Previous Comments

[1] On Feb-14-2004, Tarantino Fan wrote:

Fuck King!

[2] On Feb-14-2004, WeeDDawGG wrote:

King and Kill Bill sharing khef?! It's come as a storm bearing on the farm. Ka...

[3] On Feb-14-2004, Tim Of Ladies wrote:

It's the Man's opinon. so what. he didn't like it.

[4] On Feb-14-2004, weeddawgg wrote:

King and Kill Bill sharing the same khef?! It's come as a storm bearing on the farm. "Ka." said WeeD. Doc nodded.

[5] On Feb-14-2004, Bodgeka wrote:

You know, I hate to sound like a film snob, but there is a whole point to the "THE 4TH FILM BY QUENTIN TARANTINO" credit giving right after the "bang". It's an important credit to go along with what the movie is. Think about it Stephen, why would he say "THE 4TH FILM BY QUENTIN TARANTINO" instead of just "A FILM BY QUENTIN TARANTINO"?

[6] On Feb-14-2004, Mike wrote:

I am a huge fan of king's work, but i think he is out of his league when talking about films, i mean first off everyone knows that all king films suck ass, i mean they are nothing like the books anyway. lets just say king should stick to books and tarantino should stick to movies, when king starts directing his own work, i think his opinion will hold a lot more in this and any film community.

[7] On Feb-15-2004, Saiaf wrote:

Wow, king, yeah, way out of his league to be saying this, i understand its his opinion, but the dudes gotta back off.

[8] On Feb-15-2004, Sh8dy Milkman wrote:

Fuck King! King can shove "It" up his ass. I thought his wrinkled ass was dead.

[9] On Feb-15-2004, Plexus flow wrote:

I agree with Mike, Tarantino's films are the most creative films I've ever seen in my life. Plus the fact that King's films sucked ass.

[10] On Feb-15-2004, Matt wrote:

I don't know. Stanely Kubrick's of The Shining was pretty scary. Maybe it was Kubrickness of it all. But Tarantino films are so much better than most of the stuff that's based off King's work. But it's all Kool and the Gang.

[11] On Feb-16-2004, Nick wrote:

Huh? You have to pay for parking at theatres now? At what kind of sick place does Stephen King live?

[12] On Feb-20-2004, Louie wrote:

How large the name appears is up to the publisher/advertiser. Books all have to have enormous text... In the situation of Stephen King, his name alone carries enormous weight, which is why it would be larger.

He is definately over-rated.
And Mystic River? C'mon.

It's like all those old bastards who hate any new music.

[13] On Feb-20-2004, mitch wrote:

i think it is the decision of the DGA to decide credit of "a film by so-and-so". QT is not a member of the DGA, but as an auteur, he certainly can claim credit on his own creation. narcisstic? perhaps. self-indulgent? of course, but isn't that the business? can anyone say Fellini? he was entirely self-absorbed. 8 1/2 was his eighth and a half film. and, Kill Bill V.1 is actually QT's 5th and 1/4 th film. does that make Vol.2 his 6th and 1/4 th? whatever. who cares? it's art, so enjoy, or don't. anyway, who has the right to criticize someone's art? the very notion is immoral.

[14] On Mar-06-2004, Mark Evan wrote:

I wouldn't go to Stephen King for a movie review. He hated "The Shining" based on his book. And, he himself directed a movie. It was called Maximum Overdrive,and,
that movie is a boring, dreadful mess.

[15] On Mar-06-2004, John wrote:

King and Stewart are old and getting older by the second. Once you get old many people start to lose there understanding of art and anything worth a shit in the world. Thats why old people love to vote and follow politics, and watch tv. That shit is pointless nonsense. King says it all when he is talking about parking at a movie theater. What the fuck does that have to do with a movie being good or bad. I love Stephen King and Patrick Stewart, but there old and have lost touch with true art.

[16] On Mar-13-2004, Budd wrote:

I wonder if ol Stephen is jealous of QT because he can write AND direct better than he can?

LOL @ Maximum Overdrive

[17] On Mar-13-2004, Hans wrote:

BTW, King didn't like Kubrick's Shining either. Maybe he's in for a pair of glasses?

