Jump to content

KILL BILL: THE WHOLE BLOODY AFFAIR DVD


origin1950
 Share

What was Quentin's BEST movie?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Vote for what you thought was Quentin's BEST film

    • Reservoir Dogs
      5
    • Pulp Fiction
      3
    • Jackie Brown
      2
    • Kill Bill
      2
    • Deathproof
      0


Recommended Posts

This thing hits next Tuesday (January 1st, 2008).

 

killbilldvdpx5.jpg

 

Its a 4 disc, 247 minute NC-17 cut of both films. I'm pretty big on box sets and collector's editions (just bought that Blade Runner MONSTER set), but this one's got me a bit skeptical. I own both the original R rated dvds, which amount together to a 248 minute film. Is this cut JUST gonna upgrade from R to NC-17? And if so, why are there 4 discs instead of 2? Or 3? I'm guessin, the box set will contain both the original cuts and the new cut. What would fuck me up, is if the new cut is STILL separated by discs. It oughtta be on ONE disc. So who's gonna jump on this?

 

Happy Holidays all,

 

-TL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey TL, I loved KB1 but I was a bit dissapointed in KB2, I liked it but not as much as KB1. I have always been a nut about KARATE/KUNG-FU movies, with ENTER the DRAGON being my all time favorite. I'm the guy who stays up late at night watching all those dubbed Kung-Fu opera movies!

 

I'm looking forward to this release, I hope it adds some cool extras.

 

Merry Christmas dude!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite Tarantino film! I own both original DVDs. However...I'll hold off on the box set unless I get a STRONG recommendation. I mean, to me, NOTHING tops the LOTR boxed sets. Now THERE was something worth buying.

 

Frederic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thing hits next Tuesday (January 1st, 2008).

 

Its a 4 disc, 247 minute NC-17 cut of both films. I'm pretty big on box sets and collector's editions (just bought that Blade Runner MONSTER set), but this one's got me a bit skeptical. I own both the original R rated dvds, which amount together to a 248 minute film. Is this cut JUST gonna upgrade from R to NC-17? And if so, why are there 4 discs instead of 2? Or 3? I'm guessin, the box set will contain both the original cuts and the new cut. What would fuck me up, is if the new cut is STILL separated by discs. It oughtta be on ONE disc. So who's gonna jump on this?

 

Happy Holidays all,

 

-TL

The new cut will be spread over 2 discs like the Lord of the Rings: Extended Editions, the movie most likely being over 3 hours wouldn't be able to fit on a single DVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

I LOVE both of these movies, and they each were great in their own way. KB1 was a great action flick, with some killer fight scenes, and classic Tarantino dialogue. KB2 was a bit draggy as far as the action went, and the story got a little sappy, and almost over-the-top at times, but I still thought it was great. I own both dvds, so I would be hesitant to buy a boxed set or a new version unless it promised a hella lot of extras, like deleted scenes, interviews, and BTS stuff, as well as an extended cut or something like that.

 

If I hear that it's really good, I might buy it, but I won't rush out to get it until I hear some feedback on it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AdminGuyX

I don't have a great love of Tarantino's work, but I did like the first KB film a whole lot. I thought the second film kind of sucked.

 

Other than that Reservoir Dogs would be my fav from him still. I don't think he ever topped the energy and pacing he achieved with that one again in his work. But, truly, Ringo Lam needed to get a "based on the work of" credit in there. Probably on Kill Bill too, QT borrowed so much from the man stylistically for KB, parts of it are just like watching a ringo lam film.

 

If you ever meet Roger Avary in person, asks him what he thinks of Quentin. He has a whole lot to say.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a great love of Tarantino's work, but I did like the first KB film a whole lot. I thought the second film kind of sucked.

 

Other than that Reservoir Dogs would be my fav from him still. I don't think he ever topped the energy and pacing he achieved with that one again in his work. But, truly, Ringo Lam needed to get a "based on the work of" credit in there. Probably on Kill Bill too, QT borrowed so much from the man stylistically for KB, parts of it are just like watching a ringo lam film.

