# Rate Kill Bill Volume 2



## Kai Lord (Apr 17, 2004)

Rate Kill Bill Volume 2 on a scale of 1-10.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 18, 2004)

I gave it a 7.  Points off for a couple of scenes (the daughter explaining how she killed her goldfish, Bud's boss reprimanding him) and for nature of the story.

No matter how expertly polished a tale of murderous revenge can ever be, its still a tale of murderous revenge, and will never possess the rich value of a story like The Lord of the Rings or The Passion of the Christ.

That said, as a visceral epic of chop socky mayhem, it was one hell of a ride, and a couple of the chapters (Pai Mei and the showdown with Elle Driver) really transcended the genre.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 18, 2004)

I gave it a 9 -- the only issue being the slight loss of story during the Bride's reunion with her daughter. I thought the goldfish scene beautifully paid off with Bill's confession to the four-year-old, just as Budd's scene in the bar paid off with his simple-minded scheme to get money out of Elle. 

What a great character in Budd. It was actually touching to realise he HADN'T sold the sword, that he had let everyone think he had, think that he was such a moron he'd actually do that, and why? Just so they'd leave him alone and not involve him in their schemes any more? Because of what had happened with the Bride? A delicious character.

I'll contest the notion that stories of muderous revenge are incapable of possessing rich value. I mean, _Hamlet_ and _King Lear_ are basically stories of muderous revenge. Not to say that _Kill Bill_ is _Hamlet_, but I don't think it's safe to rank stories according to their subject matter.

Stories of muderous revenge that simple-mindedly ask us to cheer as the hero exacts their revenge, and pretend that if you kill enough people you can be free of all consequences and yay only the bad people die (except for that friend of the good guy who has to die so that we can see how bad those bad guys are) and yeah, that felt good. Those stories are limited in how powerful they can be because even while we're cheering we know, deep down inside, that killing people is bad. It's unpleasant, and if you find killing people easy, then maybe you're not so okay, on the inside.

_Kill Bill_ I don't think asks us to accept that view. I think it constantly challenges the idea that the Bride is simply the good guy and everybody else deserves to die. It constantly gives you reasons to sympathize with the bad guys, and the baddest of them all, Bill himself, turns out to be an admirable, compassionate man. Why does the Bride kill him? Why can't these two rational-seeming people simply come to terms and decide on a path that lets them both live?

Well, partially, I think, because at its heart, _Kill Bill_ isn't about murderous revenge at all. It's about relationships, and the terrible things people do to the ones they love. The terrible things love makes people do.

The Bride isn't happy to kill her mentor, the father of her child. She's in tears. That's as far from the usual ending to a murderous revenge tale as you can get. We aren't watching vengeance being done. We're watching a woman put an end to those influences in her life that drag her into evil -- and the final one is the one that understands her so well, that treats her better than anyone else ever treated her, that respects her and admires her and makes her feel powerful.

She met God. And God was cut.

If it was just vengeance, she wouldn't be redeemed. She'd just be as bad as everyone else. Only tougher. And I don't think the Bride is just tougher than everyone else. Why DID Pai Mei teach her the Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart Technique? What did she have that no one else did? 

Hm. I didn't know I liked it that much. Interesting.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 18, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> No matter how expertly polished a tale of murderous revenge can ever be, its still a tale of murderous revenge, and will never possess the rich value of a story like The Lord of the Rings or The Passion of the Christ.



  The Passion of the Christ possess a quality story?  I was under the impression there was no context, no backstory, and hideous amounts of gory violence for no readily observable reason.

Methinks someone is letting their RL ideas cloud their critical eye.


----------



## Endur (Apr 18, 2004)

You are the one who is letting RL ideas cloud your eye.  I have not gone to church in five years and have only gone once in the last ten years, and I immediately recognized how incredible a movie _The Passion_ is (I knew it would be good, but I had no idea just how good it really is).  



			
				Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> The Passion of the Christ possess a quality story?  I was under the impression there was no context, no backstory, and hideous amounts of gory violence for no readily observable reason.
> 
> Methinks someone is letting their RL ideas cloud their critical eye.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 18, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Stories of muderous revenge that simple-mindedly ask us to cheer as the hero exacts their revenge, and pretend that if you kill enough people you can be free of all consequences and yay only the bad people die (except for that friend of the good guy who has to die so that we can see how bad those bad guys are) and yeah, that felt good. Those stories are limited in how powerful they can be because even while we're cheering we know, deep down inside, that killing people is bad. It's unpleasant, and if you find killing people easy, then maybe you're not so okay, on the inside.



And for me, this is all Kill Bill really is.  The clever Tarantino soliloquies, the reverent homages to various genres, the great performances don't elevate the story itself above that of a pissed off woman murdering and maiming everyone who wronged her so horribly.  Its _I Spit On Your Grave_ for a wide audience.  The second volume isn't quite so foul as the first, but I don't find anything redeeming to take from the film when you get up and leave the theater.  Its fun to talk about how funny this scene was or how intense and exciting that scene was, but I take those segments individually.

At the end of the day its just one murderer who murders a bunch of other murderers because they tried to murder her.  She doesn't grow or evolve and certainly isn't "redeemed" at any point in the story.  In fact she degenerates from the bride who wanted to put all that behind her in the wedding chapel back down to the vengeful murderer she no longer wanted to be in the first place.  And she's rewarded for it with a care free drive off into the sunset.

Vivica A. Fox told her point blank that she was a different person when she helped kill her wedding party, and now had a separate life and an innocent daughter, but Beatrix didn't care.  She said "I'm still rational, I'm just without mercy, compassion, or forgiveness," and murdered Fox in her own home in front of her young daughter.

Gogo and the Crazy 88's didn't wrong Beatrix in any way whatsoever but she slaughtered them because they tried to protect their leader.  Just because they were all "bad" doesn't give her the right to murder.  We're obviously meant to see good in Beatrix due to her plea with Gogo to walk away so she wouldn't be killed and her allowance of the young Yakuza to run home to his mommy.

But that was a tiny part of her consciousness she rarely indulged, and ultimately forsook.  Why didn't _she_ walk away from Gogo?  Come at O-Ren another time, another way?  Why not charge O-Ren when she heard the motorcycles of the Crazy 88's approaching?  Because she was pissed, was going to savor every kill, and she enjoyed it!  She even said as much when under Bill's truth serum.  She took great satisfaction in her revenge, and wasn't the least bit remorseful, even at the end.

The only way Beatrix solved problems was by killing them.  Bill assessed her character perfectly, she was a killer "in disguise" as a regular woman pretending to want a normal life.  The scene with the truth serum was the one moment where the film could have revealed a change in character, or a shred of guilt or remorse, or anything at all about her other than the vengeful, murderous traits we knew she indulged in.

Imagine Bill's reaction if she said "no" or "not anymore" when he asked her if she took satisfaction in her murderous rampage?  What an amazing revelation that would have been for him.  To learn that while she had a talent for killing, she didn't love it, and it wasn't the core of her being, and that he in fact had been robbing her all those years of her true identity.  It just could have been something more, but in the end, Bill was right, she was a killer, took great satisfaction in killing, and only needed an excuse to kill.  Bill's horrible crime was her excuse.  

I really don't think the film was about relationships at all.  It was all about revenge, from the opening Klingon proverb, to Sonny Chiba's philosophical contemplations ("Revenge is not a straight line, its a forest") to the undefined future (when Viviva Fox's daughter comes hunting for Uma.)

Its too bad there just wasn't anything to elevate the film above it.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 18, 2004)

I gave it an 8, what made this movie was dialog and characters, wonderful character interaction.  I thought some of the editting was choppy and did not roll smoothly.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 19, 2004)

Is there a reason she should have demonstrated mercy, compassion, or forgiveness?

Would it really have been any better if she had been revealed to not be a "bad" person, but a "good" person unable to leave the path she was on and seek redemption?  Ah yes, _redemption_, that state that all those who lose their honor (in the East) or sin (in the West) struggle so valiantly to find.

Your critique of the movie as lacking any valuable messages is both accurate and utterly irrelevant.  It's like criticizing _Casablanca_ for focusing too much on the love triangle.

The Bride likes killing.  She enjoys it.  And we enjoy watching her do it.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 19, 2004)

Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> Your critique of the movie as lacking any valuable messages is both accurate and utterly irrelevant..



What an utterly foolish thing to say.  My critique that KB offers nothing of any significant value is irrelevant in determining how I personally rate the film?  Get a clue.



			
				Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> The Bride likes killing.  She enjoys it.  And we enjoy watching her do it.



Which means it will never compare to the greatest films ever made.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 19, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> What an utterly foolish thing to say.  My critique that KB offers nothing of any significant value is irrelevant in determining how I personally rate the film?  Get a clue.



  And your moral prejudices, which were at the very least derived from a society heavily influenced by Christian thinking, are irrelevant in determining how you personally rate the film?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Apr 19, 2004)

So, anyone want to start placing bets on how long until Wrath of the Swarm turns this thread into a religous debate and gets it locked down?

I'm betting... 6 more posts.


----------



## Particle_Man (Apr 19, 2004)

I gave it an 8.  I do wish I could have seen it back to back the first time through, but I like how themes got related to each other.  Things like, 



Spoiler



Budd making a crack about Dumb Blondes, ostensibly about the Bride, but really about  Elle Driver.  And then she kills him, as she had been planning too.


 That was just nicely done.

Pei Mei rocked.  But I guess he was some sort of variant monk, 



Spoiler



since he wasn't immune to all poisons


.

Was LoTR better?  Definitely.  Was The Passion better?  Don't know, haven't seen it and don't ever plan to.  But Kill Bill was still very, very good.  I share Tarantino's love for Uma Thurman now.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 19, 2004)

Kai Lord: If you think the Bride that tearfully sends the man she loves to the death he must have is the same woman that callously cut off Sofie Fatale's arm, then, well, we disagree on that. Remember that the House of Blue Leaves is the Bride's FIRST action of revenge. Or rather, her second -- her first being to convince Hanzo to make her a sword. And remember the look in her eyes when she says, "And considering the student..." to him?

