Kill Bill V2

[rindge]

I just caught Kill Bill v2 on TNT. This is the 2nd time seeing the film for me. While I am not the biggest fan of the 2nd film I must say I did enjoy the limited training scenes with Gordon and Uma. I know a lot of people panned Uma for the training sequence, but I've got to give credit where credit is due. She seemed to be working pretty hard in the scenes and I think she pulled it off. I know I'm going out on a limb, but I think they did a good job of replicating the training scenes from films like master killer / 36th chamber. The scenes did not come anywhere near mad monkey kung fu (one of the best training scenes ever), but I was impressed and I think Uma gets an A for effort. I was impressed by her tiger and crane not bad for someone who never studied the arts. David Chiang never looked that good...LOL

Anyone have any thoughts on how she peformed?

Rindge

[Chinatown Kid]

I agree with you that Uma did a good job considering she wasn't a martial artist. Imo Kill Bill was alright as a sort of campy parody of the genere with plenty of colorful characters but the fight scenes were not that impressive. Carradine has been associated with the arts since the early 70's with the Kung Fu tv series but his skills have never impressed me even though he's claimed to have studied the arts. He's a great actor no doubt, but his martial abilities never have seemed to improve over the last 30 years. The best i've ever seen him look was in his fight scene with Chuck Norris in Lone Wolf McQuade which was surprisingly good. I agree with Chuck on his statement: "Carradine is about as good a martial artist as I am an actor". :lol

[vengeanceofhumanlanterns]

David Chiang never looked that good...LOL

LOL is right! Comparing David Chiang to Uma?

[rindge]

Vengeance, I'm not really comparing Uma to David - no real comparision, but I cant' recall seeing (memory is going on me) David in training sequence as "tough" :-) as the one Uma did. I'm sure there are some.

[chen lung]

...dragged on too long.

[teako170]

I just caught Kill Bill v2 on TNT. Gotta love when the networks smoosh a fine 2.35 film into pan & scan. :(

I wonder.... will we ever see the 2 films as one as QT mentioned long, long ago?

KB2 indeed had some slow parts. The final 30(?) minutes with Uma and the "Karate Kid" should have been cut way back. On the flip side, it also had some great parts. Uma getting buried alive still pains me. Not the way I want to go. Have to start practicing my one-inch punches now....

[Markgway]

Tarantino's most boring film.

[kungfusamurai]

Vol 2 was a waste of time for me. I liked some of the sequences, like the Pai Mei sequence and the fight between Darryl Hannah and Uma. But overall, the movie sucked. Some stuff didn't even make sense, like how The Bride runs straight through the front door of Michael Madsen's trailer. If you're going to sneak attack someone who's also a trained assassin, you DON'T go through the front door! :)

KFS

[Tosh]

I'm not a big fan of Uma, I personally thought that role should of went to Lucy. I liked KB for what it was, a homage to all the KF and Westerns a lot of us grew up to, shame he didn't get a few more old timers in there, like Lo Mang and Philip Kwok, it would have made it a lot cooler of a movie.

I'm not quite getting all the hate QT has been recieving on here lately, have I missed something? He goes to bat to get some of these movies released, or so it seems. I always thought he's probably up in his Hollywood mansion, with some huge home theater, watching KF movies all day.

[GwaiLoMoFo]

Great movie. Not for people w/short attention spans.

[kungfusamurai]

Great movie. Not for people w/short attention spans.

Not exactly a good defense for the movie. For my part, I watch all kinds of samurai films from the 60s where the build-up is very slow and would put off anyone with a 'short attention span'. But the acting, dialogue and stories are top notch in those flicks. KB V2 was weak in all three departments, not to mention having too much extraneous and unnecessary scenes, hence the lack of interest.

KFS

[dyenboy]

I did not like kb v2..it was such a different movie from kill bill v1..

I thought Uma did a great job..not the best form..but for a non martial artist..tat was pretty dam good..

