*raises hand*

I'm actually not a big Tarantino fan, but an entertaining movie is an entertaining movie. A lot of reviews I've been reading as of late have had some truly silly complaints, I'm guessing many hold Tarantino up to a higher standard that most typical filmmakers, which I suppose is understandable. That said, while watching this movie, there was an undeniable uniqueness to it, despite the fact that much of it is likely borrowed. It was unique to me (I'm not an old-school cinemaphile) and I really got a kick out of many things in it - and just loved the pacing, acting, and plot progression in it - it all seemed fairly logical (with exception of the bride using the front door to Budd's trailer) and was - again - entertaining as hell. (and while I got the references in the Pai Mei segment and Shogun Assassins, and a lot of them in Volume 1 (I am an asian cinema fan), I really didn't notice all that many throughout volume 2.)... And on that note, I'd much rather see a movie that borrows something and uses it in an interesting way than one that's plain throughout.

Drop - I actually didn't feel a whole lot of sympathy for the Budd character, I could relate to him, but realizing that - I just didn't feel much. It always struck me as if he chose to be the way he is, sure he has lost potential but its seemingly his own fault, he's where he is in life because its where his personality and lifestyle got him. I did find his demise to be relatively fitting, unfortunately, it wasn't much of a surprise as I skimmed ONE negative review of the movie to see what they had to say, and low-and-behold - they brought up several spoilers. You ever notice how people who hate a movie never have a problem spoiling every damn thing? Oh well, learning experience I suppose.

Yea, Budd definitly was in his position by free will, but that made it worse for me. He chose to be where he is at. He squandered his potential by his doing, and that makes it even worse for me. I couldn't help but think during the My Oh My Club sequence, that he could kill every last person in this place. I was even hoping he would, even though I knew he wouldn't. It was like, what has happened to him?

Yea, his death was also fitting, a perfect reflection of his life really, but for who he was, he still deserved to die by the sword. The fact that he didn't was actually really good, it worked. I don't think sword play would be proper for Budd, storywise, and I'd go as far to say it would hurt the film.

I just saw Vol2 and I was wondering if Bill knew the child was his before the Bride tells him right before he shoots her in the head. I know on the porch of the chapel he says something about it being the Groom's child but I wasn't sure.

I disagree with Budd being able to kill everybody in the bar. Maybe when he was in his prime he could have done so, but I got the impression that he had gotten so out of shape that he couldn't. Remember when Bill asked Budd if he had been keeping up on his sword skills? It was obvious he hadn't and in such a fight would be no match for The Bride.
I think that Budd probably wanted to try and take out the bar people on many occassion, but knew he was past his prime and let them pick on him. Heck, he had to clean up a sh*t covered floor, how low can one person get? I'm kind of glad Budd died before seeing The Bride; at least he went to his grave under the impression that he had vanquished her.

I'm sure he didn't know. He makes a reference that her man sure doesn't believe in wasting time and since he thought she was dead, He must not have had any idea till she told him.

thanks Jack, that's what I thought. I wouldn't think that he would have had her beaten like that if he knew the child was his. The only thing that bugged me was how Bill said he ended up finding her while he was actually trying to find out who killed her. I thought maybe the assassin that was sent to kill the Bride told Bill that she didn't kill her because she was pregnant. Given when the Bride found out she was pregnant I thought Bill might have deduced it was his chid. I know I'm just reading too much into it.

I don't know, even if Budd wasn't up on his sword skills (which I think was a lie, he did lie about the sword, although I doubt he was as good as he was) I think he could take them out. He knew the Bride was outside his trailer, he still had some of his skills. I mean he was the bouncer, he probably still got into scuffles every now and then.

Some other small detail I randomly noticed in the movie I think everyone else did but made me smile anyway. When Bea "finishes" with Elle and prepares to leave the trailer, and Elle screams "You ****ing bitch! GIVE IT BACK!", Bea looks over to Elle's general direction, smiles, and walks out of the trailer.

Dunno why I had to bring that up but ah well.

Drop - Yeah, Budd definitly had "sense", he could sense the bride was near, and when the snake was revealed, he did the right thing and didn't panic - however - disturbing it's "home" and got attacked anyway. I see what ya mean, but they all can't be in near-top form now can they

Saw it tonight. A fine film but doesn't compare to the first in many areas. However, Uma Thurman's acting really shined through in this film. Little things like how she carried herself when Bill dropped her off to meet Pai Mei showed how much effort she put into each of her faces.