[18] On Mar-13-2004, Dutch Furby wrote:

If King didn't like Kubrick's shining he should clearly not talk about movies. This was probably the only good movie based on a King book.

[19] On Mar-13-2004, John wrote:

If you think that, then you haven't seen Doloris Claiborne, The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Carrie, The Dead Zone. Those are very good books and very good movies. Just because he is wrong about Kill Bill, doesn't mean he hasent done great work.

[20] On Mar-17-2004, Josh wrote:

Think about it for a second.
Quentin-Has an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, for writing. King has one good movie(The Shining. Quentin`s movies are amasing. Is it just me or is King just jealous. Kill Bill was written as #5 in The Top Movies of 2003, saying that it depicted violence as an art.

[21] On Mar-18-2004, John wrote:

Quentin is a remarkable writer and director. But the oscars and top ten lists are worthless garbage.

[22] On Mar-22-2004, Roy wrote:

Need I remind you Stephen King is responsible for THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE GREEN MILE, STAND BY ME, and even more? Sure he did cheesy books/movies as well, but he said a bad comment about Kill Bill, so what, it is a different style than his own, I love both of them, and I think it is possible to love both.

[23] On Mar-23-2004, Josh wrote:

Oscars/Top Ten List are worthless, unless you`re argueing against a jealous
ba*tard like King...

[24] On Mar-23-2004, Josh wrote:

Question-

Why didn`t Beatrix(The Bride) take Vernita`s gun after she killed her?

[25] On Mar-24-2004, JOHN wrote:

There worthless, period.

[26] On Mar-29-2004, Josh wrote:

Fav King movies?

The Shining is really great...

[27] On Apr-04-2004, nelson wrote:

Wow. ET asks King to write a column for them, giving his opinion about various pop culture trends, ect., and then some of you fans fly off the handle just because his opinion differs from your own? He shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion? I'm a big QT fan, but King has accomplished MUCH more than QT has. King has been putting out bestsellers for over 30 years, and has been awarded one of the highest honors a writer can recieve. Granted QT will accomplish a lot more in his lifetime, right now he is not on par with King.

Movie's based on King's work suck? Are you even familar with The Shawshank Redemption? Stand By Me? Misery? The Green Mile? The Dead Zone? Carrie? Creepshow? The Shining? His films have been nominated for at least 15 oscars, including a couple 'best pictures' (and the Shining, which DID suck compared to the book, which was about alcoholism and child abuse more than ghosts, got no nominations).

[28] On Apr-04-2004, nelson wrote:

Wow. ET asks King to write a column for them, giving his opinion about various pop culture trends, ect., and then some of you fans fly off the handle just because his opinion differs from your own? He shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion? I'm a big QT fan, but King has accomplished MUCH more than QT has. King has been putting out bestsellers for over 30 years, and has been awarded one of the highest honors a writer can recieve. Granted QT will accomplish a lot more in his lifetime, right now he is not on par with King.

Movie's based on King's work suck? Are you even familar with The Shawshank Redemption? Stand By Me? Misery? The Green Mile? The Dead Zone? Carrie? Creepshow? The Shining? His films have been nominated for at least 15 oscars, including a couple 'best pictures' (and the Shining, which DID suck compared to the book, which was about alcoholism and child abuse more than ghosts, got no nominations).

[29] On Apr-06-2004, Senatebd311 wrote:

