Drop

I'm seeing this for a third time Friday, and I must say I'm looking forward to it. I'm actually anticipating more than most movies I'm seeing for the first time. I just really loved it.

Rypro 525

same here, even though we know she will eventually escape, we kind of wonder how, and then we go right to Pei Mei's scene.
anyone notice that for the credits, the bride had the most aliases. Beatrix, the bride, black mamba, mommy.

RichC2

http://www.members.dca.net/dnb/reviews/killbillvol2.htm

^^ Perhaps the most irritating review yet.

Rivero

Why is it irritating? Because the reviewer points out some very valid criticisms of this film? Sorry, but this Volume had notable flaws that the first part did not have, and please bear in mind that this is from someone who STILL enjoyed it much more than Volume One, has seen it twice already, and will probably go back for a third at some point.

Thank God Carradine was so good in this movie- his delivery, his mannerisms- otherwise that still innocuous monologue about Clark Kent would have landed with even more of a thud. If QT's gonna have a character wax philosophical for several minutes to make such an inane, simplistic point that could've been said in two lines then the very least I ask is that our villian have better dialogue to spout. There are other flaws as well, most of them in the final third of the film, but since I don't particulary feel like raining on everyone else's parade at this moment I'll leave it be for the time being.

RichC2

Oh not at all, his reasoning behind why the movie didn't work slightly irks me off, if it didn't consist of the singular plot being complete then it was seen as excessive. Sure it's a flawed movie, but I suppose I'm just a believer that movies are generally better being more about character than just strictly delivering "what the main character has set out to do", this particular review irks me because everything that has to do with building these characters should be "cut" on the basis that it didn't progress Uma's goals getting done. To me, it's just a poor excuse to complain, but I suppose everybody has the right to do just that. I dunno when letting characters "live and breath in a movie world" became such a bad thing.

But yeah, thats what irk'd me about that, I could care less if he just stated "The movie bored me to tears" instead of attempting to tear apart many of the things that made it great with faux reasoning.

metaridley

A lot of reviewers consider Bill's 'Superman' speech to be one of the best pieces of dialogue Tarantino has ever written, while a lot more thought all of the scenes that review said should have been cut added to the character development. To each his own, but no one is "right" in this instance.

Jamezuva

I wanted to reply to an earlier comment regarding the Superman speech. The poster said that they didn't believe that Superman would have that opinion about the human race b/c otherwise there would be no reason for him not to take over the world like General Zod. On the contrary, just because Superman sees a lot of fault in the human race, doesn't mean that he has no sense of right and wrong. I would think that Superman would feel the need to protect other sentient beings around him despite any "negative" view he has of them per Bill because his respect of life and conscience is above that of the villians.

Patman

I wasn't all that crazy about the Superman/Clark Kent speech because to me, Superman isn't using the Clark Kent persona to be an indictment on the inferiority of the human race, rather the Clark Kent persona/alias is used so that he can have some downtime, and the reason Clark is a clumsy, nervous, has low self-esteem, weak, etc is to ward off detection of being Superman in disguise. It's not because Superman sees all men as being weak, uncoordinated, self-loathing, etc.

Also, are we just the sum of our physical attributes, or does our psyche factor into the equation of who each person is, regardless of capabilities. Tarantino/Bill wants the viewer to think that Superman is Superman at all times with little regards to the psychological aspects of inhabiting dual identities to move through life moment by moment.

The other interpretation is that Superman is really Clark Kent who happens to have extraordinary powers, but the values he possesses come from him being Clark Kent, raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, and not inherently from his extraordinary powers. Values are learned, abilities are bred. Which is more dominant in a person's psychological make-up, in their identity, in who they are?

Now, I would agree that for Batman, he is Batman first and foremost, while his Bruce Wayne identity is just a minor part for him to get things done without attracting attention, but enables him to finance his Batman adventures.

Dr. DVD

Patman: I agree about Batman.

