Because I sometimes I think one half of a movie is better than the other half. Or I think that 2/3 of a movie is fantastic while the last 1/3 is a disaster (hi Danny Boyle).

Oh and it was it released as two movies so lol idk.

Quit with the boring Tarantino talk, watch Black Coal, Thin Ice on Netflix instant. I caught it tonight, beautifully shot Chinese neo-noir you never knew you needed in your life. Some of the shots are a little too hyper stylized but I appreciate the ambition. It's one I wanted to watch immediately after I finished. It's one that feels like it will become more rewarding with repeated viewings.

It's about an unsolved murder that destroyed the livelihood of a detective who becomes a burnout alcoholic, quit the force, etc. 5 years later he stumbles upon the case once again and goes through the motions of finding the killer. I was completely immersed in this world.

Haven't seen H8 yet, but agree with the rest.

I will def check this out, thx.

Yeah? I would never watch one without the other. In fact I waited until both were on DvD before I watched so I could watch them together.

Because they had separate theatrical releases?

They did that's true.

T.V, show episodes also come out 1 week apart from each other. Do you consider those to be different stories from one another or a continuation of the same story line?

If 2 films are released at different times but have the same title apart from a Part 1 and a Part 2, and Part 2 is released after Part 1 in what logical way can you consider them separate films?

They might be different films, but they are certainly one movie... that is not yet completed.

.........

There maybe an agruement made for a Django/H8 relationship from a timeline perspective in the QT universe... even though QT has never stated a relationship.

wow are we really going to argue whether the kill bill films should be considered 1 film or 2????

So Back to the Future parts I, II, III, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Jedi, LOTR I-III, Indiana Jones I-III are all one big movie?

I don't know man when I go to the theater and see the opening credits, a bunch of stuff happening, then the closing credits, I consider that a movie. Then in like a year when I go to the theater and see opening credits, more stuff happening that is a continuation of the stuff previously, then closing credits I think that's a different movie.

QT considers it one movie. The opening in H8 says that it is his 8th film

RD, PF, JB, KB, DP, IB, DU, H8 is 8 movies.

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opionion

Men, Women, & Children

Big disappointment here. Jason Reitman, who's Juno and Up in the Air I absolutely loved, really missed the mark here. I felt like he was actually quite out of touch with the way most people use technology today, and it felt like an old guy commenting on how young people live.

The story has at least a dozen relevant characters in it, and that seems to be the problem. On the adult side of things, there's Jennifer Garner playing a woman who is the AH-64D Apache Long Bow of Helicopter parents (look it up, it's pretty badass). There's Judy Greer playing a Hollywood mom who is taking burlesque type pictures of her underage daughter to post online. There's Adam Sandler and Rosemarie Dewitt playing a relatively happy couple who are sexually bored with each other, and may be looking for something else.

On the kid side of things, there's a Freshman girl who has an eating disorder and wants to be popular. There's a star QB who decides he doesn't want to play FB anymore because of Carl Sagan's Little Blue Dot (I know, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense) and decides to play GuildWars instead. There's the girl of the helicopter mom who has a relationship with the QB. There's the girl of the hollywood mom who wants to make it in Hollywood. There's the son of the sexually frustrated couple who has his own sexual issues.

As you can see, there are just too many characters for this movie to work. They should have cut out the vast majority of the characters in this movie, and it would've worked. Juno worked because it focused on 2 relationships primarily, that of the pregnant girl and her nerdy boyfriend, and that of the couple trying to adopt the kid. It had time to develop those characters and make us care about them. In this movie, I just didn't have enough time to care about any of them. The movie would've been good if it focused on the sexually frustrated couple and the anorexic girl, and nobody else, as their characters were at least somewhat interesting.

The conclusion was totally WTF. Each character's arc gets wrapped up in a nice neat package that was totally unbelievable. Every adult character basically has a "Eureka" moment where they snap back to reality and realize what they were doing is wrong. It was silly how quickly they all just turned 180 degrees to end the movie.

