Flipside Movie Emporium

[Danny Baldwin]

Why did they have to split it into two parts? While I still enjoyed Volume 1 the way it is, the ending finale is as abrupt and nonconclusive, as they come. Why couldn't they have made it 2 hrs and 30 minutes, and trimmed 3 minutes off of each of the fight scenes? Money? Budget? MPAA Rating? Could it actually be creative? We can only guess... It's certainly still worth a positive recommendation because of the tremendous choreography and Tarantino's weirdness, but the 2-part split is insanely aggravating. Does anyone else feel the same way?
_________________
Danny Baldwin

View My Reviews

[beltmann]

I'm seeing it tomorrow with a colleague, and while I was initially disappointed in the decision, I also now find myself not very interested in second-guessing it. We have been given a movie, and I suppose I'm more inclined to examine what is rather than what might have been, or should have been. To me, the split is merely a sidebar, an anecdote--and one of the least interesting aspects of this first film.

Of course, I may have a different opinion once I actually see the picture.

Eric

[Michael Scrutchin]

I'm with you, Danny. And I thought the last-second "shocking" revelation felt like a cheap soap-opera cliffhanger. But, other than that, I had a great time. I have a few gripes, but I'm eager to see it again. I'll drag a few friends to see it this weekend, maybe, then come back to discuss it in this thread. Rob's review should be in by Sunday.

In the meantime, check out the opposing takes on it by Sean O'Connell and Jeremiah Kipp at filmcritic.com.
_________________
Michael Scrutchin
Flipside Movie Emporium
www.flipsidearchive.com

[Mark Dujsik]

So I went to see it tonight. The damn projector in the theater stopped working with only fifteen minutes left. From what I saw, though, it's incredible. What sucks is that I won't be able to see the whole thing again until Tuesday because of an overloaded weekend of projects, so don't expect a review of it from me for a while.
_________________
"Film lovers are sick people."

--Francois Truffaut

10 Best Films of 2006

Mark Reviews Movies

[the night watchman]

I had a blast. Anyone who thought Tarantino was a one-trick pony, well, here's a gob of other tricks. Quentin knows what makes a great action movie great; it's not just the flash-and-dazzle (taking notes, Mr. Bay?), it's pauses in between that count just as much. Frankly, I like that it was broken into two parts, and I liked the fact that the "shocking revelation" capped off this Volume. I do wish I didn't have to wait till February for Vol. 2, but, que sera, sera.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

[Danny Baldwin]

[the night watchman]

[beltmann]

I agree with every word here, Night Watchman, and also every word of your review (posted in another thread).

I'm afraid, Danny, I haven't changed my mind: The "controversial" split remains far less interesting to me than what Tarantino has accomplished as a genre alchemist.

I actually think the stop-point seemed perfectly natural. Two comparisons to emphasize: How is this different from the cliffhangers of the old Thirties serials, another genre Tarantino might be mining? Also, how is this different from other split stories, such as, say, Lord of the Rings? The same people who leapt to the defense of Fellowship of the Ring and its that's it?!? ending are now complaining. Seems odd to me.

As with Jackson's three-part opus, it's important to view this as merely the first installment of a complete story.

As for the violence--well, I'm reluctant to describe Kill Bill as violent. Everything is so over the top, so stylized, so aestheticized, that it transcends violence. Yellow isn't just yellow here, it's Yellow. And blood is never really blood, it's Red. For me, the images work on a purely abstract level--abstract expressionism, abstract representations of violence, abstract emotions, abstract suffering--and they flow with a pop grandeur unlike anything I've seen before. This is the movie Robert Rodriguez has been trying to make for years with no success--Tarantino might be his pal, but he's also twice (no, quadruple) the artist that Rodriguez is.

