OT -- Kill Bill

Not to nitpick you or anything Jay, but me thinks you might have
missed the point of this movie. Now, that being said, no, I have not
yet seen this one. BUT, reading interviews with Tarantino, that was
his intention. This was a pure action movie; the plot was supposed
to be secondary to the action scenes.

Hmm. So saying "I meant that" makes a bad film okay? Sounds like the
classic refuge of an incompetent director, to me.

A *good* director successfully combines plot AND action.

The carnage was SUPPOSED to be unrealistic. The gore and violence are
supposed to be over the top, it's an homage to the Asian Kung-Fu
movies of the 60's and 70's. One of the reasons that it got an R
rating instead of NC-17 for the violence was because the violence is
done so unrealisticly.

So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a weak
plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the aim
of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and 70s?
While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on more
than one level here...

Tarantino must be laughing himself silly.

Oh well -- I'll always remember Uma Thurman, in tight leather, neatly
slicing off Lucy Liu's cranium -- and then watching her die.

Yeah -- a real "classic" movie, this one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:dypjb.780228$YN5.771263@sccrnsc01...
So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a weak
plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the
aim
of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and 70s?
While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on
more
than one level here...

Perhaps not for those who read the reviews or Tarantino's promos.

Oh well -- I'll always remember Uma Thurman, in tight leather, neatly
slicing off Lucy Liu's cranium -- and then watching her die.

Yep, that's a lot more entertaining than playing with film history.

Yeah -- a real "classic" movie, this one.

....probably not, but generated a pretty good OT thread.

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
snip
So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a weak
plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the
aim
of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and 70s?
While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on
more
than one level here...

Kung Pow: Enter The Fist (2002)
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/kung_pow/

This movie is so stupid, it's funny. It's an actual 70's Kung-fu movie
(1976) called "Tiger and Crane Fist" that's been .... um, modified.

It made many people's "worst film of all time" list.

I, however, laughed and enjoyed the effort.

"Wewewewewewe..."
"Wewewewewe..."

--
Montblack
"I like to watch"

Kung Pow. Great Movie! I loved it. Wife hated it. Son (TKD Black Belt) was
having trouble breathing, he was laughing so hard.

Just watch out for those Gopher Chucks.

Craig R. Bowers
Rosamond, Ca http://craignet.com


"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Jay Honeck" wrote)
snip
So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a
weak
plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the
aim
of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and
70s?
While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on
more
than one level here...

Kung Pow: Enter The Fist (2002)
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/kung_pow/

This movie is so stupid, it's funny. It's an actual 70's Kung-fu movie
(1976) called "Tiger and Crane Fist" that's been .... um, modified.

It made many people's "worst film of all time" list.

I, however, laughed and enjoyed the effort.

"Wewewewewewe..."
"Wewewewewe..."

--
Montblack
"I like to watch"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:dypjb.780228$YN5.771263@sccrnsc01...
Not to nitpick you or anything Jay, but me thinks you might have
missed the point of this movie. Now, that being said, no, I have not
yet seen this one. BUT, reading interviews with Tarantino, that was
his intention. This was a pure action movie; the plot was supposed
to be secondary to the action scenes.

Hmm. So saying "I meant that" makes a bad film okay? Sounds like the
classic refuge of an incompetent director, to me.

A *good* director successfully combines plot AND action.

The carnage was SUPPOSED to be unrealistic. The gore and violence are
supposed to be over the top, it's an homage to the Asian Kung-Fu
movies of the 60's and 70's. One of the reasons that it got an R
rating instead of NC-17 for the violence was because the violence is
done so unrealisticly.