[Dion Brother]

Don't see how you can consider KB 2 weak in the acting and dialogue department. Carradine was tremendous, and even Gordon Liu was a scene stealer (essentially portraying Pai Mei as a cross between Chiun from the Destroyer novels and Liang Jia Ren's character from MIRACLE FIGHTERS). Bill's speech about Superman is a terrific monologue. A reminder of how bad Tarantino's imitators are (like that hack that wrote CON AIR where characters make insipid ironic comments). I don't consider it a martial arts movie, so I don't judge it as such. It's Spaghetti Western pacing isn't for everybody, but, along with vol.1, I think it's Tarantino's best work since RESERVOIR DOGS.

[Chinatown Kid]

I agree it was good for what it was, but not great in the action department. Tarantino excels with outrageous dialogue just like in Pulp Fiction and that is the part he excels in in Kill Bill. If you look at it as strictly a Tarantino style film it is good, but looking at it as a martial arts film it pales in comparison to the Hong Kong and Japanese films it tries to imitate. I definately want to give credit to Quentin as I like and respect his style of filmaking, when Pulp Fiction first came out it was one of my favorite films and was fresh and exciting and really shook up Hollywood as a revalation. He still has yet to top that film imo, but he does deserve props for promoting martial arts films as that makes him a cool guy in my book.

[DragonMa55]

I think KB 2 was a good film, I just thought the training sequences were too short. I never got the feeling Uma was pushed beyond her limits in order to earn Pai Mei's admiration, all we got was Uma running up the steps with buckets of water and her punching a wall, I wonder how long she'd last being trained by So Hai :rollin

[Markgway]

It's worth mentioning that Tarantino's best screenplays were co-authored by Roger Avery (or in the case of Jackie Brown based on an Elmore Leonard novel). Kill Bill represents his first solo work and it's his poorest. Coincidence?

[Reincarnation Of Thundering Mantis]

I think it was lame the way Pai Mei died, it was a big spit in the face to very influential onscreen villain and a historically interesting character

[Dion Brother]

RESERVOIR DOGS was predominantly his work, as was TRUE ROMANCE, and I rank both scripts over PULP FICTION. And JACKIE BROWN only adapts the Elmore Leonard novel RUM PUNCH in terms of story structure. The dialogue and characterizations were QT's own. Roger Avary has really disappointed with his non-QT work. KILLING ZOE was good, but I hated RULES OF ATTRACTION, been told MR. STITCH is awful, his dialogue for Gans' CRYING FREEMAN is clunky (the worst thing in the film)...still haven't seen SILENT HILL.

I simply never considered KILL BILL a martial arts movie, or a spaghetti western or a giallo, despite both film's frequent allusions to all three genres. If you rate it as such, it will disappoint compared to the classics. It's just two amazing hybid films that contain martial arts. I'd still rather rewatch either volume over most of the Hong Kong movies from the last 15 years (particularly those produced by Tsui Hark or directed by Ching Tsiu Tung or starring Donnie Yen), or the overrated CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON.

[ToothbrushFu]

And JACKIE BROWN only adapts the Elmore Leonard novel RUM PUNCH in terms of story structure. The dialogue and characterizations were QT's own.

Now why would Tarantino throw out Leonard's dialogue and characters and just leave his basic plot intact? Did he really do that? (I haven't seen the film so I don't know.) Leonard's novels are all about the language and dialogue, that's where his genius lies*. In fact if I look at all the quotes on the inside cover of my copy of Rum Punch I read stuff like:

"Leonard may write the best dialogue of any contemporary writer"

"vintage Leonard... the dialogue is as authentic as conversations overheard"

"few others in the genre can match his astonishing ear for dialogue"

"fuelled by its droll dialogue and rogue characters"

"replete with stirring dialogue and vivid characters"

"the most authentic dialogue in contemporary fiction"

"just what you expect from Leonard, who is without equal in giving us the dialogue we've grown to appreciate"

This makes me wonder what Tarantino saw of value in the book in the first place. I remember reading an interview where he said it had taken him something like a year to adapt the book to a screenplay, so was that cutting out all the good stuff and replacing it with his own? Why didn't he write his own original screenplay instead - surely that would have been easier?