 

If you ever meet Roger Avary in person, asks him what he thinks of Quentin. He has a whole lot to say.

 

:)

Haha yeah because Tarantino took from Avary. That was such a fuckin' blow. He even used a quote from Avary's film "The Rules Of Attraction" (Very cool flick, read the book too) and included it in Kill Bill. The line, "I need you like I need an asshole on my elbow!" is from Avary's film.

 

Of Tarantino's work I have to say I'm a reader of his scripts. I liked True Romance and Natural Born Killers scripts but those weren't directed by him. Of his directed work I like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (even just for the actors that are in it)the best. Kill Bill would be my next choice.

 

JO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you're uncultured at all Fred. THERE WILL NEVER BE another Pulp Fiction. Reservoir Dogs was just Quentin's warmup, what came after others WISH they'd come up with.

 

On a separate note, its interesting to see how everyone that's posted on this thread seems to believe Kill Bill Vol. I and Kill Bill Vol. II are separate films. They are not. This is exactly why Quentin is releasing "The Whole Bloody Affair" on dvd (which was pushed back to March), to show the complete film not split in two as it had to be due to its running time of 248 minutes (4 hours and 8 minutes no-one except me woulda sat through).

 

Kill Bill Vol I. actually ends with a reduced scene from Vol. II. I understand that perhaps some people found Vol. II to be less impressive than Vol. I, but the truth is that those who did find the "second" part dull, just didn't like the 3rd ACT of the film. I mean its obvious Vol. I DOESN'T have a 3rd act. I think the ENTIRE film is fuckin fantastic, and who here didn't like Pai Mei (Vol. II)???

 

-TL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FADoss

I loved the second half personally. The whole film is fantastic much like LOTR. KB is my favorite Tarantino work with RD coming in a close second and Pulp Fiction 3rd (but very close). I liked Jackie Brown and his other work too, but KB is the ultimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love most of Tarantino's work. But I'm a little picky, I guess. I didn't care much for Pulp Fiction and I've never seen Reservoir Dogs. From Dusk til Dawn didn't do it for me. I love his scripts, but his direction, while good, is a bit over the top sometimes. It's like he's directing on meth or something and everything is hyper-realized and larger than life. The gunfights are louder and longer, the fight scenes are more violent and bloodier, and the characters are larger, grittier and less redeeming. And that's good up to a point. But every movie is like that, so it gets a little tiresome seeing it in every one of his movies.

 

But the way he writes his characters is different than the way he directs them. I don't quite know how to explain it. My favorite movie that he directed is Kill Bill I , followed by Jackie Brown. The best script he's ever written though, is True Romance. I loved the characters and the dialogue in that movie, but I'm glad he sold it to get money for Reservoir Dogs, because if he hadn't, it never would have landed in the hands of Tony Scott, and he did a PERFECT job with that movie. I can't imagine anyone else directing that, and if they had, it wouldn't have been the same. It probably wouldn't have had the same impact, because Tony stayed true to Tarantino's script (mostly) while giving it his own style and the two elements meshed perfectly. If Tarantino had directed True Romance though, it would have been bloodier and gorier, with more fight scenes and less emphasis on the romance between Alabama (Probably Patricia Arquette's greatest movie role ever) and Clarence (the only role I will ever remember Christian Slater for), not to mention the phenomenal scene between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken. That was one of the best movie scenes ever, with classic Tarantino dialogue, but if he had directed it, it wouldn't have been the same. He probably would have had Walken beating the crap out of Hopper with a blackjack or something, and that would have distracted from that great dialogue. Also, Tarantino's original ending had Clarence dying and Alabama heading to Mexico alone with the money. Scott changed that. Tarantino didn't originally intend for Clarence and Alabama to end up together. He planned for Alabama to hook up with Mr. White (I think that's his name) in Reservoir Dogs, and they were going to go on a crime spree. (See what I mean?) But when Scott changed the ending, Tarantino wrote Alabama out of Reservoir Dogs. But there is a line in that movie when someone asks Mr. White about Alabama, and he says she ran off with somebody, or something like that.

