posted
OK, so it's more a media event than a film, but I loved it. Saw it last night, although I'm not usually that ahead of the pack. (In fact I'm usually embarassingly out of step.) It may be more appealing to Tarantino fans than your average chap, and you need to enjoy playing "spot the reference." It lacked the pornographic violence of Reservoir Dogs, and the intelligent dialogue of Pulp Fiction, but it was still endlessly entertaining. I liked the blackest humour and the sexy reprise of Vol 1's soundtrack, and the theme of vengeance of biblical proportions. Bill is utterly, unreconstructedly, unashamedly, supremely, and fantastically evil.
It may be one for the girls though. Almost a chick flick, due in large part to the appeal of Uma Thurman. She's the sort of woman other women want to be like. (Debbie Harry was like that in her Blondie days.) That's the excuse one of my male friends came out with when he professed disinterest in the Kill Bill series, anyway. I'm not sure I'd agree wholeheartedly but I can see his point.
Posts: 362
| IP: Logged
posted
I've read quite a few reviews which suggest that Tarantino takes an almost pornographic interest in the display and exploration of the bride's emotional and physical suffering. Any thoughts? (I haven't seen Vol 2 yet so can't comment....)
Posts: 6175
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd hesitate to say it was pornographic. Not compared to the relish with which he filmed the ear slicing scene in Reservoir Dogs, which is, incidentally, the only film scene ever that made me barf. There are some gruesome bits. There's one scene that will freak out anyone with even mild claustrophobia, for instance. But they are resolved OK. The whole maternal issue too is exploited more in your average soap opera than this movie. I don't want to include spoilers, but I'm inclined to think the accusations of sadism and the pornographic enjoyment of suffering will relate more to the character Bill than the direction of the film itself.
Posts: 362
| IP: Logged
posted
Saw Vol 2 -- NB this is the title of the film! not "Kill Bill Volume 2", but "Vol 2" -- and your post, abby, is the most bewilderingly reverso-accurate review I can ever remember seeing.
Context: I was flatly disappointed by Kill Bill and at the time had no desire at all to watch a sequel. I only started to spark interest in this one when I read a bunch of Rotten Tomatoes reports that even if you hated Kill Bill, this was a vast improvement.
Spoilers: yes.
quote:Originally posted by ally: It may be more appealing to Tarantino fans than your average chap, and you need to enjoy playing "spot the reference."
I don't agree with this. [I will soon stop prefacing my comments with "I don't agree" as it will go without saying] I don't know anything about martial arts films and so didn't recognise any references in either volume. Frankly, I didn't even recognise the Kato masks, which I could feasibly have done, or the Darryl Hannah walk from Marnie, which again would have been possible. In Vol 2 the only aspects that seemed obvious pastiche to me were the kung foo training with its over-dramatic zooms on reaction.
So I don't feel you need to enjoy spotting references to enjoy this movie.
quote: It lacked the pornographic violence of Reservoir Dogs
How you can say this about a film that features someone's eye being plucked out and squashed under a bare foot baffles me. What about the Bride being shot in the tits with rock salt? (I pretend I know what this means -- I am just remembering what Budd said.) She's writhing on the ground bleeding, she gets injected in the ass, threatened with having her eyes burned out with Mace and then buried alive. To my mind, this is an extremely graphic portrayal of both sadistic actual violence and threatened violence. What about her smashing her hand up against a wooden block until she can't hold chopsticks, and bloodying her fingers again against the inside of a coffin?
She turns up to fight Elle Driver with a fucking mask of gore drying on her face. How can you not feel this film is saturated with violence?
quote: , and the intelligent dialogue of Pulp Fiction,
This would surely be a criticism to level at the first Kill Bill. Vol 2 is incredibly talky. There are at least three major monologs -- Bill's campfire scene, Elle's internet report about the Black Mamba and Bill's second big speech about Superman and his secret identity. This last riff, though unoriginal and inaccurate to genuine comic book fans*, seems no less memorable, distinctive and typically Tarantino than the "Royale with Cheese" routine.
*not only has it been pointed out many times that Clark Kent is the secret identity, but this isn't unique (Martian Manhunter/John Jones for instance) and to say the "art" on Superman is disappointing, when it's run since 1938 with thousands of different artists, is ridiculous.
quote: Bill is utterly, unreconstructedly, unashamedly, supremely, and fantastically evil.