* My father (who was a writer) was scathing about pretty much every contemporary novelist I read until I lent him Freaky Deaky and then he said "this guy can write!" and came round and borrowed all my Elmore Leonard novels. He totally loved the way Leonard does dialogue and the way he flips tenses and main character points-of-view within a scene.

[Dion Brother]

Movies are a different medium. What reads good on a page doesn't always sound good as film dialogue. A better description would be QT embellished the dialogue to suit his own style. Which is fine, Leonard didn't care. Otherwise, any hack could have directed and adapted the film. An auteur wants to put his own voice in the film. Sometimes it works great (John Boorman's adaptation of Richard Stark's THE HUNTER into POINT BLANK), sometimes mediocre(Michael Mann's MANHUNTER) and sometimes awful (DePalma's BLACK DAHLIA, a terrible film of a really good James Ellroy novel).

I thought JACKIE BROWN could have been better with about 30 minutes chopped out. In other words, he could have followed the leaness of RUM PUNCH, instead of expanding it. But I respect what he was trying to do, just didn't hit the mark for me.

I think FREAKY DEAKY was the last Elmore Leonard novel I enjoyed. Thought either it or UNKNOWN MAN #89 would have made better movies than his other work.

[Markgway]

Actually, the plot is the best thing about Jackie Brown, besides the two lead performances from Pam Grier and Robert Forster. The "hip" dialogue isn't so great, but having not read the novel I don't know who wrote what? Does the book have 40 uses of the epiphet "@#%$" on every page?

For the record my favourite Tarantino film is Reservoir Dogs and he's never come close to matching it.

[Dion Brother]

"Does the book have 40 uses of the epiphet "@#%$" on every page?"

Nope. Nor does the script. That was improvised by Samuel Jackson.

[ToothbrushFu]

A better description would be QT embellished the dialogue to suit his own style. Which is fine, Leonard didn't care. Otherwise, any hack could have directed and adapted the film. An auteur wants to put his own voice in the film.
That last line could be a great argument against auteur filmmakers adapting novels. ;) Tarantino does like to put in his showboating monologues, doesn't he? But that goes back to my previous point about why he doesn't write an original screenplay if he really wants to put his own voice in a film.

BTW, if the movie is too long then that's not entirely Tarantino's fault, a good producer should be able to rein in a director's excesses and make them cut the running time if necessary.

[Tosh]

I'd still rather rewatch either volume over most of the Hong Kong movies from the last 15 years (particularly those produced by Tsui Hark or directed by Ching Tsiu Tung or starring Donnie Yen), or the overrated CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON.

Woah:eek , I think you need an "IMO" after that comment, but to each their own:smokin .

I thought CTHD was an awesome movie IMO, god forbid there was actually some good acting and emotion going on there.

[The Running Man]

It's worth mentioning that Tarantino's best screenplays were co-authored by Roger Avery (or in the case of Jackie Brown based on an Elmore Leonard novel). Kill Bill represents his first solo work and it's his poorest. Coincidence?

Co-authored is too nice of a term. He basically ripped an entire story from Avery. Roger Avery's contribution to that script was 1/3 and it was the Bruce Willis story. What Tarantino did was take that exactly as it was from one of Avery's short stories and simply inject it into the web of the rest of the movie.

For the record my favourite Tarantino film is Reservoir Dogs and he's never come close to matching it.

So you think that Pulp Fiction is a better screenplay than Reservoir Dogs but think that RD s a better film?

I'd still rather rewatch either volume over most of the Hong Kong movies from the last 15 years (particularly those produced by Tsui Hark or directed by Ching Tsiu Tung or starring Donnie Yen), or the overrated CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON.

