In fact, he prefers the 82 min version called "They Call Her One Eye" with the English dub.
Anyone who likes the extended version should be ashamed of themselves. You know nothing of film appreciation. And don't you dare try to say you learned about this movie on your own and not from Tarantino.
-What you gonna see?
-Something that starts soon and looks good.
i learned this movie on my own through internet, and i like the extended version.
im not ashamed of watching the extended version.
..dont try to get tough with a keyboard
Yeah, the OP is an idiot. Tarantino had nothing to do with me learning about this film whatsoever. The only reason I know that he is in any way connected to it was after I learned about the film and then came to this site. And I love your "don't get try to get tough with a keyboard". Lol
i'm sorry, but i am going to "dare say" that i learned of this movie without tarantino's help. don't get me wrong, i definitely like tarantino's work, and would check out a film he suggested, but there are big fans of exploitation films besides quentin tarantino. as far as your opinion, i watched the uncut version, and i must say, even with the eye gouge and hardcore, overall, this was a kind of poorly done and slow movie. if you want some fun and well done exploitation style films, check out the hanzo the razor series, or the executioner w/ sonny chiba, or danger: diabolik, the list goes on. while i can see why he used the whole eyepatch badass chick thing, all in all, other than the idea, i challenge any film fan to point out anything "special" about this film.. directing, dialogue, violence, editing, all was kind of below par.
share[deleted]
Well, I certainly didn't hear about this from Tarantino 'cause I can't stand his annoying voice among other things.
Who the hell do you thinks is he by the way?
The "Holy *beep* priest of visual morals applied to the art of film-making"?
As far as I am concerned he's just a film geek that's made a fortune out of making a cut-and-paste job and cleverly manipulating other's people work.
I just wonder how good would any of his movies be if he had to work on the same budget as many of his 'heroes' did, and, above all, if he'd keep his, oh so touching, moral scruples intact, even if faced with the prospect of box office failure and complete disinterest by the distributors which, let's face it, it's not something he's ever had to worry about thanks to the massive machine that is licking his posterior on his every movement.
[deleted]
Excuse me? I actually DID know about this film prior to Tarantino referring to it! My father's Swedish and allowed me to see it once I'd turned 18.
I enjoyed both versions and I'm not "ashamed" of myself.
There you go. I dared to disagree with you! Look at me, I'm shaking in my little space boots!
Flowers are essentially tarts; prostitutes for the bees.
[deleted]
Tarantino is a hack who only made one serious film: "Inglorious Bastards" and that was partly because he had an unlimited budget, unlike his heroes/people he ripped off. Watching one of his films only makes me want to re-watch the superior versions of the stuff he copied. films made with heart and soul, instead of with millions of studio dollars. I seriously question the intelligence level of anyone over age 16, who is a fan of this guy...
shareYou "seriously question their intelligence level"? I have a MEng and an MSc (both firsts)and love Tarantino. Still question my intelligence level? By the way, Woody Allen was inspired by Ingmar Bergman and Martin Scorsese by Michael Powell. Many of the great directors take inspiration from their predecessors.
Flowers are essentially tarts; prostitutes for the bees.
No,I'm not questioning your intelligence level. I also like silly things, just because they are still entertaining. I guess I don't understand the whole 'Tarantino' thing. Maybe because i love the films that he is inspired by, so much so, that I don't understand the need to see his inferior (IMO) versions of the same films. you mentioned Bergman; have you seen the film that supposedly influenced "Kill Bill?" It was directed by a man who studied under Bergman, and his no-budget cult film "Thriller" is such a beautiful and subtle work of art. If there is any humor in these old films, it is unintentional, and mostly comes from the fact that they are from the 1970's, unlike Tarantino's films which are intentionally funny and silly. To me his films always seemed to be made for the teen crowd, and for those looking for fast and cheap thrills. I will say that "Inglorious Bastards" is really a fine film, i think his finest to date. It is extremely well-made, and is mostly serious, with a few homourous parts. I was also impressed that he decided to have the actors speaking some French and German, rather than just English, like any other hollywood director would have done. Now that he is a bit older, and has had much practice, i think we will be seeing more intelligent and serious films from this man. I don't doubt his talent, just some his ideas. Sorry to offend..
shareNone taken! You're entitled to your own opinion! My personal favourite Tarantino film was 'Reservoir Dogs' simply for its simplicity: it's all about the script and performances!