This comment really makes me wonder if you saw some different cut. How can you possibly say he's pure, unadulterated evil when we see him bringing up his daughter with genuine compassion? We hear that he mourned Beatrix for three months, thinking that her disappearance meant she was dead. He confesses he felt sad after assassinating her. How does his scene of cutting the crusts off B.B's sandwiches chime with your view of him as the epitome of evil?
Yes, of course he's a killer. But the heroine is just as sadistically violent -- she confesses she enjoyed every murder -- and entirely prepared to kill her daughter's father.
If Bill was the living Satan you suggest he is, why would he have told B.B. her mother was asleep and dreaming of her every day? Wouldn't he have said "the blonde woman who's going to come for Daddy isn't really your mother, she's a bad woman and I'm going to have to kill her?" Wouldn't that have been a lot crueller than the fantasy he fed their daughter? Wouldn't a truly evil and unreconstructed prince of darkness let Beatrix die in front of her daughter, rather than tucking them both up together with a video?
quote: due in large part to the appeal of Uma Thurman. She's the sort of woman other women want to be like. (Debbie Harry was like that in her Blondie days.)
Surely this applies far more to Darryl Hannah?
------------------------------ Well, you and I clearly exist in parallel universes. I think you're the anti-reason, and you perhaps think the same of me.
posted
I started with Kill Bill Vol 2 because that is how it is generally being referred to at the moment, by both reviewers and cinema-goers, and I wanted to make it clear what I was talking about.
Playing spot the reference - the opening sequence is inspired by the beginning of "Once Upon A Time in the West," the snake in the suitcase full of cash is from "There Was a Crooked Man," the hand appearing from the grave is from "Night of the Living Dead," much of the music is inspired by Ennio Morricone scores. The kung fu training was actually remarkably naturalistic, compared to Vol 1's fight scenes that parodied 70's kung fu films.
Pornographic violence - there is a qualitive difference between the violence in Kill Bill Vols 1 and 2 and the violence in Reservoir Dogs. I'm not suggesting that the latter is violent and the former are not, just that the violence is different, and a viewer will experience different reactions to it.
Dialogue - OK, point taken about Bill's Clark Kent monologue. Nevertheless, I felt when I watched the film that there was a qualitive difference between Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill Vols 1 and 2. It wasn't quite as witty, as sharp, as edgy in the recent movies as it has been in earlier Tarantino films.
Bill is irredeemably evil. His reason for looking after his daughter was so that he could enjoy control over her mother, who he knew was still alive and would come to find him one day. His interest in his daughter did not extend beyond her use as an instrument of manipulation.
Darryl Hannah, Debbie Harry, whatever. Uma Thurman is an aspirational actress, whoever else you choose to compare her too.
So no, Kovaks, I don't think we did see different cuts. I think we saw the same one but responded differently to it. Either that or you're just picking a fight with me.
Posts: 362
| IP: Logged
Vol 2 is "OK" for conservative Christians because a mother inflicts and endures incredible pain to avenge her unborn [sic] daughter
quote:One welcome oddity from this conservative Christian's perspective was the constant reference to The Bride's unborn child as just that, and not, say, a "fetus" or some other dehumanizing appellation. It certainly is rare for Hollywood, much less Miramax, to have the main character, the hero if you will, call her preborn child a child (or "my daughter" in this case), and it's especially daring for this same secular and pro-abortion industry to have the hero exact lethal vengeance upon those who've murdered her unborn child. Christians differ on the methods one should take to punish those who murder unborn humans, but they should at least welcome the appearance in secular film of a protagonist, a female one at that, who so highly values the life of her unborn child that she places herself at great risk and endures excruciating pain in order to make the murderers regret their infanticide.
Fuck me I'm glad I don't know any Christians who agree with Beatrix Kiddo on the appropriate way to "punish" those who "murder" "unborn" "humans".
quote:Originally posted by ally: I started with Kill Bill Vol 2 because that is how it is generally being referred to at the moment, by both reviewers and cinema-goers, and I wanted to make it clear what I was talking about.
I wasn't criticising you on this point, just making note that this is, surprisingly, the real title.
quote: Playing spot the reference - the opening sequence is inspired by the beginning of "Once Upon A Time in the West," the snake in the suitcase full of cash is from "There Was a Crooked Man," the hand appearing from the grave is from "Night of the Living Dead," much of the music is inspired by Ennio Morricone scores. The kung fu training was actually remarkably naturalistic, compared to Vol 1's fight scenes that parodied 70's kung fu films.