That look is long gone by the time she confronts Bill on the patio. As is her rage. You'll note that we do NOT get the "Here goes the crazy Bride" music at that point. As in fact we don't get when she FIRST goes in to kill Budd -- it's only after Budd has buried her alive that he warrants the "close-up siren craziness" treatment.

Note that she does not kill Elle Driver, when she so easily could have. She renders the woman helpless and then leaves.

Yes, she DID take satisfaction in her murderous rampage. She admits it. Crying as she does. She is not that woman anymore. THAT'S transformation. We aren't TOLD she's transformed, but the evidence that she has is striking -- and I prefer stories in which I have to make those decisions myself.

If she had said, "No, I didn't take satisfaction in those killings," she wouldn't have been transformed, she'd be LYING.

The proverb? A - consider the statement itself: "best served cold" means "after the emotion has gone, after the desire has vanished". After you have transformed, then you must carry out the revenge you so badly wanted. You don't get to go halfway and then change your mind. B - it is explicitly described as "An Old Klingon Proverb" -- that is, it's from frickin' STAR TREK. Maybe that's a hint not to take it too seriously. In support of that, note that the film actually opens with "SHAWSCOPE" and "OUR FEATURE PRESENTATION" -- more evidence that this movie is not pretending to be a representation of life.

All of which is specific to this particular movie and I don't insist that anyone else share my views on it. What I really object to is the notion that stories of murderous revenge cannot be rich in value, simply by virtue of being stories of murderous revenge. That's nonsense. There is no subject matter that cannot, in the right hands, provide rich value. That there are many stories of murderous revenge that are NOT rich in value I won't contest. That proves nothing, other than Sturgeon's Law, and the richness of value (or lack thereof, as you prefer) in _Kill Bill_ is likewise no proof that the subject matter is incapable of richness.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 19, 2004)

It's one thing to develop a personal dislike for a movie and declare that it will never be on your own list of great movies... but acting as if that assessment were somehow universal is pretentious, arrogant, and just downright ignorant.

If that wasn't bad enough, the criteria by which that judgement was made are questionable.  It's rather like the fundamentalists who complain about Harry Potter and "witchcraft".

I have no intention of turning this into a religious thread - this is a "isn't there something wrong with Kai Lord's judgement" thread.


----------



## kingpaul (Apr 19, 2004)

Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> The Passion of the Christ possess a quality story?  I was under the impression there was no context, no backstory, and hideous amounts of gory violence for no readily observable reason.
> 
> Methinks someone is letting their RL ideas cloud their critical eye.



Objectively speaking, if you look upon the Bible in general, and Christ in specific, as just a religious text (and one that has no personal meaning to you), then yes, I understand how Passion could very well meet that description.


----------



## kingpaul (Apr 19, 2004)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I do wish I could have seen it back to back the first time through, but I like how themes got related to each other.



I'm not sure, having seen both, if having both parts in one movie would have been a good idea.  Volume 1 was *very* action packed.  As one friend put it, 'Kill as many people as you can without having to change the film reel'.

Volume 2, however, was not nearly as action packed...there was a definite slow-down.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 19, 2004)

Whether a person is Christian or not isn't (or shouldn't) be relevant.  _Passion_ didn't explain any of the backstory, didn't have any context, and had massive amounts of bloody torture for no good reason.  (The memetic reasons for this are clear, of course, but that would involve making this a religious thread and getting it locked, so I will not discuss them here.)  As a movie, it didn't present its story well.

Wouldn't the slowing chain of death in _Kill Bill_ have been intended to reflect a tiring of the Bride's deathlust (and induce a tiring in ourselves)?


----------



## Endur (Apr 19, 2004)

I liked _Kill Bill_ quite a lot, as I stated in another thread, I'd give Kill Bill a 9/10.  Its a very good, iconic movie for revenge.  

Its not _Lord of the Rings_, which is a 10/10.

And its not _The Passion of the Christ_, which I rate above a 10.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 19, 2004)

Well...I loved it...was stunned by outcome, me thinking more hack & slash, but it was more skill and willpower.

A 10/10...all that pain and struggle, was rewarded in the end.


----------



## Wombat (Apr 19, 2004)

I got dragged to this film by friends (darn not having my own car with me!)

At least for me it is consistent -- I have yet to like a single Tarantino film.

He is good a "clever references", but other than that I find his films are singularly repugnant.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 19, 2004)

While we're on the topic, I was rather disappointed in the final installment of LOTR.  _Fellowship_ did the best job of presenting a coherent story, while the later movies created plotholes when they stretched too far in including Tolkien's vision... and in some places, they made things worse by deviating from it, whereas in FOTR I thought they actually made a few improvements.

I'm sure if we polled preteen females, we'd find that Titanic is the BEST MOVIE EVER, but their opinions aren't reliable guides to quality.

[edit]  Oh, yes:  _Kill Bill_ establishes everything you really need to know about the story within the movie itself.  I don't think that a person who didn't know anything Christianity from outside sources would have gotten much out of _Passion_ - and virtually nothing if the movie had been left unsubtitled.

_Kill Bill_ presents a complete story.  _Passion_ does not.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 19, 2004)

Barsoomcore said:
			
		

> She met God. And God was cut.



Damn, I forgot about that. Brilliant. The second half really got into my head. The motiviations of the characters were really beyond what I expected. The character of Budd was an amazing character study, for example. Piecing together everyone's relationships, and how they all played out, was fascinating, to me.



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> At the end of the day its just one murderer who murders a bunch of other murderers because they tried to murder her. She doesn't grow or evolve and certainly isn't "redeemed" at any point in the story. In fact she degenerates from the bride who wanted to put all that behind her in the wedding chapel back down to the vengeful murderer she no longer wanted to be in the first place. And she's rewarded for it with a care free drive off into the sunset.



Redemption is a touchy question, and I'm not sure if she is, or is not. She certainly does change over the course of the movie(s), as barsoomcore notes. Further, a lot of the movie(s) is steeped in martial arts lore, and that works from a different set of principles. The fight with the Crazy 88s is a much different battle than the one with Vivica Fox's character, for example. As Bill himself says (paraphrasing): "You broke the heart of a murderous bastard, and accepted the baggage that comes with that."

The whole point of some of those scenes was that Beatrix hadn't changed at Two Pines at all. Bill was right, she was play-acting...and knowing what you know later, that scene plays out completely differently. It's not mentor and servant, it's two lovers talking (with HIS baby in the mix). The result of Two Pines was that everyone's life changed. Bill changed after the Two Pines incident, and it served as the lynchpin for everyone in the story, good or ill. Remember, Bill _wanted_ to be found. His mentor says as much, and Bill clearly isn't suprised when she shows up. Understanding Bill is, in some ways, more of what the movie is about than understanding the Bride, I think. 

She won't stop being a vengeful murderer...she always was and always will be. The point was why she was doing it, and how. Notice that when Bill argues with her about Two Pines, she doesn't say "At least I'd have had _Tom and_ B.B!" She just says B.B. It's pretty clear she didn't really even love Tom, from what I saw. He was just a cover for a disguise. I'm sure she liked him, but she still loved Bill. And note that Bill had no intention of letting her walk off into the sunset, either. He drew first, he shot first, and he was in complete control right until the end. They were both following their personal warrior codes, again returning to the asian cinema concepts. They stand as anachronistic, but they're _supposed_ to, just like the whole movie is.

Damn, I like that movie the more I think about it. It's got a whole hell of a lot of layers to it. If you just see it as a 'bloody revenge flick', then I guess we'll just agree to disagree, there.


----------



## Rugger (Apr 19, 2004)

I loved KB2.

C'mon...it was a Love Story wrapped up in ultraviolence: everything that happens to the Bride was because Bill wanted her to be happy and change her life...and to do that she HAD to get the violence and hatred out of her system, and close the book completely on her old life.  Mission accomplished.

Beautiful.

-Rugger
"I KillBill!"


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 19, 2004)

There's been some off-topic and personal-attack-like posts in this thread that I hope hasn't put an end to the actual debate over the movie.

Kai Lord, I hope you haven't abandoned this thread as a lost cause (though I would understand if you had). I always enjoy crossing mental swords with you and am looking forward to your further thoughts on this discussion.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 19, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> There's been some off-topic and personal-attack-like posts in this thread that I hope hasn't put an end to the actual debate over the movie.
> 
> Kai Lord, I hope you haven't abandoned this thread as a lost cause (though I would understand if you had). I always enjoy crossing mental swords with you and am looking forward to your further thoughts on this discussion.



Don't worry, I'm not going to address the hypocritical baiting above since that isn't what the thread is about and it would be pointless anyway.  You did make some interesting points about KB2 and I'll address those when I get off work and have more time to post.  Stay tuned...


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 19, 2004)

My posts are neither hypocritical nor baiting.  Kai Lord's comments were not about his personal assessment of the movie, but claims about its general worth.  As such, they're fair game for criticism.

Kai, may I assume that you similarly consider _A Clockwork Orange_ to be an ultimately meaningless example of the glorification of extreme violence?  It's just as distasteful, no?  All that killing and maiming and sexual content - why, it's practically sinful.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 20, 2004)

WotS -- if you want to discuss Kai Lord's tastes and morals, can you take it up with him or her directly rather than in a thread I'm hoping will provide some interesting discussion on _Kill Bill Vol 2_?

If you want to have a general discussion on the role of violence or distastefulness in cinema or art, I'm up for that, but can we leave Kai Lord's preferences aside? I'd rather hear YOUR position on things than read your efforts to characterize KL's. If you've got a theory whereby extreme violence can be justified in art, lay it on me. I think such a discussion has all sorts of worth.

But I'm not actually interested in what you believe is Kai Lord's position. Let KL give us that.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 20, 2004)

He's given us his position already, and he seems to feel that "extreme" violence reduces the quality of a film, or lowers it to a different level altogether compared to films that don't possess it.  More to the point, he's not presenting this position as his own personal standard, but implies instead that this is an "objective" view that will hold across an entire culture.

