Discussion:
Kill Bill: Will it win best picture at the Oscars?
(too old to reply)
David Mills
2003-11-03 15:40:54 UTC
Permalink
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.

-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River

Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.

It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Buckaroo Banzai
2003-11-03 16:01:49 UTC
Permalink
How can you even ask that? We all know that "From Justin to Kelly" is going
to win, and deservedly so... Kill Bill- Don't make me laugh!
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Paulo Joe Jingy
2003-11-03 20:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
How can you even ask that? We all know that "From Justin to Kelly" is going
to win, and deservedly so... Kill Bill- Don't make me laugh!
You must be forgetting that juggernaut, "Gigli". It's in the bag.
The Righteous
2003-11-03 20:58:37 UTC
Permalink
This has to be the most rediculous cross post yet.

Fantasy and Action movies just don't win best picture these days.
Ron
2003-11-03 22:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Righteous
This has to be the most rediculous cross post yet.
Fantasy and Action movies just don't win best picture these days.
When was the last fantasy or action movie that honestly deserved
consideration?

I will not be surprised at all if ROTK takes home some major trophies.

-Ron
RogerM
2003-11-03 23:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by The Righteous
This has to be the most rediculous cross post yet.
Fantasy and Action movies just don't win best picture these days.
When was the last fantasy or action movie that honestly deserved
consideration?
I will not be surprised at all if ROTK takes home some major trophies.
-Ron
Has everyone forgotten 'Gladiator' so soon?

--

Too many sticks, not enough carrots.

"No one ever says Italy" - Hank Scorpio

Name: Santa's Little Helper
Occupation: Butt Doctor
Income: What I finds, I keeps.
massivegrooves
2003-11-04 00:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Post by Ron
Post by The Righteous
This has to be the most rediculous cross post yet.
Fantasy and Action movies just don't win best picture these days.
When was the last fantasy or action movie that honestly deserved
consideration?
I will not be surprised at all if ROTK takes home some major trophies.
-Ron
Has everyone forgotten 'Gladiator' so soon?
Gladiator doesn't really fit in "fantasy or action movie"
Gladiators is more towards realism and historical. It has some action sure,
but that is not the basis of the movie. And it is closer to history/reality
than it is to fantasy.
The Righteous
2003-11-05 07:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by massivegrooves
Post by RogerM
Post by Ron
Post by The Righteous
This has to be the most rediculous cross post yet.
Fantasy and Action movies just don't win best picture these days.
When was the last fantasy or action movie that honestly deserved
consideration?
I will not be surprised at all if ROTK takes home some major trophies.
-Ron
Has everyone forgotten 'Gladiator' so soon?
Gladiator doesn't really fit in "fantasy or action movie"
Gladiators is more towards realism and historical. It has some action sure,
but that is not the basis of the movie. And it is closer to history/reality
than it is to fantasy.
I didn't think gladiator even deserved nomination. I thought it was
excellent action movie, but it really wasn't that historically
accurate. Almost all action movies are based on reality, but rarely
follow it realistically. The gladiator kind of reminds me of Chow Yun
Fat's "The Killer". An action movie that was great in both action and
plot, but not quite Oscar quality. Was it a slow year for movies when
Gladiator was nominated?
Doug Jacobs
2003-11-06 02:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Righteous
I didn't think gladiator even deserved nomination. I thought it was
excellent action movie, but it really wasn't that historically
accurate. Almost all action movies are based on reality, but rarely
follow it realistically. The gladiator kind of reminds me of Chow Yun
Fat's "The Killer". An action movie that was great in both action and
plot, but not quite Oscar quality. Was it a slow year for movies when
Gladiator was nominated?
I don't think it was, but Gladiator obviously spent the most money among
the competitors...

It got to the point where you'd see an ad for the movie during every
commercial break!
G. M. Watson
2003-11-04 03:30:05 UTC
Permalink
----------
Post by Ron
Post by The Righteous
This has to be the most rediculous cross post yet.
Fantasy and Action movies just don't win best picture these days.
When was the last fantasy or action movie that honestly deserved
consideration?
I will not be surprised at all if ROTK takes home some major trophies.
As a sort of cumulative consolation prize for Jackson's first two
hyper-revisionist Tolkien-for-dummies abominations being passed over, I
would not be surprised at all to see ROTK win Best Picture and Best
Director. The mere contemplation of such an atrocity makes me want to feed
myself to a Balrog, but there's nothing I can do to stop the workings of
merciless fate, I fear. May the Valar turn it aside...
The Hollywood List
2003-11-03 21:38:07 UTC
Permalink
It is a good film but it DOES have SOME competition.