You have entirely missed my point. I didn't say "please can you point out some references." I said I don't feel you need to enjoy spotting references to enjoy this movie.
In response to you claiming you need to enjoy playing "spot the reference."
HOPE THAT'S CLEAR
quote: Pornographic violence - there is a qualitive difference between the violence in Kill Bill Vols 1 and 2 and the violence in Reservoir Dogs. I'm not suggesting that the latter is violent and the former are not, just that the violence is different, and a viewer will experience different reactions to it.
Well, I don't think we have a scale to measure quality of violence, and I don't think either you or I can assess how "a viewer" will react to the violence in Vol 2 or Reservoir Dogs.
I was challenging your claim that It lacked the pornographic violence of Reservoir Dogs. Just because it might have been "different" violence doesn't mean it's possible, in my view, to say the film lacked violence. Pornographic violence implies, to me, a loving, explicit, detailed depiction of violence. I believe this film did, at times, focus on violence, pain, blood and harm to the human body in precisely this way.
quote: Dialogue - OK, point taken about Bill's Clark Kent monologue. Nevertheless, I felt when I watched the film that there was a qualitive difference between Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill Vols 1 and 2. It wasn't quite as witty, as sharp, as edgy in the recent movies as it has been in earlier Tarantino films.
Of course I have to let you hold your opinion on this, but compared to the first Kill Bill I felt it was clearly a return to the type of dialogue we'd heard in Pulp Fiction.
quote: Bill is irredeemably evil. His reason for looking after his daughter was so that he could enjoy control over her mother, who he knew was still alive and would come to find him one day. His interest in his daughter did not extend beyond her use as an instrument of manipulation.
Well, that wasn't how I saw it but I concede that you have thought this through.
quote: Darryl Hannah, Debbie Harry, whatever. Uma Thurman is an aspirational actress, whoever else you choose to compare her too.
Yeah fine, but in terms of looks I would say Debbie Harry is far more similar to Darryl Hannah as an older ex-starlet.
Anyway can't you SEE... D.H. D.H.
D. H. DDDDD
quote: So no, Kovaks, I don't think we did see different cuts. I think we saw the same one but responded differently to it.
I think you saw the name at the top of my posts and translated it into your anti-reason world of wrongness!
Vol 2 is "OK" for conservative Christians because a mother inflicts and endures incredible pain to avenge her unborn [sic] daughter
quote:One welcome oddity from this conservative Christian's perspective was the constant reference to The Bride's unborn child as just that, and not, say, a "fetus" or some other dehumanizing appellation. It certainly is rare for Hollywood, much less Miramax, to have the main character, the hero if you will, call her preborn child a child (or "my daughter" in this case), and it's especially daring for this same secular and pro-abortion industry to have the hero exact lethal vengeance upon those who've murdered her unborn child. Christians differ on the methods one should take to punish those who murder unborn humans, but they should at least welcome the appearance in secular film of a protagonist, a female one at that, who so highly values the life of her unborn child that she places herself at great risk and endures excruciating pain in order to make the murderers regret their infanticide.
Fuck me I'm glad I don't know any Christians who agree with Beatrix Kiddo on the appropriate way to "punish" those who "murder" "unborn" "humans".
Jesus. That's a remarkably, er, tenuous interpretation of the film.
Posts: 362
| IP: Logged
posted
I am aware that assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. However, I assumed when I read your opening comment about the title that you were hostile to my views.
I misread your point about spotting references, sorry, but I'm sure you accept that there are more references that just martial arts movies in there, and that an appreciation of a broad range of films will enhance your experience of watching the Kill Bills. OK, so it's not a necessary dimension, but it is an optional level of enjoyment.
I maintain that the violence in Reservoir Dogs is pornographic, and the violence in Kill Bill is not. The violence in Reservoir Dogs, to my mind at least, was naturalistic. The early scene, of the character shot in the stomach, wearing a white shirt, lying on a white car seat, blood foregrounded, was very different to the representations of blood in Kill Bill. The ear-slicing scene was sadistic, and again, naturalistic. The violence in Kill Bill is unreal by comparison. Its like the violence in Tom and Jerry. I use the term pornographic to indicate something exploitative, manipulative, coercive, in which the viewer is complicit. If you have a different working definintion of the term, you'll disagree with my use of it in this context.