That's merely annoying.  His approval of _Passion_ combined with this attitude is what's offensive.

_Kill Bill_ doesn't use violence as a way to compensate for poor plot development or flat characters.  It's an inherent part of the movie's theme.  It is a coherent, consistent story presented as a whole.  Perhaps some people feel the theme itself lacks value, and that's fine, but the quality of the filmmaking has nothing to do with that.  Others will be blinded by the violence and fail to notice the subtle meanings in the movie.  That's fine too, and they can disapprove as they like.  Shakespeare contains plenty of violence and sexual content intended to excite the peanut gallery, and he wasn't even considered a great dramatist until after his death.  Are his works trashy, or great works of genius?  Neither.  They're trashy, great works of genius.

I'd bet we could sit down together, analyze _Kill Bill_, and come up with interesting ideas that were intentionally buried in its events.  We could debate why stylistic choices were made, what messages were being sent, what the director was thinking.  But the movie lacks hidden obsessions and unconscious messages - Tarantino clearly thought about what he was doing and was aware of why he chose as he did.

It's common knowledge among sociologists that people's beliefs about their beliefs often bear little resemblance to what they actually believe, and people rarely think enough about the differences between what they claim to think and how they actually act to notice this themselves.  I don't think Kai Lord has thought at all about why he disapproves of the violence in _Kill Bill_ while considering _Passion_ a great movie despite its (IMO unnecessarily extreme) violence.

I wouldn't consider _Kill Bill_ a classic in any sense, but it was a cleverly-made piece of cinema, and I don't appreciate people trashing it mindlessly.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 20, 2004)

Well, I don't agree with your assessment of Kai Lord's position, so let's leave that for Kai Lord to provide details on.

I'd like to know your reasoning behind the statement "the movie lacks hidden obsessions and unconscious messages." I find it tremendously unlikely that this is true, and I wonder why you think it is.

My take on critical analysis is a little different from yours -- I'm largely uninterested in authorial intent. Like you say, people are usually mistaken about what they believe. This applies to artists as well as to anyone else, so there's no reason to think that an artist is an authority on their own work. They can overlook details, forget elements and miss connections as easily as anyone else. I'm interested in what a work says in itself -- as opposed to what it was MEANT to say.

I'm not saying, for example, that Quentin Tarantino set out to make a movie about the journey of the self when he started writing _Kill Bill_. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't -- I don't care. The film, however, IS about that journey -- or at least you can look at that film and see a point of view on that journey. Not Tarantino's point of view, necessarily, but a point of view nonetheless.

I'm interested in story primarily for how it illuminates the world around. For the presentation of new ideas, or the application of old ideas to new situations. For the most part, we like movies which express ideas we agree with. Every now and then a movie expresses ideas we haven't encountered before, and actually gets us to think about them and maybe change our current perceptions.

_Kill Bill_ didn't do that to me, I don't think. Very, very few movies do. But I do agree with the ideas present in the story (on the journey of the self, and on relationships and on (nod to Kai Lord) transformation (maybe not redemption, but I'm not sure I buy into redemption anyway)), and they're not ideas that get presented a lot, so I was glad to see them.

But I'm curious about your comment on hidden obsessions.


----------



## Abraxas (Apr 20, 2004)

Unfortunately - except for a few minutes here and there the most entertaining part of this movie was (IMO) the preview for the movie "Hero".
_



Kill Bill doesn't use violence as a way to compensate for poor plot development or flat characters.
		
Click to expand...


_
General disagreement here.  Violence compensated for the flat characters of
- O-Ren and Vernita in KB vol.1 
- Bill and Elle in KB vol.2.
(they were merely targets for the bride to enact her violence upon)
and the bride in 1 and 2.

Budd was the only character (again IMO) that had any substance of interest.

Of course there's always room for the sequel in which Elle gets to Vernita's daughter, raises her and prepares her so when she grows up she can kill Beatrix - it can be called Kill Bea.  Which would lead the the sequel where Beatrix's daughter hunts down her mother's killers called Killed by B.B.  

This movie reminds me of the Thomas Covenant books.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 20, 2004)

Essentially, I am convinced that Tarantino put everything he did into the movie simply because he thought it would be cool.  The man has a good head for the flow of a story, which is why it's not just a random collection of images, but his motivations are simple and direct.

That's not the case with, say, _Passion of the Christ_, but discussing precisely why would involve starting a theological debate that would get this thread locked for sure.  Let's just say that the violence of that film is much harder to justify in an intelligible, conscious way, and the motivations of its director (and the appeal to the masses) is anything but simple.

Finally, it is undeniable that _Passion_ is memetic propaganda in the oldest sense of the word.  _Kill Bill_ is not propaganda.  Except possibly for the idea that it's good to enjoy cool stuff.


----------



## Abraxas (Apr 20, 2004)

Thinking it would be cool and it being cool are two different things and totally dependent on the definition of cool being used (the definition being personal).  Doesn't change the fact that violence and 2D characters sell tickets.  KB is propoganda in that its promotes the idea that liking Q.T. and his films makes one hip and cool.  Not that you have this idea, (or you may, i don't know  ), but I've seen and heard enough of that view point in my neck of the woods.  (Hey I'm so hip I can't see over my own pelvis - Z.B.).   Have fun grinding the axe on PotC  

As an aside - this is just one in a long stream of movie disappointments over the last year or two - I don't know what I'm looking for in a good movie but I have seen it precious little in a long time.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 20, 2004)

I tend to think that QT is subtly mocking the "violence and 2D characters = tickets" idea, but YRMV.

Could you offer an example of a good movie, Abraxas?  It would be easier for us to look if we knew what to look for.


----------



## Abraxas (Apr 20, 2004)

Lets see - a few that I thought were good (as opposed to those that I just enjoyed)

12 Angry Men - the original
Master and Commander
Miller's Crossing
Usual Suspects
Pulp Fiction

come to mind.

As for newer movies (other than MaC) that I personally thought were good . . .
I'll have to think - none leap to mind (sad when I look at all the ticket stubs from the theatre I've collected  )


----------



## Endur (Apr 20, 2004)

ROTK had some fantastic scenes: the lighting of the Signal Fires across the Mountains, Faramir's charge against Osgilith, the Charge of the Roharrim, Theoden's death, Sam carrying Frodo after Frodo said he couldn't go on any further, etc.

Braveheart was fantastic.  The best historical movie of the last ten years (except for Passion).  

L.A. Confidential is my favorite gangster movie of the last few years (and the best movie I've seen by Russell Crowe).


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 20, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'd like to know your reasoning behind the statement "the movie lacks hidden obsessions and unconscious messages." I find it tremendously unlikely that this is true, and I wonder why you think it is.





			
				Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> Essentially, I am convinced that Tarantino put everything he did into the movie simply because he thought it would be cool.  The man has a good head for the flow of a story, which is why it's not just a random collection of images, but his motivations are simple and direct.



As an answer, this only half-satisfies. My question isn't really "Why did he put what he put into the movie?" It's "Why do you think there's nothing in the movie he didn't intentionally put into it?"

That is, what is your basis for thinking that this movie does not display ideas or points of view that the director did not intend?


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 20, 2004)

I find it difficult to imagine that anyone would think Bill, Elle and Vernita Green were flat characters. I thought Carradine brought so much weight and compassion to his part that it was impossible for me not to believe this was a real person. 

Likewise Elle, who you could see had simmered with jealousy towards Beatrix all her life. She'd always been second-best to Kiddo. With Pai Mei, and most importantly with Bill. When Bill calls her in the hospital to abort the murder of the unconscious Bride her responses are perfectly in line with the bitter woman we see in Part 2. Not a flat character in any way.

Even Vernita Green, only onscreen for one sequence, provides us with a memorable character. "I shoulda been mutha-f&*#ing Black Mamba." That's a heartfelt statement, specific to that person in that situation. She, too, hated the Bride -- you could see it clearly.

I mean, we all have our own opinions, but I think that the idea that the characters in this film are FLAT is hard to support. I welcome efforts to do so, however.


----------



## Abraxas (Apr 20, 2004)

Different people have different perceptions.

Carradine was replaying his kung-fu character with grey hair - and spouting wierd mystic psychobabble presented as philosophy.  Esteban was a more memorable character.  Bill was merely the catalyst that created the revenge seeking rampaging bride. Oh well.  And once he made a point of telling the story about the Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart Technique it was obvious that it was gonna be used on him.

Elle was the replacement chick with a chip on her shoulder - thats it.  Just the number two blonde bitch pissed at the number one blonde bitch.  Because she adequately demonstrated hate doesn't make her an in depth character - and her blinding was another-one of those instances where I knew what was gonna happen before it happened.

As for Vernita - she was just the warm-up fight to show how heartless the bride was and how skillful she still was even after the 4 year coma.  The most memorable bit about that chapter was the cereal box - Kabooms - that _was_ funny.

There are 2 reasons that explain some of my dissatisfaction with this movie
- It was too predictable - not in a you knew the bride would win way, but in a you knew exactly what was going to happen next way.
- The bride reminded me very much of the character Thomas Covenant.  She just wasn't my kind of anti-hero.

I liked KB1 movie much more than KB2.

Oh, and my list of recent movies I consider good includes the LoTR movies, I was listing non-fantasy movies.  The signal fire scene is a favorite of mine.  I'm not as crazy about Braveheart as my friends and I couldn't get into L.A. Confidential.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 20, 2004)

Well, Abraxas, we disagree. Sounds to me like you're dismissing people as plot points because that's the only way you consider them -- but you probably think I'm reading way too much into the script, huh? Oh well.

Daryl Hannah's performance demonstrated far more than just "hate", however. I don't think you can deny she displayed petulance, grudging respect, jealousy, envy, satisfaction, frustration, bitterness and plain old fury. You can say it was all hate if you like, but I found just her conversation on the telephone in the hospital contained half-a-dozen poignant transitions that were beautifully handled.