Jamezuva

hehe, granted, but afterall we are talking about a comic book universe where the human beings around him do not realize the physical similarity between Kent and Superman.... sheesh, just because the guy puts on glasses and has his hair combed differently doesn't mean that Kent's co-workers shouldn't be able to see it's the same person

Patman

But if you watch Christopher Reeve's performance in the first Superman film, he did his darndest to create 2 separate people when he played Superman and Clark Kent, and in some respects, he was pretty successful is diverting the attention from Clark due to his performance as either persona.

Or just to use Kill Bill Vol. 2 as an example, how many people (without being told) really and truly recognized that Michael Parks played the sherrif in vol. 1, and Esteban in vol. 2? I sure as hell didn't.

Drop

First of all you are taking this way too seriously. Secondly, so am I.

Okay wether or not Superman really sees humans as weak, is irrelevant, although I think he does. If Superman didn't see them as weak then he wouldn't be doing his portrayl of them as such, that is the normal non-descript human to him. In other words the perfect disguise.

That doesn't mean he hates them, nor think they don't posses any sort of strength, but he most definitly sees them as physically weak. He has to see them this way, or else what is the point of helping them. He knows they can't do somethings on their own, so he happily steps in. Besides Bill was just saying normally who Supes is, which is Superman. He wakes up as Superman everyday, he had to become Clark Kent, not the other way around. I don't mean in name or anything. No matter what happened to him on earth, he still would've been a Superman, it was just by chance that the Kents picked him up on earth and raised him. The man is an alien, that's not something you can ignore.

Anyway, like I said that's all pretty irrelevant. This is Bill's interpretation of Supes, he doesn't have to be right, and if anything this is Bill's own view on humans. Bill is just making a point, and he's making it in such a way that he, The Bride, and the audience can all play along with, and have some fun.

Another thing, Batman was born Bruce Wayne, he didn't become Bats until later in his life, so in that sense he is Bruce first, batman second. I will agree that he sees himself as Batman first and foremost, but if he wasn't Bruce he never would've been Batman.

Patman

Perhaps it's terminology that's getting me, but Superman doesn't wake up as "Superman(tm)", he wakes up as a person with extraordinary powers, but that in itself doesn't makes him "Superman(tm)". At his core, I think he's still Clark, the one with the values to guide him and the use of his powers.

Getting back to this notion of "Natural Born Killer". Are people born with so little value for human life that they can take it without zero remorse? That's the crux of the issue. I think it's one of the "nature vs. nurture" issues in my eyes.

Bill/Tarantino wants people to think that you are pre-destined to be a certain way just because of the abilities you possess, and I just don't buy into it. At the end of the day, you choose to be the person you are.

Drop

Oh boy, Patman, opening some can of worms there. This can go on and on. The fact is, no one really knows what makes us who we are. I believe it's a little of both, we decide but there are outside factors. I mean you couldn't be who you are without what is, was and will go on in this world. I believe that there are certain things in us that determine how we might live, but it's the outside world that enables us to be that. Humans do have choices though, we can do whatever we like, but how we became who we became puts limits on that. However, these "limits" can be broken, depending on a great many other things.

The fact is, we don't really know what Superman/Clark thinks when he wakes up, does he think about saving someone, or about getting some coffee, or even both.

It would appear in the KB/QT universe that people are born as who they are, or atleast that's as far as I could derive from Bill's monologue. The Bride disagrees though, she knows BB will become a killer under Bill's fatherhood, Beatrix believes she can change that. If there is another KB though, it looks like Beatrix might be wrong, I have a feeling BB would have to fight in that. Who knows, though, we'll just have to wait and see.

Well, it looks like KB has some serious meat on it's bone, and isn't just some send up to the Grindhouse cinema days.

RichC2

God not the Superman speech analysist again (sorry it grew tiring on another board ) I just saw it as:

Superman wakes up - still has super powers and is still Superman - doesn't matter if he's dressed up or not, he can do what he does.

"Natural Born Killer" I think was just Bills attempt to claim Kiddo as his own, if that makes any sense at all. A last ditch attempt to convince Kiddo that he, and only he, is appropriate for her.