 

That's jmo. But as far as KB, I loved the first one, and the second one was good, but not as good as the first, in my book.

 

 

On a separate note, its interesting to see how everyone that's posted on this thread seems to believe Kill Bill Vol. I and Kill Bill Vol. II are separate films. They are not. This is exactly why Quentin is releasing "The Whole Bloody Affair" on dvd (which was pushed back to March), to show the complete film not split in two as it had to be due to its running time of 248 minutes (4 hours and 8 minutes no-one except me woulda sat through). Kill Bill Vol I. actually ends with a reduced scene from Vol. II. I understand that perhaps some people found Vol. II to be less impressive than Vol. I, but the truth is that those who did find the "second" part dull, just didn't like the 3rd ACT of the film. I mean its obvious Vol. I DOESN'T have a 3rd act. I think the ENTIRE film is fuckin fantastic, and who here didn't like Pai Mei (Vol. II)???

 

That's an interesting point, TL. It's true that KBII is just a continuation of KBI, but it still lacks the grit of the first part. It does slow down after she kills Oren Ishii and goes back after Darryl Hannah's character (California Mountain snake, isn't that the goofiest codename for an assassin?) and Michael Madsen's character (Sidewinder?). I did enjoy the scenes with Pai Mei, but they were a bit slow and draggy for me as compared to the first half of the story. And personally, I thought the part when she was buried alive went on far too long. But when she did finally kill Sidewinder and Hannah's character, those were some great fight scenes. I loved when she taunted Darryl's character by asking her what she said to Pai Mei to make him pluck out her eye. The look on her face was great, and then she plucked out the other eye. Wicked! And though the dialogue between Beatrix and Bill at the end was good, and the final fight scene was excellent ( I loved that whole bit with the chairs), it was a bit melodramatic. The part where she hit him with the "Five Finger Palm of Death" and he stumbled away, taking exactly five steps (he said no one ever took more than five steps before they died), was a little cliched. But the ending was touching (a bit of an oddity for Tarantino) with her and her daughter in the motel room.

 

I sort of thought after the first one that it would jump forward in time and that Vernetta's daughter would be all grown-up and would be seeking revenge on Beatrix. After she killed Vernetta and she told her, "Some day you'll be grown up and you'll want your revenge. I'll be waiting.", I thought that that was the setup for the second movie. Still think it might make a good third chapter.

 

Like I said, that's jmo. I still love both movies and if the packaging is good, I may still buy the set.

 

Mediumfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AdminGuyX

Well, you can look at it like that TL, or you can look at it like this:

 

However they were written, intended, or conceived, they were released as two seperate and very distinct films. QT said something along the lines of the first film being his hong kong martial arts picture, and the second film being his spagetti western.

 

So, at some point these became different stories even to him.

 

But, the differences in the stories is not what bothered me directly. It was more how the story changed the bride. And it's not really that I found the second film less impressive, because I didn't think the first film was all that impressive to be honest, it was just more entertaining. The second film was less entertaining for me.

 

The character of the bride, so utterly and flawlessly capable in the first film, became a bit of a dundering fool in the second film. Especially against Madsen's character, who I thought was going to be a real challenge for her. But instead the film was practically a comedy in those scenes. It was almost slapstick. And when they cut to Madsen at work, the film died for me. It felt like a short film had been inserted into this story about the bride, about a character who I already know is going to die.

 

So for me, the second film, while a tonal shift to be sure, was less about the bride, and her practically super human abilities. Her character suffered from the shift in style, and had to be sort of less capable so the other characters could get the drop on her. That bugged me.

 

I did like the end of it though, very much. The performances were excellent. Any time Carradine was on screen or even if it was just his voice, the films really lit up.