And to me, a good character is one that goes through transitions. That changes.

Which lines of Bill's do you think were mystic psychobabble?

I also find Thomas Covenant a character not very much worth my effort -- I don't want to read about him because I just don't like. Or at least I didn't when I first read those books -- twenty years ago or more now. I might like them better, now.

But I don't see that the Bride had much to do with him. To me, Covenant's primary characteristic is his constant whining and complaining and weaselling out of what needs to be done. In contrast, I found the Bride was direct and without excuses -- she let you know what she wanted and she went after it. As unlike Covenant as I could imagine, frankly.

For myself, I had no idea how it was going to end. I couldn't conceive of what was going to happen next. When Bill shot her, I didn't see that coming. When he told BB that he'd killed Beatrix -- I didn't see that coming. When Elle killed Budd -- I didn't see that coming.

And I read the screenplay a year ago, so I SHOULD have known. But I'm notoriously poor at guessing how stories turn out. Except for _The Sixth Sense_. Got that one.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 20, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Kai Lord: If you think the Bride that tearfully sends the man she loves to the death he must have is the same woman that callously cut off Sofie Fatale's arm, then, well, we disagree on that.



I do think she's the same person, albeit at the end of her emotional and physical rope.  Sure, the proximity of her just revealed daughter, the freshness of holding her in her arms, and looking into the eyes of the man who she never believed would or could ever betray her opens up the emotional floodgates in those final moments, but she chooses the _exact_ same course of action as when she began her bloody rampage.  Murder.  And not in self defense as she ran for his sword before she realized he was armed.

I think her character did go through a transformation within the context of the story as a whole, but we disagree on where it occurred and how long it lasted.  I believe she changed when she learned she was pregnant, and this was perfectly depicted in the actual scene in which she first learns she'll be a mom and let's the Asian woman sent to kill her walk away.  Was it logically "smart" from her point of view?  Probably not.  Who can really trust the morality and compassion of a professional killer?  The assassin could have easily gotten over her initial reaction to Beatrix's pregnancy and come after her five minutes later or five days later.  But this was a new Beatrix, and that Beatrix lived until the Wedding Chapel Massacre, where she was killed with the rest of the party.

The Bride who emerged was vengeful, murderous, and would never go back to being the person who let the first assassin go.  Nope, even if it meant killing a man she once loved and deeply trusted.  Even after realizing that her daughter hadn't really been lost, or even significantly damaged.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> That look is long gone by the time she confronts Bill on the patio. As is her rage.



Because at this point in the story, after so many killings, she's so far into her routine she's basically on autopilot.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You'll note that we do NOT get the "Here goes the crazy Bride" music at that point. As in fact we don't get when she FIRST goes in to kill Budd -- it's only after Budd has buried her alive that he warrants the "close-up siren craziness" treatment.



Yep!  And that's the thing.  Try to kill her, you get the "close-up siren crazy treatment."  Same old Beatrix.  I'm not saying its odd for someone to be pissed when someone royally screws them over in such a morbid fashion, but it isn't exactly commendable behavior, and in Beatrix's case, no different at the end than when she started.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Note that she does not kill Elle Driver, when she so easily could have. She renders the woman helpless and then leaves.



Eh, so she allowed her to live with her grotesque deformity just as she did with Sophie.  Kind of an "enjoy your life now, b***ch".  Not exactly merciful.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What I really object to is the notion that stories of murderous revenge cannot be rich in value, simply by virtue of being stories of murderous revenge.



Its not that it features "murderous revenge," but that's *all* that it is.  You might believe that a tale showcasing nothing more someone's homicidal drive for revenge can, in the right hands, be rich in value but I simply don't.  The whole "in the right hands" for me would imply that something *more* would be added to story to make it worthwhile.  Revenge that leads to redemption, or that serves as a cautionary tale.  But then it wouldn't be a film like Kill Bill.  And it still wouldn't offer as much as LOTR or The Passion.  IMO.

Now, a couple of asides.  I think its cool that you're so enthusiastic about a movie.  There have been a number of times I've enjoyed parrying and jousting about different points in films just because I love talking about movies I love, whether others share that same affinity or not.  Its just fun to get behind a story you love.    

Aside #2:  This is probably me reading *way* to much into things but something that made me curious after watching KB1 on DVD again.  During the exchange between Beatrix and O-Ren when they say, "Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids...."  does anyone think that was Quentin hinting at the Bride's name?  Or possibly where he got the idea for her name?

Rabbit Trix.  Beatrix.  Kids.  Kiddo.  *shrugs*

Just a random thought.


----------



## kingpaul (Apr 20, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> - It was too predictable - not in a you knew the bride would win way, but in a you knew exactly what was going to happen next way.



You knew Budd was going to 'dispose' of the Bride the way he did?


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 20, 2004)

What's wrong with revenge for revenge's sake?

You may not have noticed, but reality usually doesn't conform to the dramatic conventions.  People love for love's sake, and hate for hate's sake.  There aren't any morals to real stories.


----------



## Abraxas (Apr 20, 2004)

> _Posted by *kingpaul*_
> You knew Budd was going to 'dispose' of the Bride the way he did?




Nope, but I was sure that 1) he was waiting to shoot her when she came in the door, and 2) when he actually did hit her with the double barrel shotgun blast to the chest that that wasn't 00 buckshot in his shotgun - didn't guess rocksalt, but new it wasn't lead.  Of course Budd is pretty much the only character that I didn't think was completely 2D either - I actually liked that chapter - a lot.


----------



## ph34r (Apr 22, 2004)

The most exciting part of the movie for me was watching the trailer for _Hero_. 3/10.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Apr 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> ...No matter how expertly polished a tale of murderous revenge can ever be, its still a tale of murderous revenge, and will never possess the rich value of a story like The Lord of the Rings or The Passion of the Christ...




I gave KB2 a "10" in the poll, because, if you are familiar with the conventions of the genre, this movie is nearly the perfect distillation of them, with liberal amounts of modern "quality filmmaking" added to the mix (in much the same manner that *Crouching tiger, Hidden Dragon* was a "souped up" version of the Wuxia genre.

I was an insominiac as a teenager which meant that I watched a _lot_ of late night TV. Usually this meant *Quincy* reruns. But every so often (monthly-ish) the local indy channel CKVU would show a dubbed Hong Kong Kung fu movie...and they were fantastic. Thus, I find myself in posession of a great undestanding of he genre Tarantino as trying to emulate.

I don't follow any particular mythology in my day-to-day life, so when I saw *The Passion of the Christ*, I found it to be nothing but a film of an near-endless beating, with interspered "Evil Jew" segements. I'm sure there is more to be had from it than that, but without understanding where the film's creator is coming from, that's all I can get.

I think that might be why Kai Lord didn't "get" Kill Bill 2. No perspective.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Apr 22, 2004)

I gave it a "3" only because of David Carradine (great comeback) and the sleazy Mexican whorehouse scene; otherwise, it was a "1". The first hour of this movie put me to sleep. The fight scenes sucked and the ending was anticlimactic. There was no point showing the endless B&W wedding crap if we didn't get to see the massacre. There was no point showing all her kung-fu instruction with Pai Mei as she hardly used any kung-fu in the movie. Budd was a stupid hick and his character added nothing to the movie except padding---especially felt cheated when Elle kills him instead of The Bride (and with a snake, not a sword fight). The Bride/Elle Driver fight in Budd's trailer was lame: too short, too cramped. Nice finish (squish!), but that's it.

This movie felt like a complete rip-off after the first Kill Bill, which I enjoyed a lot. Part 2 needed to have at least 30 minutes slashed out of it. As is, it's boring, pretentious trash. Honestly, my friends and I were so pissed off after watching this garbage that we were too upset to even play D&D! We ended up playing Scrabble instead. I will never watch Part 2 again, not even for free.

I honestly have no idea what anyone who liked this movie was thinking. This movie would barely be acceptable entertainment even as a stand-alone picture with no Kill Bill Vol. 1. If Part 2 came out first, it would have been a box office bomb. They should have just cut the hell out of Part 2 and added it to Part 1, not ripped me off with a bait and switch (first part all action, second part all talking heads).


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 22, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> This movie felt like a complete rip-off after the first Kill Bill, which I enjoyed a lot. Part 2 needed to have at least 30 minutes slashed out of it. As is, it's boring, pretentious trash. Honestly, my friends and I were so pissed off after watching this garbage that we were too upset to even play D&D! We ended up playing Scrabble instead. I will never watch Part 2 again, not even for free.



Words....fail me. :\

Was there a shortage of trolls in this thread that you were looking to redress?


----------



## rich (Apr 22, 2004)

KB1 rocked, KB2 rocked more   
I see lots of movies, enjoy most of them, but some are true "works of art."  And, as art, are to be valued for different reasons.  Sometimes I admire the filmmaking, sometimes the script, sometimes the acting, sometimes just the emotional impact of watching.  Some movies are more limited in focus than others, and actually I would consider both KB2 and Passion to fit that category.  Unfortunately, I think most people had already made up their mind (good or bad) before seeing Passion, so its tough to be an unbiased critic.  I do find it interesting how much it has affected people -- in a thread about KB2, its getting almost as much discussion...

Uma Thurman is great, I really liked Budd, I liked the interaction between Bill and the Bride (both at the chapel and at the end)... The cinematography was excellent...  As for redemption/transformation, etc, I view the Bride as sort of a force of nature -- doomed to inflict great pain on the world due to the impossible contradictions in her life.  Eliminating her oppponents removed the contradictions, so now she is free to move on in peace (ie, she no longer needs to be a killer) -- at least until the kids grow up and start it all over again...

other movies I liked in the last couple years:
A Beautiful Mind
Training Day
The Hours
Underworld
Thirteen
The Passion

Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction were great...

All-time best movie: Schindler's List


----------



## hong (Apr 22, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Words....fail me. :\
> 
> Was there a shortage of trolls in this thread that you were looking to redress?



