Kill Bill: Volume One

[Sleuth]

One thing I dont get with Kill Bill: why does sophie have that same mobile ring tone 4 years later?

So that The Bride will find her and use her later on so that the movie could work

[Gloria]

One thing I dont get with Kill Bill: why does sophie have that same mobile ring tone 4 years later?

She doesnt know how to change it.  

[SoNowThen]

okay, so I'll jump in here...

GT, as we all know, QT writes his parts with specific actors in mind (most of the time). The part is soooo Uma, with her little bits of humor, and sense of goofy fun, and self-deprecation. Which is essential to the role. You talked about the bit in the bar, well, I thought she conveyed exactly what the situation called for. You said the change seemed too drastic, or abrupt. Well, that could be an editing problem you didn't like. For all we know, QT and Sally Menke might have cut a beat or two out of that part. So using the emotional progression on that scene becomes moot.

A long ways back, Pantalones mentioned something about how Bill was supposed to be played by Warren Beatty, and it made the movie significantly weaker that he would be replaced by Carradine. Now, Carradine did a good job (or so it seemed, we really only saw his hand and heard his voice, no.2 will be the proof), but because of the Hollywood lore over his pimp-talk phone calls to dozens of beautiful women, the role was obviously written with Beatty in mind. It was his role, and one can only wonder why he turned it down. That's the only part where I could see somebody complaining that it wasn't cast right. QT is VERY specific to who he has in his films, and his number one horse was Uma. I believe, of course, that he made the proper choice.

[Gold Trumpet]

I actually had no problem with the acting of her in the bar. I just made the point her face change through out it was simple operating of what an actor could do with their face and changing emotions. Thurman's fine for the role, its just I am in an argument of trying to prove the role really isn't that deep to begin with and most actors could have pulled off what she did. And I'd still argue for Jolie being better for the role, even if Tarantino wrote it for Thurman. I know what Tarantino did and all, but I still have the right to give an opinion.

And about Beatty and Caradine.........I'm going to take Pete's suggestion for the role and say James Caan would have been the best choice. Physically, not only is he worthy of role for studying karate for 30 years, but his persona is very much like Beatty's also in that he plays a cool and sexual character a lot of times. He seems to have characteristics of both worlds.

[Ghostboy]

Thurman is great in the film, and she gives a solid performance. But if someone else was in the role, I don't think it would have made the movie any better or worse. As it is, since she created the part with Quentin, expressly for herself, she's the only one who could play the part.

Angelina Jolie would have sucked. Lara Croft will shade any physically oriented role she ever plays, and that is NOT a good thing.

[Banky]

i bet somone random like Wynona Rider would have been good in the role

[Jeremy Blackman]

GT, I have to come back to this issue... You don't see much in the Bride character to begin with, so I can't see why you're pushing so hard for Angelina Jolie. I can't see how it's justified. Ultimately, I think you should accept that we who see a lot in this character should be able to keep Uma Thurman. And I think we should accept that this character doesn't do anything for you.

I think there is much to debate and I also think that has been proven with the debate on this page. Especially when it is involving JB, my sworn enemy. I know this bothers some because it involves Kill Bill, which is near and dear to them, but aren't these debates one of the good things of this discussion board?

Good point.

[Gold Trumpet]

Angelina Jolie would have sucked. Lara Croft will shade any physically oriented role she ever plays, and that is NOT a good thing.

I don't necessarily think so. Like the example of her work in Gia, I think she has the range and there has been extremer examples of someone playing a role so thought wrong for them and finding success. The main example is Bruce Willis in Die Hard and his persona being identified with romantic comedy guy only. It got so bad for him that when trailers of the movie premiered, people reacted so badly to seeing him as action star that the studio actually removed him entirelly from the trailer. Now that's bad. When the movie debuted, everything changed and the rest is history, but I do think Jolie has the range and Tarantino enough talent to help her along to the right beat.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT, I have to come back to this issue... You don't see much in the Bride character to begin with, so I can't see why you're pushing so hard for Angelina Jolie. I can't see how it's justified.

I don't believe The Bride as a character of depth. I'm arguing for who would be best for the role in line of the genre requirements and with my points, I'd take Jolie. Thurman is fine, though.

[coffeebeetle]

Angelina Jolie would have sucked. Lara Croft will shade any physically oriented role she ever plays, and that is NOT a good thing.

I don't necessarily think so. Like the example of her work in Gia, I think she has the range and there has been extremer examples of someone playing a role so thought wrong for them and finding success. The main example is Bruce Willis in Die Hard and his persona being identified with romantic comedy guy only. It got so bad for him that when trailers of the movie premiered, people reacted so badly to seeing him as action star that the studio actually removed him entirelly from the trailer. Now that's bad. When the movie debuted, everything changed and the rest is history, but I do think Jolie has the range and Tarantino enough talent to help her along to the right beat.

ARRRGHH!  GT, Gia wasn't an action film!  What he meant was Tomb Raider was so fucking BAD that for her to pick up another action role would be a bad idea simply because that's what an audience would see her as (Lara Croft)...I give up on this argument.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I don't believe The Bride as a character of depth. I'm arguing for who would be best for the role in line of the genre requirements and with my points, I'd take Jolie. Thurman is fine, though.

In other words, you think the character is arbitrary. I accept that. But I can't accept Angelina Jolie.

Actually, I don't think Tarantino has had a character with more emotional depth.

[Gold Trumpet]

Angelina Jolie would have sucked. Lara Croft will shade any physically oriented role she ever plays, and that is NOT a good thing.

I don't necessarily think so. Like the example of her work in Gia, I think she has the range and there has been extremer examples of someone playing a role so thought wrong for them and finding success. The main example is Bruce Willis in Die Hard and his persona being identified with romantic comedy guy only. It got so bad for him that when trailers of the movie premiered, people reacted so badly to seeing him as action star that the studio actually removed him entirelly from the trailer. Now that's bad. When the movie debuted, everything changed and the rest is history, but I do think Jolie has the range and Tarantino enough talent to help her along to the right beat.

ARRRGHH!  GT, Gia wasn't an action film!  What he meant was Tomb Raider was so fucking BAD that for her to pick up another action role would be a bad idea simply because that's what an audience would see her as (Lara Croft)...I give up on this argument.

I know Gia isn't an action film. I know what Ghostboy was arguing for. With Gia, I'm making the point she has range to be something else and there have been more extreme examples of someone getting past a set screen image and becoming another one. Didn't you get that at all?

[Alethia]

I don't believe The Bride as a character of depth. I'm arguing for who would be best for the role in line of the genre requirements and with my points, I'd take Jolie. Thurman is fine, though.

In other words, you think the character is arbitrary. I accept that. But I can't accept Angelina Jolie.

Actually, I don't think Tarantino has had a character with more emotional depth.

perhaps jules winnfield (sp?)........ahh, but with the bride QT made me care intensely about a former assassin......yeah, i guess ur right

[Gold Trumpet]

Actually, I don't think Tarantino has had a character with more emotional depth.

I'd like to hear why you think that. I think nearly the opposite. My idea is that Thurman's character conveys an emotional situation worthy of any drama, but is just for an endless exploitation of action sequences and what not. Tarantino's character of the most emotional depth is Pam Grier as Jackie Brown. Thats a movie where he turned a exploitation film around and did make it into a drama of substance, at least.

[Alethia]

Tarantino's most character of the most emotional depth is Pam Grier as Jackie Brown.

i dont agree with you about kill bill, but i will definitly agree with you on that, cant believe she sipped my mind......