One Friday a few months ago my office had "movie afternoon" where everyone received free passes to a matinee show at the neighborhood multiplex. It was a kind of a dead time for movies, right after Oscar winners made a second showing at theatres and the summer feel-goods had not yet released.
Last time we had movie afternoon we all saw that swashbuckling "Master and Commander," but this time we decided to go our separate ways and go to different movies. Some of my work colleagues saw The Alamo; some saw Dawn of the Dead; some saw Hellboy, and I was left choosing between Ella Enchanted, Kill Bill 2, Walking Tall, Scooby Doo 2 and Home and the Range. I chose Kill Bill 2, not because I wanted to see the movie, but because I enjoy Uma Thurman's presence (I saw her recently in the amazing film, Tape) and because Quentin Tarrentino is an entertaining talk show guest. I hadn't seen Kill Bill 1, but actually that didn't prevent me from seeing the sequel. Tarrantino is known for narrative discontinuities, so my state of confusion is unlikely to be any greater than it usually is.
Actually the best part of the film experience was the trailers, which looked entertaining enough. Kill Bill had gotten decent enough writeups in the mainstream press (by critics anxious to tell us the film references they recognized in the film). (You can also check out Matt Paprocki's review of the film on blogcritics).
Truthfully though, the movie was a bore. Lots of manipulating, silly violence, suspension of disbelief, and basking in kung fu cliches. All throughout the movie, I was wondering how Hollywood financiers and producers would flip over this film and eagerly bankroll this silly project. Here's how their thought process probably went: A List director and Cast, Asian crossover appeal, teen demographic appeal: great, let's give this "GENIUS" 50+ million dollars.
Roger Ebert writes,
Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill Vol. 2" is an exuberant celebration of moviemaking, coasting with heedless joy from one audacious chapter to another, working as irony, working as satire, working as drama, working as pure action.
Isn't the Hollywood blockbuster irrelevant to our culture? It seems to be a celebration of car crashes and Hollywood's ability to depict gore and mass destruction in more lavish and expensive manners. My movie critic friend assures me that watching Kill Bill 1 first would have made Kill Bill 2 a more satisfying experience. Really? Perhaps when I get around to watching that first part I'll have a more nuanced appreciation for the bludgeoning pseudo-death of Daryl Hannah's character. (Hapax Legomenon once remarked in his Pleasure Manifesto, that "our sensibilities have evolved to the point where sadism is just another cinematic style.") The reader might suppose that my disaste derives from moral squeamishness about onscreen violence. But I am more horrified at the collossal waste of money, marketing resources and talented people to bring to the world another violent adrelanin-pumping film. Tragically, our society faces a shortage of such films, and it's a good thing we have a few brave filmmakers still willing to take the artistic risks to use fistfights, Kung Fu stunts and gallons of fake blood.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
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.
2 - Eric Olsen
I guess the above turned out to be a short review - I expanded it and posted it here
3 - Matt Paprocki
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
4 - Jim Carruthers
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.
5 - Leo
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.