I_C clearly wants an action movie, with a minimum of talking and a maximum of violence. As an action movie, KB2 is not quite as good as KB1: the Bride gets her butt kicked as often as she kicks butt (if not more), you don't have as much mook-slaughtering, and in general the visuals are not quite as bloody. In terms of the more conventional metrics like character development, dialogue, dramatic conflict, and so on, though, it walks all over KB1.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> At least for me it is consistent -- I have yet to like a single Tarantino film.
> 
> He is good a "clever references", but other than that I find his films are singularly repugnant.



Kill Bill 1 is the only Tarantino film I've ever seen.  And based on that one, I won't be rushing out anytime soon to see the rest of them.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Its not that it features "murderous revenge," but that's *all* that it is.  You might believe that a tale showcasing nothing more someone's homicidal drive for revenge can, in the right hands, be rich in value but I simply don't.  The whole "in the right hands" for me would imply that something *more* would be added to story to make it worthwhile.  Revenge that leads to redemption, or that serves as a cautionary tale.  But then it wouldn't be a film like Kill Bill.



Exactly why Kill Bill is so inferior to _The Count of Monte Cristo._  Not the recent movie though, which was entertaining enough but which missed the whole point when they changed the ending.  The original by Alexandre Dumas.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Apr 22, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> I_C clearly wants an action movie, with a minimum of talking and a maximum of violence. As an action movie, KB2 is not quite as good as KB1: the Bride gets her butt kicked as often as she kicks butt (if not more), you don't have as much mook-slaughtering, and in general the visuals are not quite as bloody. In terms of the more conventional metrics like character development, dialogue, dramatic conflict, and so on, though, it walks all over KB1.




The first one created that expectation that we would be getting a kick-ass action movie. For Tarantino to totally disregard the audience's expectations is criminal. Part 2 is nothing like Part 1, and therein lies the problem. You just can't shift gears like that. I didn't care about any of the characters or the plot because there was nothing there to begin with... Kill Bill 1 was a comic book. Kill Bill 2 piled on all the blah-blah-blah stuff while removing practically all the action. I did not want to see the Bride get her ass kicked/buried alive. It was boring. The first movie led me to expect to see her kicking mass-ass all the way up to the final battle with Bill. Part 2 failed to deliver on every level as a result. 

Budd was the least interesting character in the film because he was the most normal (followed by Vernita Green, but she gets points for her in-your face attitude, which Budd lacked). He was not a larger than life comic book villain. He was just some dumb hick with no personality. He ate up way too much screen time. Who needs to see him working at that strip club? YAWN! It was meaningless. Just have the Bride fight him, kill him and move on. 

The Bride losing to Budd was anticlimactic and unbelievable after all her spectacular efforts against the other Deadly Vipers. The buried alive scene elicited yawns instead of suspense. I grew more and more irritated with each shovelful of dirt hitting the coffin; the theater's speakers were too loud, the screen was black and it was excruciatingly slow and boring. The evil midget gravedigger was cool, though. Midgets make everything better.   

The wedding scene never paid off with the action scene we were led to believe was coming. Who needs it? YAWN. Could have been cut out or down.

Elle should have had a giant fight scene every bit as beautiful and bloodthirsty as O-Ren Ishii had. Instead, we get five minutes alone with her in a cramped trailer. Woo-hoo. Some epic battle there. 

Bill should have had a big bad battle too (after she fights through Elle and his mooks). Not the wimped-out "family man" nonsense we ended up with. If I wanted that junk, I'd watch Oprah. Carradine put in a great performance, but it was not enough to save the sinking ship Kill Bill 2 was.

The movie ruined my entire day. I'm not being a troll. I'm telling you how the movie made me feel. I came away from it angry, bored, drained of energy and ripped-off. I couldn't summon up the energy to even play D&D afterward. We were lucky to even get a game of Scrabble in, we all felt so drained and let down.

I honestly cannot see how anyone enjoyed Part 2 after watching Part 1. I really can't.


----------



## hong (Apr 23, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> The first one created that expectation that we would be getting a kick-ass action movie. yadda yadda worst action movie evar yadda yadda



Heard it all before, d00d.


----------



## kingpaul (Apr 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Exactly why Kill Bill is so inferior to _The Count of Monte Cristo._  Not the recent movie though, which was entertaining enough but which missed the whole point when they changed the ending.  The original by Alexandre Dumas.



Ah yes, that was a good revenge story.  2 or 3 summers ago, I finally borrowed that book to read it...I was quite impressed.


----------



## Mort (Apr 23, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> I gave it a "3" only because of David Carradine (great comeback) and the sleazy Mexican whorehouse scene; otherwise, it was a "1". The first hour of this movie put me to sleep. The fight scenes sucked and the ending was anticlimactic. There was no point showing the endless B&W wedding crap if we didn't get to see the massacre. There was no point showing all her kung-fu instruction with Pai Mei as she hardly used any kung-fu in the movie. Budd was a stupid hick and his character added nothing to the movie except padding---especially felt cheated when Elle kills him instead of The Bride (and with a snake, not a sword fight). The Bride/Elle Driver fight in Budd's trailer was lame: too short, too cramped. Nice finish (squish!), but that's it.
> 
> This movie felt like a complete rip-off after the first Kill Bill, which I enjoyed a lot. Part 2 needed to have at least 30 minutes slashed out of it. As is, it's boring, pretentious trash. Honestly, my friends and I were so pissed off after watching this garbage that we were too upset to even play D&D! We ended up playing Scrabble instead. I will never watch Part 2 again, not even for free.
> 
> I honestly have no idea what anyone who liked this movie was thinking. This movie would barely be acceptable entertainment even as a stand-alone picture with no Kill Bill Vol. 1. If Part 2 came out first, it would have been a box office bomb. They should have just cut the hell out of Part 2 and added it to Part 1, not ripped me off with a bait and switch (first part all action, second part all talking heads).




Interesting, I liked the movie for the exact same reasons you hated it. I liked Vol.1 but was expecting Vol. 2 to be more of the same and therefore stagnant. I really liked that Vol. 2 was more of a character study, with more exposition and explanation, because that set it apart, and justified another 2 hours for me.

My one gripe was that some of the dialogue seemed to be coming straight from Tarantino and not the characters.  The biggest example being the superman analogy from Bill. While it was a neat analogy, it just didn’t seem to fit “Bill” the character. It seemed like Tarantino wanted to say something and shoehorned it in.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 23, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> she chooses the _exact_ same course of action as when she began her bloody rampage.  Murder.  And not in self defense as she ran for his sword before she realized he was armed.



I'm not saying she was a GOOD person at the end of the story. I'm just saying she changed.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I think her character did go through a transformation within the context of the story as a whole, but we disagree on where it occurred and how long it lasted.  I believe she changed when she learned she was pregnant, (snip) and that Beatrix lived until the Wedding Chapel Massacre, where she was killed with the rest of the party.



See, we disagree fundamentally. Beatrix did NOT change prior to the massacre -- that's the WHOLE POINT of the movie. She was lying to herself prior to the massacre. Sure, she'd convinced herself that she'd changed, but she'd been unwilling to do what was necessary in order to actually transform her life.

She'd been afraid to confront Bill, to face the real consequences of her life of murder and violence, and it caught up with her in a bad way and destroyed what she THOUGHT she'd been willing to accept. In the process, she lost that which had triggered her desire for change in the first place -- her child.

It's only through the course of the story that she acquires the courage and the compassion to take herself into the darkest corners of herself, to confront that which ultimately defines her, and destroy it.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The Bride who emerged was vengeful, murderous, and would never go back to being the person who let the first assassin go.  Nope, even if it meant killing a man she once loved and deeply trusted.  Even after realizing that her daughter hadn't really been lost, or even significantly damaged. Because at this point in the story, after so many killings, she's so far into her routine she's basically on autopilot.



You're just hand-waving the actual evidence in the movie, the fact that her confrontation with Bill is DRASTICALLY different from her confrontation with O-Ren, that her behaviour is different and that the presentation of her behaviour is different -- all of which indicates that we are meant to see this action as DIFFERENT from the former one. That we are meant to see her in a different light, as a different person.

If you want to say, "Things look different, but I know they haven't changed," go ahead. I'll take the story as it is and assume that when something is presented in a different manner, it's because things have CHANGED.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I'm not saying its odd for someone to be pissed when someone royally screws them over in such a morbid fashion, but it isn't exactly commendable behavior, and in Beatrix's case, no different at the end than when she started.



But it IS different. The fact that she DOESN'T go crazy until somebody wrongs her is completely different than at the beginning of the film -- where she slaughters a host of people who haven't done anything to her.

Look at the progression of the "Crazy Bride Scene":

1. Hearing Sofie's cell phone ring (it's not even somebody who did anything to her, just a reminder of what happened)
2. Confronting Vernita Green face-to-face
3. After Budd has buried her alive
4. ...nothing

You don't see a transformation there, well, I can't force you to. It seems clear to me.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The whole "in the right hands" for me would imply that something *more* would be added to story to make it worthwhile.  Revenge that leads to redemption, or that serves as a cautionary tale.



Okay, so you wish that this film expressed a moral stance that you agree with -- that is, that revenge is bad in and of itself. I agree that this film does not show us that -- or at least, if doesn't show us that in an unproblematic manner. But I suggest again that this film is not primarily about revenge. It's about self-transformation and the pain and heartbreak that involves. It's about the fact that if you really truly want a new life, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice what you always thought defined you. You'd better be prepared to destroy what you love most.

You're going to meet the Buddha on the road. Kill him.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> This is probably me reading *way* to much into things but something that made me curious after watching KB1 on DVD again.  During the exchange between Beatrix and O-Ren when they say, "Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids...."  does anyone think that was Quentin hinting at the Bride's name?  Or possibly where he got the idea for her name?
> 
> Rabbit Trix.  Beatrix.  Kids.  Kiddo.



My wife had exactly the same thought.

