• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film: Kill Bill Vol. 2 (merged)

I'm glad you enjoyed my rants, onetwothreefour.

Physix, this has been and will continue to be a very stimulating conversation, but due to completely losing my mind (long and scary story) the other night before the opening credits rolled out, I was unable to watch the movie for a second time yet and need a little time to recompose myself to continue.
Shouldn't be long.
 
I thought it was good. I'm glad it was two movies, it would have been too long as one movie.
 
Edge80 said:
I was a big fan of Kill Bill Volume 1. I couldn't wait until Kill Bill Vol 2 came out. When I finally saw it my opinions on the movie vary. There was alot less fighting and a lot more dialouge. although the dialouge did make me understand more about the first movie. In my opinion i think that they could have left it at one movie rather then dividing it into to volumes.

I think the general consensus is that you would have been extremely bored if they didn't.

I mean, after the big yakuza battle, if you'd still have 2 hours to go and it's not alot of fighting, then, it would have been a big let down.

And what could he have cut?

He couldn't have made that movie 3 hours event without losing some vital stuff. I agree with Physix that he is a bit long winded. But even taking out the long-winded parts would have made the movie waaaay too long for a one-shot movie.

There's been a "splitting it was Mirimax's idea" goign around, facilitated by QT himself. But I think that is a 'damage control' that Mirimax is letting QT use to deflect any negativity that may be drawn his way (words like money grubbin' comes to mind). There is no way QT could have presented this as a one-shot movie. That's why I believe it was intentional from the beginning to split the movie in 2 and it was QT's idea to do so.

But that's not an issue.

I'm glad he did it.

If vol 1 and 2 would have been merged, then the storytelling and pace would have been destroyed.

I recommend seeing this movie a 2nd time once the disappointment that vol 2 wasn't another bloody version of vol 1 has left. Then you'll be able to appreciate vol 2 as a movie on its own, and not as a watered down sequel to the first movie.
 
physix, excellent point with director's discretion re: cut and LOTR point.

I'm sure I would have had my initial dissapointments cut to a fraction if I didn't read the script. Reading it maximised my expectations to a ludicrous level, and had very little real hope of the movie matching (let alone surpassing) my imagination. Bad decision on my part. Live and learn, i suppose.

I have now seen the film for a second time and enjoyed it much more than the first. The same thing happened with Vol 1. Being as how this is a very different movie (both parts), it can be difficult to assess parts without knowing the whole.

Not that I now love every minute. I still don't like how Budd's intro and death was handled. I recognise what Bidd did to Beatrix as very well done, even though the script has taken most of it's impact on me. More time and viewings will help me forget what I know and take it for it's worth.

I still feel Elle's motives are vague at best. Killing Pei Mai can be justified by his mistreatment of her and (of course) taking her eye. I still don't see what Elle is getting at Budd for. Was it as payback for the past? Was it simply to rob him? Either reason seems rather small for risking Bill's wrath.

The final chapter: Face to Face was immesurably better in the second viewing as I left most of my preconceived opinions and expectations at the door and took it as it came. The pacing seemed to work more when not thinking too much.

Oh, and I absolutely agree about the "baby" cliffhanger. Sweet!


stilvoll, QT is apparently planning another cinema release (later this year) of both films together. This is also a theoretical reason for the absense of any DVD's here in Australia.


Anyone remember what book Estoban, Bill's step father, was reading?
 
anyone notice that the Yakuza lord that kills Oren Ishii's parents is wearing the same rings as Bill???

ALtho' I still think the Bud intro was perfect, I do agree that Elle's characterisation may be ALITTLE off.

not so much inconsistent as it was ... ill-realized direction wise.

Example:

In the first one, we see Elle giving The Bride "a gift" ... the gift of a death whilst in a coma... "a luxury few in our field are given"... paraphrased... she even said, "just because i hate you, doesn't mean that I don't respect you..."

So, ok. She respects Beatrice enough to grant her a painless death... and she respects her SO MUCH as a warrior that a lower person (in her eyes...er EYE ;) )doesn't ahve th eright to do her in and must be punished for doing so (which is a common villainous trait -- this is nothing new in comic books, villainy movies, and kung fu movies).

HOWEVER, we are NOT given alot of information regarding Elle and Bud's dynamic. So in that, you are correct.

With regard to Elle and Bud, instead of working a+b=c, which is ideal, we have to go c-a=b.


meaning, instead of showing th ebad dynamic between Elle and Bud.. and then Bud killing Beatrice, whom Elle respects, so therefor she must kill Bud.... we have to go backwards, sorta.

