Rate Kill Bill Volume 2

[barsoomcore]

I think you are the one who is hand-waving away the actual evidence of the movie (and the commentary of QT himself), in all caps no less. It was spelled out quite clearly that her character made almost a 180 degree transition when she discovered she was pregnant.

She decided on a new course of action -- but she wasn't willing to face the consequences of that (as Bill literally says -- "There are consequences for breaking the heart of a killer"). Characters make decisions without TRANSFORMING (just to get my all-caps quota in early ) all the time -- but transformation must cost. We read stories in order to see transformation (when we're not just wanting to see our self-images peddled back to us) -- if there's been no cost to the character then who cares if she transforms?

That scene (where she discovers she's pregnant), is the start of the story. It is the beginning of the Bride's transformation. The transformation is, and must be, a process. The longer and more costly this process is (all other things being equal), the more powerful and exciting the story is.

Kill Bill is the story of Beatrix Kiddo's transformation, a transformation that begins when she discovers she is pregnant and that ends when she at last destroys all that identified her in her previous life. Initially she attempts to just ignore the facts of her life, with tragic results, but in the end she confronts and destroys that which is closest to her and is most preventing her from moving on with her life.

There's a poem by D.H. Lawrence, one of my favourite bits of writing ever, that discusses the necessary death of transformation. The Ship of Death. The poet insists that it is vitally important to build one's "Ship of Death", to stock it with the necessities of the soul in advance of the coming and inevitable flood that will sink everything, consume all that you care about, and the soul alone will survive in the Ship until:

The flood subsides, and the body, like a worn sea-shell
emerges strange and lovely.
And the little ship wings home, faltering and lapsing
on the pink flood,
and the frail soul steps out, into the house again
filling the heart with peace.

Swings the heart renewed with peace
even of oblivion.

Oh build your ship of death. Oh build it!
for you will need it.
For the voyage of oblivion awaits you.

The idea is common in Buddhist and Hindu thought, but this is one of my favourite expressions of it in Western writing. You can read the whole poem here, if you're so inclined.

I think it's interesting, KL, that you keep coming up with "alternate" versions of the movie that you say would be better. It's like you have these patterns that stories must follow if they are to win your approval. Rather than deal with what the movie DOES say, you keep comparing it to some non-existent film, with a different message, and pointing out how it fails to accord with that. I'm not sure what I think about that, but I thought I should point it out.

Thanee: Five-Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique

Pants: indeed it did, which is interesting in and of itself, but it is nonetheless AFTER she's been buried alive.

 

[WayneLigon]

Budd was the least interesting character in the film because he was the most normal (followed by Vernita Green, but she gets points for her in-your face attitude, which Budd lacked). He was not a larger than life comic book villain. He was just some dumb hick with no personality. He ate up way too much screen time. Who needs to see him working at that strip club? YAWN! It was meaningless. Just have the Bride fight him, kill him and move on.

The strip club scene is pretty important to understanding what's happened to Budd. Budd, of all of the Squad members, has fallen the furthest. Vernita thinks she's going to go have a normal life, Elle has stayed on and apparently tried to out-bad-ass all of them, O-Ren has built her own little empire and probably was on the way to becoming a 'Bill' in her own right. But poor ol' Budd? He was a top of the line assassin. And now he's letting some loser bad mouth him and letting a two-dollar whore tell him to go clean crap. The whole scene shows just how far down the pike he's come.

 

[Teflon Billy]

See, that's the thing that you obviously don't understand. I know the genre. I understand the genre. I "get" the genre. I just don't particularly care for the genre.

Without trying to sound like a dick...why did you go to such lengths to familiarize yourself witha genre you (seemingly at first blush) didn't care for?

I mean, if I hadn't liked the first hong kong chop-socky flick I had ever seen (at least in comparison to Quincy reruns) I doubt I would've bothered to watch more long enough to understand the genre.

A "nearly perfection distillation" of a flawed concept will never, ever compare to a nearly perfect distillation of a worthy concept.

Is that what you are calling the Passion of the Christ?

And what's so flawed about the concept in KB2? ...which, as I understand it, is the telling of the story using the "cinematic language" of the Hong Kong Chop Socky flicks of the 70's.

If all that had been produced was KB1, then i wouldn;t be all that impressed...I've seen movies like that, and while KB1 is a very good example of such a beast, that's all it was.

Capped by all of the character depth provided by KB2 i think we have a contender for my new favorite movie (though, admittdly my old favorite movie was Pulp Fiction, so I might just plain share Tarantino's sensibilites).

 

[Teflon Billy]

I gave it a 7. Points off for a couple of scenes (the daughter explaining how she killed her goldfish, Bud's boss reprimanding him) and for nature of the story.