I'm sure most of you have seen Up in the Air and Juno, but if you haven't seen Young Adult from Reitman, check that out. This one you can skip.

Yeah as far as i'm aware it was a studio/exec decision to make it 2 films so they could make twice as much money.

However, once I have to buy two tickets at the cinema, then it's two films - regardless of how it's marketed.

I liked Up in the Air but didn't care much for Juno.

Well and the fact that it would have been FIVE ****ING HOURS LONG.

...

It's no Shoah!

lol at all you precious cinephiles. A movie is what is shown in theaters.

Four hours seven minutes. The point is there is at least an hour you can cut (probably from 2 alone) without losing the narrative.

Which scenes can be cut?

I'm not sure you need most of "massacre at the two pines". Random scenes like Budd getting chewed out at work and cleaning toilets; Bill and Beatrix around the campfire; the Esteban scene; a lot of the random chat when she finds Bill.

That's obviously without watching it in the last 5 years and perhaps missing how those scenes contribute to moving the story along.

Pai Mei says very little, almost none. The entire camp fire scene is bill explaining Pai Mei to Beatrix. Definitely needed as character backstory/development.

Likewise Budd at work and in his camper shows just how much of a lifestyle change he's had to make since giving up being a professional assassin. Once again gives you needed character info. Well ok, maybe not absolutely needed but gives the character more depth and flavor anyway.

Esteban isn't needed I guess, although he gives a bit extra insight into who Bill is and what makes him tick, but if that scene wasn't in the movie it wouldn't be a big loss. Esteban sure is an entertaining/cool character though, so from that standpoint I think I'd prefer to leave him in.

Her daughter being alive and the chats they have together I'd say are absolutely needed, chats she has with bill could be shortened. The comic/superhero's conversation probably doesn't need to exist at all. This is the one I agree with you about the most though, for sure. But what would that amount to in cuts really? Maybe 5 minutes tops.

So in review, imo camp fire scene can't be cut, Budd at work could be but really shouldn't be. Esteban could be and it would be fine but I'd prefer he stay. Chats at the end with Bill can absolutely be shortened, but not the parts that include BB.

Honestly if you want to argue cutting bits from a character development standpoint, then it would make more since to cut from part 1 than part 2. Part 1 was action, action, action. Not much true character development. Part 2 is 'ok, now you've met all the characters and see the world they live and work in, now it's time to show you something about who they are, where they come from, why they are the way they are, and what motivates them.'

In KB1 if Uma had killed say 5 less Crazy 88 dudes than she did, would anyone really noticed, if the total there was 35 instead of 40? Nah, not really. Cool as it is what does Lucy Lui and her entourages slow motion entrance through that long hallway really do for moving the story along? Nothing actually needed.

Anyway sure there are bits to cut, but from both parts And I don't think it's anywhere near 1 hours worth, not even in total between the two parts.

What's needed s whatever the hell the the filmmaker wants in the movie. A film is not just the sum total of all the narrative points.

Yeah sure. And of course none of us are professional filmmakers so who are we to judge what should have been included or not, right?

But surely you often find yourself making those judgement's anyway, don't you?

I mean we all do. In fact how many of the posts in this thread have been all of us doing exactly that.

Actually, there's a few of us here who are professional filmmakers

Humm... ok. You must be using the term 'professional' somewhat loosely then, perhaps I should use a phrase like 'big time filmmakers' 'sufficiently successful filmmakers' or 'well known/renowned' filmmakers. I'm fairly certain no one here would fit the bill then.

Anyway, whatever... this is a public forum, open to all. Thus I'm allowed to post my opinion in it. So I was merely exercising that right. Everyone else in this thread has a right to either read my post, or not read my post. If they choose to read it, it's also their right to take it in whatever way they want to take it.

I'm not any level of filmmaker, but I still feel qualified to post my opinion in this thread. Actually, I can't think of anyone more qualified to write my own opinion than me.