Drop

Well switching gears here, I watched QT's first two films(still haven't seen Jackie Brown) again within the past two days, and I noticed a lot of things. There was a lot of stuff that's a bit coincidental with KB. I can only think of one thing right now though; Mr Blonde kept a shaving knife in his cowboy boots, just like Beatrix. I highly recommend everyone go back and watch his other films.

Rypro 525

i thought the natural born killer line was supposed to be a reference to the movie of the same name (which he wrote the script, although the movie is nothing like the script.

Lastblade

I finally saw it tonight, so I will add my 2 cents.

I am a Q fan. Not a huge fan, I don't go gaga over his movies, but I do enjoy his work, and find his movies to be surprising re-watchable.... 10 years after Pulp Fiction, I still find his dialogues fresh and funny. And memorable too!

Back to KBv2. It is so different from KBv1, it is not even funny. I didn't expect that as I tried to avoid all the hype and discussion. I thought the beginning was alittle slow, perhaps it is trying to give more background info to those who didn't watch v1. Budd's character was alittle strange, I thought he was remorseful but he really wasn't, just greedy! So I didn't like his character as much, I wish he WAS remorseful for what he did. And we never found out why Bill and him got into a disagreement.

The fight with Daryl Hannah was cool, definitely a brutal scene that's much more violent than anything in part 1. I guess it is more realistic. It was just great, hanzo blade vs. hanzo blade. I thought it was hilarious to see Darryl flying across the screen for that split second.

And the Pai Mei chapter brought a smile to my face. I grew up with these hong kong Kung Fu movies, and the White beard/hair master (btw, did you know Pai Mei literally translates to "White Brow"?) is so typical of this.... And it is funny too because I am fluent in Cantonese so I understood what he said, and the translation was really bad (I think this is on purpose). Many of the nuances weren't even attempted to be translated. I loved this chapter.

And how The Bride got revenge for her master, another classic touch.

Now, the ending was alittle bit of a drag. I swear, if David Carradine speaks more, I am going to fall asleep. His voice just has the effect on me, kinda soothing, then boom he pulls out a gun. He looks so old too, but still kinda good I guess. I honestly thought Bill would make it out alive somehow (sorry if this is a spoiler).... Anyway, the ending was alright.

Overall, the movie was abit uneven. Could have been edited to make it shorter for sure. It is a notch below the first one in terms of enjoyment. The music was nowhere near as good and catchy as the first one too. Still, I think it is a really cool Kung Fu/Sword fighting movie done by Quentin's way.

I give it a B+/A-.

RyoHazuki

The sword that said "To Budd, the only man I've ever loved" or something like that, wasnt a Hanzo sword. Beatrix was bluffing. Budd pawned the Hanzo sword.

PixyJunket

From the script:

The BRIDE searching under his bed, she sees a sword on the floor, resting in a shiny, black wood mahagony sheath. She removes it from its hiding place.

WOOD SHEATH
Its one of Hanzo's sheaths. She opens it. It is a Hanzo sword. Near the handle, etched in the steel, are the English words; "To My Brother Budd, The Only Man I Ever Loved, from Bill."

RyoHazuki

Is that the same script that had the black and white scene change?

Supermallet

What makes you think that? I don't see anything in the scene that shows it's not a Hanzo sword.

RichC2

If it weren't a Hanzo, Elle should have had little trouble slicing through it. Right?

Well hell if I know.

RyoHazuki

Budd said he pawned the sword and I really doubt Bill would put an engraving on a Hanzo sword.

Supermallet

You must have missed the line where Elle says, "Budd said he pawned that," and Beatrix says, "Well, I guess that makes him a liar now, don't it?"

Also, why wouldn't Bill engrave a Hanzo sword? It was clear to me that there not much was sacred to him. He may have even asked Hanzo to put it in there.

I think the best evidence that it is a Hanzo sword is that Elle can't just cut right through it like Beatrix does to many of the Crazy 88's swords in The House of Blue Leaves.