It's interesting to note that O-Ren and the Bride appear to have no animosity -- in contrast to Vernita Green, who's pretty hostile ("I shoulda been mutha-f***ing Black Mamba"), Budd and his sympathetic savagery ("That woman deserves her revenge"), and Elle's untempered venom ("Oh, you don't owe her s***!"). I don't think it's a coincidence. Note also that O-Ren gets a long backstory to make us sympathetic to her -- I think the Bride likes O-Ren (or did, before... you know). It seems like they might have been friends at one point.

It's exactly this sort of tantalizing detail, these unspoken connections between characters that are NOT spelled out for the audience, that makes me love this film. It lets me use my imagination to fill out the story. It doesn't try to explain everything. Good stuff.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Apr 24, 2004)

Man, I am going to go see it again, armed with Barsoomcore's insights (though frankly I already gave it a 10).


----------



## Pants (Apr 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 3. After Budd has buried her alive
> [/b]



Hm, I always thought that the 'crazy bride music' started up because she saw Elle.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 24, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I gave KB2 a "10" in the poll, because, if you are familiar with the conventions of the genre, this movie is nearly the perfect distillation of them, with liberal amounts of modern "quality filmmaking" added to the mix...I think that might be why Kai Lord didn't "get" Kill Bill 2. No perspective.



See, that's the thing that you obviously don't understand.  I know the genre.  I understand the genre.  I "get" the genre.  I just don't particularly care for the genre.  A "nearly perfection distillation" of a flawed concept will never, ever compare to a nearly perfect distillation of a worthy concept.

When Quentin Tarantino is not at his most foul, his movies can be a lot of fun.  The references are often fun and the dialogue can be a real kick.  And unlike many directors who choose stories closer to my own particular tastes, Tarantino is *incredibly* unpredictable in his storytelling.  You never totally know who's going to die or who's going to live happily ever after, and since his films often loop back in on themselves, you never know exactly when you're going to see the resolution to a particular storyline.

There are times when I find that style of filmmaking very refreshing, and a part of me is waiting for him to do as Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson did; leave the foul juvenile crap behind him and tell a story worth telling like Spider-Man or LOTR.  But alas, unlike Sam and Peter he simply hasn't outgrown it.  A pity.  And he'll never get a 10/10 until he does.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> See, we disagree fundamentally.



Yep.  



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Beatrix did NOT change prior to the massacre -- that's the WHOLE POINT of the movie.



And as you know I find that totally wrong.  I think you are the one who is hand-waving away the actual evidence of the movie (and the commentary of QT himself), in all caps no less.  It was spelled out quite clearly that her character made almost a 180 degree transition when she discovered she was pregnant.  It would have been interesting if they had maintained the "Being a mommy = not being a murderer" angle, and had her change back when she discovered that her daughter was alive at the end of the second movie.

I think that would have been very interesting.  Then Quentin would have been left with two possibilities.  Have her end up *not* killing Bill (talk about a twist) or kill him but instead out of revenge doing it out of self defense.  The latter would have been *extremely* cliched and would have called for an extremely skilled execution (no pun intended) to pull off and I think best left avoided.

The very best ending that was probably just beyond QT's ability to manage would have been to have had Beatrix not kill Bill, but somehow through her redemption cause Bill to change too.  So she doesn't murder him, but kills that aspect of his identity.  The title of the movie is played out and the story transcends all the junk that inspired it.

But as it was QT took the easy way out and didn't deviate whatsoever from the old movies he sought to emulate save for an occassional out of character reference to comic books.

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas took everything they loved about old adventure serials and made them better in Raiders of the Lost Ark.  George Lucas took everything he loved about Akira Kurosawa films and Flash Gordon and made it better in Star Wars (though arguably if you're a big Kurosawa fan.)  Tarantino took everything he loved about revenge exploitation flicks and made it...prettier and with snappier music in Kill Bill.  Eh.  I admit I enjoyed most of the second Volume at a matinee showing, but he certainly didn't transcend the source material in the manner of other, truly great films.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 24, 2004)

You see, that's your problem.  You think you know what quality is.  You're like those people who think that comic books are necessarily shallow and trite because the medium is inherently inferior, ignoring what can be accomplished and how deeply imaginative people can be touched by them.

Have you even _considered_ the possibility that if everything you see in the films is stupid and juvenile, the problem is in you?


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 25, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> See, that's the thing that you obviously don't understand. I know the genre. I understand the genre. I "get" the genre. I just don't particularly care for the genre. A "nearly perfection distillation" of a flawed concept will never, ever compare to a nearly perfect distillation of a worthy concept.



That sounds rather odd to me.  If you don't care for the genre, how can you describe yourself as 'getting it'?  It's like saying you know about rice krispie treats, you 'get' them, but you don't particularly care for them because the very idea of mixing marshmallows and rice krispies with butter and other ingredients is inherently flawed.

If you don't like the genre, I don't see how you can really determine much about it internally.  Why is the genre itself a 'flawed concept'?  I could easily say the same thing about period romances, farcical comedies or greek plays.  That doesn't necessarily say anything other than that you didn't like it.

Also, I think part of the disconnect may be that you define this in a narrow genre of 'revenge genre' film, when I think it was, if anything, more appropriatedly placed in the martial arts genre (although I don't think it pigeonholes that well).  This isn't a remake of "Mr. Majestyk" (whose poster hangs in Bud's trailer) but more of Return of the Master Killer and 36th Chamber of Shaolin.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 25, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> That sounds rather odd to me.  If you don't care for the genre, how can you describe yourself as 'getting it'?



And I find it odd that you find it odd.     Seriously, it isn't a complicated concept.  Understanding /= liking.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 25, 2004)

And you don't seem to be doing either in this case.


----------



## hong (Apr 25, 2004)

"And what, pray tell, is the five-point-palm exploding head technique?"

"Quite simply the deadliest blow in all of martial arts. He hits you at five pressure points around the body, and lets you go. But after you have taken five steps, your head explodes."


----------



## Darrin Drader (Apr 25, 2004)

Late to the party, but I finally saw the second part.

I give the film a higher score than Kai Lord, but I agree with many of the points he made. Keep in mind that I do not define myself as a Christian, either. In my opinion, in the end, it isn't the bride that was redeemed, but Bill. I mean lets face it, all those people had to die because those two didn't work as a couple. You can accuse either one of them of being horrible murderers, but how is the way Bill dealt with her any worse than the way she dealt with him after she woke up from the coma? This is what happens when assassins have marital spats! It really takes domestic violence to a whole new level.

So the reason I think Bill redeems himself is because first he calls off Elle from killing the bride while she was in a coma. Then, he tries to warn his brother in hopes that he'll find a way to stay out of the way, he raises their daughter while saying nothing negative about her, and finally he doesn't try to hide from her murderous rampage. 

I keep wondering why she was out to kill them. I can understand the profound effect that her pregnancy must have had on her and why that would cause her to go ballistic, but by her own admission, she didn't think things would work out with the guy in the small town. I really doubt she ever truly cared for him at all. When she learned that her daughter was still alive, what was her motivation for killing Bill at that point? It really could have ended there and ther might have been redemtion of a sort on both sides. But that would have been anti-clamactic. While I ended up liking the movies more than I thought I would, the ending just made me sad.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 25, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And I find it odd that you find it odd.  Seriously, it isn't a complicated concept. Understanding /= liking.



Understanding, no, "getting it", yes. If you don't like rice krispy treats at all, stating that you think Mom's rice krispy treats tends to lose value as an analysis, when you don't think that any rice krispy treat could ever real ben palatable. If you don't particularly enjoy asian martial arts cinema, and think the very basis of the genre is flawed, then of course you don't like Kill Bill on that basis. It just seems odd that you would even bother to go see it, especially if you didn't like the previous installment.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> So the reason I think Bill redeems himself is because first he calls off Elle from killing the bride while she was in a coma. Then, he tries to warn his brother in hopes that he'll find a way to stay out of the way, he raises their daughter while saying nothing negative about her, and finally he doesn't try to hide from her murderous rampage.



Bill being a complex character doesn't equal redeemed. If Bill was so darned redeemed, why did he let so many people die? Remember, Bill knew right after O-ren and the Crazy 88s that Beatrix was on her way to lay down the smack. Vernita certainly didn't get the memo on that one. Sure, he warned his brother...but he could have given some protection, or could have met the bride at some point previous to her rampage. Hanzo clearly hated Bill enough to violate his blood oath, something that Bill found suprising, but wasn't shocked by. 

Bill was transformed by her death and then betrayl, and the results of his own actions. He felt remorse, and he felt guilt. But he was still, by his own admission, "a murderous bastard". He hadn't stopped being an assassin, and had no intentions to do so.

I would say that they transformed each other. One of the things I really enjoyed about KB v2 was that Bill was redefined from the first half. He becomes one of the most sympathetic characters, after a fashion. But let's be clear, he's a bastard...and he's OK with that. Charming at it, really. But he also was OK with gunning down his daughter's mother with little provocation, mere feet away from where she was sleeping. Bill didn't try to talk the bride out of killing him...he just wanted closure. 

If anything, I'd say that Bill wanted her to kill him, so he could allow her to transform into the mother that their daughter needed...someone he could not be.


----------



## Thanee (Apr 25, 2004)

Just a lil side question, what's that silly kung fu strike called in english?

Five point pressure heart explosion technique?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Apr 25, 2004)

What I really liked in the movie was the many different director styles incorporated (like the Sergio Leone character close ups).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 25, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Understanding, no, "getting it", yes.



You obviously don't know what getting it means.  And for that you must feel the wrath of my five point palm.     It simply means to understand the story, what it was trying to accomplish, and what the storyteller was trying to say.  It doesn't mean you like it.  You can "get" a joke without finding it funny.

See Teflon Billy's post where he confesses to not understanding The Passion or what Gibson was trying to get across with the movie and how that was his basis for comparison in suggesting I didn't "get" Kill Bill.  But as I said, I did get it.



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> If you don't particularly enjoy asian martial arts cinema, and think the very basis of the genre is flawed, then of course you don't like Kill Bill on that basis.