THE LIST
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
How can you even ask that? We all know that "From Justin to Kelly" is going
to win, and deservedly so... Kill Bill- Don't make me laugh!
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
zach
2003-11-03 23:02:07 UTC
Permalink
YGTBKM!
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
How can you even ask that? We all know that "From Justin to Kelly" is going
to win, and deservedly so... Kill Bill- Don't make me laugh!
IAWTP.
Giftzwerg
2003-11-03 16:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Yeeeah, kung-fu pics have a rich history of best picture Oscars...
--
Giftzwerg
***
"[A] coalition of nations--including France, Germany and Canada--
mounted a massive air war against Serbia a few years ago without
Security Council authorization, under President Clinton's leadership.
There was no 'imminence' of attack on any allied nation, nor did Serbia
represent a threat to anyone outside her own borders. Why the reversal
of policy when Iraq was involved, with the same nations piously
insisting that Security Council approval had to be obtained before
any military action could be initiated--and that the absence of any
such approval had rendered illegitimate any military action against
Saddam Hussein?"
- Brian Mulroney
Dlehmicke
2003-11-03 16:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Anybody who doesn't fall asleep at night jacking off to a poster of chin boy.
RogerM
2003-11-03 18:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
If this post is serious, you are clearly an idiot.
Post by David Mills
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
PF was better, yes.

--

Too many sticks, not enough carrots.

"No one ever says Italy" - Hank Scorpio

Name: Santa's Little Helper
Occupation: Butt Doctor
Income: What I finds, I keeps.
Ron
2003-11-03 18:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Taking this thread more seriously than it deserves:

Of the pictures released thus far, Mystic River and Lost in Translation
will get nominated. LOTR: ROTK will be nominated.

And you've got to realize that Oscar season hasn't even started yet.
There will be a bunch of films released late in the year (which get the
bulk of their run in January) for the sake of getting attention as well
as other more serious pictures.

e.g. The Girl in the Pearl Earring, The Company, House of Sand and Fog,
Cold Mountain, etc.

Kill Bill will have to be lucky to do more than pick up a few technical
nominations. Tarantino has an outside shot at a directorial nom, but
that's more a function of his name than the film. Cinematography and
Editing seem likely choices.
Dlehmicke
2003-11-03 20:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Of the pictures released thus far, Mystic River and Lost in Translation
will get nominated. LOTR: ROTK will be nominated.
I'll be sad if LiT gets nominated. Saw it, didn't hate it, liked Bill and
little squeezemeat Scarlett, but I won't see it again. Poor little girl
married a snorer, displayed admirable morals as did Bill, mostly. Nothing
Oscar there, in my opinion. Biggest thing this film has going for it is that
Woody Allen would never understand it if he saw it 100 times.
JAWS: BUFFET
2003-11-03 19:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Mystic River
LOTR

++++++
Hollywood is nothing but money.
teddd
2003-11-03 21:03:31 UTC
Permalink
You've gone nuts, I love Tarentino and it's a great flick but it won't
even get a nomination. I'm also sure that there will be more
contenders realeased in December.
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Franklin Harris
2003-11-03 21:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it.
Beating it? It won't even be nominated.
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get
is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh,
oooh, the sky is the limit!" -- The Tick
Skye
2003-11-03 23:10:52 UTC
Permalink
And David Mills continues to be a cocksmoker.
Post by Franklin Harris
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it.
Beating it? It won't even be nominated.
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get
is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh,
oooh, the sky is the limit!" -- The Tick
massivegrooves
2003-11-04 00:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skye
And David Mills continues to be a cocksmoker.
IAWTP!!!!
Post by Skye
Post by Franklin Harris
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it.
Beating it? It won't even be nominated.
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get
is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh,
oooh,
Post by Franklin Harris
oooh, the sky is the limit!" -- The Tick
nmstevens
2003-11-03 21:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Presuming that you're not joking -- I don't think there's a chance in
hell that "Kill Bill" will win Best Picture. I think that it's a big,
big stretch for it even to be nominated for Best Picture. It's got
mixed reviews, it's only half a movie, it's extremely violent,
Tarantino's star isn't shining nearly as brightly as it was ten years
ago -- and frankly, this isn't as interesting a movie as "Pulp
Fiction".

NMS
JAWS: BUFFET
2003-11-04 00:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Straight up. I am a big QT fan, but I must admit I would be a little
upset if KB won best picture. I read the screenplay and knew it would
be QT's first pickle.
I really think the only reason it was written was because of the Matrix.
At the same time KB could have been great if a good editor had a little
more say so. Even my favorite writer SK did better with a good editor.
I still have not finished Bag Of Bones. There are brilliant scenes in
that book, but some parts are a little too drawn out for me.

++++++
Hollywood is nothing but money.
Tony Spadaro
2003-11-03 22:29:14 UTC
Permalink
I predict that a movie will win the best picture award. I also predict
it will be a movie released this year. I also predict that it will not
matter a hangnail to anyone but celebrity groupies like you.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Marie A.
2003-11-04 00:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
I often wonder if any of those self-absorbed twits in your business
realize just how few people actually give a damn about these matters?
Or that fewer still even bother to watch this vile trash? The Oscars
amount to little more than a giant masturbation party thrown by what
would have been our "odd uncles" and village idiots in an earlier age.

