Amazon.com has a listing to pre-order Kill Bill -- The Whole Bloody Affair. This is the version of the film that was originally intended for the film that was promised on DVD some time in early 2007 (Previous Twitch Article). It is likely that things were put off due to the splitting of the Weinsteins from Miramax and Disney and forming a new company and Quentin Tarantino's commitments to Grindhouse. Could this all-edited-together-into-one long-epic actually appear on shelves November 6, 2007? There is nothing concrete at the moment, no artwork, no mention of extras or special features, just some pre-order listings on large E-tailer sites which indicate the set is 4 discs and runs at 246 minutes. That run-time is the sum of the two films (end credits and all) run times on IMDb. There is no word of how these will be edited together or whether or not things will be added or removed. Stay Tuned.
[Source: Cinematical via The Movie Blog]
I find a lot of ASian film lovers hate Tarantino, without any reason other than "he steals from other works" which we have been hearing for years... Whatever, this is great news for me, Kill Bill is one of my favorite movies, theft or homage, I like it more than any of the movies it "ripped off."
Swarez -- ditto.
Cant think why anyone would want to sit through these back to back, the first one was ok for the action (which wasnt anything new) but the second one was just plain boring.
Agreed w/Asian Flix. 3-5 good Hollywood movies is pushing it for me, I would say 1-2 at best. Since my rebirth of movie watching, I've all but given up on Hollywood CRAP.
Asian Flix
The interesting thing is I never argued with you. I never said anything about the quality of Kill Bill, I do for the record think it's a very good film, but I didn't state this in my post yet you tried to argue that point. I enjoy many bad films and many good films, and I'd like ot think I can tell the difference. I have seen many many asian films, I love Japanese cinema in particular (Seijun Suzuki, Miike, Kurosawa, what have you,) and I don't think my love for Kill Bill at all signifies how many good films I have seen. I'm sure many of your favorite films may be films I also really enjoy.
I won't try and justify why I think Kill Bill is good, others (many others) have done that better than I could, and while I would like to change your mind, I don't think it's possible, and that's fine.
Are you sure this is a new edit and not just a quick re-release that puts both previously released DVDs into a box set?
Actually Ishii is a damn good example considering Tarantino's early support of his work, Ishii's obvious admiration for the man and the fact Ishii worked on the animation of Kill Bill. The guys are friends and Tarantino has had a huge -- and entirely positive -- influence on Ishii's career and global exposure.
My last post on this, I hope:
Neither I nor sharkbait dismissed Kubrick, sharkbait just does not like his movies, I think he is a very good director and has made some good movies, but all this boils down to is just a matter of "Taste", as was said before, and that is all this comes down to.
Who do I think is a great director, the first person that comes to mind is AKIRA KUROSAWA, I'm guessing anyone who knows films would have to agree on that name.
"BUT THEN AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE A MATTER OF TASTE"
Well, been fun, I'm sure we will get this started up again on another post.
"OH, LOOK, ANOTHER 'KILL BILL' POST, CATCH YOU ON THE NEXT ONE.
As Asian Flix correctly pointed out, I didn't dismiss Kubrick. I just don't like his style -- his films, the ones I've seen, anyway, all have a very cold and mannered style, which I find very offputting. I have the same reaction to Hitchcock's movies. No doubt they both were important directors, but I can't say anything worthwhile about their growth as directors when I haven't seen all, or the majority of their movies.
As for Miike, I've stopped watching his movies too. Maybe Big Bang Love is great -- who knows -- but it didn't interest me much when I read about it a while back. I've seen a couple of good movies from him -- Audition and Gozu, in particular -- but never a great one.
I'd agree (who wouldn't?) that Akira Kurosawa was a great filmmaker. And yes, certainly he borrowed/stole (you pick) from Ford -- that's common knowledge. But please note that I, at least, didn't rip on Tarantino for being a copycat. My main problem with him is the lack of growth ("Just making the same movie over and over again."), which is hardly something you can accuse Kurosawa of. If, say, Pulp Fiction is Tarantino's Seven Samurai (oddball comparison, I know, but bear with me), where is his Ikiru? Where is his High and Low? Where is his Dersu Uzala?
And finally, since Pulp Fiction and Sex, Lies, And Videotape are commonly regarded as the two movies that killed the American indie scene, why not compare Tarantino to Steven Soderbergh -- an infinitely more varied and interesting filmmaker (not without his faults, but few are)? I'd even say he's beat Tarantino at his own game -- Out of Sight is leagues better than anything Tarantino has put out post-Pulp Fiction (including Tarantino's own Leonard-adaptation).
But Tarantino is one of those filmmakers that doesn't really want to avert from the B-movie form. He loves the genre and that what he likes to do. Why should he want to make a heavy handed drama or something like that? Some filmmakers feel at home with certain genres and don't really want to do anything else if they are successful at it. And I say so what? If he's good at his job and likes it then all the more power to him.
Same goes with Roth and Del Toro.
Sorry, I still don't see anyone, who originaly compared QT to Akira.
There's nothing "telling" about it. Comparing Soderbergh and Tarantino is an apples and oranges situation. Both can be accused of making films that primarily amuse them first and foremost. Of the two Tarantino's work is more accessible and lacks the pretense that Soderbergh films have in abundance. Out of Sight is very overrated in my opinion so preferring it over Jackie Brown is simply a matter of taste. I have to say that many consider Jackie Brown his best film so take that as you will. I won't even touch on that "films that killed the American Indie scene" comment because that's a whole other discussion.
For me Soderbergh hasn't been interesting for years. Everything he's done since Traffic has been a letdown on some level, outside of the Ocean's pictures which are just pure fun. He's become a director who's more style than substance. Solaris, while beautiful, is but a shadow of the original. The Good German was interesting to look at but a narrative mess. The less that's said about Bubble and Full Frontal the better. I think that's the major difference between Soderbergh and Tarantino...SS has films that can be completely dismissed while QT demands attention with everything he does. His films are an event for both audiences and the critical community, the same cannot be said about Soderbergh. Most people don't know who he is and even film buffs will openly admit that there are many of his films they haven't bothered to watch. Believe me, watching Bubble was an absolute chore.
I much prefer the Soderbergh of the early 90's who had the gal to make Schizopolis. I don't want it to seem like I don't respect the man because I do and am really interested in seeing his duel Guevara films, but his films haven't engaged me on an intellectual level for years. The man knows his craft though.
Of course both men can lay claim to having a Palm D'or on their mantle so again, apples and oranges. Is that enough or should I go on? Knocking the quality of Tarantino's films for his genre obsessions is as dubious as those that complain about Scorsese's predilection to crime pictures. Just judge the quality of the work, not the impetus that birthed it. I simply cannot convey how wrong you are in your assertion that Tarantino is simply working in the same genre or even genres, or that he's no better a filmmaker now than he was circa Pulp Fiction. I'm starting to sound like a Taranitno apologist but I just feel that he's not being given a fair shake by supposed cinema buffs who when checked really aren't informed enough to give an educated opinion on matters of artistic merit. Bottom line, he's among the most celebrated filmmakers and cultural icons of our time and has had an indelible impact on both film and culture the world over. The same can't be said about many, including one Steven Soderbergh.
ijaffery,
Most of your comments and criticisms about Soderbergh are ones I levelled, or would level against Tarantino (especially the "a director who's more style than substance" comment), which ties up this discussion rather neatly. After all, we've come full circle, and have returned to what I pointed out early on: it boils down to differing points of view. Agreed?
It made for a great read fellas. Quite enjoyed the back and forth on that one.