Duck and Cover

They were in a phalanx for the first fight though. From what I saw, there were alot of fights we didn't see, so if could be guessed that that was their primary formation for fighting until they routed the enemy.

They were barely in formation for a few minutes of the film.
The should have been in the phalanx for most of the film.
But I guess it is hard to make an action film with 300 greek steroid abusers (yes!)
who stab thousands of persians to death behind a shield-wall.
I dont know why, but I just was not that impressed
with anything, not even the so-called awesome action. :bummer:

SPOILERS





I remeber in the original movie about the 300 spartans, the king was hit with an arrow and all the men surrounding him protecting him like with the circle ball shape you saw at the end and then they were slowly being killed by the endless arrows. I liked that ending better than the 300 did.




END SPOILERS

Wow, I remember seeing that movie. That was a great war movie. I think I saw it when I was 16 but I remember that last scene. Great stuff.

I thought the Kill Bills were kinda crap. I enjoyed the homage to great film genres and such but I felt like Tarantino focused too much on getting great shots and too little on the actual heart of the story. I never really got attached to The Bride or any other character in the movie.

With Pulp Fiction, I cared about every character, when Travolta got rubbed out I felt really bad for the guy, and he was a hitman. With Kill Bill it was just a bunch of cool scenes put together in an uninteresting way.

P.S.: A 300 special is on the history channel. Somehow I don't remember covering the goatbeasts in any History class. Apparently Frank Miller justifies his massive exaggeration of this conflict by comparing it to exaggerations of battles throughout history.

Dogmeatlives wrote:I thought the Kill Bills were kinda crap. I enjoyed the homage to great film genres and such but I felt like Tarantino focused too much on getting great shots and too little on the actual heart of the story. I never really got attached to The Bride or any other character in the movie.

With Pulp Fiction, I cared about every character, when Travolta got rubbed out I felt really bad for the guy, and he was a hitman. With Kill Bill it was just a bunch of cool scenes put together in an uninteresting way.

Tarantino is a joke. He needs to get over the LOL SCENES OUT OF SEQUENTIAL ORDER thing. It's not original after the last three hundred times he's done it. It's actually rather annoying.

Dogmeatlives wrote:I thought the Kill Bills were kinda crap. I enjoyed the homage to great film genres and such but I felt like Tarantino focused too much on getting great shots and too little on the actual heart of the story. I never really got attached to The Bride or any other character in the movie.

With Pulp Fiction, I cared about every character, when Travolta got rubbed out I felt really bad for the guy, and he was a hitman. With Kill Bill it was just a bunch of cool scenes put together in an uninteresting way.

Switch the movie titles for everything you just said and you'd have my opinion. Like, to a tee. Pulp Fiction was two hours of Tarantino jerking off to his own "ironic" cleverness, filled with Gen X-baiting pop culture references that serve no purpose other than to prove Tarantino needs to get out more. If there were any semblance of plot or compelling character development I could have handled it, but no. It's a string of scenes - some mildly amusing, others completely dull, all pointless - that add up to exactly nothing.

Kill Bill had the same pop culture geek factor, but at least the plot moved. I honestly didn't give a rat's ass about all the Sonny Chiba/Bruce Lee/Sergio Leone/Shaw Bros/whateverthefuck references - shit like that only goes so far. Call me crazy, but I actually was interested in the characters - Uma Thurman acted the hell out of a part that could have been one-note, and the big finale at the end of part 2 was well written and well acted from all sides.

Neither movie is supposed to be taken seriously, but I thought Kill Bill was more fun, better acted, better paced, and much better edited (the entire Bruce Willis chapter of PF made me want to scoop my eyeballs out). It's the first Tarantino movie where I felt like he was actually trying to tell a story.

Okay, I'm done.

I think I'll wait for PiP's judgment before making the final conclusion.

Subhuman wrote:

Dogmeatlives wrote:I thought the Kill Bills were kinda crap. I enjoyed the homage to great film genres and such but I felt like Tarantino focused too much on getting great shots and too little on the actual heart of the story. I never really got attached to The Bride or any other character in the movie.

With Pulp Fiction, I cared about every character, when Travolta got rubbed out I felt really bad for the guy, and he was a hitman. With Kill Bill it was just a bunch of cool scenes put together in an uninteresting way.

Switch the movie titles for everything you just said and you'd have my opinion. Like, to a tee. Pulp Fiction was two hours of Tarantino jerking off to his own "ironic" cleverness, filled with Gen X-baiting pop culture references that serve no purpose other than to prove Tarantino needs to get out more. If there were any semblance of plot or compelling character development I could have handled it, but no. It's a string of scenes - some mildly amusing, others completely dull, all pointless - that add up to exactly nothing.

Kill Bill had the same pop culture geek factor, but at least the plot moved. I honestly didn't give a rat's ass about all the Sonny Chiba/Bruce Lee/Sergio Leone/Shaw Bros/whateverthefuck references - shit like that only goes so far. Call me crazy, but I actually was interested in the characters - Uma Thurman acted the hell out of a part that could have been one-note, and the big finale at the end of part 2 was well written and well acted from all sides.