There's much more to KB than "Asian martial arts cinema" which ironically suggests you were the one who didn't get it.  I've seen many kung fu movies that didn't have revenge as their basis.  I label the movie as Tarantino does, a revenge exploitation flick that borrows liberally from Asian cinema, but also Italian and American as well.  So did Quentin not get his own movie?  I think not.    



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> It just seems odd that you would even bother to go see it, especially if you didn't like the previous installment.



Then you obviously aren't getting any of my posts either, because I literally spelled out in black and white why I went to see KB2 in spite of Tarantino's previous work.  Go back and read it.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 26, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I think you are the one who is hand-waving away the actual evidence of the movie (and the commentary of QT himself), in all caps no less.  It was spelled out quite clearly that her character made almost a 180 degree transition when she discovered she was pregnant.



She decided on a new course of action -- but she wasn't willing to face the consequences of that (as Bill literally says -- "There are consequences for breaking the heart of a killer"). Characters make decisions without TRANSFORMING (just to get my all-caps quota in early   ) all the time -- but transformation must cost. We read stories in order to see transformation (when we're not just wanting to see our self-images peddled back to us) -- if there's been no cost to the character then who cares if she transforms?

That scene (where she discovers she's pregnant), is the start of the story. It is the beginning of the Bride's transformation. The transformation is, and must be, a process. The longer and more costly this process is (all other things being equal), the more powerful and exciting the story is.

_Kill Bill_ is the story of Beatrix Kiddo's transformation, a transformation that begins when she discovers she is pregnant and that ends when she at last destroys all that identified her in her previous life. Initially she attempts to just ignore the facts of her life, with tragic results, but in the end she confronts and destroys that which is closest to her and is most preventing her from moving on with her life.

There's a poem by D.H. Lawrence, one of my favourite bits of writing ever, that discusses the necessary death of transformation. _The Ship of Death_. The poet insists that it is vitally important to build one's "Ship of Death", to stock it with the necessities of the soul in advance of the coming and inevitable flood that will sink everything, consume all that you care about, and the soul alone will survive in the Ship until:


			
				DH Lawrence said:
			
		

> The flood subsides, and the body, like a worn sea-shell
> emerges strange and lovely.
> And the little ship wings home, faltering and lapsing
> on the pink flood,
> ...



The idea is common in Buddhist and Hindu thought, but this is one of my favourite expressions of it in Western writing. You can read the whole poem here, if you're so inclined.

I think it's interesting, KL, that you keep coming up with "alternate" versions of the movie that you say would be better. It's like you have these patterns that stories must follow if they are to win your approval. Rather than deal with what the movie DOES say, you keep comparing it to some non-existent film, with a different message, and pointing out how it fails to accord with that. I'm not sure what I think about that, but I thought I should point it out.

Thanee: Five-Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique

Pants: indeed it did, which is interesting in and of itself, but it is nonetheless AFTER she's been buried alive.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 26, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Budd was the least interesting character in the film because he was the most normal (followed by Vernita Green, but she gets points for her in-your face attitude, which Budd lacked). He was not a larger than life comic book villain. He was just some dumb hick with no personality. He ate up way too much screen time. Who needs to see him working at that strip club? YAWN! It was meaningless. Just have the Bride fight him, kill him and move on.



The strip club scene is pretty important to understanding what's happened to Budd. Budd, of all of the Squad members, has fallen the furthest. Vernita thinks she's going to go have a normal life, Elle has stayed on and apparently tried to out-bad-ass all of them, O-Ren has built her own little empire and probably was on the way to becoming a 'Bill' in her own right. But poor ol' Budd? He was a top of the line assassin. And now he's letting some loser bad mouth him and letting a two-dollar whore tell him to go clean crap. The whole scene shows just how far down the pike he's come.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Apr 26, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> See, that's the thing that you obviously don't understand.  I know the genre.  I understand the genre.  I "get" the genre.  I just don't particularly care for the genre.




Without trying to sound like a dick...why did you go to such lengths to familiarize yourself witha genre you (seemingly at first blush) didn't care for?

I mean, if I hadn't _liked_ the first hong kong chop-socky flick I had ever seen (at least in comparison to *Quincy* reruns) I doubt I would've bothered to watch more long enough to understand the genre.



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> A "nearly perfection distillation" of a flawed concept will never, ever compare to a nearly perfect distillation of a worthy concept.




Is that what you are calling the *Passion of the Christ*?

And what's so flawed about the concept in KB2? ...which, as I understand it, is the telling of the story using the "cinematic language" of the Hong Kong Chop Socky flicks of the 70's.

If all that had been produced was KB1, then i wouldn;t be all that impressed...I've seen movies like that, and while KB1 is a very good example of such a beast, that's all it was.

Capped by all of the character depth provided by KB2 i think we have a contender for my new favorite movie (though, admittdly my old favorite movie was *Pulp Fiction*, so I might just plain _share_ Tarantino's sensibilites).


----------



## Teflon Billy (Apr 26, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I gave it a 7.  Points off for a couple of scenes (the daughter explaining how she killed her goldfish, Bud's boss reprimanding him) and for nature of the story.
> 
> No matter how expertly polished a tale of murderous revenge can ever be, its still a tale of murderous revenge, and will never possess the rich value of a story like The Lord of the Rings or The Passion of the Christ.
> 
> That said, as a visceral epic of chop socky mayhem, it was one hell of a ride, and a couple of the chapters (Pai Mei and the showdown with Elle Driver) really transcended the genre.




Huh

You know, I've got so far into the thread that I forgot that you basically liked the movie I agree about the Goldfish thing, disagree about Budd's bosses reprimand.

I disagree that the scenes with Pai Mei "transcended" the Genre...they were brilliant _homages_ to the genre as much as they were anything.

What I think I liked best about the Pai Mei scenes was that they were shot on crappy 16mm film...so they looked like the 1970's HK films from which they drew their inspiration!

Also, I loved that at the beginning of that particular scene, Uma's kung fu _did_ look like crap (Pai Mei was correct) but by the end, it looked crisp and fluid. Touches like that were top notch

I _would_ like to know what you meant by "rich value" in the sentence "...and will never possess the rich value of a story like The Lord of the Rings or The Passion of the Christ..." though.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 26, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Without trying to sound like a dick...why did you go to suh lengths to familiarize yourself witha genre you (seemingly at first blush) didn't care for? Ieman, if I hadn't _liked_ the first hong kong chop-socky flick I had ever seen (at least in comparison to Quincy reruns) I doubt I would've bothered to watch long enough to understand the genre.



Nah that's cool.  Its a fair question.  My familiarity comes from a combination of:

1.  Two Chinese friends in high school (1988-1992) that had a sizeable collection of Hong Kong VCD's that they enjoyed sharing.  I wasn't too big on the stuff from the 70's, but I loved Jet Li's old flick "New Legend of Shaolin" (can't remember the Chinese translation.)  Oh man, the scenes where he fought off all the mooks alternating between his staff and the little baby as melee weapons was priceless.      Doing the same with Aliyah in Romeo Must Die and the midget vs. the ultimate fighters in Cradle 2 the Grave just didn't have the same charm.

I mostly liked those old flicks for the comedy factor, but it also gave me an idea of what kind of high flying wuxia action my Chinese friends sometimes incorporated into D&D.  One thing my group learned early on, is that often times bad movies = great D&D scenarios.    

Which brings us to:

2.  I went through a "too cool for Hollywood" Hong Kong/Tarantino phase back in the early to mid 90's as an alternative to the James Cameron-dominated Hollywood flicks after a friend showed me a bootleg VHS of John Woo's Hard Boiled.  Even then I found Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and True Romance to be a little too unpleasant for my tastes (I still can't watch Patricia Arquette getting her ass kicked in True Romance), but, as I said in an earlier post, I was really stimulated by the visceral rush of not knowing how Tarantino's characters would end up in the story.  And I was all over John Woo's old stuff.  (Side note: I even got to briefly speak with him at a film festival in Seattle where I attended a special screening of Bullet in the Head.  One of the nicest, most humble guys you'll ever meet.)

The 70's martial arts flicks kind of worked their way in at that period of my life in addition to the films mentioned above.



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Is that what you are calling the *Passion of the Christ*?



Yes, I do call the Passion a "worthy concept."  I wouldn't say Gibson's film is a "perfect distillation", I don't think any movie ever will be of the Gospels, but I rank it very, very highly.



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> And what's so flawed about the concept in KB2?



Because to me its cinematic junk food, whereas LOTR and The Passion actually tell a story and create an experience that enriches my life.  So that's why I didn't rate KB higher.  For me, movies that "taste great and are good for you" will always rank higher than movies that only "taste great."


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 26, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Huh
> 
> You know, I've got so far into the thread that I forgot that you basically liked the movie I agree about the Goldfish thing, disagree about Budd's bosses reprimand.



There were a couple other specific things, too.  As mentioned earlier, Bill's Superman speech really didn't sound like something Bill would say. The "voice of Tarantino" in that instance actually took me out of the moment.



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I disagree that the scenes with Pai Mei "transcended" the Genre...they were brilliant _homages_ to the genre as much as they were anything.



You're right.  "Transcended" probably wasn't the right word, I was just strongly buzzing off the film when I posted that and overstated a bit.    



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Also, I loved that at the beginning of that particular scene, Uma's kung fu _did_ look like crap (Pai Mei was correct) but by the end, it looked crisp and fluid. Touches like that were top notch



Totally.  Little things like how she put her legs and back into her punches at the end.  A very noticeable step up from the Cameron Diaz Charlie's Angels crap we're starting to see a lot of.



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I _would_ like to know what you meant by "rich value" in the sentence "...and will never possess the rich value of a story like The Lord of the Rings or The Passion of the Christ..." though.



I was writing my last post when you posted this and I kind of got into it a little bit there.  

