Yeah the black and white wasn't really just for 'artistic' reasons. He had to do that to get the rating down.
So by making that scene B&W, the movie changed from Rated R to Rated NC-17? What a cheapo. What's so important about lowering the admission rating that you would do that? I personally would have kept it in color even though less people would be allowed to watch it.
NO. NC-17 is worse then R. He had to get it down to R. To ensure a wider audience. What was the last time a NC-17 movie made millions at the box office. The movie exceutives care about their investment, not about your personal preferences. That makes no sense though. The movie had violent scenes all through out the film. Why only turn that scene into B&W, it certainly wasn't the most violent part of the whole movie.
I think the decision to release the film in two volumes had a lot to do with the rating situation...a shorter movie equals less overall violence to a film. And to people that say it was for the money: Don't you think it's harder to get people to go see two movies??
There was a survey on Kill Bill (UK Audience) and I think it was about 90% would return to see volume 2. I just hope when they release it on DVD it will be in colour.
I was wondering about that myself. Why would he say that? First thing I thought was that it was a dig at himself. I was thinking he wrote 5 films up tp that point, and I thought he was sort of disowning "From Dusk Till Dawn" (understandably so Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). Then I remembered that he didn't direct it, and when people say "A film by" they are usually referring to the director, plus he has the story credit for "Natural Born Killers". Then I remembered an interview with him back in '94 or '95 when he was talking about people stopping him on the street. People would come up to him after "Pulp Fiction" came out and excitedly say stuff like, "I am a HUGE fan of yours!!! I have seen EVERY ONE of your films, and I love them all!" He said he would reply, "Oh really? All TWO of them? :roll:". So I just figured it was a little dig on that. I did like the screenplay, but I didn't love it. I think it fell short of what I have come to expect from him (as far as the dialogue goes). It was definitely no "Pulp Fiction", "Reservior Dogs" or "Natural Born Killers". It falls somewhat short of "Jackie Brown" too. The direction though, was superb overall, (maybe the best visually of the four) with only one complaint... I know it is Quentin: I know it is supposed to be over-the-top, outrageous and somewhat surreal. I know that's half the point. However, the blood spraying out of the amputees like a damned fire hose? It doesn't have to be realistic gore and totally believable violence, but that was too much even for him. That blood action was way too cartoonish. The gore in his previous films was over-the-top too, but not so much that it looked like one of those low-budget B-movie horror flicks. In my opinion, he should have scaled back on that effect a lot, and made it at least somewhat more realistic. The anime sequence was one of my favorite parts of the movie for several reasons. I loved the anime. It worked well and it was very well done in itself. I got the impression that I was watching her (O-Ren Ishii/Cottonmouth) memories and how she saw herself as a little girl. It was brilliant.
raven: apparently QT did 2 versions of KB, one for the asian mkt, and one for the western mkt. The asian version being more hardcore in terms of violence. When asked why he did two versions, he replied: "Well because they can handle it, and you guys can't. When you people can handle it, then I'll give you the full on version" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It might not have been much of a samuri film if that wasn't the case. The blood spraying out is a samuri film tradition. I wonder what effect "The Last Samuri" will use. It probably won't be as far fetched, but I would definitely like to see a little of the blood spraying.
I don't think i can judge the movie just by seeing one half of it but imho if tarantino manages to make vol2 as entertaining as vol1 it's gonna be his best ever. Yes, better than Pulp Fiction.
Whatever. What's the big deal about Pulp Fiction anyway? Why even compare them? I don't see anything special about anything that QT does. At times he even comes off as a shock jock. As for KB, I can't say I didn't like this movie. If you want comparison, it's probably the only QT project that I really actually enjoyed. Not that I didn't enjoy his other stuff. I just never found anything else he has done more than mediocre.
I gotta follow cool on this one. What exactly did everyone like about Pulp Fiction? It's been a while since I've seen it, but I definitely remember not liking it because of: The grating soundtrack, The unamusingly unrelated story arcs, The "What time is it Mr. Wolf" section (which I thought was a totally lame joke by the way), and John Travolta. So, what were the good parts?
Pulp Fiction fans enjoyed the great soundtrack the seperate bt distinctly related storylines Harvey Keitel as Mr. Wolf John Travolta's greatcharacter, just one of an incredible, well-rounded and well-orchestrated cast of memorable characters. The good parts were the original and highly kinetic storytelling, intelligent, funny, fast moving plot, compelling and interesting relationships between the characters, great performances, excellent cinematography, the myriad poignant pop-culture references and social commentary, great performances from the entire cast, over-the-top humor... The list goes on and the appeal is endless. Pulp Fiction isn't my favorite movie of all time, but it's a great film, and should recieve props. Watch it again when you're older Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