Because she respects Beatrice so much and Elle was willing to risk incurrin gthe wrath of Bill, she MUST have really hated Bud. She was rather snippy with Bud the whole time.

Plus, she was obviously a woman who over-stepped her bounds.

She contradicted Pei Mei ... and got an eye out b-c of it
She tried to execute a plan that was not Bill's directive
She killed Bill's brother and was gonna frame Beatrice and take credit for her death....

this was a woman who probably simply thought she had it in the bag.


But of all the character dynamics, you're right: this was the weakest, if you do only deductive reasoning.
 
You guys dissecting this film far too much.


Saw it for the 2nd time yesterday. Went to a 3:15 showing by myself and it was sooooooo much better the 2nd time around. Especially with out a room full of screaming black people.

<Not un-pc just a fact>
 
im wanting to see the move tonite but i can not find any1 to go with me, is it worth going to see by myself, or even worth going to see at all? i enjoyed the first one a lot
 
Roller go check it out by yourself its not really a big thing to do so.
Vol2 is very much so worth checking out. Maybe watch vol.1 dvd before hand.
 
yeah check out vol.1 first, and personally I love going to the movies alone so long as it's a good movie.
 
"too much" implies neglect and/or harm elsewhere.

Since we enjoy discussing this film to this depth, and have so happily prioritised our time and energy to do so, why should it concern you at all, let alone enough to post said concerns?

Relax, you'll live longer.

Physix, I too noticed the rings on O-Ren's parent's killer's hands. I thought it was a sweet, big hint towards possible major irony which'll never be confirmed nor denied. I love this as it exploits the weaknesses between the two mediums, film and animation.

The book I mentioned looks to have a very Australian title and since Bea mentions her father as being in Aus., I was just wondering of the link between the two. Normally i wouldn't care nor even notice, but I'm Aussie, so am rather interested in the possibility.
 
Last edited:
just caught this yesterday and i must say i was more than pleased. in fact, everything i didnt like about the first installment was made up for in the second. woo hoo we actually have a plot! and as it turns out, a pretty decent one @ that. i pretty much cant stand uma thurman but i think i may've actually enjoyed her performance. i thought all the main characters were well played ( with special mention to daryll hannah)

i had major ? though. wtf did "Bud" shoot Bea with? did he say frigging rock salt? that was a source of real confusion for me as i found it hard to fathom her speedy recovery from a shotgun blast to the chest.

so many flat out hillarious, the most memorable of which came from Bud's boss at the strip club when he offers the girl a line

"come on baby, be somebody"

fuckin classic.

I really liked the inclusion of bill / bea's daughter at the end. that was an unexpected twist (for me anyway) from what i expected to be just an epic fight scene.

anyone recognize the audio clip from the video tape that mother and daughter watched together? genius;)

solid flick that made me actually wanna go out and watch volume one again:)
 
yea he shot her with rock salt, rock salt is a good subsitute for buckshot, burns a helluva lot more ;)
 
^ow wow I had no idea he was speaking literally, that would suck!


physix: I think you're almost right on about Elle's reasons for killing Bud. I don't think it was just that Bud killed Beatrice, so much as it was just the whole situation.... What else was she gonna do? Pay the alcoholic jerk? Fuck that!

So I agree with everything you said except that she had to kill him because he killed beatrice. I think even if he hadn't killed beatrice but had somehow got the sword anyway Elle would have still killed him for it rather than pay him a million dollars.
 
^^ well, normally i'd think that, too... but, there was nothing really given to us as observers that woudl indicate any anymosity (sic) between Elle and Bud, aside frlom some snide remarks. But QT is a better writer than to let THAT be the only indication of anymosity. Plus, she said it. She outright said that she killed him b-c she wanted the pleasure and that Beatrice deserved more than to be killed by the likes of him. And remember how she looked when she said it? There was venom in her eyes...er eye. She meant it. So, I think that was the reason.

Now, if QT had more time, he COULD have gone the jealousy route.

Elle was jealous of the love Bill had for Beatrice... likewise, he'd be jealous of the love and bond that he had with Bud. I could accept that notion, if we'd been given that information (DVD maybe???).

otherwise, there was no "whole situation". She wanted the sword. he wanted a million. We can assume that she had the money. I doubt that 1 million would be that big of a deal to her. i COULD see your point of Bud being beneath her. And Elle is without honor (or is she?).

Another alternative could be that she loved Bill so much that she simply wanted to be the one taking the credit of killing Beatrice. And that would explain her need to kill Bud. But, she would have said that in her explanation. No need to lie to Bud about it as he dies (especially since that would be lying to 'us' in essence)....
 
