I personally think that noone is better that the other. I mean they are different each other, they are both fantastic and cool in their own unique way. Maybe i enjoyed Vol.1 more than 2, but objectively i don't think that the one is superior or inferior to the other.
shareVol 1 always seemed more powerful but I think that's largely because of the ending which was a brilliant cliffhanger. I think it also had better musical choices as well as better fight scenes.
One thing that always bothered me about Vol 2 was that Beatrix never got to kill Budd. I'm not sure why Tarantino made that choice.
Well i'll say this. These aern't my favorite movies. I've been told that my main problem is I haven't delved into all the genres these films are an homage to. That said, most of what I remember about them is from the first movie. All I really remember about the second one was the ending.
shareI sorta consider them to be one movie. Vol.1 does have the edge with the build-up and payoff of the Crazy 88 v. Bride fight, but one of the things that I really, really love about Vol.2 is when Beatrix shows up and meets B.B. Then this kinda weird family drama plays out while, underneath it all, we know how it has to end, no matter how much Beatrix wishes it could end another way. That strain and stress is wonderful dramatic power and keeps Vol.2 up there.
Vol.1 brings all the octane.
Vol.2 gets surprisingly touching and poignant.
This is like asking which is more desirable: getting a hot poker shoved in your eye or getting shot in the groin.
shareYou’re funny. I enjoy you.
First, I think they have both aged badly and are highly overestimated. Tarantino took the schtick of martial arts movies and pissed all over their essence.
Kill 1 is all all about action.Kill 2 is all about rumination. I had thought the director would recut the 2 films into 1 and produce a masterpiece. I was wrong.
Thurman (Who? I know! Wha’ happen’? Bottom fell outa THAT market, boyhowdie!) is too tall for martial arts excellence. Too slow a polar moment of inertia. Put another way: when’s the last time you saw a tall wordclass gymnast?
Basically, this was Tarantino misinformed onanism in full flight.
I saw Kill Bill 1 when it was first released in 2003 and loving Tarantino felt, "Eh... not great, but maybe KB 2 will make it better."
Didn't see KB 2 until this weekend and rewatched KB1 and OMFG...What a mess. A total and complete mess on every conceivable level. The cinematography, sets, everything else was top notch. But the movies were Rob Zombie-levels of ineptitude.
Actually, no--scratch that. Zombie is inept in some ways, but at least he has a very clear and consistent vision for each of his movies. Kill Bill was a clunky, bizarre mismatch of so many different styles and themes, and the story was a disaster. Uma Thurman was horribly, horribly miscast. I got the feeling that he thought she was going to be THE ONE to turn The Bride into some kind of cinematic icon on the level of Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley, and it was a complete fail. But she didn't have the chops or the looks to pass it off. She just looked like an embarrassed chicken the entire time trying to look bad ass, and there was nothing about her performance that was memorable.
Incidentally, the same complaints you have about her height for this movie is also why she was horrible miscast in The Producers, too. For some reason, directors thought she was the perfect "it" girl, I guess because she's a blonde. But blonde or not, she's a human ostrich.
In any event, this was a huge misfire for QT and a classic emperor having no clothes moment. There are some "ideas" that are better left collecting dust in one's desk, and unfortunately, no one was around to tell Tarantino that his idea for Kill Bill was just masturbatory nonsense and nothing more.
Kill Bill 1 is quite good in my estimation. The choreography of the big fight in Japan was remarkable and something we had no idea Tarantino could pull off until then. You knew at all times where everyone was, and what was going on, and there were no shaking cameras or quick cuts that lesser directors use to draw attention away from their inability to stage an action sequence. I thought the film was a big step for Tarantino, as for the first time he was relying on more than dialogue/ plot / style to build a film. It isn't a masterpiece as I feel his first three films were, but it is certainly a masterpiece of its genre.
Kill Bill 2 was not as good.
Okay, I don't want to rain on everyone's parade here, but I just had to say this--
Regarding the choreography in Japan, that style of choreography has been done to hell and back in countless Asian films dating back to the 1970s. But most troubling, the scene when The Bride attacks the "Crazy 88s" at the nightclub is almost identical to the confrontation between Neo and Agent Smith in Matrix Reloaded. Not only was the set up the same, it was choreographed by the same person. So, the choreography is not that impressive to me for this reason alone. Even before learning that the same person choreographed both scenes, I knew that Tarantino was somehow imitating The Matrix, because the fight choreography is so recognizable if you've see The Matrix enough times.
Preach it, Sister. I am a student of Samurai sword, and I say the sword work in The Princess Bride, with swords markedly inferior to the Samurai’s katana, was at a much higher level than in Kill Bill, and that’s just off the top of my head. Now that I think on it, the sword work in Hero and House of Flying Daggers—each directed by Yimo, the director to whom Quent tried to pay homage with Kill Bill—kicks the toadstools out of the derivative choreography and unremarkable execution in the Crazy 88 battle. Quent tried to cover his tracks by piling on more combatants. Unless all her opponents were first-Dan black belts, she would have been overwhelmed in such enclosed quarters. My Master was 15th-Dan and had been hailed by the sword masters in Japan as the world’s foremost swordmaster. He is also a Zen master. One day, a student asked him, “Sir, could you fight 100 men?” My Master replied, “No, no man can fight 100 men; so, if they attacked me, I would run away. They would chase me. One of them would be the fastest, so I would fight him and beat him, then run some more, then beat the second-fastest man, then the third, and so on, until I had defeated them all. But no one can fight 100 men all at once. This is not possible.”
A masterpiece of its genre? Yojimbo is a masterpiece of the martial art genre, directed by a genius and starring a genius. The Big Boss and Fist of Fury are masterpieces. Hell, I’ll even give you the first Matrix as a masterpiece, for blending Bushijutso with science-fiction and spandex. A masterpiece is timeless. The Kill Bills are as old as the joke a campaigning politician tells before delivering her/his stump speech. I was embarrassed for Sonny Chiba in this crud.
What struck me was that even though it was choreographed by the same person who had done The Matrix, it was shot in a way that made it more realistic and graceful than anything in the Matrix, and for that I credit Tarantino. The Matrix looked great, and the "bullet time" effects were novel and helped orient the audience as to what was going on by slowing down and moving around, but Kill Bill was on an entirely different level.
The scope of the Crazy 88s fight sequence is intense-- there are so many moving pieces-- yet it is able to remain in motion and thrilling while remaining completely understandable. The audience is never taken out of the fight, and it really feels like you're there. You always know exactly where you are and what's going on.
Vol. 1, hands down.
shareVolume 2 all the way.
Take V1, turn the action down a notch in favor of rich character moments and satisfying confrontations and you have V2.
TWO HALVES OF ONE MOVIE..MUCH LIKE GRINDHOUSE...THATS HOW I SEE THEM.
share