|
...or 24 Grams, or 28 Grams, or however many it is.
I just saw Kill Bill -- yes, I'm behind, but in this instance not as far as usual -- and I finished uncertain of whether I quite liked it or didn't like it at all. I'm leaning toward it being a piece of crap. I've never seen a Tarantino film and, though I appreciate many of his influences and share many with him, I've always had the impression that he is several degrees beyond 'quirky' and has a tendency to go too far, with no discernible 'off' switch. That's kind of what I think of Kill Bill.
The thing has some exceptionally gory moments, probably mainly in homage to ultra-violent Japanese samurai films (seen plenty of kung fu films but never a Japanese equivalent), and I can't say I enjoyed the violence. I like some violent films, but the stuff in this one just seemed so gratuitous and, of course, fake (especially all that blood)...of course, maybe that was The Quentin's plan, as a tribute to the gratuitous and obviously fake violence, including cartoon violence, that inspired him. Let me put it this way: the films Blade and Blade II were also extremely violent but, in addition to a kind of humor that resonated better with me, those films did not simultaneously bore and repulse me like this one did. The fighting was better in those films, too, and the few moments of terribly obvious wire work only helped boost the bogusity level of Kill Bill.
Tarantino was also hung up on all sorts of interesting and unique cinematic doodads -- also known, when they go awry, as 'gimmicks' -- like the funky titles, bleeping the main character's name, monochromatic sequences, and general over-the-top-ness. Just didn't really do it for me. Didn't necessarily detract, but didn't do anything to add...actually, it did detract to the extent that it was distraction or provoked a "oh, how cute, another little gimmick" response from me. The thing was just overly stylized and annoying because there was nothing but surface style on display, thus making the hyperviolent goings-on truly gratuitous.
Even the violence isn't that well executed, in that the swordsmanship on display is lackluster and, anyway, obscured by shots of blood and body parts to the point that the actual act of wielding a sword is barely witnessed. Again, contrast this with Wesley Snipes' turn as Blade. So it should be fun, Kill Bill, but it's not. I did like the reference to Bruce Lee's Game of Death tracksuit in Uma's motorcycle leathers, though. But how did she manage to get her katana as a carry-on aboard a commercial airliner?
The person I watched it with, a movie person, was worshipping the ground that Tarantino walks on and so I wasn't really able to bounce my feelings off her too well. She seemed mainly smitten by the strong-female-lead aspect of the film. Actually, my barely-formed (it's still not formed...like I said, I might like this film more than I thought I did) critique provoked her to mention Dragon, the Bruce Lee biopic, and she steadfastly maintained its accuracy despite demonstrable fact that at least half of the film -- though I do like it -- is fairytale either because the stuff didn't happen or because it happened in a place, time, or manner entirely different than shown. I know full well the liberties that are necessary to make truth a good movie, but Dragon went far beyond that. It's a great based-on-a-true-stroy (loosely) film, but it's far from the reality of the Little Dragon's life. Anyway, back to the movie at hand...bottom line is that I hope this isn't indicative of Tarantino's alleged genius, because the Spanish dude who directed Blade II (and now Hellboy, I believe) would wipe the floor with him and would probably have made a much more enjoyable film out of Kill Bill.
As for 21 (or however many) Grams, man, talk about gimmicks. I saw this one a while back and it still annoys me. Absolutely brilliant acting from all involved, but atrocious editing...or scripting...whatever gave it the Timeline From Hell. I can dig messing with timelines in movies if it is or becomes apparent what's going on, but I was far into the film before I even began to figure out who was who, what had happened, and when it happened. The chopped-up timeline went far beyond innovative or cute, in my opinion, and deep into the territory of being incredibly annoying. Granted, I was very tired and sleep-deprived when I watched it -- that's a given with me, anyway -- but I think my confusion was more a direct result of them having released a film that seemed to be the result of punch-drunk editors throwing clips in the air and reassembling them in random order. It was only the compelling acting that kept me from cutting and running from this temporal disaster.
This movie did begin to make sense after (quite) a while, but by then I was still resenting the director for putting me through the wringer just for kicks and was also trying to process and organize the information that I already had while taking in more from ongoing multiple storylines and timeframes. Just way too much work, and the basic story wasn't worth the caloric expenditure.
The film was just a big gimmick that backfired, as far as I'm concerned, and that's a shame because it could have been a really great film if it was edited differently. A pretentious journey into unnecessary confusion and frustration. If it's what qualifies as cinematic 'art,' then give me Bill And Ted.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
