supersoul

Look, if you spend five minutes reflecting on it, you'll see that it's not a contradiction at all. Don't you think the human soul is so complex that it can safely say, "I abhor that violence," yet still be visually fascinated by it? Shall we deny this? Then, what do I know, let’s deny our participation in "Mucchio Selvaggio" when it shoots into the crowd to escape an ambush or in Al Pacino when he robs the bank and holds everyone hostage in "Dog Day Afternoon". This is cinema, guys; it's like wearing a peace symbol on your helmet alongside the words "Born to kill," with that idiot general wanting to point out the contradiction to Joker...

it's ....genetic bjorky! it's age that makes us become bigots....

Well, I didn't want to, but after this priggish rant from bjorky, I feel compelled to intervene. I too abhor the incitement to "genetic" violence by the 300, who are violent not so much to defend their freedom, but precisely because it’s in their blood. However, the film is a visionary diversion and when I went to see it, that's what I expected, not some moral content or to find intelligence or good taste! You say the lack of content is the fault of that fascist Frank Miller, perhaps the director should have stuck to Miller’s solid and dry style instead of diluting it with digressions about power games at court with subterfuge and betrayals!!! This is the film's limitation, not having had the courage to discard this ballast that smells of antiquity and makes it normal and, how can I say, marketable. If it had had the courage of Miller, then yes, the director could have said: I made a visionary work, for which you must enter the cinema with the intention of appreciating the excesses that characterize it. Otherwise, we'll have bjorky's reaction.

In general: doesn’t it ever happen to you to read a bunch of comments and in the end realize that perhaps someone else has said something right that we had never thought about and/or that had slipped our minds, and then maybe our opinion on a film can change, instead of always stubbornly defending our own damn positions as if it were a personal offense that Tarantino isn’t considered a great director who makes great films?

@mien, one thing is the most beautiful, another the most exciting, yet another the most seminal, and always another the coolest. Overall, my vote goes to "Un bacio e una pistola" (Kiss me deadly) by Robert Aldrich from 1955.

galakordi, I go to bed quite late, so I can read your lines more than twice; however, even though you made a significant mental effort (which you find difficult, but you succeeded, well done), they tell me nothing more than what I already thought. I leave the binary connotations to my father, who worked as a locomotive engineer for the state railways; it was clear to him too that puro did not mean beautiful or ugly. The fact remains that Tarantino's citationism has nothing to do with Dada or Futurist purity, and by the intrinsic meaning of "citation," it connects to historical facts and, therefore, to what you call "real reality." Thank you for associating me with the anonymous commentator; perhaps I'll contact them, and we can comment together on your musings before going to bed.

@purpulan mine was meant to be just a (caustic) joke without intending to involve anyone. It's not true that there's bad blood, it's just that we have very different views on cinema in general and in particular, and inevitably we "clash" sometimes. But that doesn't mean that I don't look with interest at his evaluations just as I hope he does with mine.

Is Kill Bill pure cinema? What can I say, I'm glad that Tarantino loves cinema, that he lives it with passion and, why not, with skill, and he’s good at achieving what he set out to achieve. But from this recognition, it’s a different story for me to say it’s pure cinema. Regarding the dialogues, I think you can notice the difference between the alienating and absurd effect of the gangster conversations in "Reservoir Dogs" discussing Madonna’s records and that tired and superfluous speech that Bill/David Carradine gives about Superman and Batman.

don't mind purpulan, it's the question that Poletti keeps asking since the days of John Ford and Howard Hawks, the answer is: The Simpsons.

I totally agree with sadeye.