 

And when it comes to Roger Avary and QT, see, I had a QT in my life. When I first started working in films, I was working with someone else to co-write and bounce ideas off of, and to this day they are stealing my ideas, characters, and titles for stories wholesale and pushing them off as their own.

 

So, it's a sore point and I understand Avary's point of view. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what it was!! That's what I couldn't put my finger on that bugged me about the second movie. But you're right, noeland. She did become sort of inept and bumbling in that one. I mean, Madsen's character was an macho, swaggering moron, and he still managed to get the drop on her. How in the hell was that supposed to be believable after we had seen her take on the Crazy 88's in the first movie, and beat them??? Good point, noeland.

 

On another note, check out these cool KB posters that I found. I had seen some of them, but not the first two ( I don't think). I love those two. Those are wicked! I don't know who did them, but they are fantastic! If they won't open in a new window, just use the links at the bottom.

 

 

th_66450_kill-bill-2-04-textless_122_751lo.jpg th_66470_kill-bill2-01-teaser_122_400lo.jpg th_66520_killbill01_super_122_897lo.jpg th_66522_killbill03_super_122_1193lo.jpg th_66537_killbill04_super_122_161lo.jpg th_66946_killbill06_xxl_122_371lo.jpg

 

 

 

th_66450_kill-bill-2-04-textless_122_751

th_66470_kill-bill2-01-teaser_122_400lo.th_66520_killbill01_super_122_897lo.jpg

th_66522_killbill03_super_122_1193lo.jpg

th_66537_killbill04_super_122_161lo.jpg

th_66946_killbill06_xxl_122_371lo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen these films. Someone who knows my taste in film told me he thought I would like them. yet nothing I've read here makes me any more interested in watching these films. I don't see the point of Tarantino films unless you like stylized death scenes. I don't.

 

Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong about QT. I haven't bothered to watch most of his films, so I'm open to other viewpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FADoss

WOW...dogging on the Madsen character! I thought his was one of the best characters in the film. Introduced as a bad motherfucker. Then you see him NOW. The only character that is sad and degenerated to nothing (I thought the sword bit was great). He's also a bit penitent about what they did to the bride saying they deserve what's coming. I tell you, I wasn't entirely convinced he was going to die (and it's not the BRIDE that kills him). The fact that he gets the drop on her is surprising, but it lets you know he's still dangerous...and she may have underestimated him in a way whe never would have looked at Ishi.

 

Great character...and great character development. One of Madsen's BEST roles.

 

In my opinion anyway.

 

AND HOW CAN YOU NOT HAVE SEEN RESERVOIR DOGS!!!???

 

Frederic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW...dogging on the Madsen character! I thought his was one of the best characters in the film. Introduced as a bad motherfucker. Then you see him NOW. The only character that is sad and degenerated to nothing (I thought the sword bit was great). He's also a bit penitent about what they did to the bride saying they deserve what's coming. I tell you, I wasn't entirely convinced he was going to die (and it's not the BRIDE that kills him). The fact that he gets the drop on her is surprising, but it lets you know he's still dangerous...and she may have underestimated him in a way whe never would have looked at Ishi.

 

Great character...and great character development. One of Madsen's BEST roles.

 

In my opinion anyway.

 

AND HOW CAN YOU NOT HAVE SEEN RESERVOIR DOGS!!!???

 

Frederic

 

Budd was deffinatly a great character. I would have liked to have seen some more on the past history between him and Bill's rift. But then again, I kind of like making up my own back story on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW...dogging on the Madsen character! I thought his was one of the best characters in the film. Introduced as a bad motherfucker. Then you see him NOW. The only character that is sad and degenerated to nothing (I thought the sword bit was great). He's also a bit penitent about what they did to the bride saying they deserve what's coming. I tell you, I wasn't entirely convinced he was going to die (and it's not the BRIDE that kills him). The fact that he gets the drop on her is surprising, but it lets you know he's still dangerous...and she may have underestimated him in a way whe never would have looked at Ishi.

 

Great character...and great character development. One of Madsen's BEST roles.

 

In my opinion anyway.