Cordially, Marie
Ron
2003-11-04 01:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marie A.
I often wonder if any of those self-absorbed twits in your business
realize just how few people actually give a damn about these matters?
Or that fewer still even bother to watch this vile trash?
Actually, the Oscars are usually the second-most-watched television show
in a given year. Last year was an unusually low-rated year, but still
over 1 in seven people in this country watched it. Normally, that number
is closer to 1 in 5.

If this fits any definition of "how few people" watch the show, I wonder
what you think qualifies as an event that a lot of people pay attention
to. Only the Super Bowl is usually watched by more.

-Ron
Belgian Waffle
2003-11-04 02:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
If this fits any definition of "how few people" watch the show, I wonder
what you think qualifies as an event that a lot of people pay attention
to. Only the Super Bowl is usually watched by more.
how about the World Cup Final and the Olympics?

the one person besides Jack Valenti i know is a voter explained his
primary criteria in the acting awards as "i vote for my friends, the
people they're dating, and then the people my friends have broken up
with."

i enjoy the Oscars, and some movies come to my attention through the
Oscars, the BAFTA awards, and the Screen Actors Guild awards that i
wouldn't hear about otherwise. so to me they're good for something,
but i really can't take awards voted on by Denis Leary all that
seriously.

BW
Ron
2003-11-04 05:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Belgian Waffle
Post by Ron
If this fits any definition of "how few people" watch the show, I wonder
what you think qualifies as an event that a lot of people pay attention
to. Only the Super Bowl is usually watched by more.
how about the World Cup Final and the Olympics?
There's no one Olympic event that draws those kind of numbers with any
consistency, and the World Cup Final doesn't do nearly that well in this
country (which is a shame, but that's another post).

-Ron
Doug Jacobs
2003-11-04 23:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Belgian Waffle
Post by Ron
If this fits any definition of "how few people" watch the show, I wonder
what you think qualifies as an event that a lot of people pay attention
to. Only the Super Bowl is usually watched by more.
how about the World Cup Final and the Olympics?
I think he was referring to just the US audience, which doesn't follow
soccer, and thanks to NBC's horrible "coverage", most Americans don't get
to see much of the Olympics at all.
MC
2003-11-04 03:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marie A.
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
I often wonder if any of those self-absorbed twits in your business
realize just how few people actually give a damn about these matters?
Or that fewer still even bother to watch this vile trash? The Oscars
amount to little more than a giant masturbation party thrown by what
would have been our "odd uncles" and village idiots in an earlier age.
Ahem... how many people watch it every year?

Hundreds of millions -- if not billions -- worldwide.

So... um... well... there's your answer.
Doug Jacobs
2003-11-04 23:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC
Ahem... how many people watch it every year?
Hundreds of millions -- if not billions -- worldwide.
So... um... well... there's your answer.
So if millions, if not billions, decided to jump off a cliff, I suppose
you'd be right there in line with them? ;)

Last year's Oscars was the first time I ever watched the silly thing -
mainly because my girlfriend wanted to see it.

I personally don't understand the whole celebrity worship thing...
Dave Hannes
2003-11-05 04:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marie A.
I often wonder if any of those self-absorbed twits in your business
realize just how few people actually give a damn about these matters?
Or that fewer still even bother to watch this vile trash? The Oscars
amount to little more than a giant masturbation party thrown by what
would have been our "odd uncles" and village idiots in an earlier age.
Cordially, Marie
I lost all respect for "the Academy" once "American Beauty" won best
picture. AB is now 5th on my all time worst movie list:
1. Cabin Boy
2. Mom and Dad Save the Planet
3. Magnolia
4. Judge Dredd
5. American Beauty
6. Peggy Sue Got Married Tonight

Plus I can't imagine a better performance than Sean Penn in "I am Sam."

D
Richard Edwards
2003-11-05 13:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Hannes
I lost all respect for "the Academy" once "American Beauty" won best
Keep in mind, however, that many people love American Beauty. You're
entitled to your option, but I think it's silly to be pissed off at the
majority when they disagree with you.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm pretty damn sure this isn't
the case of the academy having their own pet movie that the public
doesn't get. This was also a fan favorite (in general).