Neither movie is supposed to be taken seriously, but I thought Kill Bill was more fun, better acted, better paced, and much better edited (the entire Bruce Willis chapter of PF made me want to scoop my eyeballs out). It's the first Tarantino movie where I felt like he was actually trying to tell a story.

Okay, I'm done.

Are you, like... living in Bizarro world or so? Where everything is fucking upside down and shit?
Uma Thurman's performence in Kill Bill was LOUSY. The whole movie felt like a Manga written and drawn by crackers.
It's simply boring. The story is shit, nothing makes fucking sense, the acting is all shit, the pop-references are not really special, the soundtrack was sort of... you know... FORCED. I don't know how to express it properly but let's just say it was HALF ASSED.

VasikkA wrote:I think I'll wait for PiP's judgment before making the final conclusion.

Thanks for your faith in me mate but I decided not to go - at least today, since I've been pretty busy. I'm leaving for the Naziland and France on Saturday so I got some things to do before I go.
Guess I'll just see 300 the other day on DVD

jetbaby wrote:Tarantino is a joke. He needs to get over the LOL SCENES OUT OF SEQUENTIAL ORDER thing. It's not original after the last three hundred times he's done it. It's actually rather annoying.

are you an idiot? that was only a schtick in pulp fiction. the flashbacks in the rest of his movies hardly count because they were unobtrusive narrative devices, a pretty common thing? in his other films the overall story arcs were always presented fairly coherently, i thought

It's just his style, keeps things from being too predictable i guess. I don't remember Jackie Brown having it.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Pulp Fiction didn't need the messed-up chronological structure - it was just another example of Tarantino thinking he's the cleverest guy in the room. A movie like Memento, say, or The Limey, uses the broken time structure as a plot device. It makes sense given the story.

Dreddy wrote:The story is shit, nothing makes fucking sense, the acting is all shit, the pop-references are not really special, the soundtrack was sort of... you know... FORCED. I don't know how to express it properly but let's just say it was HALF ASSED.

If you honestly thought Kill Bill's plot didn't make sense, you should just stop watching movies right now. It's all uphill from here.

Tarantino or not, anything with Travolta and Bruce Willis is difficult to watch. Add Keanu Reeves to that list too.

Dogmeatlives wrote:Let's face it, they're just not being made the way they used to be.

Oh yeah, did you guys hear Stalone's gearing up to make a new rambo flick? If 'Live Free and Die Hard' wasn't enough of a heroin redux for ya, this might just be.

POOPERSCOOPER wrote:It's just his style, keeps things from being too predictable i guess. I don't remember Jackie Brown having it.

Resevoir Dogs also had it.

I know. Pretty much all his movies had it except Jackie Brown IF i remeber correctly. THought i could be mistaken.

Subhuman wrote:See, that's what I'm talking about. Pulp Fiction didn't need the messed-up chronological structure - it was just another example of Tarantino thinking he's the cleverest guy in the room. A movie like Memento, say, or The Limey, uses the broken time structure as a plot device. It makes sense given the story.

Dreddy wrote:The story is shit, nothing makes fucking sense, the acting is all shit, the pop-references are not really special, the soundtrack was sort of... you know... FORCED. I don't know how to express it properly but let's just say it was HALF ASSED.

If you honestly thought Kill Bill's plot didn't make sense, you should just stop watching movies right now. It's all uphill from here.

Of course the plot made sense. But it was stupid and fucking boring and most of the movie was ridiculous. I think I've seen too many good movies to hype Kill Bill. The movie is for the younger generation without EXPERIENCE.
Tarantino failed to impress me... again.
It's the same thing as with LOTR or TITANIC or shit like that. We KNOW it's crap, but SOMEONE gives away oscars, ratings and shit that says OMFG BEST SHIT EVAAAAR! so mindless people agree.

Too keep it short now:

Tarantino wanted to fart, but in fact he shat in his pants.

Manoil wrote:

Dogmeatlives wrote:Let's face it, they're just not being made the way they used to be.

Oh yeah, did you guys hear Stalone's gearing up to make a new rambo flick? If 'Live Free and Die Hard' wasn't enough of a heroin redux for ya, this might just be.

Are you kidding?! My god. Stallone needs to give it a rest. Rocky Balboa was one thing but the Rambo series should have ended with First Blood. The new Die Hard looks like the series' aborted fetus. The guy that directed Underworld was in charge of the new Die Hard. Who thought that would be a good idea? Who? I'm just gonna pretend it doesn't exist.

Pulp Fiction just rocks. It's that simple. The Kill Bills were just bloated with borrowed characters, borrowed scenes, borrowed music. I guess they were fun movies the first time around but I wouldn't watch them again.

Dreddy wrote:The story is shit, nothing makes fucking sense

But then, Dreddy wrote:Of course the plot made sense.

Subhuman's confused brain wrote:...what?

But not before Dreddy got off another good one, when he wrote:I think I've seen too many good movies to hype Kill Bill. The movie is for the younger generation without EXPERIENCE.

You take pics of yourself holding plastic assault rifles, Mr. Barely Out Of His Teens, so nice try.