Just out of interest, what's an "anti-reason world of wrongness?" I assume from the angry smiley it's not good?
Posts: 362
| IP: Logged
posted
What a strange, confusing film. Not confusing in terms of plot, but I'm utterly perplexed as to how I feel about it. There are bits I liked, and bits I was unconvinced by, but overall I found the experience of Vol 2 much less satisfying than Vol I.
This may change with time, and repeat viewing, and is not to say there wasn't alot that I liked on first viewing.
I loved the tension of the opening chapter. The humour of "The Cruel Tutelage of Pai Mei". The use of sound for that bit in "The Lonely Grave of Paula Shultz". I loved Daryl Hannah as Elle Driver. Larry Bishop as that crazy cocky coked-up strip-joint owner and Michael Parks (the Texas Ranger from Vol 1) as the sleepily creepy pimp Esteban Vihaio.
However, I was disappointed by the lack of action to punctuate the tension. What action there was left me largely unsatisfied. I'm uncertain if I liked Michael Madsen's performance as Budd; if the performance was flat, or if Budd was simply supposed to be blank as a character. The Superman speech for me undermined the charming malevolence that Carradine had displayed as Bill up to that point. It didn't sit right for me in the context of this film, and it certainly didn't resonate on a level with the monolgues from earlier Tarantino films.
With regards to comments made by others on this thread:
"Pornographic violence of Reservoir Dogs"
Whilst I agree that the violence in Kill Bill is of a different nature to the violence in Reservior Dogs, Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown (it seems more movie-based, more hyper-real) I think it is important to be able to seperate the idea of a sadistic character commiting a sadistic act in a film from the film-maker being sadistic or making "pornographic violence".
With regards to the ear slicing scene in RD the whole point of the scene is to build tension in the audience, by showing the insane sadism of the character of Mr Blonde towards the cop. Crucially we don't actually see the ear being cut off, the violence is suggested, not explicit.
Reference wise the hand appearing from the grave is a nod to the end of Carrie, not Night of the Living Dead. But thanks for reminding me of There as a Crooked Man.
[ 26.04.2004, 01:30: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: What a strange, confusing film. Not confusing in terms of plot, but I'm utterly perplexed as to how I feel about it.
Maybe there were bits you liked, and possibly bits you were unconvinced by, but overall perhaps you found the experience less satisfying than Vol I?
Posts: 7807
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree with Boy Racer! Which I don't think I've done before.
Wait. Wait. The Japanese version has no black & white sequence. This is good. And the two films are being edited back into one film. Will this film actually be released or is it just something that will be shown at filmfests? If it is being released then
1) good
but
2) that reeks of Lucas, man. After that he'll release a Special Edition. With CG.
Also Roy what is 'Bill vs Al Simmons fight'. And what does it mean.
Posts: 2689
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Raz: what is 'Bill vs Al Simmons fight'. And what does it mean.
It's the fat ginger being extra geeky shock. Fortunately I speak geek.
Tarantino shot a fight sequence between David Carradine and Michael Jai White (who played Al Simmons/Spawn in the 1997 movie of the Todd McFarlane comic) which didn't make it into Vol 2 but may be reinstated into the Whole Bloody Affair, or included as an extra feature on a DVD release.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: It was joke-angry. You must learn to recognise such subtleties! I was suggesting that in your world, WRONG = RIGHT
Sadly I am entirely gullible, and I have no sense of humour. Irony is lost on me, I'm afraid.
Boy Racer - I thought Budd was meant to be blank. Its the psychopathic inability to empathise on any level at all. It's what Michael Madsen does best. I also liked the lack of action. I heard an interview with David Carradine on R4, and apparently there was a deliberated decision to make the fight scenes as real as possible. No speeded up film, no special effect of any sort, which may be why they weren't as exciting as they were in Vol 1. I can see why they might disappoint though.
Thanks for the "Carrie" reminder.
About the pornographic violence - I take your point about the difference between a filmmaker making a sadistic film versus the representation of a sadistic character or act. My angle is slightly different. Its about the pornography of violence relating to the relationship between the viewer and the film. Pornography is defined in interpretation. Just a thought, anyway.
Yeah, the Superman speech was a bit lame, both in the context of Kill Bill and also Tarantino's other work.