Later,
Richard
Ted
2003-11-05 21:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Dave Hannes wrote:
snip
Post by Dave Hannes
I lost all respect for "the Academy" once "American Beauty" won best
1. Cabin Boy
2. Mom and Dad Save the Planet
3. Magnolia
4. Judge Dredd
5. American Beauty
6. Peggy Sue Got Married Tonight
You also need to see more movies (altho I can understand why you might
be afraid to after Mom and Dad Save the World).
Of course, I might think that because I'd say Cabin Boy is a unique and
good comedy. I think it was the funniest movie of its season, but I'd
need to see a list to be sure...
I've seen all the movies on your list except Magnolia, and honestly,
none of them deserve to be on an objectively horrible film list (this
doesn't mean they can't be on the list of movies you hate most; I loathe
Requiem for a Dream, even tho I understand that it's not a terrible
movie objectively) except Mom and Dad Save the World (and if you were a
big fan of the comic, then maybe Judge Dredd, altho for non-fans it
wasn't such a bad movie).
jimpgh2002
2003-11-04 01:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
You're joking, right? No way in hell it even gets nominated.
The Magnificent Bastard
2003-11-04 01:17:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:16:11 GMT, in rec.sport.football.fantasy,
jimpgh2002 puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again.
It does this whenever it's told -
Post by jimpgh2002
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
You're joking, right? No way in hell it even gets nominated.
Don't feed the trolls.
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2003 ©

http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
Mike1
2003-11-04 05:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by jimpgh2002
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
You're joking, right? No way in hell it even gets nominated.
M&C looks like the competition to beat: It's being introduced in the
"sweet spot" of the year, looks like a rousing story, and ought to clean
house at the box office.

But IF it fumbles, not only will Kill Bill be nominated, I predict it
will win. (Eastwood's already received a Best Picture for "Unforgiven",
so the Academy isn't under any pressure to "owe" him anything.)

LotR will pull 'em in, but Jackson is a 'B'-quality director; it'll be a
good film, but not 'Best'.
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Shilling4Jesus
2003-11-04 06:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
you forgot to crosspost to the howard & wwf newsgroups.

oh yeah, btw..

HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
(you're a crackhead)
Howard Aubrey
2003-11-04 13:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Hey, 'Pukes with Wolves' beat 'Goodfellas'.

The Academy likes Eastwood and dislikes Tarantino.

The awards are a sham, and always have been.

cheers....

HJA
Smaug69
2003-11-04 14:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
And just what would those be?
Post by David Mills
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
The same people who voted for Forrest Gump will be voting for the
Oscars again this year. Do you think they would even consider Kill
Bill? It will not get nominated. I guarantee it.

First, Kill Bill is not the kind of film that academy members
consider. Wild Bunch was an awesome film, but it never had a chance
either. They'll go for an epic period piece that has some violence
like Braveheart or Gladiator, but not a blood-soaked homage to the
martial arts films of the 1970s.

Second, it's the first part of a two-parter. Tarantino arbitrarily cut
his film into two parts and it shows.

Third, it isn't all that good, especially when compared to Pulp
Fiction or Jackie Brown.

Smaug69
G. M. Watson
2003-11-04 19:31:19 UTC
Permalink
----------
Post by Smaug69
The same people who voted for Forrest Gump will be voting for the
Oscars again this year. Do you think they would even consider Kill
Bill? It will not get nominated. I guarantee it.
First, Kill Bill is not the kind of film that academy members
consider. Wild Bunch was an awesome film, but it never had a chance
either. They'll go for an epic period piece that has some violence
like Braveheart or Gladiator, but not a blood-soaked homage to the
martial arts films of the 1970s.
Second, it's the first part of a two-parter. Tarantino arbitrarily cut
his film into two parts and it shows.
It wasn't Tarantino's decision. Harvey Weinstein demanded it, fearing
(possibly correctly) that the attention span of the average American
moviegoer is now so short that by the end of a 3-hour film they'd have
forgotten its first two hours. Or simply refused to go see it. Or something.
Thereby once more proving H.L. Mencken's dictum: "No one ever went broke by
underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Jacques E. Bouchard
2003-11-04 20:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by G. M. Watson
It wasn't Tarantino's decision. Harvey Weinstein demanded it, fearing
(possibly correctly) that the attention span of the average American
moviegoer is now so short that by the end of a 3-hour film they'd have
forgotten its first two hours. Or simply refused to go see it. Or
something. Thereby once more proving H.L. Mencken's dictum: "No one
ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American
public."
It has got to be the epitome of irony that a movie without plot
composed almost entirely of loud music, fights and action scenes, is
being held up as a model of intellectual superiority above the level of
the attention deficient.



jaybee
Smaug69
2003-11-05 02:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by G. M. Watson
----------
Post by Smaug69
The same people who voted for Forrest Gump will be voting for the
Oscars again this year. Do you think they would even consider Kill
Bill? It will not get nominated. I guarantee it.
First, Kill Bill is not the kind of film that academy members
consider. Wild Bunch was an awesome film, but it never had a chance
either. They'll go for an epic period piece that has some violence
like Braveheart or Gladiator, but not a blood-soaked homage to the
martial arts films of the 1970s.
Second, it's the first part of a two-parter. Tarantino arbitrarily cut
his film into two parts and it shows.
It wasn't Tarantino's decision. Harvey Weinstein demanded it,
Well, it depends on who you hear it from. From what I heard Tarantino
refused to cut anything of significance and was thus put into a
position of having to cut it into two parts. Tarantino never had any
intentions of splitting the film into to two parts when he envisoned
it and then made it, otherwise it would have been an entirely
different animal.