You're on your own there bud.


And as long as we taking opinions here...Pulp Fiction is Tarantino's best work for me. Rd was solid but not a masterpiece that I find Fiction to be. Jackie Brown grows on me with every passing viewing. Kill Bill vol. 1, even with it's bad action (add to that Uma Therman looks terrible in action scenes), it's still quite tremendous.

Kill Bill vol. 2 is easily for me Tarantino's worst work yet. It was still good overall, but for the first time ever I was bothered with his dialog. It seems he got too over zealous with it and had characters talking for the majority of the time that just felt like they had to exchange dialog. It's too much and just feels all like excess. A great example is when the assassin tries to kill Thurman in her hotel room. Both of them at gun point exchange words to each other for no other reason except to do such. That scene could have been done with minimal to no dialog and still work. It gets laughable when David shoots Uma when that needle to stun her and he actually says that the effects of it are gonna give him plenty of time to talk.

In fact, when I think about it, if Tarantino was still gonna make one movie like he was originally going to, I would bet that most of the stuff that would have been cut would have been things in vol. 2.

That said, I'm still looking forward to Grindhouse. In fact, his segment is the only one I care to see since Rodriguez is quite a crappy film maker imo. Oh he can save money on a film and knows all the best ways to do it, but all of his movies IMO after El Mariachi have gotten worse and worse (and yeah, I think Sin City's quite garbage).

[Markgway]

So you think that Pulp Fiction is a better screenplay than Reservoir Dogs but think that RD s a better film?

No. I think 'Dogs' is better in both regards. I'm not mad on 'Pulp' though I can see it's attraction and merits.

and yeah, I think Sin City's quite garbage

I didn't care for it either. The only RR film I own is 'The Faculty'.

[The Running Man]

No. I think 'Dogs' is better in both regards. I'm not mad on 'Pulp' though I can see it's attraction and merits.

Ah. It's just that you wrote before that you felt Tarantino's best work was when it was either co-written with someone else (Fiction) or based on outside source material (Brown). Got a lil' confused. :)

[Dion Brother]

I think his worst work is FROM DUSK TIL DAWN. Lousy script.
The original script of NBK is no great shakes either, but barely resembles what was filmed, so I don't count it.

I'm not a fan of CTHD or most Hong Kong movies after 1993. If you are a longtime reader of this forum, that should be no surprise to you. The only Hong Kong movie I've really loved in the last few years is KUNG FU HUSTLE. I'm from that oldschool Damon Foster circle of fans. We are a picky lot.

[Chinatown Kid]

There's just something about Pulp Fiction that makes it rise above Tarantino's other films to me. Travolta and Jackson are incredibly charasmatic with their hip, witty dialogue and when they start having "philosophical' debates it's incredibly cool. This film singlehandedly resurrected Travolta's career and made a star out of Jackson. Willis's performance as a brokedown over the hill boxer character who refuses to take a dive and takes the money and runs was also delightful and engaging. I must say the rape scene involving Ving Rhames caught me totally off guard and was shocking when I first saw this in the theatres way back in 1994. It's just a movie with and incredibly hip vibe.

I can't take anything away from Reservoir Dogs, it's a great film and incredibly gritty and flashy as well. I especially liked Steve Buscemi's preformance. Also remember the late Chris Penn(Sean's brother) in it, it's a shame he died so young of having an enlarged heart and being overweight.

[Dion Brother]

"Co-authored is too nice of a term. He basically ripped an entire story from Avery. Roger Avery's contribution to that script was 1/3 and it was the Bruce Willis story. What Tarantino did was take that exactly as it was from one of Avery's short stories and simply inject it into the web of the rest of the movie."

And Avery got an Oscar because they shared screenplay credit. "ripped" is too harsh a term. There were many detractors at the time that claimed QT's success was because of Avery, yet Avery's non-QTwork shows no evidence of an exceptional writer. A decent one, but nothing exceptional.