So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a weak
plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the aim
of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and 70s?
While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on more
than one level here...


that's like complaining that the tail fins on 50s classic cars are
unrealistic, serves no technical purpose and therefore owners of those
cars have been duped. similarily, certain fans of super-resolution,
hi-fidelity photographic pictures may theoretically decry the
unrealistic, formless faces of impressionism and reason the lack of
realism detracts from beauty, and in fact is a source of ugliness --
but these are more an aesthetic calls than anything else.

what tarantino understands methinks, and that i quite agree with, is
that movies are inherently unrealistic. now, that doesn't give
license to making incoherent dialog or fanciful scenes of sugared
kaleidoscopes and but it certainly doesn't preclude a vast middle
ground where entertainment and reality freely mix. (the bush admin is
a case in point, but that's another post.)

the bottom line for most people is that they want movies to *feel*
real up to a point, but in the end, they just want to be entertained
for chrissakes. afterall, the market for amnesty international-type
realism or the harvard business review-type documentaries is only so
big.






Tarantino must be laughing himself silly.

Oh well -- I'll always remember Uma Thurman, in tight leather, neatly
slicing off Lucy Liu's cranium -- and then watching her die.

Yeah -- a real "classic" movie, this one.

What would have been wrong with reissuing "What's New, Tiger Lily,"
and leaving it at that?

Don

the bottom line for most people is that they want movies to *feel*
real up to a point, but in the end, they just want to be entertained
for chrissakes. afterall, the market for amnesty international-type
realism or the harvard business review-type documentaries is only so
big.

Had we been "entertained", we would not have felt ripped off.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

(Mike O'Malley) wrote in
om:

snip
Not to nitpick you or anything Jay, but me thinks you might have
missed the point of this movie. Now, that being said, no, I have not
yet seen this one. BUT, reading interviews with Tarantino, that was
his intention. This was a pure action movie; the plot was supposed
to be secondary to the action scenes.


Seems to me that unless one is an art critic, the director's intent in a
movie is pretty irrelevant. Either a movie is enjoyable to watch, or it
isn't...


snip

Save your money and go buy the new "Matrix" DVD instead...

Hmm, I was grossly dissapointed with "Reloaded" when I saw it in the
theaters, and I loved the original. It may have been because the
original was so "outside the box" at the time and original, and the
second one just didn't break any new ground. Or it could have been I
saw it after being on the road from 5 am the day before with only 6
hours of rest after driving from Champaign, IL to Cape May, NJ.


OK. Now the importan question... Why would a guy hanging out on
Rec.Aviation.Piloting ever drive from Champaign, IL to Cape May, NJ???

Judah wrote in message . ..

snip

OK. Now the importan question... Why would a guy hanging out on
Rec.Aviation.Piloting ever drive from Champaign, IL to Cape May, NJ???



Is that supposed to be one 'o them rethorical questions?

You actually brought it back OT, thanks! I had a job towing banners
on the Jersey Shore for the summer, and those of us foolish enough to
try and make a living in aviation right now usually don't have access
to airplanes for extended personal trips.

That and since I was going to be there for 3 1/2 months working, it
would be kind of nice to have a car while there, since I can't rent
one (nobody will touch ya if you're under 25) I had to bring my own.

Now, if I only could have found something that I could put my car in,
and fly out there with it, that would have been perfect!

Mike O'Malley

Ahhh, perfectly good explanation... And while it was none of my damned
business, I really was curious! \

We vacationed in Wildwood twice this summer... Were you based out of
Woodbine? And you were getting paid? I thought I had heard that the guy
at Woodbine had people towing banners for nothing more than the hours...
Maybe that's the guy at Allaire...

I love that shoreline, tho... By air, land, and sea!


(Mike O'Malley) wrote in
om:

Judah wrote in message
. ..

snip

OK. Now the importan question... Why would a guy hanging out on
Rec.Aviation.Piloting ever drive from Champaign, IL to Cape May, NJ???



Is that supposed to be one 'o them rethorical questions?

You actually brought it back OT, thanks! I had a job towing banners
on the Jersey Shore for the summer, and those of us foolish enough to
try and make a living in aviation right now usually don't have access
to airplanes for extended personal trips.

That and since I was going to be there for 3 1/2 months working, it
would be kind of nice to have a car while there, since I can't rent
one (nobody will touch ya if you're under 25) I had to bring my own.

Now, if I only could have found something that I could put my car in,
and fly out there with it, that would have been perfect!

Mike O'Malley