Smaug69
John Harkness
2003-11-05 02:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smaug69
Post by G. M. Watson
----------
Post by Smaug69
The same people who voted for Forrest Gump will be voting for the
Oscars again this year. Do you think they would even consider Kill
Bill? It will not get nominated. I guarantee it.
First, Kill Bill is not the kind of film that academy members
consider. Wild Bunch was an awesome film, but it never had a chance
either. They'll go for an epic period piece that has some violence
like Braveheart or Gladiator, but not a blood-soaked homage to the
martial arts films of the 1970s.
Second, it's the first part of a two-parter. Tarantino arbitrarily cut
his film into two parts and it shows.
It wasn't Tarantino's decision. Harvey Weinstein demanded it,
Well, it depends on who you hear it from. From what I heard Tarantino
refused to cut anything of significance and was thus put into a
position of having to cut it into two parts. Tarantino never had any
intentions of splitting the film into to two parts when he envisoned
it and then made it, otherwise it would have been an entirely
different animal.
Smaug69
With a couple of notes -- the first is Tarantino's comment that when
Harvey told him he had to cut it in to "I knew exactly how to do it"
-- and that we will get the original, full length cut of the film on
DVD, it's been announced.

John Harkness
Smaug69
2003-11-05 14:17:08 UTC
Permalink
John Harkness <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...

<snip>
Post by John Harkness
Post by Smaug69
Well, it depends on who you hear it from. From what I heard Tarantino
refused to cut anything of significance and was thus put into a
position of having to cut it into two parts. Tarantino never had any
intentions of splitting the film into to two parts when he envisoned
it and then made it, otherwise it would have been an entirely
different animal.
Smaug69
With a couple of notes -- the first is Tarantino's comment that when
Harvey told him he had to cut it in to "I knew exactly how to do it"
He had to scramble to cut it into two intelligible parts after the
fact. If he had envisioned it as two parts from the start it would
have been quite a bit different.
Post by John Harkness
-- and that we will get the original, full length cut of the film on
DVD, it's been announced.
Well, it's obvious we will get the full cut on DVD. I mean, that's
what DVD is all about. It would be really stupid just to release what
was supposed to be a single uncut film in two parts on DVD.

Smaug69
stace
2003-11-05 16:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smaug69
<snip>
Post by John Harkness
Post by Smaug69
Well, it depends on who you hear it from. From what I heard Tarantino
refused to cut anything of significance and was thus put into a
position of having to cut it into two parts. Tarantino never had any
intentions of splitting the film into to two parts when he envisoned
it and then made it, otherwise it would have been an entirely
different animal.
Smaug69
With a couple of notes -- the first is Tarantino's comment that when
Harvey told him he had to cut it in to "I knew exactly how to do it"
He had to scramble to cut it into two intelligible parts after the
fact. If he had envisioned it as two parts from the start it would
have been quite a bit different.
Post by John Harkness
-- and that we will get the original, full length cut of the film on
DVD, it's been announced.
Well, it's obvious we will get the full cut on DVD. I mean, that's
what DVD is all about. It would be really stupid just to release what
was supposed to be a single uncut film in two parts on DVD.
Smaug69
Right.

Because no company would ever make people pay for something twice that they
should have only had to pay for once.

Sorry - Kill Bill's already named for two separate releases. Volumes One and
Two.

Expect it.

stace
Geezer From The Freezer
2003-11-05 16:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by stace
Right.
Because no company would ever make people pay for something twice that they
should have only had to pay for once.
Sorry - Kill Bill's already named for two separate releases. Volumes One and
Two.
Expect it.
yep expect it or wait a while for them to release it as one (Special / Directors
Edition). Thats why I am waiting from now on, for big releases.

There ain't no way I'm buying the first DVD releases of Matrix
Reloaded/Revolutions,
X-Men 2 or Terminator 3, as I know there are other special/ultimate editions
to follow later, and I can wait!
Ron
2003-11-05 18:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by stace
Because no company would ever make people pay for something twice that they
should have only had to pay for once.
Sorry - Kill Bill's already named for two separate releases. Volumes One and
Two.
We'll get Vol 1 in the stores on DVD in time to help hype the second
one. Then we'll get volume two about six months later.

And I'll put solid money on us getting a recut-as-one-film version
about a year after that.

