As you may have noticed, I have already written reviews (albeit, brief ones) for Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2. So why I am I writing another review for this/these film(s). Am I simply beating a dead horse, or do I have a point? Well, of course I have a point! As I explained at the bottom of my review for Volume 2, Kill Bill is one movie. It was designed to be one movie, and it should receive a review based on ALL the content, not just half of it. It was pure greed on behalf of Miramax which resulted in the butchering of this film, and I refuse to let that get in the way of the assessment this film deserves.
It may come as no surprise to you, that behind Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino is one of my favorite directors. I LOVE Jackie Brown (possible Rental Review...hmmm...), and I of course admire Pulp Fiction. Although I am obviously a fan, I can say confidently, speaking as both a fan and a critic, Kill Bill is right up there with both of these masterpieces. This is a modern day Lawrence of Arabia; an epic filled with all the gore and dialogue which personifies our generation. And not only is Kill Bill one for the time capsule, but it’s actually a fantastic movie that transcends its action-revenge genre.
The plot and the goal of the main character (The Bride, later named Beatrix Kiddo in Volume 2) in both volumes is basically the same: kill Bill. In the first half of the movie (Volume 1), we learn that Bill (code named Snake Charmer, and played by David Carradine) and four of his assassins of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad walk into a wedding chapel and slaughter an entire wedding party which consists of The Bride, formerly of the DVAS (and code named Black Mamba). The other four assassins are: O-Ren Ishii (code name: Cottonmouth), played by Lucy Liu; Vernita Green (code name: Copperhead), played by Vivica A. Fox; Budd (code name: Sidewinder), played by Michael Madsen; and Elle Driver (code name: California Mountain Snake), played by Darryl Hannah. Unfortunately for them, they don’t quite finish the job, and The Bride isn’t dead but rather comatose. When she wakes up four years later, her goal is simple and clear: kill Bill and everyone else who murdered her husband-to-be and unborn child.
If you look back at my individual reviews of Volume 1 and Volume 2 you will notice that I gave Vol. 1 a C+ and a B+ to Vol. 2. These grades do not reflect the content of these movies completely, but rather their ability to be successful as stand-alone motion pictures. You can thus infer correctly that in terms of character development, plot, etc., Vol. 2 is the greater success. But not a complete success. What these grades really say is that Vol. 2 can survive without Vol. 1 better than the vice-versa. Yet neither fully work, and both are in some ways dependant on the other to draw complete conclusions. Without Vol. 1, we lose (besides the battles with Vernita Green and O-Ren Ishii themselves) the homage to Japanese samurai films that Tarantino so diligently crafted; we lose much of the characterization of The Bride which showcases her determination and drive, and not to mention what she is capable of physically (The Battle at the House of Blue Leaves); and of course, much of the high-adrenaline action. Without Vol. 2, we lose the homage to spaghetti westerns (why they call them that, I have no idea -- it actually is a kind of gross image when you think about it) that Tarantino so diligently crafted; we lose the characterization of The Bride which paints her as an actual 3-dimensional character and human being; and of course the climactic confrontation with Bill. But when you put all these elements together, the magic truly sparkles. If I were a movie producer, how exactly would I splice these volumes together? I have asked myself this question, and my answer is very simple. Combine both movies as is, and put a 10 minute intermission between them. Why an intermission? Well, it is a long movie, and those of us who buy the 44 oz. pop might need the restroom, but more importantly, these two volumes do have different tones especially in regards to setting and the distinct genres they pay homage to, and an intermission would avoid any confusion. Yes, some of the aspects of the different feels to the two volumes may be lost with only a ten minute intermission and not a six month intermission as it stands now; but what is lost here is gained ten-fold in terms of plot clarity and continuity, and characterization.
Quentin Tarantino has said that he has the most respect for action film directors, because directing action is a tough gig which requires mastery of many aspects of the film-making process. It’s only pleasantly ironic then that Quentin has just patted himself on the back with this comment, as the direction of the action in Kill Bill is stellar. Severed limbs cover floors and blood pours out of various orifices by the gallons but it somehow always looks artful. As good as the action is, Tarantino and his art, set, and production teams trump most everything. This film is a joy to look at, and the sets from the wild (House of Blue Leaves) to the ordinary (Budd’s trailer) radiate perfection and that special Tarantino quirkiness.
At the center of this whirling tornado of a film is Uma Thurman, who stands as a pillar of strength and shows fantastic acting range, especially in Vol. 2. She nearly stole Pulp Fiction out from under the feet of Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta, and here we clearly see why Tarantino has such a fixation with her. Quentin is known for reviving the careers of many of Hollywood’s old gems thought to have been long ago cast aside. In Pulp Fiction it was John Travolta (who is incidentally now charging 20 million a picture), in Jackie Brown is was Pam Grier and Robert Forster (who got an Academy Award nomination for his performance), and in Kill Bill it is David Carradine. He has been cast perfectly, and everything from his face to his voice shows confidence, with that streak of evil running just beneath the surface. As for the rest of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, all are solid, but Darryl Hannah (Quentin again performing career CPR) and Michael Madsen are exceptional.
Quentin Tarantino is a rare breed of director, in that his movies are events. Not many directors are able to reach the status of house-hold names, and even fewer can advertise their films as “The new film from [insert director]” with any success, but Tarantino fits both bills. Why is this? My speculations of his critical and public success have led me to only one conclusion: every Tarantino film is actually...good. He takes his time, deftly crafting each film so that every single frame of celluloid exists for a purpose and nothing is superfluous. And in addition to actually being good, Quentin’s films reek of originality and yet are still filled with his personal touches. In Kill Bill, a speech by Bill about Superman and the opening moments of Vol. 2 which feature a black-and-white monologue by The Bride who is driving to her final showdown with Bill stand out as the most memorable Tarantino-touches. Kill Bill is like nothing we have ever seen, and is completely different from anything the director (or any director) has ever attempted. And as if this brave, fearless dive into the unknown wasn’t enough, the fact that its actually a fantastic movie (yes, movie, as in one) is what makes this remarkable achievement a classic.
Grade: A
© 2004 Jacob Sproul
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 Review
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 Review
Main Archive