nbo10 said:
Answer one question. At the beginning of the first one before she was shot, did she say that the baby was bills?
Yep
Chrono said:
Was the sword fights better than the first?
Not really, there wasn't nearly as much fighting in general, and a lot of the fighting was without swords.
Adam said:
Kill Bill did not have a strong story.
It did not have great acting. It was all over-the-top silly stuff.
It did not have great fight choreography.
It did nothing new or innovative.
It did have lots of blood and such. That's really about all it had. Now, that's okay, if you like that sort of thing. But I've seen $10,000 B-grade horror movies that did the exact same thing. If someone is spending millions to make a movie, I expect a bit more from it.
I view Kill Bill in the same light I would a good blues album. The blues as the music form we know it as, has been around for close to 100 years, depending on who you ask. The premise of blues has changed little, if any, throughout it's lifetime as a genre. The blues is relatively simple to play, and there are many artists out there that sound so simmilar you can't tell them apart from each other. Alot of different ways of playing the blues have been tried, and for new artists to get widely recognized, they either have to innovate in some way, or play traditionally, but just better than most others.
Kill Bill's plot of Revenge has been done in Westerns and Martial Arts movies for a while. As I view it, Kill Bill is pretty much an homage to these kinds of movies in terms of plot. While the story isn't as unusual as something like Pulp Fiction, I feel that Tarantino does a great job with a tired story line, something that's often harder to do than to be innovative.
I didn't see any bad acting in Kill Bill at all. Yeah there was a lot of goofy stuff, but if you don't like what the actors did, it's Tarantino's fault for making them do it. If you read/saw interviews with Tarantino, it became obvious that a lot of the movie wasn't meant to be serious, and it's over the top goofyness/phonyness was meant as a tribute to B list Kung Fu films and Spaghetti Westerns he saw as a kid.
Your complaint about the choreography could be explained as it wasn't meant to be taken seriously and compared to the great fight scenes of all time, but to be fun and goofy, in a twisted way.
Again, it didn't innovate, but I felt it used a burnt out premise very well.
The second had considerably less fighting in general and more plot/character development, I can't recall more than 3 deaths and 1 mutilation.
You seem to be a very critical movie-watcher, one who analyzes and dissects everything about the movie, and for people like you, I guess movies can't have serious and humorous/goofy elements in it at once. However, for people that can just sit back and take a movie at face value, without thinking about how much it cost to make and what that money is getting you, the movie was very fun and well worth the $9.50
