup treatment.

  • April 2, 2004, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Homage to spaghetti westerns???

    by Man w No Name

    Uhhhhh...NO...Kill Bill had no homage at all to spaghetti westerns. You want to see an homage to a spaghetti western do yourself a favor and see a real movie...UNFORGIVEN. That my friends, is how to do an homage.

  • April 2, 2004, 10:43 p.m. CST

    YAWN!..... Tarantino.. meh

    by Hate_Speech

    feh even.. boring.

  • April 3, 2004, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Ignorance is bliss

    by Man w No Name

    Unforgiven is a total homage to Sergio Leone, the father and originator of the spaghetti western. Spaghetti *note how I spelled spaghetti the correct way* Westerns are a style...the bad guy that's the good guy. Not the fuckin' john wayne movies everyone is used to seeing, the one's where good and evil were easily defined. In Unforgiven you had a murderer and killer of men, women, and children going out to get a bounty on a cowboy who cut up a whore. He was in it for the money, just like all Eastwood's characters in the Man w/ No Name Trilogy. He definitely wasn't a 'good guy'. Spaghetti Westerns have nothing to do w/ realism etc...they have to do w/ the characters. Shit, just look at he gunfight at the very end when he takes out almost everyone in the tavern even though the odds were against him...just like how he took off his armour in FISTFUL and then beat 4 people off the draw. Spaghetti Westerns = character driven and character based.....IT HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ REALISM.

  • April 3, 2004, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Okay Harry, you SERIOUSLY need a better talkback forum...

    by Durendal

    My message was somehow put on the top of the fucking talkback! What the hell is up with that? This damn forum keeps putting talkbacks all over the place instead of a logical order. Fix the damn forums Harry, and while you're at it, get something to replace the 486 box you're using to run your server!

  • April 3, 2004, 5:47 p.m. CST

    how is it NOT a homage?

    by horseloverfat723

    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a huge spaghetti western fan, Death Rides a Horse and The Great Silence are two of my favorite all time films..I know what a spaghetti western is. it was a homage to westerns in general, not just spaghetti westerns even; anyone notice the Rio Bravo esque music?

  • I dont think a yellow jumpsuit is a "homage' just a blatant rup-off of Game of Death. QT nieeds to get his head out of his ass and realize his glory days are over. He'll never make anything as classic as the Leone films no mnatter how hard he trys...no matter how many time he digs up washed-up old actors from the 70s/80s. I mean the whole thing gimick was interesting w/ Travolta, but Carradine?

  • April 4, 2004, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Ebert & Roeper just gave KB2 four thumbs up! (For the mathematic

    by truthseekr1488

    Ebert suggested that KB2 may be better than KB1 and particularly praised the dialogue and character development.

  • April 5, 2004, 5:06 p.m. CST

    You've got balls

    by Mister Grieves

    I find it refreshing that the reviewer actually admits that he would like to lick Uma clean and fuck her. Go man, go.

  • April 6, 2004, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Sounds like more of the same, big surprise there.

    by minderbinder

    Can't wait to download it.