I'm looking forward to the double box set too.
Posts: 362
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ally: Boy Racer - I thought Budd was meant to be blank. Its the psychopathic inability to empathise on any level at all.
Em. I don't think you can really draw all that much of a parallel between Budd and Mr Blond, which is what you seem to be doing here. Budd seemed to me just tired and old and not really bothered anymore - and he didn't take as much pleasure in maiming as Blond (although he was admittedly amused after she was 'rock-salted'), to whom it seemed almost like sexual pleasure. The violence Budd committed was a means to an end, in this case $1 million.
ALTOUGH ALTHOUGH why the fuck didn't he just ask Bill for lots of money? It's just occurred to me. Too proud perhaps.
Also why the fuck is the Japanese version of an American film better than the American version.
Posts: 2689
| IP: Logged
Even if Budd is supposed to be blank/worn out/(a)pathetic I had trouble with MM's performance. His reaction to the shit he gets at the club, particularly from Larry the comedy coke-head boss, didn't do enough for me in conveying what I assume was supposed to be Budd's forlorn acquiescence to a person he could easily snap in two. This is I presume to make us believe that Budd will take any shit thrown at him because he fells remorse and guilt at his former lifestyle, which in turn is supposed to make Budd both tragic and more sympathetic to the audience. See also his line about "that Woman" deserving her revenge and their deserving to die.
As far as Budd's reasons for getting "that Woman", I think they were less motivated by money than buy revenge for his brother, hence the line to Kiddo where Budd says; "This is for breaking my brother's heart". Despite his own issues with Bill he still loves him enough to kill Kiddo for him. The cash that he can get for the Hanzo sword is a bonus, albeit one that can stop him having to take shit from the likes of Larry for the foreseeable.
With regards to not asking Bill for money, Bill mentioned their parting had not been on good terms, and Budd told Bill he'd pawned the Hanzo Sword Bill had given him, even though he hadn't, just to piss him off.
The reason the Japanese version better = NC17
[ 26.04.2004, 04:53: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Raz: Em. I don't think you can really draw all that much of a parallel between Budd and Mr Blond, which is what you seem to be doing here.
I'm drawing a parallel between Michael Madsens performances in those roles, not the characters themselves.
Posts: 362
| IP: Logged
Saw this last night and thought it was awful. From the point of where she was buried alive to the point where she blinds Elle was good, but the first and final thirds were terrible.
The first problem was the pace of the film. It was filled with scenes that went on too long - eg. all the Bill scenes - or were utterly pointless - the mexican pimp. It seemed as though the decision to put this film into two parts really impacted on the editing of Vol. 2, with dire results.
The second problem was the characters. They simply had no chemistry between them. Interesting things managed to bob to the surface only for Tarantino to shoot them back below, as though he were afraid he film would become watchable. So Budd takes shit from his boss and cleans out toilets because he's weighed down with guilt is he? That will explain why he shoots her tits off and buries her alive. So he told Bill he sold the sword because...to hurt his feelings? To prove independence from him? Or maybe so that the Bride and Elle can have a sword fight. Great.
I lost this film when Bill shot her with...truth serum. So that, um, he can ask her some questions about why she left him. For about fifteen fucking minutes. (And the scene with the assassin and the Bride after she learnt that she was pregnant was patronising bollocks. Way to go QT. You know that when babies are involved, all women are sisters! Apart from Vol. 1 when they beat up a pregnant women and murder a woman with her child in the next room. Remember that?)
This could have been one film, easily, and the fact that it wasn't was just Miramax indulging QT and the end result was just that-the work of a spoilt child. Someone should have taken a firm hand with this film, and slapped its arse into shape.
Oh, and the comic book dialogue was wrong, shit and sounded like it had been cut out of the True Romance script.
i keep reading spoilers for the second one on the hope that it will put me off this stupid feeling of duty i have, compelling to go and see the second half despite the fact that i loathed the first volume with every fibre of my being. even the synthetic ones. two people have done the if you didnt like the first one, youll really like the second one thing to me now. i dont really want to see it in case i hate it as much as i hated the last one, but i still feel like i should. is baaaad.
-------------------- EXETER- movement of Jah people. Posts: 2841
| IP: Logged
posted
I did the like the first film, but I don't think it holds that if you didn't like the first one you will like the second. However I would say that you should see it simply because there has been such a diverse reaction to it and you may love it.