StuffedTiger said:
physix: I think you're almost right on about Elle's reasons for killing Bud. I don't think it was just that Bud killed Beatrice, so much as it was just the whole situation.... What else was she gonna do? Pay the alcoholic jerk? Fuck that!


physix said:

otherwise, there was no "whole situation". She wanted the sword. he wanted a million. We can assume that she had the money. I doubt that 1 million would be that big of a deal to her. i COULD see your point of Bud being beneath her. And Elle is without honor (or is she?).


I'm not saying the million would be a big deal to her, but rather that she thought it would lower herself to buy this sword off him for a million dollars after he killed beatrice when it would have been just as good by her if Beatrice had killed Bud. She was very confident in her ability to kill the bride.

So I think killing Bud was a matter of honor for Elle. I think it would have lowered her to have bought the sword off him after he shot the bride and burried her alive, her speach to him as he was dying was a relfection of this.
 
You guys dissecting this film far too much.

After 2 bowls & taking the time to really read your guys insightful veiws on the film I retract my previous statement.
 
I saw David Carradine today.....

.... at supernova (www.supanova.com.au). I wish I was saying I just saw Tarantino at the Opera House, but he cancelled :X

Mr Carradine brought up some interesting points.

1. He said that QT told him that the killer of O-Ren's parents in the cartoon was indeed BILL. Apparently QT specifically requested this from the animators.
So the story would go, that O-Ren, becoming professional herself, forgives Bill as she understands that it was simply "business" and accepts his offer to work with him.

2. He confirmed that the sequel is a definitely serious idea and that Sofie Fatale raises Coppertop's daughter, Nikki (who's name i believed since my first viewing as inspired by NIKITA) who eventually seeks her vengeance on Bea. It's safe to assume that she succeeds, for he went on the say BB would then seek vengeance on Nikki.
He also mentioned that when the idea of the sequels (yes, plural) was thrown about, QT whinged that it'd be hard because everyone was dead.
Mr Carradine continued by speculating that Elle Driver may have the training, skill and connections to not only get out of the trailer and desert, but also heal and seek vengeance of her own and that this may be a possible reason QT changed the original script (where she dies) to just losing the other eye. He also admitted about not knowing of this change until a while after it ws shot.

3. Mr Carradine also mentioned plans of a PREQUEL, which'll detail Bill's life from the age of 13, and that this will be entirely animated.

4. He also confirmed that his fight scene with Michael J White was completely shot and will be included in the DVD.

5. He claims he brought the flute into training fo this movie to play when warming up. This apparently inspired QT to incorporate the flute in the Chapel Massacre chapter. He also was supposed to tell Bea about Pei Mai while roasting marshmellows in the fire but it didn't work, so they tried the flute again, whic hthis time was brought onto the set just to have lying in the background.

I was very surprised by the above and found Mr Carradine an entertaining speaker.


Is it just me or does this seem like a bit much of a coincidence. The same weekend QT was scheduled to do a 2 hour Interview and Q&A in the Sydney Opera House, David Carradine appears at a Sydney convention, and last night the 5,6,7,8's played at a Sydney bar.

I'm going again tomorrow. Maybe I'll take some photos.
 
Last edited:
Re: I saw David Carradine today.....

all that stuff was good to know!



Left to Right said:
.... at supernova (www.supanova.com.au). I wish I was saying I just saw Tarantino at the Opera House, but he cancelled :X

Mr Carradine brought up some interesting points.

1. He said that QT told him that the killer of O-Ren's parents in the cartoon was indeed BILL. Apparently QT specifically requested this from the animators.
So the story would go, that O-Ren, becoming professional herself, forgives Bill as she understands that it was simply "business" and accepts his offer to work with him.

I think the movie way worked better. But, both ways make sense.

I thought I saw a connection between the man who killed Oren's
parents and Bill... too bad it's now just relegated to a "oops"
moment... or timing or money or whatever... kinda makes that
scene seem like the Chris Claremont-John Byrne X-Men 138
fiasco. ;)

I think to do it the above way would mean creating a whole new
segment showing WHY Oren became an assassin. Whereas
in the movie, you can assume, since she took out a big yakuza
boss, that she would take a liking to killing. And, thus, became
an assassin.

If you take away the revenge factor (aside from taking away an
important motif) then you take away a motivation for becoming
an assassin.

It makes more sense that, in her quest for revenge, she then
takes a liking to killing... moreso than "oh, i forgive you.." "thanks,
you wanna kill some people for me???"

if she ultimately forgives Bill, then where's the motivation???

money? liking of the kill...?


again, you can't just throw that in there... you'd have to show it.
And QT would WANT to show the alternate motivation... which
would taske more time and cost more money. (animation isn't
cheap).
 
Top