It's not about making people pay twice. It's about making them pay
thrice.
stace
2003-11-05 19:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by stace
Because no company would ever make people pay for something twice that they
should have only had to pay for once.
Sorry - Kill Bill's already named for two separate releases. Volumes One and
Two.
We'll get Vol 1 in the stores on DVD in time to help hype the second
one. Then we'll get volume two about six months later.
And I'll put solid money on us getting a recut-as-one-film version
about a year after that.
It's not about making people pay twice. It's about making them pay
thrice.
I stand, most humbly corrected. There's no doubt you're right.

stace
Jacques E. Bouchard
2003-11-05 22:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by stace
Because no company would ever make people pay for something twice
that they should have only had to pay for once.
Sorry - Kill Bill's already named for two separate releases. Volumes
One and Two.
We'll get Vol 1 in the stores on DVD in time to help hype the second
one. Then we'll get volume two about six months later.
And I'll put solid money on us getting a recut-as-one-film version
about a year after that.
It's not about making people pay twice. It's about making them pay
thrice.
Or four times, as will be the case with LOTR.



jaybee
Geezer From The Freezer
2003-11-06 10:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques E. Bouchard
Or four times, as will be the case with LOTR.
jaybee
four times?
Jacques E. Bouchard
2003-11-06 16:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geezer From The Freezer
Post by Jacques E. Bouchard
Or four times, as will be the case with LOTR.
jaybee
four times?
One DVD for each movie, plus the final "special edition" boxed
set when they've all been released. Specially formatted to be viewed in
parents' basements. ;-)




jaybee
~consul
2003-11-12 00:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques E. Bouchard
One DVD for each movie, plus the final "special edition" boxed
set when they've all been released. Specially formatted to be viewed in
parents' basements. ;-)
It comes with it's own IV drip and stand so you don't have to leave. (Catheter
optional)
--
"When the darkness comes, those who once lived in the shadows will need to guide
the lost ones."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
***@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
Smaug69
2003-11-06 16:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques E. Bouchard
Post by Ron
Post by stace
Because no company would ever make people pay for something twice
that they should have only had to pay for once.
Sorry - Kill Bill's already named for two separate releases. Volumes
One and Two.
We'll get Vol 1 in the stores on DVD in time to help hype the second
one. Then we'll get volume two about six months later.
And I'll put solid money on us getting a recut-as-one-film version
about a year after that.
It's not about making people pay twice. It's about making them pay
thrice.
Or four times, as will be the case with LOTR.
Actually, with LOTR, it's more like 7 times. The 3 theatrical
releases, the 3 extended editions and the inevitable king kamehaha
supersized gigantimus ~10 disc box set supreme.

However, the difference between LOTR and Kill Bill is that LOTR was
originally set up to be 3 separate films that tell a single story. We
knew that right from the start not only because they announced it that
way for the films, but the story had been divided into three parts in
book form since it was first published in the 1950s. So I have no
problem buying all the DVD releases because I want the two versions of
each film and I want it all in one complete set when they get around
to it.

Kill Bill, OTOH, did a last minute switcherino and split a single film
into two arbitrary parts after the fact. I refuse to buy KB in two
parts on DVD so I will wait for the complete box set.

Smaug69
Smaug69
2003-11-06 14:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by stace
Post by Smaug69
<snip>
Post by John Harkness
Post by Smaug69
Well, it depends on who you hear it from. From what I heard Tarantino
refused to cut anything of significance and was thus put into a
position of having to cut it into two parts. Tarantino never had any
intentions of splitting the film into to two parts when he envisoned
it and then made it, otherwise it would have been an entirely
different animal.
Smaug69
With a couple of notes -- the first is Tarantino's comment that when
Harvey told him he had to cut it in to "I knew exactly how to do it"
He had to scramble to cut it into two intelligible parts after the
fact. If he had envisioned it as two parts from the start it would
have been quite a bit different.
Post by John Harkness
-- and that we will get the original, full length cut of the film on
DVD, it's been announced.
Well, it's obvious we will get the full cut on DVD. I mean, that's
what DVD is all about. It would be really stupid just to release what
was supposed to be a single uncut film in two parts on DVD.
Smaug69
Right.
Because no company would ever make people pay for something twice that they
should have only had to pay for once.
Sorry - Kill Bill's already named for two separate releases. Volumes One and
Two.
Expect it.
I do. But I also expect to see both films spliced back into one part
and released on DVD and that is the only one I will purchase. There's
really no point to buying the separate releases.

Smaug69
Marc
2003-11-06 14:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smaug69
But I also expect to see both films spliced back into one part
and released on DVD
The universe, and all those who reside in it, probably don't care about
what you expect. You might want to check with those in charge.
--
Marc Lombart 06/11/2003 09:57:20 http://www.marcmywords.com

' 'Tis a brave man who wears the kilt in January.' --Scottish saying
Smaug69
2003-11-06 20:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc
Post by Smaug69
But I also expect to see both films spliced back into one part
and released on DVD
The universe, and all those who reside in it, probably don't care about
what you expect. You might want to check with those in charge.
It's already been confirmed. Sorry to disappoint you.