Eric

[filmsRpriceless]

Just came back from seeing it again, and it confirmed just how much I love this ridiculous movie with a passion. I didn't mind the split at the end at all (though this is certainly a movie to be digested as a whole) because I liked how abrupt it was. Here's what I wrote in my screening log after seeing the film opening night:

[Was actually going to see Intolerable Cruelty instead, but hearing "Stuck in the Middle With You" play on the radio today pretty much sealed the deal for me; it was Tarantino telling me to see his movie. And no, I was not disappointed. For a while, I thought about saving my comments until Vol. II, but I had to discuss here about how my breath was literally taken away by one of the most absafuckinglutely cool movies I've ever seen, and sitting in the very back row of the theater (stadium seating) just made the experience one to savor more. I was not, mind you, pysched about this movie like everyone else, but in a way, this also had the upmost positive effect on me. I'd be lying if I said that I am not displeased like everyone else is with the split that Tarantino was forced to make by the studio. A half of a movie, really, I can't imagine how much more Kill Bill would benefit if it was seen the way that Tarantino intended, as the pure extravanganza it would be with two parts into it. Maybe the seperation of the two will pay off tremendously, by filling in major blanks in the way that what is displayed here is proudly empty and hollow. Then again, maybe not. What m'da said, about this being a "killer mix tape" couldn't be more dead-on when we key into what Tarantino wants from us: nothing. We shouldn't bring anything to the movie that the it doesn't bring itself, meaning that Tarantino disposes of characterization and story the best of his ability. If you thought that Tarantino ever hinted at his influences in his other films, just fucking wait until you see what he did in Vol. I, already brilliantly displaying his homages to more films than I can count. Off the top of my head, an overview of what influences I came across: They Call Her One Eye, Lady Snowbound, Jin-Roh, The Game of Death, Snake in the Eagle's Shadow, Coffy (other assorted blaxploitation, I'm sure), Leone, Truffaut, Suzuki, DePalma, and the Shaw Brothers. In approach, this may be a B-movie at heart, but its design makes it phenomenally gorgeous. I can say how accomplished Tarantino's film is, but I'd be getting it all wrong since this is him gathering as much awesome shit as he can, then combining it, having great fun doing so; this actually is him thinking of a movie all in his head. Along with their director, the cast is having great fun, but it is the frustrating, intense pyshical fun that has their poorly sketched characters act dead serious while looking silly. I love it, and the confrontation acting between Uma Thurman and Lucy Lui at the end was wonderful. There is no way I can patiently wait for the continuation (the last dialogue is some of the best cliff-hanger dialogue I can think of ever in a movie, period), and I'll hold off on a review until I have the chance to cover the entire movie.]
_________________
My apparent website

[Danny Baldwin]

[beltmann]

Yeah, the influences are endless. I was most struck by the Shaw brothers, Suzuki, and De Palma, as you mentioned, fRp. (The Daryl Hannah sequence absolutely screamed "De Palma," especially Dressed to Kill.)

To add to your list, I'd mention Zatoichi (Shintaro Katsu is even mentioned in the end credits' RIP section!), Naked Killer, Ringo Lam, Akira, Kurosawa (especially the exploding heart in Sanjuro), Takeshi Kitano, Ozu, Mizoguchi, Oshii, Chen Chi-Hwa, Lo Wei, Ching Siu-Tung, The Heroic Trio, Tsui Hark, and even a little bit of Wong Kar-Wai. I guess the list could go on indefinitely.

Mostly, though, I think Tarantino's largest influence at this point is Tarantino himself.

Eric

[beltmann]

[the night watchman]

"Genre alchemist." I like that.

fPr brought up how, logically, the movie is utterly ridiculous, but you buy into it anyway, feeling no shame and no real need to rationalize your acceptance. Kill Bill really made me want to reassess how I experience film in general. What I assumed were the requirements, at least for me, for enjoying a movie are either absent in Kill Bill, or completely subverted. Take, for instance, a moment early in the movie after The Bride's battle against Vernita. (These aren't really spoilers, so I won't bother with warnings.) The Bride gets back in the truck, takes out her list, and crosses out Vernita's name. We see O-Ren's name occupying the line above Vernita's, already crossed out. By showing us this, Tarantino reveals The Bride's victory over a character who has yet to even have a proper introduction. Such act would seem to completely destroy the suspense and the very point of watching the rest of the Volume 1, since we know the results in advance. Amazingly, nothing is ruined. It's almost as if Tarantino is saying to us, "Yeah, you've seen this before. You know what's going to happen. But don't worry. You're gonna have a blast anyway." And he's right.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

[beltmann]

[beltmann]