| |
 |
|
|
Movies Forum Index » Current Movies Forum » Kill Bill 2 - okay, not great [spoilers]
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ollie T |
 Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Why did they cut out Michael Jai White?"
I forgot about this myself. I watched the trailers on Vol. 1 DVD when they
show him and I just thought I would see it in Vol. 2. Maybe on the DVD?
HDTV games lists and discussions
http://www.hdtvarcade.com
"T" <tberk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nZGgc.24093$zu6.8237@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
Quote: Michael Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:53:20 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
In article <22986a60.0404161439.292d3a8b@posting.google.com>,
tree01@inreach.com (Felix Oscar) wrote:
The worst part was the ending. You call that an ending?
Too many long dialog scenes. Why the silly scene with the Mexican
pimp?
Why did they cut out Michael Jai White? Who was his character
supposed to be? Wasn't there going to be more stuff shot in China?
Well, you know, until I started looking for Go-go pix (who I had let
slip from my immediate memory in favor of the Crazy 88s as a hole) I
hadn't even *heard* of Mr. White.
Don't know about that but there was a whole sequence cut out of the
first film dealing with Yuri Yubari, the little sister of the
psychopathic schoolgirl Go-Go. She goes after Uma to avenge her sister's
death.
Poor Go-go. <sniff
Yeah.. i could have done with quite a few scenes dropped from both
films,
Well now I am the opposite; the scenes with Bill's brother (he was Bills
*Brother*?) in his current situation might have fleshed out his
character a bit more. I felt the 1st one really introduced us to only
one of the other 'snakes' (Lucy Liu's character) and so we might feel we
are missing back story here.
less in V1, while even say keeping a 3 hour cut of the film for
the 'epic feel'. A lot of V2 was entirely filler.. Budd's job... the
mexican pimp.. the spiderman story.. etc.
Er, Superman dude. No harm, no foul.
Of course it was filler, but was it really? Was it just to pad the movie
or was it narrative? What was the movie about is one question, another -
equally important question is what was the movie meant for.
Story telling or action adventure escapism? Or both?
It felt like Tarantino just
didn't know when to stfu and let the movie flow and as such had to
throw in everything he could dream up under the sun into the two
films. V1 i liked a lot... V2 bored me to tears in a lot of parts.
-MJ
You make some valid points but keep in mind you (we, me, us) bring to
the table our expectations. These might not be met, but did Q. do what
_he_ set out to do?
TBerk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| A.E. Jabbour |
| Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In alt.fan.tarantino Felix Oscar <tree01@inreach.com> wrote:
Quote: The worst part was the ending. You call that an ending?
I thought the ending was excellent. It pulled together the
two most important characters, along with their baggage, history,
and ... child.
Beatrix had succeeded in what she needed to do. Now, she
gets to appreciate life with her daughter. It was a bit of
a twist (kind of) on the typical revenge story in that Bea's
mission had tainted her and changed her, but she ends up
thankful and well-off.
A big part of how it ended had to do with Uma Thurman's
character's many different identities: the Assassin, Black
Mamba; the fiancee, Arlene (?); the avenger, The Bride; and
the one identity she had to regain, Beatrix Kiddo;
That's what the whole Superman/Spiderman/superhero speech
was about. Bill could only see her as Black Mamba, putting
on her costume to be a "normal girl." She knew that she
could reclaim her original identity, though. She wasn't
born an Assassin, like Superman was born Superman; she
was made into an Assassin (and all the other identities
followed from that) by Bill. Once she Killed Bill, she
could grab that original human being back, and just be ...
with her daughter.
That's why she was thankful.
Quote: Too many long dialog scenes. Why the silly scene with the Mexican
pimp?
Well, for one thing it was a good fun. It was straight out of
some pulp novel. This scene almost *had* to exist, come to
think of it.
Also, it showed that The Bride hadn't completely understood
Bill up to that point. When Esteban tells her that Bill would
want him to tell her where he (Bill) is, and The Bride contends
that Esteban is wrong, it shows a lack of understanding on
the part of Our Heroine.
(Paraphrasing, since I've only seen it once) "How else could
he see you again?"
She's a bright gal, but she doesn't have it completely put
together yet. The final example of this is when she will meet
her daughter at Bill's. The other DiVAS were easy, for the most
part; not in the sense that they were easy to kill, but in the
sense that they were easy to understand.
Bill, on the other hand, is not going to be so easy. Not only
does he have a trump card up his sleeve (the daughter), but his
motivations are not as banal or as predictable as the others.
And Esteban allows us to see some of this. It's a way for us to
get to know Bill, even though he isn't in the scene.