 

AND HOW CAN YOU NOT HAVE SEEN RESERVOIR DOGS!!!???

 

Frederic

 

 

I guess I've just never gotten around to watching it. Maybe one day I will. You do have a point about Budd (I had forgotten his name) being sad and regretful for what they had done to her, but at the same time he did seem a bit macho and swaggering. He was probably a badass in the beginning, but by the time she went after him, he was not much more than a washed-up has-been, working in a bar, and drowning his sorrows in whiskey and beer every night. Maybe he was trying to forget what they had done to her, and he felt that they deserved whatever she did to them, but it just seemed too easy for him to get the best of her after we had seen her kill Oren and beat the Crazy 88's in the first film.

 

I've never really been a fan of Madsen anyway, particularly since I saw him in Trouble Bound. That was a really bad movie, with terrible dialogue and directing (full of cliches and bad acting from Billy Bob Thornton, among others) but his acting just made it that much more nerve wracking for me to try to watch it. The only reason I will ever watch it again is because Patricia Arquette is in it and she is the only redeeming thing about that movie.

 

JMO

 

Mediumfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FADoss

Budd was a washed-up has-been who turned out to STILL be a badass. You looked at him thinking he was pathetic but it just goes to show that once you get to that level you'll generally stay there. I had a martial arts instructor, the master for the art, who had a huge gut and eventually died from a heartattack. He could STILL kick you in the face standing 4 inches from you. Never lost it.

 

I don't know, if he would have been portrayed as a badass the whole way through, I don't think it would have been memorable. I KNOW guys like Budd (to an extent).

 

Frederic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Budd was a washed-up has-been who turned out to STILL be a badass. You looked at him thinking he was pathetic but it just goes to show that once you get to that level you'll generally stay there. I had a martial arts instructor, the master for the art, who had a huge gut and eventually died from a heartattack. He could STILL kick you in the face standing 4 inches from you. Never lost it.

 

I don't know, if he would have been portrayed as a badass the whole way through, I don't think it would have been memorable. I KNOW guys like Budd (to an extent).

 

Frederic

 

True, he obviously was still a badass, because he got the drop on the Bride, but it still seemed too easy. But I will say that his was the only character who showed any redeeming qualities because he truly regretted what they had done to her, and it was almost like he was waiting for her to come and take her revenge. Yet he still fought her, and almost killed her, even though he felt that he deserved whatever she gave him. So he wasn't that remorseful about it, at least not enough to stop him from trying to kill her again. But it shouldn't have been so easy for him to best her after seeing the way she fought in the first movie. That's what just didn't feel right about the second part of it. That and the fact that it spent too much time on Pai Mei, and she spent too much time trying to talk them all to death instead of just fighting them.

 

 

Mediumfan

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FADoss

So if you thought someone had a reason to kill you, you'd just LET them? HELL NO! They'd still have to earn it. :)

 

And let me get this straight...the reason people don't like the second film is because it's more story, characterization and plot vice senseless mass slaughter and violence? Just checking? And not that Part 2 didn't have it's fair share of eyeball squishing. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you thought someone had a reason to kill you, you'd just LET them? HELL NO! They'd still have to earn it. :)

 

And let me get this straight...the reason people don't like the second film is because it's more story, characterization and plot vice senseless mass slaughter and violence? Just checking? And not that Part 2 didn't have it's fair share of eyeball squishing. :)

 

Don't get me wrong. I liked the story, but it just didn't live up to its potential as it was laid out in the first movie. It felt kind of flat compared to the first one. Maybe that's the way it was supposed to feel, because as someone said, even QT commented that the first one was a martial arts flick, and the second was his "spaghetti western". And as far as that goes, if that was his intent, then he did a great job, in making the two films distinctly different. In that sense, each one could almost stand on its own (but not quite). But when you watch them together, there is a startling difference. in them. That's all I'm saying. I still think they're both great films. I just like KBI better. I don't know why. I just do. Call me crazy. :P

 

 

Mediumfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 3 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...