Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

most of us know, that Kill Bill is an excuse to stage elaborate, retro, violent battles.
The story is nothing new and the acting is just alright. The main star of both movies {vol. 1 and 2} should be the gore and violence. So, what the hell is up with the MPAA ratings Kill Bill 2 with just "violence", and, unlike its former, "strong bloody violence".
if this movie isn't violent and bloody, it isn't going to be good.

the last movie kicked ass, because of this, and becuase of its style, one can only hope it hasn't changed albeit they did film both movies together apparently.

Maybe it's an unofficial posting... who knows.

According to Uma Thurman, Volume 2 won't have nearly as much stuff as the first on did. She wanted the first volume to be called "Kill", and the second one "Bill" because the first one was pretty much about killing, and the second one is her mainly focused on Bill.

Um...You're actually this upset over the MPAA's word choice?

*sings in Strong Bad voice* oh, people with too much time on their hands...

Remember its suppose to be one movie, but it was cut in two. You cant have violence like Kill Bill every minute. There still be action and violence, but not as much.

The MPAA is the only reason I watch movies. Anything that is rated for "strong violence" or higher, i'm there. so, it is a true shame that this won't be as high-strung about violence as the previous.

Ummm... isn't that a horribly stupid way to just what movies are good?

uh, i guess, but even if a bad movie is at least rated for a strong violence rating, it is deemed watchable by my standards. I am having severe doubts about Kill Bill 2 now. If it is dialogue driven, i don't think it will be as good as QT past masterpeices. A movie revolving around rage, and revenge and showing no rage or revenge, isn't really doing what it was sent out to do, now is it? Plus, even if the movie was cut into two, you would expect a masterful battle sequence and finale to end it.
i can only hope

That's really stupid...
Would it kill you to watch a movie without violence? *gasp*shock

Seconded. Violence will not make a bad movie good. A good movie will not be made bad by a lack of violence.

i guess that is the difference between you and I.

I just hope it's gonna be good, I loved KB part I true QT

It is going to be good. Alot more story elements than the first. But its going to be good. QT is recongized as being good not for his violence, but for the depth of his movies, story and dialogue, and technique. You can watch his movies over and over and see something different each time. I would be disappointed if it was like the first one.

QT is known for a different perspective on the world of violence. all of his movies revolve more or less around cruel, crime-ridden violence. So, yeah. His movies are about violence. But not just violence for the sake of violence, but the style it is presented. For instance, Pulp Fiction made shooting someone in the head funny. You don't get that in The Thin Red Line, you don't get that in The Godfather, you don't even get that in Goodfellas.
QT has been called the "most violent director" for a reason, you know. i don't particularly agree with that, but his movies ARE heavely based around violent content.

Plus, KILL BILL is a movie, A SIMPLE MOVIE, about revenge. I don't know if you noticed, but it is a throw-back to the old kung-fu drive in's. Ebert put it the best, "A story high on storytelling, low on story".
So, of course you will get the normal QT approach to storytelling and thats good and all. But, you must understand, a movie like this, isn't known for its drama or dialogue {pulp fiction is QT ultimate dialogue movie}, it is known for its anime-style violence. "A geek fest"
this is what i want to see. Not Pulp Fiction with the Bride.

KB2 is just more of hand to hand combat instead of the first movie's strong blood and sword gore I guess

its a different kind of movie.. its not as focused on violence, it has more of the QT dialogue and weirdness it will still be good there will still be violence, but he just wanted to do this one a bit different

Violence doesnt have to be the essential in Tarantino's work. does anyone remember JACKIE BROWN?

Hahaha people forget about JB, which was great.
Kill Bill was violent... but i dont look at Reservoir Dogs as a violent movie.

You're obviously not a true fan of Tarantino, your just a big retard that doesnt know anything and should be burned because you are hated by many. Get off these forums if you think KB2 will be bad because it will be just as amazing as the first one, you just dont understand true art.

Look you Johnson,

that hurt, you know, right here {pointing at chest}. Such hurtfull usage of words. all i wanted to {sob} was to....{sob}...was to....{sob} voice an {cough} opinion.

i only hope before the "fort night" you can forgive me.

and then we can dance.

May i please have this dance?


{p.s. Johnson : you have to keep reading my posts]

oh yeah, and i must have forgotten, Kill Bill Volume 1 IS an example of true art. whoopsie-doodle, whatever was i thinking. the craziness is off the chart! "i'm going crazy with the cheese-whiz".

don't get personal "boy/girl who plays with LEGO!", alright.

okie both of you cut the bashing

uh, okay

thank you

your not mad are you?
i'm not being sarcastic, i actually want to know.

CAN'T WE ALL JUST BE GREAT LITTLE QT FANS AND LOVE EVERYTHING HE LAYS HIS HANDS ON?

i agree

Nope, wasn't a fan of Natural Born Killers and I hear Four Rooms sucked.

four rooms did suck and "i have taken better dumps" than Natural Born Killers.

but what the hell does this have to do with Kill Bill 2.

I thought NBK wasn't too bad but he made better
never saw four rooms

ATD I'm not mad ofc not why should I be

QT disowned Natural Born Killlers (referring to the idiot Myth) and four rooms was only a 4th of Tarantino Meaning the end.

Four rooms isn't all credited to QT. The film had four directors (Anders, Rockwell, Rodriguez, and of course Tarantino) each did certain scenes in the film. The film itself was an independent, and it was an experiemental film. I think the film was good, but not great! For me Tim Roth was pretty good in the film. He was a real pro working with 4 different directors. So I give him credit for his performance.

NO MEMBER BASHING

Alright fine, no member bashing but just get your shit strait is all i ask?

WTF man? What did I say that make me an ideot? I know he disowned it. But he still layed his hands on it didn't he? Think before you speak.

didnt i just apoligize? but hey we're all QT fans, maybe we're both a little right. But he wrote then sold it, thats what i was getting at.


I'M SORRY MAN

It's all good. We're both going to be like 2 little Fonzi's here. And what's Fonzi like?

C-C-COOL? (just dont call me Yolanda)

lol

well...this is nice.

how about we all just whistle and kill 2354365362456346 japanese sword slingin bastards

i think this thread has finally died.
its sad, but also invigorating.