But 'Inglorious Bastards' was exactly what I would have expected of him with a higher budget! As a film I found it flawless.
I remember being introduced to 'They Call Her One Eye' by my Swedish father who only knew about it from a close friend, and I absolutely loved it! It was almost like a modern day Western (particularly at the climax!) with its wide panoramic shots and was just generally beautiful to look at. As a female I also found it a little empowering!
Did you know that the original 'Kill Bill' was inended to be one complete film but he was asked to "break it down" into smaller segments for the modern-day audience? It was intended to be a homage to European films such as the original 'Solaris' which ran at 165 minutes!
Helen
Flowers are essentially tarts; prostitutes for the bees.
Oh jeez... who cares what Tarantino prefers! Get off of Tarantino's nuts, watch both versions and decide for YOURSELF which version you like.
shareI have and I did. I just explained that. Thank you.
Flowers are essentially tarts; prostitutes for the bees.
I have and I did. I just explained that. Thank you.
I like the original cut myself. I am also not ashamed.
shareThere's a precedent of very long American epics (well over 165 minutes) that included overtures and intermissions that, effectively, broke them up into two movies intended to be watched consecutively. Most were made in the 50s and 60s (capitalizing on nascent 70mm film stocks, anamorphic-widescreen lenses and 6-track surround-sound technologies) and most were of biblical or other 'swords and sandals' genres. Even beyond that, there are *tons* of American films, from "Gone with the Wind" onward, that run well beyond 165 minutes. "Titanic" came out only a few years before the "Kill Bill" films, and it was over three-hours *without* an intermission.
I'm mean, not to nitpick or anything, but reading that the "Kill Bill" films were intended, in any way, to 'homage' Tarkovsky's "Solaris" has to be one of the most implausible, bewildering things I've ever read ;)
[deleted]
I didn't hear of this film in relation to Tarantino. Although I'm Swedish... But this movie is definitely NOT well-known here anymore. It's forgotten. Extremely few have heard of it, film buffs naturaly excluded.
And I get a bit annoyed by people who say "Tarantino is a hack, but good at stealing/copying and pasteing" or "How hard is it for Tarantino to make a good film when he can take every used idea in the book and put it in his movies".
I have some points to make about that. The first is, there have been millions of films made in history. EVERY movie that's made in modern times are unoriginal and uses MANY ideas that others have used. Pretty much every film made today includes at least a few clichés. Because they work, and because it's freakin' impossible to be totally original. Tarantino uses LESS clichés than most, but he instead uses some specific ideas from his favourite films and directors.
The second is, if Tarantino is so untalanted and only makes good films because he can steal whatever he wants and has a "big" budgets (actually he has much smaller budgets than most studio flicks), why can't just anyone make films like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction? In fact, why don't you yourself go and make one right now, if it's so simple. He's an extremely talented screenwriter, one of the best in the business, and although he hasn't directed anyone elses script I figure he's one of the best active directors in the business also. Although I figure it's easier to direct ones own script.
And Reservoir Dogs had a 1,2 million dollar budget, if you adjust for inflation that's the kind of budget or even lower than some 70's exploitation flicks. And that's one of the great films of all times, and although some plot devices is unoriginal (taken partly from a Yun-Fat Chow film called City on Fire), the film itself is NOTHING like the film people says it rips off. Those who say that probably haven't seen City on Fire, cause the only likenesses are an undercover cop becoming close to a career-criminal (which happens in almost every "undercover cop" movie), a heist (happens in every heist movie), a warehouse rendezvous (happens in a LOT of crime, action and heist films) and a mexican standoff (so common since Reservoir Dogs that it's now a cliché). The plot, the dialogue, the directing, NOTHING is similar. 4 similarities. You can find four similarities between any random two films if you try. The similarities between City on Fire and Reservoir dogs are so general that they could almost be "a car chase, a love scene, a killing and gunfight".
Continuing, Pulp Fiction had a $8M budget. That's a regular indie these days. No studio flick in which the studio has faith goes for under $30 mil these days, not even a romantic frickin' comedy. Jackie Brown went for $12M. So it's not like he's had monster budgets to work with, his two first films which I think both belong in the top 10 of all time, didn't even go for $10 000 000 combined. And that's a hell of a lot better ratio quality/budget than ANY of the exploitation films Tarantino himself like so much. The only director in modern time who's made films even remotely comparable to Tarantino's quality/budget ratio is Guy Ritchie and he's not even close.