[The Running Man]

I'm not a fan of CTHD or most Hong Kong movies after 1993. If you are a longtime reader of this forum, that should be no surprise to you. The only Hong Kong movie I've really loved in the last few years is KUNG FU HUSTLE. I'm from that oldschool Damon Foster circle of fans. We are a picky lot.

I am not a fan of CTHD either, but I wouldn't consider most of what came out after '93 to be totally worthless crap and that I would watch rather Kill Bill over them.

And it's not that you are picky. You just like to complain a lot. :p

BTW, isn't Damon Foster that dude that ran those old fanzines?

And Avery got an Oscar because they shared screenplay credit. "ripped" is too harsh a term.

Ripped is actually quite accurate. Tarantino coerced and forced Avery to drop his credit to just "story by" because Tarantino wanted the credits to say "Written and Directed by:" him.

There were many detractors at the time that claimed QT's success was because of Avery, yet Avery's non-QTwork shows no evidence of an exceptional writer. A decent one, but nothing exceptional.

His work has it's moments, but it never adds up. Rules of Attraction for example had a couple of great moments but it was a mess in the end. One thing I don't think can be argued is that the man is very inspired and I would say probably more genuinely inspired than Tarantino is. It's just Tarantino knows how to put everything together and make it work. Avery just seems to be a guy with a collection of great ideas.

BTW, I see no sign or evidence of him in Crying Freeman and Silent Hill. Not arguing that he did work on those films, just saying that the work he did doesn't seem to have his voice in them at all. Perhaps it was more to clean up or give polish to the English on Gan's scripts.

[Dion Brother]

"BTW, isn't Damon Foster that dude that ran those old fanzines? "

Indeed, Oriental Cinema. I wouldn't even be reading this today if it wasn't for that zine.


Avary is kind of like Robert Towne, a writer of more good ideas than a complete screenplay. He's not as derivative as Tarantino, but doesn't have QT's gift for dialogue. It's no surprise he works more as a script doctor than an original scenarist.

I can't think of any Post-93 HK movies I really enjoyed. It's rough when you go from being excited about four Hong Kong movies a month to roughly two a year that usually disappointed. I think anybody reading this that remembers the golden days of the late 80s tape collecting and Chinatown movie hopping knows what I"m talking about. <Sniffle>

[Tosh]

It's just Trantino knows how to put everything together and make it work.

And there seems to be a lot of filmmakers out there, that haven't got that part.

I can't think of any Post-93 HK movies I really enjoyed. It's rough when you go from being excited about four Hong Kong movies a month to roughly two a year that usually disappointed. I think anybody reading this that remembers the golden days of the late 80s tape collecting and Chinatown movie hopping knows what I"m talking about. <Sniffle>

Unfortunately , I never got to see the old ones in the theater, but I was watching blackbelt theater, and f-n-a for betmax and videostores. I agree some of Tsui Hark is overrated, and a lot of the wire use went overboard, but I think there's still some good films out there.

[Markgway]

Avery also "contributed" to the True Romance and Reservoir Dogs scripts, written whilst they worked together. Is that not right?

[The Running Man]

I believe all that Avery did on Reservoir Dogs was the radio broadcast dialog.

For True Romance, I know that he worked on it and is uncredited, but to the extent of how much of his work is in the final script I do not know.

[Reincarnation Of Thundering Mantis]

Sorry I have to disagree about Rules of Attraction. I loved the film and was glad that somebody made a movie that resembles some of my life stories. Shame I wish I read the book when it first came out. The story has a few layers to it and according to the author of the book (who's writing style is very unique and has been described as chaotic) thinks it's the best film made from his books.

Every character is fully realised within the context of the story. I feel no ones character is left hanging or any little story within the film is left unresolved. Avary was able to flesh each character and give them there appropriate time and relevence onscreen. It's a shame Fincher didn't keep his draft for Lords of Dogtown. But I feel it was because of Rules that Fincher looked in Avary's direction for Dogtown.

