^^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?

Yet she recognized the old dude?

She didn't "recognize" him, he was a huge Yakuza boss, I don't think it would've been too hard to ask the right people who was responsible for her parents deaths; they'd mention Boss Matsumoto, and have no say of his underlings.. but that's just my take on it.

Yes, same guy.

I wish the anime guy was Bill, but his name is Pretty Riki.

Hopefully it's just an alias.-wink-

I don't think that "Pretty Riki" was ever shown again. I know he wasn't one of the guys O-Ren killed after taking out the boss.

the main clues to that are the ring that they highlight on him and the ring they highlight on bills hand when we see him.

Yep, I always thought that "Pretty Riki" was Bill too. Maybe him falling in with Matsumoto's gang had something to do with the bad feelings that ended up happening between him and Hattori Hanzo. (I'll have to watch the anime sequence again, but is there any clues in it that the sword is a Hanzo one?)

I am pretty sure the sword is not Hanzo's sword. I remembered to check last time I saw the film in the theater and saw no devil emblem on it.

I see, so you wanted to see the characters in this sit around and spout rapid-fire "hipster" dialogue with many pop culture references. Personally I didn't and still found Volume 2 to be Tarantino's most lively, emotional, and effective film. Although I still hate that little girl that played B.B. Damn was that bitch excruciating.

I think he has suspicions when he talks to Beatrix at the chapel. The hesitant way he says "Your young man doesn't believe in wasting time" makes me think he suspects that the baby is his, and that's why she ran away and was trying to lead this life. It would also explain, if he already knew, why he doesn't hesitate to shoot her when she tells him it's his baby. If he didn't know, he'd probably have hesitated because of the shock of the news.

The guy is a sadistic son of a bitch. I think in hearing the news he thinks its an attempt to save herself. I don't think for a moment that he would have hesitated to shoot her if he did know.

Well, that's my point. I think he does know and that's why he doesn't hesitate. But it could go either way. I'm taking most of this from Carradine's inflection.

Why way of thinnking is he didn't think it was his. Why first impression was that he held the gun at ppoint blank range and winds up shooting her in the side of the head. My mind explained it as he hesitated or tried to fire at the floor just as the idea of it being his baby triggered in his mind while pulling the trigger. He intended to shoot her in the forehead but upon hearing her final words had second thoughts about it but still wound up wounding her. Now since he knows the baby is his he takes the baby while she's in her coma to raise as his own. Would he have raised BB if it was some other guys kid? I don't think so.

Ouch. That's a little harsh, isn't it? How can you feel so strongly against a little girl... that was onscreen for probably a 1/10 of the movie. Sheesh.

BTW, I thought she was fine. Even if her performance was lacking, it's hard to fault a 5 or 6 year old kid.

thanks guys. I know what you mean Suprmallet, the question came to my mind based on the way Carradine was speaking at the chapel. We might be reading in too much. seeing the way Bill was with B.B. I thought maybe he would not do that to the Bride if he knew it was his because it would mean the death of his unborn daughter. Didn't he say in Vol 2 something along the lines that he took B.B to raise as his own not because he didn't think the Bride would make a good mother but because she was a killer? Do you think he went from intending to kill the Bride and his unborn daughter (assuming he knew the baby was his) to caring enough after he found out she was alive to get B.B. and raise her as his own? I do see that those feelings and the guilt would have probably hit him later.

i personally don't think the "hipster" dialogue would have worked in these movies, maybe for the little references to the 70's older movies, but it would feel off if we heard bill for instance talking about foot massages.

Screenplay talk
 

Wow, I'm kinda surprised there hasn't been much discussion regarding the scenes from the script that were cut out of this film. (Here's the link again http://sfy.iv.ru/sfy.html?script=kill_bill ). Anyway, I thought the chapters about yuki's revenge and bill's gambling sequence were extremely interesting and am truly saddened that they were not included, especially yuki. I think including yuki's chapter would have "livened" up Vol 2 a bit more in terms of action and probably quench a lot of the complaints about the film being boring (though I still think it is a great film as it stands now). Does anyone know if these sequences were actually shot at all or were they ditched pretty early on?? If you haven't read these two chapters, I highly recommend you do so, they are very entertaining. Apparently Gogo dies differently in the script vs. movie as well.

