Lavishly Praising Bloodbaths
Published September 29, 2004
Occasionally I've enjoyed and even admired the escapist blockbuster (Jaws, Terminator, Fifth Element). Every filmmaker has a few B-movies to get out of their system, and often these blockbusters can finance worthier projects. And it is sheer hypocrisy to pretend that high culture never stages elaborately constructed bloodbaths (see Kurosawa's Ran) . But can't we set a budget cap? For a campy film costing under $100,000 (see Rodriguez's El Mariachi), one can enjoy a luxurious amount of bloodletting to satisfy the Marquis de Sade and still have enough left over to finance a Mechant Ivory miniseries. The filmmaking industry can't resist throwing infinite sums of money at any director who hits upon a profitable formula. You may remember that American Wedding, (the second sequel to that masterpiece American Pie ), cost 55 million dollars to produce (think--55 million dollars!) and still made a healthy profit for Universal. And when a Hollywood launches a film for over 50 million dollars, everyone hears about it. There's no escaping. The mediocrity of Kill Bill bothers me not as much as the fact that for a week or so every major media outlet is screaming the same thing: Jay Leno, Time Magazine, Charlie Rose, People Magazine, CNN, hundreds of movie reviews and fawning feature stories. Everybody everywhere is talking about Kill Bill, Tarrentino is a god, terrific performance by Uma,just look at those special effects ("Just how long did Uma have to train forthat role?"), expected to be a gigantic world hit, popular in Asia, can't waitfor it to come to DVD, how was it like working with David Carradine? How muchdid it cost to stage that fight scene? How much did it cost? How much money isit earning? Was it really first place that week at the box office? How much moneyis it earning? Will there be a KillBill 3?
In the midst of this inescapable multimillion publicity machine, is it any wonder that the small productions seem more appealing? TV, for example, has done a far better job at presenting smallsize comedies and dramas (even though relatively cheap-to-produce hits like Seinfeld can earn studios and networks more money than a mainstream Hollywood bloodbath). Unfortunately ours may be the last generation of TV audiences to enjoy over-the-airwaves All-in-the-Family-Cheers-Third-Rock-From-The-Sun type of shows. On the other hand, online sites like Atom Films offer enough high quality/small budget films to keep anyone happy (see for example the hilarious In God We Trust). But who has time to search out the hidden gems when everyone (and I mean everyone!) is talking about Kill Bill?
- Lavishly Praising Bloodbaths
- Published: September 29, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Culture: Media, Video: Action, Video: Art House, Video: Comedy, Video: Film and TV Business
- Writer: Robert Nagle
- Robert Nagle's BC Writer page
- Robert Nagle's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I guess the above turned out to be a short review - I expanded it and posted it here
I disliked Kill Bill 2 as well. I thought the first one was at least fast paced enough to hold my interest. Here, not even the trademark Tarantino dialogue served a purpose. The only high point was Carradine. See here (shameless plug alert):
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/15/035226.php
What disappoints me about this is not that you didn't enjoy "Kill Bill 2" (which is Tarantino's take on spaghetti westerns, and if you don't like it, don't see "High Plains Drifter" because it has midgets - and I think Tarantino was restrained compared to what he working from - watch "How the West Was Won" or HPD, or "Fist Full of Dollars" or "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" or even "The Searchers" and tell me KB2 wasn't totally in line with them) but because you expect Hollywood, which already panders to low expectations, to make product which has no challenge to your expectations at all.
Maybe the reason critics said "Connie and Carla" was a bland mish-mash of "Some Like It Hot" and "Victor-Victoria" was because that is all it was.
i think missing the first one (Kill Bill 1) prolly made ur confusion too great to get the style change and hence the greatness of the fabric of this film.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/20405)
much to absorb here, Robert, thanks! I am fairly sympathetic your your perspective, but I really do think Kill Bill 2 is great, on an entirely different level than the pure stylistic exercise of Kill Bill 1, which was about as relentlessly bloody as it gets.
KB2 isn't a ripoff of its obvious influences, but a summation and examination of their underlying meaning. The violence in 2 for me had real weight and import, was the opposite of the kinetic exploitation thrill-ride that was 1.
For me KB2 is deeply character-driven, takes on Fate and Will with a clear eye and seriousness of purpose, and Uma, first among all the excellent main characters, is quite astonishing.
The long, slow scenes with Carradine at the end are almost unbearable in their gentility, accumulating tension and inevitability. I thought this was the fulfillment of Tarrantino's promise - far less glib than his previous high-point Pulp Fiction.
KB2 had a real and lasting impact on me - it has penetrated my psyche with the force of myth and I have had dreams about it.
KB2 isn't perfect - Tarrantino still can't resist the impulse toward too-clever-by-half dialogue, but here it is the exception rather than the rule. Above all, he has created something profound.
Oh, and I also love Ella Enchanted, but in part because of how excited my almost-5 year-old daughter gets about it.