Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[Alex]

When Tarantino said he wants to "cut the whole thing together like one big movie" I took that to mean re-editing it. But maybe he did just mean essentially showing one right after the other. But if so that wouldn't take any worth beyond pulling the end credits off of one and the front credits off of the other and picking some music to play during intermission.

[CoasterMatt]

I already saw the two films back to back at the kung fu film festival they held at CityWalk last year

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

When Tarantino said he wants to "cut the whole thing together like one big movie" I took that to mean re-editing it.

Hmmm, I suppose it could mean that, though I don't see it in the plain English interpretation.

The film is currently presented out of chronological order ... so any number of re-arrangements is possible. But the current scheme of presentation is hardly random, and I daresay one of the brilliant aspects of Kill Bill is the order of events as presented, not to mention the ways and whens of which the audience discovers the true chronology.

Messing with this structure would do considerable harm to the project, and I would imagine any other structure would be one that Tarantino had already considered ... and rejected.

[€uroMeinke]

I agree that Wally Shawn makes My Dinner with Andre work - you need his exasperation to really bring out the story. I've loved this film through repeated viewings, but that's usually once every 5-years or so, don't think I could see it any more than that.

Mindwalk, I don't think I made it through and all I remember about it, is the setting was cool and I wanted to wear black turtlenecks.

But I do love dialogue, especially fast-paced witty dialogue and the movies that sport it.

[Alex]

I don't know if that is true. When I first saw Kill Bill Vol 2 and saw how it tied in with Vol. 1 I said to Lani that I thought Tarantino had to damage the overall flow to provide standalone parts. So I think recutting them to blend it could be an improvement.

But you're probably right, though I don't know why just reeling them up one after the other would be such an emotional strain that he needed to get away from it all for a while before doing it.

[innerSpaceman]

^ hehe, I think the 'strain' was working on the 'Whole-Bloody-Affair' DVD, which may turn out to have a very differently edited version of the two films.

Bah, I just want the international version of KB V.1 ... and maybe if I wish hard enough and believe strongly enough ...

[Gemini Cricket]

I keep reading my own thread as 'Miscellaneous Movie Mushings'.

I'd like to reiterate my utter devotion to the film 'The Philadelphia Story'. It is superb. Watched it again last night. Faboo, baby!

Does anyone have a favorite period for movies?

I do. I love the movies of the 30's and 40's. I guess that period was heavy with films based on popular plays, maybe that's the attraction. Something glamorous and ideal about those pics.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I keep reading my own thread as 'Miscellaneous Movie Mushings'.

I'd like to reiterate my utter devotion to the film 'The Philadelphia Story'. It is superb. Watched it again last night. Faboo, baby!

Does anyone have a favorite period for movies?

I do. I love the movies of the 30's and 40's. I guess that period was heavy with films based on popular plays, maybe that's the attraction. Something glamorous and ideal about those pics.

1920's to 1940's with some great 1950's tossed in. The glamour certainly has appeal, oh those Adrian gowns!

The silent era for me is very special. Not merely the Valentino connection, although that was a major attraction. Some very good films in this period, very effective and very absorbing.

I have to confess, of the studios in this era, my favorite, by leaps and bounds would be Warner Brothers. As much as I love MGM films, there is a level of sheer superficilality and also self-importance to an MGM film that is not found in a WB flick. Let me qualify, MGM post Thalberg was pretty sticky.

Warners had much more snappy dialogue (always a plus to me), sillier plots in the b-pics, but the gritty more realisic world of Warners is more satisfying. Not to mention the Busby Berkely musicals, pre-code and delicious.

Fox runs a real distant third for me, surprising since Zanuck came to fame at WB, but Fox was all fluff. As pretty as Tyrone Power was, very little substance in a Fox flick, unless it was made by John Ford.

Paramount was a giant in the 20s, though they made more than their share of crap. Bigger stars than anyone in the 20s, lost focus in the sound era and relied too heavily on DeMille (a very successful hack). Dietrich and Von Sternberg were just too weird, however marvelous the films look today, he Scarlett Empress and The Devil is a Woman are still total messes of film, but eye candywise, they're great.

RKO was good, too. How can you not love a studio that brings King Kong and Fred & Ginger?

Now, if you ask about favorite directors..... Billy Wilder, George Stevens, John Huston immediately come to mind. Favorite genre, hmm, that is tougher, but I lean toward noir. It's the snappy dialogue that is the hook for me.

Gah! What got me on my soapbox?

To put this back on track, I'm behind the times and all that, so I just saw Transamerica and Brokeback last night. Quite a double feature!

[Prudence]

I don't know if I could pick one period. I love classic musicals. Sappy, silly, sweet, romantic musicals. (Special bonus for tapping.) Whether Fred and Ginger in the 30s or Gene Kelly in the 50s or gosh, Sound of Music, Music Man, and Mary Poppins were all in the 60s I think....

Now I'm in a quandry - should I watch Brigadoon or the Music Man tonight?

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

To put this back on track, I'm behind the times and all that, so I just saw Transamerica and Brokeback last night. Quite a double feature!

And your reviews, m'dear...?