No matter how expertly polished a tale of murderous revenge can ever be, its still a tale of murderous revenge, and will never possess the rich value of a story like The Lord of the Rings or The Passion of the Christ.

That said, as a visceral epic of chop socky mayhem, it was one hell of a ride, and a couple of the chapters (Pai Mei and the showdown with Elle Driver) really transcended the genre.

Huh

You know, I've got so far into the thread that I forgot that you basically liked the movie I agree about the Goldfish thing, disagree about Budd's bosses reprimand.

I disagree that the scenes with Pai Mei "transcended" the Genre...they were brilliant homages to the genre as much as they were anything.

What I think I liked best about the Pai Mei scenes was that they were shot on crappy 16mm film...so they looked like the 1970's HK films from which they drew their inspiration!

Also, I loved that at the beginning of that particular scene, Uma's kung fu did look like crap (Pai Mei was correct) but by the end, it looked crisp and fluid. Touches like that were top notch

I would like to know what you meant by "rich value" in the sentence "...and will never possess the rich value of a story like The Lord of the Rings or The Passion of the Christ..." though.

 

[Kai Lord]

Without trying to sound like a dick...why did you go to suh lengths to familiarize yourself witha genre you (seemingly at first blush) didn't care for? Ieman, if I hadn't liked the first hong kong chop-socky flick I had ever seen (at least in comparison to Quincy reruns) I doubt I would've bothered to watch long enough to understand the genre.

Nah that's cool. Its a fair question. My familiarity comes from a combination of:

1. Two Chinese friends in high school (1988-1992) that had a sizeable collection of Hong Kong VCD's that they enjoyed sharing. I wasn't too big on the stuff from the 70's, but I loved Jet Li's old flick "New Legend of Shaolin" (can't remember the Chinese translation.) Oh man, the scenes where he fought off all the mooks alternating between his staff and the little baby as melee weapons was priceless. Doing the same with Aliyah in Romeo Must Die and the midget vs. the ultimate fighters in Cradle 2 the Grave just didn't have the same charm.

I mostly liked those old flicks for the comedy factor, but it also gave me an idea of what kind of high flying wuxia action my Chinese friends sometimes incorporated into D&D. One thing my group learned early on, is that often times bad movies = great D&D scenarios.

Which brings us to:

2. I went through a "too cool for Hollywood" Hong Kong/Tarantino phase back in the early to mid 90's as an alternative to the James Cameron-dominated Hollywood flicks after a friend showed me a bootleg VHS of John Woo's Hard Boiled. Even then I found Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and True Romance to be a little too unpleasant for my tastes (I still can't watch Patricia Arquette getting her ass kicked in True Romance), but, as I said in an earlier post, I was really stimulated by the visceral rush of not knowing how Tarantino's characters would end up in the story. And I was all over John Woo's old stuff. (Side note: I even got to briefly speak with him at a film festival in Seattle where I attended a special screening of Bullet in the Head. One of the nicest, most humble guys you'll ever meet.)

The 70's martial arts flicks kind of worked their way in at that period of my life in addition to the films mentioned above.

Is that what you are calling the Passion of the Christ?

Yes, I do call the Passion a "worthy concept." I wouldn't say Gibson's film is a "perfect distillation", I don't think any movie ever will be of the Gospels, but I rank it very, very highly.

And what's so flawed about the concept in KB2?

Because to me its cinematic junk food, whereas LOTR and The Passion actually tell a story and create an experience that enriches my life. So that's why I didn't rate KB higher. For me, movies that "taste great and are good for you" will always rank higher than movies that only "taste great."

 

[Kai Lord]

Huh

You know, I've got so far into the thread that I forgot that you basically liked the movie I agree about the Goldfish thing, disagree about Budd's bosses reprimand.

There were a couple other specific things, too. As mentioned earlier, Bill's Superman speech really didn't sound like something Bill would say. The "voice of Tarantino" in that instance actually took me out of the moment.

I disagree that the scenes with Pai Mei "transcended" the Genre...they were brilliant homages to the genre as much as they were anything.

You're right. "Transcended" probably wasn't the right word, I was just strongly buzzing off the film when I posted that and overstated a bit.

Also, I loved that at the beginning of that particular scene, Uma's kung fu did look like crap (Pai Mei was correct) but by the end, it looked crisp and fluid. Touches like that were top notch

Totally. Little things like how she put her legs and back into her punches at the end. A very noticeable step up from the Cameron Diaz Charlie's Angels crap we're starting to see a lot of.

I would like to know what you meant by "rich value" in the sentence "...and will never possess the rich value of a story like The Lord of the Rings or The Passion of the Christ..." though.

I was writing my last post when you posted this and I kind of got into it a little bit there.

