Our loss, I'm sure.

You have no idea.

Interesting read. I haven't seen Kill Bill vol 1 but do like The Mummy Returns. Most of the time(well pretty much all the time) I like seeing movies that are made to entertain, not proclaim to the world: "Look at me, I'm poorly lighted, have self-destructive, unlikeable characters doing things that make no sense, I am ART."

Wrote a long thing, it disappeared because of IE Security, woo. Here's what didn't get wiped though heh:

Oh here's a thought, get over it.

And what influence on society has he had? I mean, sure there was absolutely no such thing as violence before movies and videogames, and especially not in the 30s and earlier. Kill Bill, eventually, will surely influence many people to buy samurai swords and take on the yakuza while cutting off limbs left and right, but as of now? What? You do have a point with The Mummy Returns sticking to tradition with the dull adventure in an exotic locale. Cliche and unoriginal movies are quite popular these days.

Thanks for the Christian CAPA-style essay, next time try writing one on the correlation between Miike Takashi and the downfall and abdundant violence of Japan.

Sarcasm doesn't convey too well in text, does it?

BHK - KB is, well.. It's an art flick - in the sense that it's pretty unconventional - the characters are all likeable despite the fact they're pretty much scum (you can actually thank the conveyance of emotion for that) oh and it's one of the best lit movies of the year (the lighting work, especially in the House of Blue Leaves, is phenomenal). And the flick is there to entertain, no more, no less - those looking for deeper meaning in it are pretty much wasting their time.

Oh well - my own quick ratings:
Kill Bill Volume I - ***1/2 out of ****
The Mummy Returns - ** out of ****
Texas Chainsaw Massacre - have absolutely no interest in seeing.

So, I take it the abudant effect of american society has taken its toll on me since I don't like a Brendan Fraser movie and enjoy one that has a little bit of cartoonish blood in it, oh my.

Well, for one thing, because Roger Ebert has given the thumb up to QT's past abominations, he has to sit through "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" squirming all through the end. I bet the poor sod never undestood that if you allow the QTs of this world to have their way, you have to endure the "Texas Chainsaw Massacres" of this world as well. And then what?

By the way, pardon my ignorance, but what in the hell does BHK mean? The only thing Google comes up with is "Biblica Hebraica Kittel", surely not what you mean.

I was directing it to bhk, the person who responded before me.

And that isn't an effect on society, it's an effect on Roger Ebert.

Sadly, movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre that just recycle an idea without trying to progress it in the least, are more popular than pretty much anything Tarantino has done (His only truly successful movie has been Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill is doing well but not great). Tarantino may make trashy movies - but they're at least unique in this day and age and try to break from the mold. Keep in mind what Roger Ebert thinks is what he thinks, who really cares?

Quentin Tarantino does have talent as a director, it's the content that you seem to object to the most - and that is up wholly to opinion.

Come on guys, I want an essay on Oreo Cookies and how they relate to Tarrenteno.

Tarantino is like an Oreo cookie: tempting but unhealthy.

This has been quite a funny read thus far. Hopefully baracine will be like the bizarro Danol!

I have a question regarding this picture...I just don't get who in the picture is the one getting owned.

I was looking at the rules of Connect Four, and they say: Be the first player to get four of your coloured checkers in a row -horizontally, vertically or diagonally.

Is it the red guy who is owned, because he has already won (in a diagonal win) and doesn't realize it and is still putting a piece in to win again?

Is it the other guy who is owned for not noticing that the red guy has already won, and instead of putting his black chip whever he put it last time could have put it where the red guy appears to be ready to put his red piece, and he could have also won.

Or is one just supposed to see the inevitable win of the red guy ready to put in his final piece to get a vertical connect four?


Sorry. Just really curious.

I don't know...I guess my only response to this thread is...it's a damn movie! Yes it's violent, but it's not some call to order to go out and kill kill kill with samarai swords. First off, to look at art you have to look past content. I don't think Kill Bill is objectionable due to content due to the very nature and style of the film. But even a film like Birth of a Nation has extreme relevance regardless of its obvious racist content. Art is not something derived from the content that it portrays. Now is that content objectionable? In the case of Kill Bill, well, I don't see why it is. It's a cartoonish violent revenge movie. That's what it strived to be, and while I can tell the original poster feels that content is morally reprehensible, I have to ask...do you honestly think that movie, or many others has that much if any social effect? I don't...

Someone needs to check capalert before he goes to the movies next time.

To RichC2: What is Christian CAPA?

To Cartman: Who is Danol?

(I'm from Planet Canada, you see.)

To Muggins: Yes, the black guy is winning. The real question is why did "Tarantino" post this? Is he admitting defeat at my hands or is this some kind of Mafia double-talk meaning I should expect a dead chicken knifed to my front door any time soon?

To Jaeunfraser: Do I honestly think that a movie can have a social effect? I certainly do. We are all being victimized as we speak. Especially considering that Tarantino is just a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants of the art of gore (Peckinpah, Coppola, Scorsese, De Palma, Stone), some of whom have recanted in their old age, some of whom are still going strong, who are themselves standing on an already very impressive pile of shit. The air and the soil aren't the only victims of pollution. Our minds are too.

To BizRodian: Tarantino is like an Oreo cookie: Rich but crumby.

Ok, but what about ****ing? is ****ing ok?

If you mean *****ing, yes. It's the meaning of life. You should take care though that Mr. Tarantino doesn't ***** up your brains.

Have you got any answers to my questions, by the way? This is vital information.

Hey! When did I become "cool" all of a sudden? Is it something I said? Was it the F word?! If so, I object. BizRodian tricked me into saying it!

IS THIS THING ON?!

You're right... the black guy (using the red pieces) should have swung the release hatch and claimed PWNAGE at least 2 moves ago. In this case, the player using the black pieces has been "d0ubl3 pwned" - oblivious to the previous win.

The guy playing with the black pieces has also missed 2 opportunities to connect 4... furthering his @zz b3ing pwned.

Of course, we're assuming they're playing standard rules... that empty pint glass might imply a drinking game of some sort.

After reading only the first page of boloney, I am sick of this thread acting like it's so damn smart, writing numerous ****ing paragraphs of the same bullshit. You all need to move on and get some therapy. That is all.

AND, its sad that a drunken whore has to tell you....

I take it you're with the Tarantino party?

You seem to have an awfully low opinion of your fellow Canadians. How is it that their minds are corrupted yet yours remains as pure as the driven snow?

Roger Ebert doesn't work for the Chicago Tribune, by the way. He works for the Sun-Times.

I have this uncanny ability to see the excrement fly before it hits the fan.

Very good point! Add alcohol to a Connect 4 game and there's no telling what you might get.


I know I've certainly been there.

My initials.

DrunkenWore seems to have emptied this room. Anybody? I'd like to know.