Well, I suppose I'll throw my two cents in here. I will agree with nelson in the fact that King's distaste for Kill Bill is his opinion. We can't say it's wrong or right. That's the very basis of an opinion. However, disagreed with King's reasoning for his disliking of Kill Bill. I believe that his comment was very hypocritical. He claimed that Kill Bill was "narcissistic" for it being marketed as "Quentin Tarantino's 4th Film", even though, as schlyer pointed out with the book covers, his novels are clearly marketed as author-based. It isn't being narcissistic, it just sells having a reputable creator's name plastered on the promotional media. Furthermore, I would encourage that authors and filmmakers place their names on their work. Most of these writers/directors work hard for their creation. It doesn't bother me that they give themselves credit for this.
I was a bit disappointed as well to see that King focused on the promotional media relating to the film in his criticism rather than the actual film itself. I can say that I enjoyed Kill Bill (and Tarantino's works overall) not only because of the story, but because it was risky, original filmmaking. Sure, the style of the movie was sampled from various genres of film, but it created something new, daring, and separated itself from the rest of today's pack. Some of King's best works in fact were risky and original in that he strayed from his staple horror stories to create in-depth dramas (stories such as those that were the basis for movies like The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me and The Green Mile). So in a nutshell, I was disappointed by King's reasoning.
Now about the whole Patrick Stewart incident. After reading the transcript a few times, it has occured to me that Stewart pulled Kill Bill out of his ass and for some reason or another decided to throw it in his statement. I understand Amnesty International's message and fully support it. However, Stewart's attack on Kill Bill was irrelevent to his statement and just plain ignorant. Anyone who has seen the film knows that it absolutely does not portray any sort of domestic abuse towards women in a glorifying manner. It is a vengence story, plain and simple. The very fact that Stewart stated that Kill Bill was an abomination because it contained women against women violence is not only ignorant, it is somewhat sexist in the fact that Stewart made his remark only focusing on the character's sexes, rather than the reason for this violence (hunting down the people who took part in the attempted murder of not only the bride herself, but her husband (or husband to be) and her unborn child (as if that wasn't a good enough motive)). To sum it up, his comments were ignorant and unjust. And there we have my two cents.

[30] On Apr-06-2004, Senatebd311 wrote:

P.S. Sorry about the link, for some reason when I posted, I believe some form of spyware attached that URL to it.

[31] On Apr-13-2004, Mike wrote:

Come on, you kidding? You don't see a difference between putting an author's name on the book cover(which is also NOT King's doing--the publisher does that) to a movie writer/director saying "The 4th Film" by himself?

Pretentious, is what it is.

Tarantino will never come close to accomplishing what King does. At the rate he's going, he'll direct a total of 7 movies(he claims he won't direct once he's in his fifties).

So put away the bile until you have something to back it up with.

[32] On Apr-17-2004, person wrote:

i just want to go ahead and say, that i personally believe that Kill Bill is one of the worst movies to ever hit the screen.

it is awful, i am shocked to see anyone have any sort of sentiment for this movie. the fact that the movie is being accepted on such a wide scale and actually getting good reviews by the majority is not only baffeling to me, but also laughable.

Steven King movie's, like them or not are a staple. Ask someone on the street to name a Steven King movie. Ask them to name a Tarentino film besides Kill Bill. And if kill bill wasn't getting all this ridiculuous press then the majority wouldn't even know who the hell tarantino even is

[33] On Apr-18-2004, Tiffany wrote:

Holy shit people calm down. Let the man have his own opinion of something. Im sure there are some movies you don't like, its not like people hate you for that. Get a life.

[34] On Apr-26-2004, Richard Harland Smith wrote:

Hey, Graham Greene didn't like THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

[35] On May-01-2004, Cheesey McFarlane wrote:

To quote the article: "Not to mention this book cover, for which he wrote the introduction for his own book titled: "The Importance Of Being Bachman". Bachman was King's pseudonym early in his career."

Yeah, he wrote an introduction to his own book. Whoop-de-crap. You know how many authors write introductions to their own books? He titled it "The Importance of Being Bachman" as a pun on Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest." Yes, Bachman was his pseudonym...that's why the book was called "The Bachman Books," because he wrote them under a different name. I just don't know what point this article's author was trying to make with this statement...King wasn't actually saying he thought "being Bachman" was important; it was a pun on a famous title.

[36] On May-02-2004, River wrote:

I just saw Kill Bill 2, and it sucked almost as bad as "volume" 1. Pulp fiction excepted, QT seems good at ripping off other people's movies, nothing more. When you guys grow up a little maybe you'll be ready for some Beat Takashi.

[37] On May-02-2004, River wrote:

I just saw Kill Bill 2, and it sucked almost as bad as "volume" 1. Pulp fiction excepted, QT seems good at ripping off other people's movies, nothing more. When you guys grow up a little maybe you'll be ready for some Beat Takashi.

Recent Kill Bill Headlines

Or check out all the entries in the Kill Bill category.