Nope, looking back I don't like Tarantino. I've said it before and I'll say it again Tarantino is the P. Diddy of Hollywood. Notice I said Hollywood and not Cinema. If you were to watch the Kill Bill films and physically ring a bell for every idea he "borrows" or pays "homage" to, your hand and arm would basically fall off within the first 45 minutes of part 1.

I'd rather take the last 15 years of HK Cinema than the Kill Bill films. It would be unfair to compare them to the previous 15 years (1975-1990) of HK Cinema. Heck that Muse video for "Knights of Cydonia" was a more fun and effective homage to Kung Fu and Italian Westerns.

Whoa, Damon Foster. I loved his magazine, shame it isn't around anymore. Yes he is very opionated and comes from a very distinct mind set. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[Tosh]

Nope, looking back I don't like Tarantino. I've said it before and I'll say it again Tarantino is the P. Diddy of Hollywood. Notice I said Hollywood and not Cinema. If you were to watch the Kill Bill films and physically ring a bell for every idea he "borrows" or pays "homage" to, your hand and arm would basically fall off within the first 45 minutes of part 1.

Yeah, but that was kinda the point to the KB movies.

[Reincarnation Of Thundering Mantis]

I can't praise "homage" movies. Sure Kill Bill was energetic and entertaining. But in this day in age when every film is a remake or a sequel and newer directors tend to crib from previous directors. I feel as if I'm drowning in a sea of fascimile mediocrity.

Back in the day I read somewhere that young writers wanted to write the "great American novel", later on that notion translated to film and filmmakers wanting to make films that expressed there beliefs and experiences based on there current social climate.

Now everything is a copy of a copy. This current generation of filmmakers seem to make films based on ideas from older films and not there own original ideas and experiences. It would seem the experiences of there lives are not reflected in there films. Of course there are a few exceptions.

For every 10,000 spectators who in turn witness the 1000 cinema geeks who raise the banner of Tarantino. There has to be at least 1 person who says wait a minute. To those who don't know it's all been done before. Tarantino didn't invent these ideas (IMO he didn't even do them justice) and the sad thing I'm under the impression that many unintiated viewers are content in believing the false contrary.

As stated by others before Kill Bill and QT's homages may introduce older films to those who may want to learn about them. That of course is a good thing.

[reason108]

Sadly, the music world suffers from the same thing. It seems that original movies and music are getting harder to find.

[Shun Fist]

in so many ways i liked that movie more than KB 1, mostly because how much of a western fan that i am.

[sevenhooks]

Tarantino's most boring film.


That would be Jackie Brown.
One of the few flicks I steady slept through (from about the 30 minute mark - on).

[Chen Zhen]

i agree with 7...while its still a good overall movie, at times it got pretty boring..and its a pretty long movie too. not to mention, it doesnt have much of that trademark Tarantino dialogue wit that his others have. personally, i'd watch any of his other films over Jackie Brown..includin KB2.

fav tarantino films/scripts in this order:

Pulp Fiction
True Romance
Rerservoir Dogs
Kill Bill1
Kill Bill2
Jackie Brown

[kungfusamurai]

There's just something about Pulp Fiction that makes it rise above Tarantino's other films to me.

I agree that Pulp Fiction was Tarantino's masterpiece. It was slick, fresh, and way better than anything from that period. I remember going to see it a number of times in the theatre. One group of friends didn't like it. They were like 'what the f&*& is going on?'. They just didn't get it. But I thought it was so wickedly entertaining. Reservoir Dogs was pretty good. I haven't seen Jackie Brown, and I'm not really interested in checking it out.

Here's how I would rate his films:

1. Pulp Fiction
2. Kill Bill Vol 1 (very derivative, but I think that was the point)
3. Reservoir Dogs
4. Kill Bill Vol 2
5. Jackie Brown (cause I haven't seen it yet. Something tells me it'll be better than Vol 2).

KFS