Smaug69
Marc
2003-11-07 04:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smaug69
It's already been confirmed. Sorry to disappoint you.
You didn't disappoint me.
--
Marc Lombart 06/11/2003 23:01:30 http://www.marcmywords.com

No President of the United States was an only child.Though in some cases we
wish their siblings had been.
josh
2003-11-04 22:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smaug69
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it. There are a couple that have a
chance.
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
And just what would those be?
Post by David Mills
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
The same people who voted for Forrest Gump will be voting for the
Oscars again this year. Do you think they would even consider Kill
Bill? It will not get nominated. I guarantee it.
First, Kill Bill is not the kind of film that academy members
consider. Wild Bunch was an awesome film, but it never had a chance
either. They'll go for an epic period piece that has some violence
like Braveheart or Gladiator, but not a blood-soaked homage to the
martial arts films of the 1970s.
Second, it's the first part of a two-parter. Tarantino arbitrarily cut
his film into two parts and it shows.
Third, it isn't all that good, especially when compared to Pulp
Fiction or Jackie Brown.
Smaug69
Kill Bill can go in to the category of ultra-violent films to get
snuffed, the same category that The Gangs of New York, and Saving
Private Ryan filled. While Tarantino may have deserved and award in
the past, although he and Roger Avary did win for screenplay in 94',
this does not have that Tarantino flair as far as dialogue goes.
Also, the film's audience seems to be a little narrower with this one,
even though it has seen a better share of commercial acceptance as far
as his other films go. I'd be really surprised if a Tarantino Kung-fu
film won best picture.
James Neibaur
2003-11-04 23:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by josh
I'd be really surprised if a Tarantino Kung-fu
film won best picture.
At this point, it would seem Mystic River is the type of movie Academy
voters like to embrace as Best Picture.

Personally, I would like to see something at least slightly offbeat like
Lost In Translation be considered.

JN
b
2003-11-04 20:47:42 UTC
Permalink
ROTK will win because hollywood will reward jackson for ALL THREE
films. the LOTR epic stands equal to any film ever made. as a trilogy,
it has no equal.

kill bill is a simple revenge movie built around the asian genre.
massivegrooves
2003-11-05 00:36:07 UTC
Permalink
I am hoping they reward ROTK (LOTR), be it on its own or as a collective
award for all three...whatever. Those deserve much more than they have seen
thus far, like some editing or sound or whatever they have gotten.
Post by b
ROTK will win because hollywood will reward jackson for ALL THREE
films. the LOTR epic stands equal to any film ever made. as a trilogy,
it has no equal.
kill bill is a simple revenge movie built around the asian genre.
Dave Hannes
2003-11-05 04:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it.
You need to watch more movies.
Post by David Mills
There are a couple that have a
chance.
More like 20.
Post by David Mills
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
First off, it has almost no real story. Plus the Academy consists of old
farts that hate violence.
Post by David Mills
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Don't get me wrong...I liked "Kill Bill"--its just not THAT good.

D
H
2003-11-06 05:04:25 UTC
Permalink
You don't have to be THAT good to win best picture. The Academy taste is so
narrow that Kill Bill does not stand a chance in Hell. Movies like that will
never win Best Picture. Ever. Unfortunately.

.H.
Post by Dave Hannes
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it.
You need to watch more movies.
Post by David Mills
There are a couple that have a
chance.
More like 20.
Post by David Mills
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
First off, it has almost no real story. Plus the Academy consists of old
farts that hate violence.
Post by David Mills
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Don't get me wrong...I liked "Kill Bill"--its just not THAT good.
D
Dingus Khan
2003-11-06 18:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by H
You don't have to be THAT good to win best picture. The Academy taste is so
narrow that Kill Bill does not stand a chance in Hell. Movies like that will
never win Best Picture. Ever. Unfortunately.
.H.
Good point. It's always fruity-assed shit like, "The English
Patient", "Steel Magnolias", "Terms of Endearment" (the only one of
these I actually saw), Thelma and Louise", and "Fried Green Tomatoes".
Apparently, a bunch of Dick Vermeil clones are doing the voting.

Wick
Post by H
Post by Dave Hannes
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it.
You need to watch more movies.
Post by David Mills
There are a couple that have a
chance.
More like 20.
Post by David Mills
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
First off, it has almost no real story. Plus the Academy consists of old
farts that hate violence.
Post by David Mills
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Don't get me wrong...I liked "Kill Bill"--its just not THAT good.
D
WRabkin
2003-11-06 19:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dingus Khan
Good point. It's always fruity-assed shit like, "The English
Patient", "Steel Magnolias", "Terms of Endearment" (the only one of
these I actually saw), Thelma and Louise", and "Fried Green Tomatoes".
Maybe you should actually see some of these movies before you start spouting
off about them. Aside from the fact that at least two films on your list were
NOT nominated for Best Picture, a third, The English Patient, has nothing in
common with any of the ones listed above. It's a dark, powerful, oblique film
full of violence and deception, about a zillion times more sophisticated than
Kill Bill.
Cadet Grey
2003-11-06 20:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Of the films you name, only "The English Patient" and "Terms of
Endearment" won the Best Picture Oscar.