Well I saw this on Saturday & have mixed views on it. Yet I will be fair for now since,technically this was not what Tarantino had in mind since the hacking the film in half was not planned originally.

So it feels like after using up all the lively rousing footage & editing skills in V1,this is just leftovers. Like one long workprint,thus has many flaws in terms of being involving,thought provoking & so forth.


So I will hold further critique until the 4 1/2 hour NC-17 version is released like he hopes/plans to.

Since I feel,that if he edits the entire film as he originally wanted to. Which(I assume) means a more non-linear approach where the V1 & 2 footage is all mixed up. It may lead to a pleasing & thought provoking experiance. Especially having the more lively V1 footage contrasted with the more depressing glum V2 footage.

The film could possibly work. Yet if he just edits the two versions together as they already are. It would be a boring experiance. Since after two hours of balls to the wall high energy filmmaking(v1),the next two and a half hours would be what we have now with V2: Lifeless,no energy,nothing.

So if he mixes all the footage up. It may work I think. Yet as it is now. V2 is a real letdown....though still has some great things in it(love the entire final half with Bill). It is just the pacing is nearly non-existent throughout the running time.

I just caught the at the begining of volume 1. Sure I'm a little slow, but I thought it'd be good to point out if anyone hadn't noticed it yet.

I've heard the critique about V2 being Lifeless, energy-less, and what not around a lot.. I really don't get it (then again I felt the pacing was perfect)

I agree. But hey, I'm not part of the MTV generation, so what do I know?

I wouldn't go so far as to say the film is lifeless, but I know I didn't find it as exciting as some of QT's earlier films.

I am not an MTV rapid editing short attention span fan


What I meant by 'lifeless' was compared to Quentins other talkies Reservour Dogs & Pulp Fiction which have long,drawn out slow scenes with nothing but talking. There was a certain energy to them that made them come alive & they were enjoyable despite not much going on besides words.

I did not get that vibe at all with V2. So I feel that unless he can mix all the footage from both volumes together in some way. It won't be much fun at all as it currently is.

So it does seem 'lifeless' when compared to the enthusiasm on display in Vol 1..which btw features very little 'action when you look at the film itself since the few action scenes are spread out far apart. Yet even all the talking scenes were alive with glee & It was highly entertaining.

Disagree again, I really did not like the talky sequences in Vol 1, they all seemed really contrived and forced to me - with exception of Man from Okinawa. (The worst was in 2), I did enjoy most of the Japanese scenes though and O-Ren's speech.
Which I guess did make up a good portion of the movie (the Japanese that is)

...but I suppose it's all a matter of opinion, afterall it's just a movie

True...& while I did appreciate the 70s style in Vol 2 in that it was mostly low key,all dialogue etc.

It still could have worked so much better..& may...if reedited correctly for the 4 1/2 hour version. Yet only time will tell how that version turns out

I have a question regarding the anime from vol.1. Did we ever find out who the assassin was in the white suite that stabbed Oren's father with the sword and then burned the house down by kicking the cigarrette? Many people proposed that that was actually Bill himself, and was the one who took in Oren as a kid. But this isn't adressed in Vol. II....Jack?

I still think it's Bill, but I had forgotten about it completely until now.

They show you a close-up of the assassin's ring in the anime sequence, and it's the same ring Bill is wearing when they show his hand in Vol. 1.

^^Yup. it's Bill. I'm not sure if the sword in the anime shows the Devil emblem on it though. I'll have to keep my eyes open for it next time I watch. but regardless, that is indeed bill.

I recognized him after awhile. His face, rough voice, and the fact I could see he was wearing brown contacts, made me think it was him.

Is this the actor who played Pai Mei ?
http://www.mondore.com/g1tf/kbarchiv...LUME_1-424.jpg

I saw this movie three times over the weekend. I plan on seeing it a lot more. By contrast, I only saw Volume 1 twice in the theatres.

This is way better than Vol. 1, at least in my opinion, and it is among my favorite films ever. I honestly can't see why people would think it's slow, unless they just didn't get it or were expecting non-stop action.

By the way, nice conversation about Budd. He WAS the most sympathetic villain, I thought. Although his death was quite fitting, even though I was sorry to see him go.

How are we so sure its Bill? Don't you think O-Ren might have something to hold against him if it was?