One question about Vol 1 looking back over the script again...

Was there a Mr. Barrel that Beatrix talks with in-between GoGo and O-Ren or was that cut out of Vol 1?? I only saw Vol 1 once so far and it was awhile ago, so I can't seem to remember that character.

There actually has been reasonable amount of discussion about this.

The Yuki scene was ditched pre-production - it was never cast, never shot, and a few of Yuki's lines went to Gogo Yubari.

The gambling sequence was shot from what I understand, and is that missing M. Jai White sequence we've all be waiting for (it has been shot, edited, etc; ).

Yuki's scene was exised due to budgetting from what I've read and the M. Jai White/Gambling scene was cut to make Bill seem more sympathetic or something like that. Tarantino has commented he would like to get a few of the scenes animated by Production IG and release them.

A lot of the changes, imho, were very logical and make the movie tigheter, imho. As nice as a few extra fighting scenes could be, I love it how it is.

Oh and no, it jumps straight from Gogo to the Crazy 88. (O-Ren and Bea talk for a second but thats about it)


On that note: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17403

Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair (nice madeup title, Harry) is apparently showing the last day of Cannes.

Thanks for clearing that up...

What I actually meant when I was referring to lack of discussion was just for this thread. I knew there'd been talk about excised scenes, just not here

Yeah, and if it's talk about Kill Bill, it's worth my time to retype it :D

half the fun of the movies has been talking about them..

The Yuki stuff was dumb in my opinion. Too much firepower.

The gambling scene was interesting, but it was meant to be an introduction to Bill; as it stands, his introduction at the wedding chapel at the opening of vol. 2 is perfect in my eyes. Plus, I like the fact that we never really see Bill in action in the movie, it adds to his "mystique".

Mr. Barrel becaome Johnny Mo, the last Crazy 88 she fights in the film now.

I would've liked to have seen the destruction of the P**** Wagon.

Whilst i slightly prefered Vol 1 cos i'm a huge Kung Fu/gore fan, i did also love Vol 2

There were a few slow bits but overall not many

Loved the buried alive scene, i honestly couldn't see how the Bride was gonna escape ! Great camerawork and i felt i was there

Loved the Elle v Bride fight, awesome, yes i also marked out at the eye pulling out scene

As for the ending, at first i was a tad disappointed but in reflection i think it was good. The huge Kung Fu showdown was really the Bride v Lucy Lui, we didn't need another one. I just loved the scene when the Bride burst into Bill's place, gun ready to pop him and her daughter is there. What made the scene is the way her daughter reacts like her mom had just nipped down to the shops to pick up some ice cream and not that this is the first time ever she is seeing her mum. I liked the happy ending with the bride and her daughter in the motel room.

Great performances by Uma, Darryl Hannah, Madsen and yes Carradine

I still have a HUGE grudge with Carradine for stealing the part in Kung Fu from Bruce Lee (yes i know it was the producer's decision to go with a caucasian rather than an asian for the part of an asian) and also his part in the Silent Flute, also intended for Bruce Lee

Carradine aint no Bruce ! he doesn't even deserve to be a pubic hair in Bruce's balls.

Dialogue was 100% QT and rocked

really looking forward to the deleted scenes but i get what QT did. By not showing Carradine's fighting prowess at all, but using dialogue and indirect scenes to build it up, QT made Bill into a much tougher villian. If we had seen Carradine fight, i'm sure the bubble would have burst and we would have been disappointed.

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.

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.

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

^^ Perhaps the most irritating review yet.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Patman: I agree about Batman.

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 :p