And, as I said, again, it's great fun. It's "pulp" in the
truest sense of the word, from the long history between Bill
and Esteban, the disfigured whore (an image I found immensely
disturbing, btw), the exotic location where a once great man
of crime now runs his "banana republic" empire.
Also, it gives us a sense of what sort of person Bill really
is if this is the kind of guy to whom Bill would attach himself,
as a son to a father figure. There's a beautiful ugliness to
the whole sequence, and that's part of what QT is all about, it
seems to me.
And ever since Bill saw THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE with Lana
Turner, it's clear that he had a thing for blondes. He was five,
and he sucked his thumb compulsively after seeing her (Lana Turner
probably had a similar effect on lots of men, of whatever age;
this also another connection for hte audience to feel with the
world of film).
I think a lot was going on in that scene, much, much, much more
that I have even touched on.
Quote: Why did they cut out Michael Jai White? Who was his character
supposed to be? Wasn't there going to be more stuff shot in China?
Did you know Pai Mei's voice was Tarantino?
I would agree that KB1-2 should have been released as one film with
Carradine's long speeches cut down.
I disagree completely. Well, not completely, in that I would have
gone to see a 4.5 hour KILL BILL in a heartbeat. But, if it had to
be cut down, then no way.
Bill's "speeches" are more appropriately called stories, I think.
We see it numerous times, and there's a reason for it. The first
thought I had when I got up from my seat was that this movie was
so obviously made by someone who simply *loves* movies. And movies
are, usually, stories.
As much as this was a love letter to certain genres of film, and
certain actors and movies, it was a love letter to the great
storytelling tradition of film history. Bill's essential way
of communicating is through story, not through simple statement.
One might even argue that Bill represents the forces of film
storytelling in Bea's life. Once she has exorcised him and these
forces, she can resume her normal life, the one that isn't a
genre film stock character (assassin, runaway, avenger, etc.).
The one where she sits on a bed, watching cartoons with her
daughter.
Bill is a fantastic character in that he both sees and is blind,
he both creates and he destroys, he both knows what will happen
and yet is ignorant at teh same time. His stories and monologues
show how his vision of reality is at once so seemingly knowing,
but at the same time so blurred. When he tries to explain to
Bea why she is just putting on a costume, he sounds almost
insightful; and he would be insightful, if he weren't totally
incorrect.
(Come to think of it, a lot of this film was about being able
(or not) to "see." Everyone thinks that Budd hocked his Hanzo
blade. Elle loses an eye because she is a contemptable, loud-
mouthed American woman with no respect for her Master. She
loses the other eye because she can't see past her own greed
and viciousness. Budd gives The Bride the option of having her
eyes burned out of her skull and conversely having a flashlight
so she can see once buried alive. We watch Bea and BB watching
television twice, bonding.)
Quote: Budd's scenes were pretty good esp the transcendent Morricone music.
Budd was an awesome character. He's the most down and out of all
of them, from either film. He's working in a strip club as a
bouncer, and apparently has to clean shit off the floor on a
semi-regular basis. Everyone thinks he pawned his Hanzo blade,
because he wants them to think that. He's humiliated and
treated worse than a dog by the worthless, cowardly scum who
employ him. And he just takes it. He even removes his hat when
told to.
All the while, he realizes that both he and Bill, and The Bride
deserve death. They have all been mixed up in a horrible, terrible
dance which can only lead to more bloodshed. It's silly to
pretend it will end any other way.
Quote: What's with the silly MTV shots of Uma driving?
Those were just like the old process shots in PULP FICTION when
Butch is in the cab. I think QT does it for a couple of reasons:
it draws attention ot the film *as* a film, intentionally (the
way Godard, for example, had Anna Karina turn to camera and ask
"Pourquoi?" in BAND OF OUTSIDERS, just as one Godard example);
also, it ties the audience to the ongoing, always alive history
of film, which is obviously important to QT; it's as if QT
is saying that, no matter how engaged we are in the story on
the screen, this is one more way for him to remind us that this
film, like *any* film, exists only on the shoulders of everything
which came before it. It's a connection to the past, and it's
a visual queue as well.
And, well, it just looks cool I think.
Overall, I was blown away. I went in to this looking to like
it, a lot. I walked out LOVING it. And I am pretty sure that
when I wake up tomorrow (I just saw it tonight) I will have a
million more thoughts in my head about it. I think it is one
of the best films I have seen in a very long time.
And, even given the reputation this film will have for being
a film-geek movie, or for being so heavily referrential, or
for being a crazy melange of oh-so-many genres, it is one of
the most intelligent and provocative films I have seen in
a great while. And, hell, it was a lot of fun too!
--
AE Jabbour
"If I did have a tumor, I'd name it Marla."
Narrator, "Fight Club" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:39 pm
|
|