Re: What movies are you watching?
Posted: Wed May 25, 2022 8:02 pm
Waiting til it hits theaters here in a couple weeks. I wanna see it on the big screen
I don’t understand this… it’s all one movie, shot at the same time. I do remember a few scenes in part one that I thought were great, but there’s not really a difference in the two.tree_ wrote:I've always felt this way... So my brain works faster than yours, I guessJorge wrote:I used to like Vol 2 better because it was more dialogue-heavy and "cerebral," but then I watched both again somewhat recently and Vol 1 is far and away the better movieJuanHamm wrote:50 Million Feet of Earth... wrote:I saw part 2 in the theater and bought it when it first came out on DVD. It's still in the shrinkwrap.wease wrote:I’ve still never seen the second one. And I even own it.Anders wrote:Kill Bill Volume One.
Finished with 2003 now, moving on to 2004.
I saw both of them a few times when they first came out, but I haven't watched either in years
They're on the list of movies that I'm not sure if I would like any more, so I don't watch them.
My understanding is that it’s one movie, split in two so that it wasn’t too long for theaters and this way scenes didn’t have to be cut. Maybe you just like the 2nd half of the movie better?Jorge wrote:It was written and produced as one movie, yeah. That doesn't mean it's actually one movie. It was released as two movies.
I see what you're saying but yeah, to me it's two movies even if it's one story. The second half is more subdued and dialogue heavy, while the first half is more colorful and kinetic. That's just how it worked out after they made the decision to split it in twoRob wrote:My understanding is that it’s one movie, split in two so that it wasn’t too long for theaters and this way scenes didn’t have to be cut. Maybe you just like the 2nd half of the movie better?Jorge wrote:It was written and produced as one movie, yeah. That doesn't mean it's actually one movie. It was released as two movies.
Ok, you’re right. But what I mean is that it seems clear with the matrix that there’s a story that needs a trilogy to tell, rather than a movie. All 3 flow (part 4 is something else) and I really don’t believe any one of them can stand alone without the others.Mickey wrote:The Matrix is a self contained film. The Matrix Reloaded is a sequel.
For what it’s worth I do remember liking part one better.Jorge wrote:I see what you're saying but yeah, to me it's two movies even if it's one story. The second half is more subdued and dialogue heavy, while the first half is more colorful and kinetic. That's just how it worked out after they made the decision to split it in twoRob wrote:My understanding is that it’s one movie, split in two so that it wasn’t too long for theaters and this way scenes didn’t have to be cut. Maybe you just like the 2nd half of the movie better?Jorge wrote:It was written and produced as one movie, yeah. That doesn't mean it's actually one movie. It was released as two movies.
Yea but there’s not many 4-16 hour movies that do well at the box office (at a time when movie theater sales were decent). It made financial sense to split it (or cut scenes).Jorge wrote:There are 4 hour long movies. There's even a 16 hour long movie, which I watched! Tarantino & co made the commercial decision to release Kill Bill as two movies
Technically yes, in reality it’s two halves.Jorge wrote:Yep, and the trade-off is that you end up with two movies instead of one
omgepilogue wrote:Vol 1 is gorgeous. Vol 2 is completely stupid. There is a lot more dialogue. But most of that dialogue is legit terrible.
I don't really care for either volume. But I fucking hate Vol. 2.