Kill Bill Vol 1 will always tower over Vol 2. By the time Vol 2 came out the whole thing had lost its momentum. This is also what Joseph L. Mankiewicz wanted to do with Cleopatra, it wouldn't have worked out either. A 4 hour picture doesn't work either. No film should be over 3 hours. 3 And a half AT THE MOST. This would have been great at a solid 3 hours.
shareI had no problem with it, picking up where Part 1 left off.
shareYeah.. I don't like the split in two movie format...
There is something about the experience of watching a film in a single sitting, which is lost when it is partitioned... This is another reason why TV series will never replace cinema...
I think it is possible to have a four hour film, but that is probably the limit.. Realistically once you get to three hours long your filmmaking should be at a very high level as it starts to hit the limit of what an audience can hold in their mind at one time...
Anything under two and a half hours is easy to hold in one's mind as one thing... It's also comfortable to sit through.
I don't care how many crazy scenes you put in there, a revenge story can't support four hours of screen time. They're not complicated. You done me wrong, i'm gonna get you back. 90 minutes is plenty. This film needed to be cut to three hours at the script stage.
shareI feel like Volume 2 was a huge downgrade from 1.
shareAs much as I loved the little side stories like the anime flashback, Budd's problems at work, etc., the movie could have been cut to three hours if need be.
shareNobody told you about the Lord of the Rings trilogy, huh?
sharethat was based on 3 books, so it makes sense...
shareThe Godfather 1 and 2 were based on one book, though.
The Star Wars trilogy was released years apart.
But it being based on multiple books has nothing to do with whether the films do, or don't, provide a satisfying cinematic experience.
shareIts a bit more complicated than that. Tolkien considered it one book, one story. However, the publishers thought no one would want to buy a single book that long. So they broke it up into three parts. Now, these days books of a thousand pages are more acceptable and some authors specialize in them. Your mileage may vary on which you would prefer. I've read thousand page books and enjoyed them immensely; but I confess I am a bit more comfortable with three to four hundred pages.
Author of the Sodality Universe
The Road from Antioch
In the Markets of Tyre
Flight to Lystra
The Theater at Ephesus
The Council on Jerusalem
When he did it, it was a unique and original thing to do (at least, as far as I know). But if anybody does it now it will be because they're greedy and they want more money for something that could probably be done in one.
I may not like every Tarantino movie, but that man has a tremendous passion for making movies and it's infectious. I've got nothing but respect for him as a filmmaker.
Why do people always think 'goodness' of something comes solely from it being 'original', in other words, it can only come from what exists OUTSIDE of it?
That's not how things work.
A movie is good and will always be good, if it's good, regardless of WHAT happens around it. Please understand this already.
Anything like this can be made to work, it can also 'not-work'.
This particular story doesn't really require two movies, it wastes so much time with boring, useless scenes, some of the action scenes are too long and ridiculous, the 'exposure' scenes are needlessly long, the anime scene is useless and unnecessary, there are way too many characters and too much excessive boredom, like showing the bouncer's everyday life, etc.
With enough trimming, this movie would fit to two hours easily, and not lose anything essential. Even the whole ending mess is just stupid and drags on forever. Not to mention so anti-climactic, compared to what we've been shown.
It's like, we are shown an escalation of action, all kinds of interesting montages, katana making, kung-fu teaching and epic 'snow garden duel' - just to end the whole thing with a couple of seconds of bad dialogue and a 'secret move' and that's it. Couldn't we have gotten something a bit more epic, the kind of stuff the audience has perfect RIGHT to expect from everythign we've been shown?
A two-parter movie CAN work - of course everything always 'loses momentum', but who says you NEED momentum, if your story and movie is good? There's such a thing as rekindling interest, and if the second part is good enough, it'll make you want to watch the first one again and appreciate it in a new way.
It's not the format, it's the story. It's always the story. When a good story is told in an interesting way, I don't care if it's a 10-hour single movie, 20 episodes of a TV show, a 400-page book, a two-parter movie, NO ONE SHOULD CARE.
Anyone laying some kind of ARBITRARY rules like 'movie should be this long' is a fool
Why would it matter if the movie is a cartoon, 3D-rendering, ASCII art, lasts 9 hours, 20 minutes, five months, is done in Cinemax, pixel art, if the dialogue is just pure text ..
.. IF THE STORY IS GOOD?
If the story is good, it's going to be good no matter how it's done. You should of course always avoid boredom (at least excessive boredom), but I don't see ANY logical reason why a two-parter couldn't work.
No one has explained the REASON why it couldn't work, because such a reason does not exist. I will watch friggin' ANY format (within reason, of course), as long as the story is good and what I am watching is interesting. You can show me a damn narrated slideshow, you can just tell me a story with your mouth, you can just shove a wall of text to my face. Anything will do if the story is good.
I am not sure how good the story of Kill Bill really is (frankly, it's pretty simplistic and childish), but I don't see why a two-parter wouldn't work.
I think the way it was done is pretty good idea; the first movie gives you so much over-the-top action that you can endure the boredom of the second movie. The first movie doesn't explain almost anything, the second one explains everything (and then some).
You can basically pick and choose, whether you like action or exposition, and you'll get what you want. It's almost like extracting the action scenes to a separate movie, so you can either avoid or just focus on the action, whichever you prefer. Or you can combine both into one story.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this kind of 'split movie'. I am not one of those people that have some kind of 'limitation' as to how long a movie I can watch. I sit and watch things a lot anyway, so a ten-hour movie would be completely fine with me. I don't get this 'movie shouldn't be this long' - isn't it a stupid thing to REQUIRE stories to be compressed and crippled so they can fit to some pre-defined MOLD that makes no sense..
.. other than worshipping and celebrating the diminishing attention span of the modern cell-phone-zombie that can't focus on one thing for more than 10 seconds.
At least I am safe from 'millennial criticism', because their attention span isn't enough for my usual post length..
Wow, this must be the first time I agree with you. The movie had potential and the idea of using different genres for all the different killers was interesting. But the story was way too drawn out and the second half was a bore. It could easily have been a 3 hour movie and I think it would've been great.
sharegotta side with OP on this one... Part 2 just felt like a drag compared to Part 1.
i mean jesus, Nancy Sinatra opener is a CLASSIC !