To be more specific The Passion was a unique experience in bringing to life what Jesus suffered in a way that I don't always allow when I read the Scriptures and think about what He went through for my sake.  There are other specific things but basically I believe anything (a movie, song, event, etc.) that points toward Jesus will always have more value than something that does not.

I see a lot of Christian allegory in LOTR.  The innocent being who bears the sin of the world, the White Rider and all the horses charging down from the "heavens", the lake of fire, the city that goes up into the sky, the ease of even good men at falling into temptation, etc.

Anyway, I'll just leave it at that for the sake of answering your question.  If you don't believe what I believe, obviously those elements will hold little to no value for you.  But we all have our standards of judgment, and that's where mine are based.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Apr 26, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> There are other specific things but basically I believe anything (a movie, song, event, etc.) that points toward Jesus will always have more value than something that does not.



  Yep, your religious beliefs have _absolutely nothing_ to do with this discussion.  No siree, you're free of bias and able to judge the merits of competing works based solely on their storytelling and depth of thought, not whether the subject matter appeals to you emotionally.

Glad we cleared that up at last.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 26, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> You obviously don't know what getting it means.



Well, it obviously has a different meaning to me than you, I think.  I think you intellectually 'get it', but you state clearly afterwards that you didn't enjoy the specific parts of the martial arts genre that Tarantino is actually trying the hardest to emulate, namely the Shaw Bros. films of the 70s.  I can understand, intellectually, why someone would enjoy Death Metal...but I don't 'get it'.  I'm not saying that you don't understand it, just that I'd couch your review differently than say, Teflon Billy's, because his tastes clearly skew closer to mine than yours do.  I'm not nay-saying your opinion...if you think it was flawed or inherently not going to work based on the material, I can't say that you're wrong.  That'd be my opinion of your opinion. 





			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> There's much more to KB than "Asian martial arts cinema" which ironically suggests you were the one who didn't get it. I've seen many kung fu movies that didn't have revenge as their basis.



See Teflon Billy's statements vis a vis the language of martial arts cinema, and then check back on my comments on not being a film that could be so easily pigeon-holed.  My point was that this you and I clearly see KB v2 as having roots in two different genres.  




			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Then you obviously aren't getting any of my posts either, because I literally spelled out in black and white why I went to see KB2 in spite of Tarantino's previous work. Go back and read it.



I'm sorry, I looked and I'm not seeing where you do.  Was it in this thread?  Were you referring to this passage?



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> When Quentin Tarantino is not at his most foul, his movies can be a lot of fun. The references are often fun and the dialogue can be a real kick. And unlike many directors who choose stories closer to my own particular tastes, Tarantino is *incredibly* unpredictable in his storytelling.



I'm not being snarky here, and perhaps you think I'm trying to be, which I'm not.  I'm just trying to get a feel for what got you in the theater.  But I don't see a specific instance of 'I hate Tarntino, but I had to go see this movie because...'.  I have seen you say that you thought the first movie was foul and that you think that Tarantino hasn't gotten past his juvenile stage, which is fine.  But it sounded like you went in knowing you that, for you, the film would never be equal to the sum of it's parts, because the genre is one you don't enjoy, the director is one whose works you historically don't like as a whole film-maker (though you enjoy parts) and that you didn't enjoy the first installment of what is, essentially, the same movie.  It's just something I wouldn't have done, given similar circumstances, so I found it curious.

I mean, I'm hardly QT's biggest fan.  I've seen Pulp Fiction once, and I wasn't sure if I enjoyed it or not...but it certainly was different.  I've never seen Resevoir Dogs or Jackie Brown.

Quick question: do you think that it was the violence itself that makes the concept flawed, the 'revenge' aspect or the excution of one or both together?  That is to say, can a film like, say, 'Gladiator' ever be considerd, IYHO, on the same level as a 'Chariots of Fire', for example?


----------



## Teflon Billy (Apr 26, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> ...Bill's Superman speech really didn't sound like something Bill would say. The "voice of Tarantino" in that instance actually took me out of the moment.




It didn't quite take me out of it, but I see what you mean (I thought it was a brilliant allegory though)




			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I was writing my last post when you posted this and I kind of got into it a little bit there.




Yep, got it.  



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I see a lot of Christian allegory in LOTR.  The innocent being who bears the sin of the world, the White Rider and all the horses charging down from the "heavens", the lake of fire, the city that goes up into the sky, the ease of even good men at falling into temptation, etc.




huh! I hadn't thought of any of that before.



> Anyway, I'll just leave it at that for the sake of answering your question.  If you don't believe what I believe, obviously those elements will hold little to no value for you.  But we all have our standards of judgment, and that's where mine are based.




Yup, that right there is the point of my first post in its entirety


----------



## Teflon Billy (Apr 26, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I mean, I'm hardly QT's biggest fan.  I've seen Pulp Fiction once, and I wasn't sure if I enjoyed it or not...but it certainly was different.  I've never seen Resevoir Dogs or Jackie Brown...




Jackie Brown was so-so


----------



## Teflon Billy (Apr 26, 2004)

Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> Yep, your religious beliefs have _absolutely nothing_ to do with this discussion.  No siree, you're free of bias and able to judge the merits of competing works based solely on their storytelling and depth of thought, not whether the subject matter appeals to you emotionally.
> 
> Glad we cleared that up at last.




Jesus Christ, will you _calm down_. So the guy "steers his ship by a different star" than you. He likes movies with Jesus. I don't recall Kai Lord anywhere in the thread bitching anyone out becasue they felt differently than he did, he was stating his opinion about movies...which is what this thread (the one he started) was for.

Not to post "irrefutable truths about films"....opinions.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 26, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ, will you calm down.



Okay, that's the funniest post in this thread yet. Hee.

Sorry, just had an image of Pontius Pilate yelling that. Sorry, sorry. I'm bad. I'm a bad, bad person.

Hee.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Apr 26, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ, will you _calm down_. So the guy "steers his ship by a different star" than you. He likes movies with Jesus. I don't recall Kai Lord anywhere in the thread bitching anyone out becasue they felt differently than he did, he was stating his opinion about movies...which is what this thread (the one he started) was for.
> 
> Not to post "irrefutable truths about films"....opinions.



 LOL!  Great post, Teflon Billy. 

This has definately been an interesting thread to read.  It's given me lots of new insights into Kill Bill, as well as the martial arts and revenge movie genres.  It's also been amusing to watch Wrath of the Swarm's numerous failed attempts to bait Kai Lord.


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 30, 2004)

Wicked movie. I gave it a solid "8" - for much the same reasons that barsoomcore, Wizardru, and Teflon Billy listed.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 17, 2004)

Sorry for bumping the thread--I just saw the movie on Saturday.

After the first movie, I wasn't sure whether to be appalled at my laughter, or to laugh at how appalled I was.  The movie was unquestionably brilliant; at the same time, I felt nauseated.  My wife sincerely wishes she hadn't seen the movie at all.

In talking about it afterward, I realized that it wasn't the massive, unending violence that bothered me--I've watched most of John Woo's movies without flinching (well, okay, maybe I cringed during _Bullet in the Head--_I'm only human), and _Once Upon a Time in Mexico _was good clean mass-slaughter fun.  No, it wasn't the violence that bothered me:  it was the _destruction_ of the body that freaked me out.  

Most violent movies involve lots of shots to the chest, splatters of blood capsules, and falling over and twitching.  That's not so bad.  _KB1_ gloried in decapitations, amputations, and torture.  And that, on a visceral level, wigged me the hell out.

Add to that the fact that I like violence in movies like cumin in dishes:  it should add flavor, but not comprise the food's substance.  _KB_ was far from my favorite movie.

So my wife didn't go with me to see _KB2_, and I almost didn't go see it myself.  But oh, I'm glad I did.

Everything that _Iron Chef_ didn't like about the movie was exactly why I loved it.  The first scene had me almost whimpering with fear:  whereas some folks were looking forward to the massacre action sequence, I was dreading it.  I LIKED the people that were about to die, even the horrible bitchy mother-in-law.  They were good, decent, innocent folk who didn't deserve to be murdered, and here I was watching them talk and laugh and later watching B talk to Bill and knowing they were all about to die. 

The sequence was all about the dread; when it closed with off-screen killings, it was almost quiet, a tragedy rather than an adrenaline shot.

Same thing with the final encounter with Bill and his daughter.  The final fight sequence didn't last for twenty seconds:  it lasted for probably twenty minutes, starting from the time Bea bursts into the courtyard and going nonstop until Bill falls over dead.  Thing is, both characters knew they were in a lethal fight, and they took the time to resolve many issues during the fight.  The measured pace of the scene was far more affecting for me than would have been another high-action swordfight, a recap of the O-fight in the first movie.

Different tastes, obviously.  But whereas I'll likely never see the first movie again, I'm trying to persuade my wife to see this one as soon as possible, so we can talk about it.

Daniel


----------



## Piratecat (May 17, 2004)

Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> You see, that's your problem.  You think you know what quality is.  You're like those people who think that comic books are necessarily shallow and trite because the medium is inherently inferior, ignoring what can be accomplished and how deeply imaginative people can be touched by them.
> 
> Have you even _considered_ the possibility that if everything you see in the films is stupid and juvenile, the problem is in you?




You know, I'm close to taking the unprecedented step of suggesting that Wrath of the Swarm stay out of the movie forum altogether. It brings out the worst in him.  One more attack in one more thread, Wrath, and you get a free vacation. My patience is pretty much exhausted.

Ready for a quick rules review, folks? Do not tell other people what they are, or what they think. Do not insult people or pick fights. It's rude, and it's inappropriate, and we're not going to tolerate it. 

Link to the Rules.

And considering that I haven't seen the danged movie yet, trying to moderate this thread _without_ getting nailed by spoilers has been nothing if not tricky!


----------



## barsoomcore (May 17, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> And considering that I haven't seen the danged movie yet, trying to moderate this thread without getting nailed by spoilers has been nothing if not tricky!



ENWorld: Where blind moderators lead deaf posters. No wonder we love it.



Pielorinho: That's a brilliant summation of the final act of the film. Well said.


----------