To be more specific The Passion was a unique experience in bringing to life what Jesus suffered in a way that I don't always allow when I read the Scriptures and think about what He went through for my sake. There are other specific things but basically I believe anything (a movie, song, event, etc.) that points toward Jesus will always have more value than something that does not.

I see a lot of Christian allegory in LOTR. The innocent being who bears the sin of the world, the White Rider and all the horses charging down from the "heavens", the lake of fire, the city that goes up into the sky, the ease of even good men at falling into temptation, etc.

Anyway, I'll just leave it at that for the sake of answering your question. If you don't believe what I believe, obviously those elements will hold little to no value for you. But we all have our standards of judgment, and that's where mine are based.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

There are other specific things but basically I believe anything (a movie, song, event, etc.) that points toward Jesus will always have more value than something that does not.

Yep, your religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. No siree, you're free of bias and able to judge the merits of competing works based solely on their storytelling and depth of thought, not whether the subject matter appeals to you emotionally.

Glad we cleared that up at last.

 

[WizarDru]

You obviously don't know what getting it means.

Well, it obviously has a different meaning to me than you, I think. I think you intellectually 'get it', but you state clearly afterwards that you didn't enjoy the specific parts of the martial arts genre that Tarantino is actually trying the hardest to emulate, namely the Shaw Bros. films of the 70s. I can understand, intellectually, why someone would enjoy Death Metal...but I don't 'get it'. I'm not saying that you don't understand it, just that I'd couch your review differently than say, Teflon Billy's, because his tastes clearly skew closer to mine than yours do. I'm not nay-saying your opinion...if you think it was flawed or inherently not going to work based on the material, I can't say that you're wrong. That'd be my opinion of your opinion.

There's much more to KB than "Asian martial arts cinema" which ironically suggests you were the one who didn't get it. I've seen many kung fu movies that didn't have revenge as their basis.

See Teflon Billy's statements vis a vis the language of martial arts cinema, and then check back on my comments on not being a film that could be so easily pigeon-holed. My point was that this you and I clearly see KB v2 as having roots in two different genres.

Then you obviously aren't getting any of my posts either, because I literally spelled out in black and white why I went to see KB2 in spite of Tarantino's previous work. Go back and read it.

I'm sorry, I looked and I'm not seeing where you do. Was it in this thread? Were you referring to this passage?

When Quentin Tarantino is not at his most foul, his movies can be a lot of fun. The references are often fun and the dialogue can be a real kick. And unlike many directors who choose stories closer to my own particular tastes, Tarantino is *incredibly* unpredictable in his storytelling.

I'm not being snarky here, and perhaps you think I'm trying to be, which I'm not. I'm just trying to get a feel for what got you in the theater. But I don't see a specific instance of 'I hate Tarntino, but I had to go see this movie because...'. I have seen you say that you thought the first movie was foul and that you think that Tarantino hasn't gotten past his juvenile stage, which is fine. But it sounded like you went in knowing you that, for you, the film would never be equal to the sum of it's parts, because the genre is one you don't enjoy, the director is one whose works you historically don't like as a whole film-maker (though you enjoy parts) and that you didn't enjoy the first installment of what is, essentially, the same movie. It's just something I wouldn't have done, given similar circumstances, so I found it curious.

I mean, I'm hardly QT's biggest fan. I've seen Pulp Fiction once, and I wasn't sure if I enjoyed it or not...but it certainly was different. I've never seen Resevoir Dogs or Jackie Brown.

Quick question: do you think that it was the violence itself that makes the concept flawed, the 'revenge' aspect or the excution of one or both together? That is to say, can a film like, say, 'Gladiator' ever be considerd, IYHO, on the same level as a 'Chariots of Fire', for example?

 

[Teflon Billy]

...Bill's Superman speech really didn't sound like something Bill would say. The "voice of Tarantino" in that instance actually took me out of the moment.

It didn't quite take me out of it, but I see what you mean (I thought it was a brilliant allegory though)

I was writing my last post when you posted this and I kind of got into it a little bit there.

Yep, got it.

I see a lot of Christian allegory in LOTR. The innocent being who bears the sin of the world, the White Rider and all the horses charging down from the "heavens", the lake of fire, the city that goes up into the sky, the ease of even good men at falling into temptation, etc.

huh! I hadn't thought of any of that before.

Anyway, I'll just leave it at that for the sake of answering your question. If you don't believe what I believe, obviously those elements will hold little to no value for you. But we all have our standards of judgment, and that's where mine are based.

Yup, that right there is the point of my first post in its entirety

 

[Teflon Billy]

I mean, I'm hardly QT's biggest fan. I've seen Pulp Fiction once, and I wasn't sure if I enjoyed it or not...but it certainly was different. I've never seen Resevoir Dogs or Jackie Brown...

Jackie Brown was so-so