Let's not forget that the Academy also gave Best Picture Oscars
to other sentimental fluff like "The Godfather", "The Godfather,
Part II", "Patton", "The French Connection", "The Deer Hunter",
"Platoon", "Midnight Cowboy", "Unforgiven", "Schindler's List",
"Gladiator", and those two ultimate chick flicks, "Braveheart" and
"The Silence of the Lambs".

- Grey
Post by Dingus Khan
Good point. It's always fruity-assed shit like, "The English
Patient", "Steel Magnolias", "Terms of Endearment" (the only one of
these I actually saw), Thelma and Louise", and "Fried Green Tomatoes".
Apparently, a bunch of Dick Vermeil clones are doing the voting.
R. Cohen
2003-11-07 15:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cadet Grey
Of the films you name, only "The English Patient" and "Terms of
Endearment" won the Best Picture Oscar.
Let's not forget that the Academy also gave Best Picture Oscars
to other sentimental fluff like "The Godfather", "The Godfather,
Part II", "Patton", "The French Connection", "The Deer Hunter",
"Platoon", "Midnight Cowboy", "Unforgiven", "Schindler's List",
"Gladiator", and those two ultimate chick flicks, "Braveheart" and
"The Silence of the Lambs".
- Grey
Very good point. But I still don't think Kill Bill stands a chance in
hell. It's a very entertaining film but it is very narrow in focus
and appeal. The extreme bloodletting is NOT for everyone. It's funny
and it's campy but I don't think it's good enough to be "best
picture". I don't have any problem with the list above except maybe
for Gladiator. I think every film on that list above was better then
Kill Bill
Post by Cadet Grey
Post by Dingus Khan
Good point. It's always fruity-assed shit like, "The English
Patient", "Steel Magnolias", "Terms of Endearment" (the only one of
these I actually saw), Thelma and Louise", and "Fried Green Tomatoes".
Apparently, a bunch of Dick Vermeil clones are doing the voting.
Mike1
2003-11-07 10:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by H
You don't have to be THAT good to win best picture. The Academy taste is so
narrow that Kill Bill does not stand a chance in Hell. Movies like that will
never win Best Picture. Ever. Unfortunately.
Until "Unforgiven", nobody ever thought a western would win.
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Stephen Cooke
2003-11-07 13:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike1
Post by H
You don't have to be THAT good to win best picture. The Academy taste is so
narrow that Kill Bill does not stand a chance in Hell. Movies like that will
never win Best Picture. Ever. Unfortunately.
Until "Unforgiven", nobody ever thought a western would win.
Define "nobody".

Then find a copy of Cimarron.

swac
Mike1
2003-11-10 07:13:31 UTC
Permalink
In article
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1031107091758.18119A-***@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>
,
Post by Stephen Cooke
Post by Mike1
Post by H
You don't have to be THAT good to win best picture. The Academy taste is so
narrow that Kill Bill does not stand a chance in Hell. Movies like that will
never win Best Picture. Ever. Unfortunately.
Until "Unforgiven", nobody ever thought a western would win.
Define "nobody".
Then find a copy of Cimarron.
Well, OK. A western within the last seventy years.
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Cadet Grey
2003-11-07 16:35:39 UTC
Permalink
When you take into account the Academy's voting procedures, an Oscar
win is not necessarily an endorsement by the majority of the members.
Of the five films, you could theoretically win with only 20.01% of the
vote (three of the other nominees get 20% each, the fourth gets 19.99%).

The nominations themselves are actually a more statistically accurate
indicator of the Academy's tastes because they presumably show the
range of films that garnered enough support (by fair means or foul) to
get into the top five.

- Grey
Post by H
You don't have to be THAT good to win best picture. The Academy taste is so
narrow that Kill Bill does not stand a chance in Hell. Movies like that will
never win Best Picture. Ever. Unfortunately.
.H.
Post by Dave Hannes
Post by David Mills
I don't see anything beating it.
You need to watch more movies.
Post by David Mills
There are a couple that have a
chance.
More like 20.
Post by David Mills
-Master and Commander
-Lord of the Rings
-Mystic River
Other than those, I don't think anything will be able to touch Kill
Bill for best picture, not to mention all of the other awards it will
win.
First off, it has almost no real story. Plus the Academy consists of old
farts that hate violence.
Post by David Mills
It is cool to see that about 10 years after Tarantino got screwed by
not winning best picture for Pulp Fiction, he will get what he
deserves by winning best picture for Kill Bill. Justice is serverd.
Who could possibly think that Forrest Gump was better than Pulp
Fiction in the first place?
Don't get me wrong...I liked "Kill Bill"--its just not THAT good.
D
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...