-------------------- We'd have been as big as the Rolling Stones if we'd sold as many records Posts: 52
| IP: Logged
posted
Just tell people (and yourself) that you're going because Boyracer wants to see it. That's the justification I'm currently using and it seems to be working out alright. Substituting BR for Mrs Bamba of course.
Posts: 3502
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by thestrongarm: So Budd takes shit from his boss and cleans out toilets because he's weighed down with guilt is he?
Heh. That was totally my favourite part of the film. It was like, even world class assassins have to suffer a chewing out from their boss on occassion. It's funny because all the time you're waiting for Budd to crack and beat the hell out of his boss and then he doesn't. He just weathers it like everyone else.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film right from beginning to end. In fact, every time a sequence ended it felt disappointing; like I could have watched any chapter play out for the full two hours.
To my mind saying "there was no chemistry between the characters" goes beyond the expression of a subjective opinion and into plain wrongness. Elle's hatred of Beatrix, her obvious contempt for Budd and his new lifestyle. The affection and fear the Bride has for Bill; the Bride's respect and terror and will to impress Pai Mei. Pai Mei's own disgust at the bride, and yet desire for her company. I think that all amounted to chemistry, and it was chemistry that worked. In fact, it was one of the best things about this film, the way you had all these characters trapped in their roles and seeming to hate it but playing it out to the genre conventions anyway. Especially resonant ion the way the bride wrestles with the truth serum about enjoying killing everyone she killed. It was like she didn't want to be this character, but she was and she couldn't fight it. Like the one dimensional revenge machine of o so many movies had been granted human emotions and was finding it impossible to reconcile them with what she had to do within the confines of the genre. Great stuff.
Also, I don't see how you can call the scene with the two assassins and the pregnancy kit 'patronising bollocks'. Your breakdown of the logic of this scene is wrong, and sounds kind of like someone trying to prove they're better than the filmmaker.
The assassin backs off because the bride's pregnant and therefore convicingly promises not to carry out her assignment. There's no need to kill her and her child. When the DVAS catch up with her, it's not like she can bargain by say "oh, it's OK, I'll go on the lam with my kid and never kill anyone again", cuz that's precisely the reason they're out to get her.
I suppose the film could have been squashed into one film, but it probably would have felt compromised in some way. I dunno.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
Thorn Davis: All that you say is fine, and please, trust me, I have no intent of trying to prove that I'm better than the filmaker. One, I have no interest in that sort of thing and I hate it when people do it and two, part of the reason I disliked this film so much is because of the high standards of Tarantinos work.
I loved the Budd getting shit scene, but I just felt that the good stuff quickly fell aside as the bad stuff mounted up.
As for the assassin scene, even in the world of Kill Bill it didn't work for me. 'Did you kill her, like I told you to?' 'Nah, she was pregnant and promised she wouldn't kill anyone again.' 'Oh, best left alone, then.'
The point being: An assassin kills people no matter what. It's what they do. Budd, Elle and co demonstrated that by the massacare in the church. This particular assassin listens to people's life stories and lets them off. If that's the case, that's the kind of assassin I want.
It's just my opinion, and I really, really wanted to like this film, and I can understand why people do like this fim, but for me, everytime I got into it, something pushed me out.
Kind of like the opposite of Michael Corleone in Godfather pt 3.
-------------------- We'd have been as big as the Rolling Stones if we'd sold as many records Posts: 52
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by thestrongarm: As for the assassin scene, even in the world of Kill Bill it didn't work for me. 'Did you kill her, like I told you to?' 'Nah, she was pregnant and promised she wouldn't kill anyone again.' 'Oh, best left alone, then.'
It wasn't quite that simple, though. You make out as though the Bride begged for mercy. Don't forget she had a gun to the woman's head. In fact, two killers in a no-win standoff allowing each other to live is practically a convention of its own. It's just quirkier here because of the pregnancy angle.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
I wouldn't disagree with that at all, and I would say that if, by the time that scene arrives, you're enjoying the film, then you'll enjoy that scene. Me, I had lost the film by then.
I did like the end, with the bride in the bathroom. And the middle of the film, the Budd and Elle bits were good.
More Budd. There should have been more Budd.
-------------------- We'd have been as big as the Rolling Stones if we'd sold as many records Posts: 52
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic