Galakordi Urtis Krat

thank you for the response joe strummer. then I listened to the record... and I'm listening to it right now. and it’s really a great record.

And by the way, how many steroids did Barbareschi have to pump to act in this film? I imagine a lot.

yes... not... what is this? It reminds me of the scene with Nanni Moretti in Palombella Rossa...

Has Thom Yorke really disowned Hail to the Thief? Without irony or provocation, could you post a comment with at least one source (an interview or something else) where I can check it out for myself?

a film that I acquired and that I need to catch up on, at the very least. I owe it to Kubrick ;-P

Aside from the fact that I don't share and don't support the concept of pure cinema, I don't see why you should involve me... and anyway no, supersoul, it is not pure cinema.

they are always exceptional live.

Ah well, with the opening of this review still in mind, I wonder if the trick is really to make movies as obnoxious as possible, with a tasteless morality and political references that can't be clearer or more obnoxious. It seems that the more infamously things are expressed with garish clarity, the harder the viewer tries to NOT pay attention to them.

anonymous commentator, but indeed I never claimed the greatness of Kill Bill. I just tried to clarify (or rather, to contribute my perspective) on a key concept underlying this film and how it is understood by its own creator. An objective reflection, therefore. It is no coincidence that Kill Bill also represents a turning point in Tarantino's filmography. If we instead talk about taste and preference, the film didn't impress me much either. In some ways, it even disappointed me. But that doesn’t take away from its value, which, in essence, is summed up in the concept that lies at its core, and in the points outlined essentially by vic sorriso a few comments back.

Okay, what if we went back in time for a moment? "Kill Bill is pure cinema" is a statement made by Tarantino, so it obviously has weight as a declaration from "someone like Tarantino." It’s clear that the film in question has nothing to do with either the Dadaists or the Futurists, and of course it wouldn’t. To bring back certain past elements today doesn’t make much sense. However, the definition of pure cinema applied to Kill Bill fits (also to respond to CaptainHowdy) when it refers to a film with solely entertainment purposes. Moreover, a film that exclusively reflects on itself, just like Kill Bill does. The works of Lynch, Kubrick, and Bergman carry a different kind of message. Kill Bill, on the other hand, is "just" a show, and as such, it is "pure" in the sense of "pure entertainment." This is the gap we’ve fallen into. I certainly didn’t mean to start a debate or argue with you, supersoul.