Well, I just saw Kill Bill Vol 2 and got Vol 1 on DVD today, so as seems to be the vogue around here these days, I thought I'd throw my two cents into the ring, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphors.
Kill Bill represents Tarantino at his most masturbatory and self-congratulatory. It does, in fact, represent Tarantino lining up a number of classic genre films and directors, dropping his trousers, and wanking furiously, spraying his celluloid seed all over them. "Oh God yes.... let's have Sergio Leone's fascination with eyes..... oh fuck yeah...... uunnhhh..... and let's cast veteran ninja guy Sonny Chiba..... yeah, say my name bitch..... and let's make weird, exaggerated sound effects when the characters do flips.... oh fuck, I'm cumming!"
Indeed, right from the opening credits of the first film (Presented in Shaw-Scope) to the end credits of the second one (where QT gives a shout-out to all the people he's ripped off... oh... wait... sorry... I meant paid homage to) Tarantino can't seem to resist jerking us out of the reality of the film with sly little nods and winks to the audience, and little reminders that yes, this is a Tarantino film you're watching, and isn't it clever and post-modern?
Plus the films suffer from being split into two. There's a couple of little bit that get lost and forgotten with the passage of time between seeing each film, like The Bride using the same line before killing each person (You and I have unfinished business). Also the deal with bleeping out The Bride's real name and finally revealing it in the second. You've almost forgotten them bleeping it since you went to go see the first film all those months ago so the payoff just isn't there, and it's a pointless little Tarantino moment to begin with. Why bleep out the name? Why later make this big deal of revealing to us the character's real name when it isn't even that spectacular or surprising in the first place? It just smacks of QT trying to be clever. Also, the second film seems to drag somewhat, with too many little Tarantino tangential monologues and subtextual character development.
This is sounding harsher than I intended however. I actually liked both films a fair ol bit, there were a couple of fine acting turns. Uma Thurman was excellent, David Carradine was pretty damn good, and Gordon Liu's Pei Mei pretty much stole the show during the first half of the second film, with just the right amount of sadistic, camp beard-stroking. Also, some of the action sequences were excellent. The showdown at the House of Blue Leaves is a scene that future fight sequences of that sort are going to be compared to, and the sheer physicality of The Bride's face-off with Elle Driver make me grin like a fool. Then there's always the music, which although was less impressive in the second, the soundtrack of the first film could make a paraplegic monk feel like a genuine butt-kicking badass.
Basically, I found the films highly enjoyable, but suffered from being split into two and it featured a little too much of Quentin Tarantino doing what Quentin Tarantino does.
Kill Bill represents Tarantino at his most masturbatory and self-congratulatory. It does, in fact, represent Tarantino lining up a number of classic genre films and directors, dropping his trousers, and wanking furiously, spraying his celluloid seed all over them. "Oh God yes.... let's have Sergio Leone's fascination with eyes..... oh fuck yeah...... uunnhhh..... and let's cast veteran ninja guy Sonny Chiba..... yeah, say my name bitch..... and let's make weird, exaggerated sound effects when the characters do flips.... oh fuck, I'm cumming!"
Indeed, right from the opening credits of the first film (Presented in Shaw-Scope) to the end credits of the second one (where QT gives a shout-out to all the people he's ripped off... oh... wait... sorry... I meant paid homage to) Tarantino can't seem to resist jerking us out of the reality of the film with sly little nods and winks to the audience, and little reminders that yes, this is a Tarantino film you're watching, and isn't it clever and post-modern?
Plus the films suffer from being split into two. There's a couple of little bit that get lost and forgotten with the passage of time between seeing each film, like The Bride using the same line before killing each person (You and I have unfinished business). Also the deal with bleeping out The Bride's real name and finally revealing it in the second. You've almost forgotten them bleeping it since you went to go see the first film all those months ago so the payoff just isn't there, and it's a pointless little Tarantino moment to begin with. Why bleep out the name? Why later make this big deal of revealing to us the character's real name when it isn't even that spectacular or surprising in the first place? It just smacks of QT trying to be clever. Also, the second film seems to drag somewhat, with too many little Tarantino tangential monologues and subtextual character development.
This is sounding harsher than I intended however. I actually liked both films a fair ol bit, there were a couple of fine acting turns. Uma Thurman was excellent, David Carradine was pretty damn good, and Gordon Liu's Pei Mei pretty much stole the show during the first half of the second film, with just the right amount of sadistic, camp beard-stroking. Also, some of the action sequences were excellent. The showdown at the House of Blue Leaves is a scene that future fight sequences of that sort are going to be compared to, and the sheer physicality of The Bride's face-off with Elle Driver make me grin like a fool. Then there's always the music, which although was less impressive in the second, the soundtrack of the first film could make a paraplegic monk feel like a genuine butt-kicking badass.
Basically, I found the films highly enjoyable, but suffered from being split into two and it featured a little too much of Quentin Tarantino doing what Quentin Tarantino does.
VIEW 13 of 13 COMMENTS
I think he does pay homage instead of ripping off though. It's a superb piece of cinematography (Vol. 2 is anyway), especially if you have an interest in Japanese and Hong Kong cinema from the last 30 years or so.
We can continue the critique tomorrow if you like...