The philosophic differences between Kill Bill vols. 1 & 2

NAD

What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse
Jun 5, 2002
38,465
1,171
113
Kandarian Ruins
Quick sidenote: this/these is/are my favorite movie(s) of the past many years. Utter masterpieice(s).

Volume 1:
Complete destruction. The physical beast in man (or woman rather) that comes out when all is lost in the world. Beatrix enacting her revenge beginning with the first prick, the raping and prostitution that Buck engages in, the physical conquering of adversity that is Beatrix' atrophy, O-ren's takedown of society, and of course Hanzo's revenge on his enemy (reasons withheld).

Volume 2:
The mind game. Yes the same amount of violence is present, albeit without nearly as much fancy camera work as in the first, but this is more a mental battle than anything. Budd recognizes that Beatrix deserves revenge, but "kills" her anyway, Elle knows that she deserved a true warrior's death and even if she got her ass handed to her, at the crux of the matter she knew it was just (one of my few assumptions of characters in this flick). Bill accepts his fate, not without a fight being the murdering bastard that he is, but still takes it like man in the end.

Discuss.
 
I agree 100%. The philosophical aspects play a much larger role in the second volume, and I think it reaches its climax when Beatrix and Bill actually are able to have a pretty civilized conversation at Bill's place, at the end of the movie. Bill even seems pretty sympathetic, but Beatrix recognizes that what he's done is so severe and gruesome that he deserves to be killed, no matter what - even though their beloved child is very fond of her father. She still wants revenge, and I feel that Beatrix needs that revenge in order to actually be able to live on without feeling ashamed of who she is.
 
you like kill bill

this negates your taste in music and quite possibly your taste in general

i'm so sorry :(
 
lesaux.jpg


you look so french :(
 
Ifurin =
open_lobotomy.gif



About Kill Bill i agree with Nad. I prefer the Kill Bill 2 than the first, more depth in it.
Also about "Hanzo's revenge", i think it wasnt a revenge, he just felt a short of "disgrace" within him about his student's actions (and that was the reason he stopped making swords)
 
Reservoir Dogs > Jackie Brown > Pulp Fiction >>>>>>>>> Kill Bill 1 > Kill Bill 2

I used to be a huge QT fan ... but he makes me tired now. he needs to branch out somehow if he can and let someone else write some damn dialogue ...
 
The dialog in Kill Bill 2 killed it for me. It was too much, especially the conversation between the bride and bill. That whole truth serum business...loved Kill Bill 1, didn't care for KIll Bill 2. Maybe I lost the momentum inbetween or something.

Still, lurch, how you can put Jackie Fucking Shit Brown ahead of Pulp Fiction is beyond me. Granted, PF is overrated, but JB was diabolical.

Of course I do agree that Resevoir Dogs is his masterpiece. Everything in its right place, not too much, not too little. It's a film for the ages.
 
the thing for me was, that since I actually saw Reservoir in the theater the day it was released, without all the hype, not knowing who QT was, and falling in love with it ... when PF was released and the anticipation totally killed it for me. While good, it felt dissapointing and cartoonish ... which is the point of it really ... but still ... I was not buying it. There are great "bits" in it, but overall it was a letdown.

Now JB on the other hand has that cool, 70's easy going vibe to it ... and I loved that.

Kill Bill I just plain hated and felt it was an excercise in self indulgence.
 
Henrik Main said:
I haven't been myself lately, due to the fact that Southampton possibly will be relegated :( [/graeme]

One thing I never understood: why are people in Norway so fond of british football?!? Don't you have your own teams to get drunk and ape-like to on saturday nights?

"Kill Bill" makes no sense to me, not that any Tarentino movie ever did ("From Dusk till Dawn" had fun scenes, granted - [EDIT] is it a Tarentino movie anyway? [/EDIT])
 
Ellestin said:
One thing I never understood: why are people in Norway so fond of british football?!? Don't you have your own teams to get drunk and ape-like to on saturday nights?

That was just a lame inside joke. According to Ifurin, I'm the spitting image of a Southampton player called Graeme Le Saux.

But your question is a good one. Most people think that Norwegians are so fond of British football due to the following factors:

1) NRK (Norwegian ARD/BBC) started to broadcast live football from the British top division every Saturday at 16:00 in 1960 or something, and for some reason, the matches became incredibly popular. They still are.
2) Norwegian football is more related to English football than, say, Spanish and Italian football - it's more physical. Norwegians can therefore more easily relate to the British way of playing than the continental way.

Norwegian football is extremely popular too, but it's still an unwritten rule that you need to support a British team if you're a Norwegian football fan. I support Blackburn Rovers, btw :Spin:
 
I see... Yes, it was pretty clear to me that the "kick and rush" playing culture had leaked to your country. I think it's cool, it pays tribute to the beast in man much more than this depressingly tactical bitching most of the big European teams are falling into these days and kills most of the adrenaline of competitions. I've stopped watching football on TV the day it became clear that I could predict a game's scenario in the first minutes with 75% accuracy... 'twas cool when Rosenborg made it to the top 16 like five years in a row...