Good movie, but an overrated one...

Rating: Null/10 (23 October 2003)

This was a good and exciting movie, full of great moments that has a lot going for it. The Cinematography and score were the best ever. But the problems stick out just like one of Uma Thurman's sore toes. Stuff like this becomes forgetable and self indulgent to say the least. There are valid reasons why I think this one's vastly overrated. Read on, I put a lot of thought into it.
(WARNING, MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!)
1# reason: Tarantino is having fun with himself at the expense of his audience. The audience I saw it felt cold and indifferent to the character of the Bride. Her logic, although justified, somehow seemed forced. For me the design of the story is the culprit, not Uma Thurman's performance. She was great but lacks the screen precense and charisma to truly make her an iconic character.
Bummer. #2 reason: Could anyone explain how can a skinny white girl survive that beating, awaken from a four year comma, suddenly remember what happened to her, and rehabilitate herself. All during the span of one day? Come on! The joke's on us and we bought it. This belongs in an 80's action movie and if it's intentional then I got lost on that one. If it's Arnold or Stallone then we I could beleive that, but Uma Thurman...No way.
#3 reason: The handling of the O ren ishi character. Bar none Lucy Liu is the best thing about this movie. Whenever she's onscreen the energy level goes up. Her story actually made me feel empathy for her character and I thought she was the superior swordswoman vs the bride. The bride beat her because of the Hanzo steel not the sword skills!
But after such a great set up why did Tarantino kill her off like that? Exposed brains cheapens the character and that's so unsatisfying. Why didn't he stick to the Samurai ethics and have her die a more honorable death is beyond me.
#4 reason: There is a fine line between theft and paying homage. I've seen everything in this movie done better and more effective in films of directors like Suzuki Seijun and Kinji Fukasaku. The fact that he copied their superior movies isn't the point, it's how he used the theft that cheapens it. It's like he went ballistic and tried to top these masters with his $55 million budget. He's all technique and sloppy execution.
#5 and last reason: The story. I reserve judgement till I see the resolution, but I say the story doesn't warrant a three hour movie. This is a trend of many directors who have final cut. PT Anderson comes to mind. As a genre movie about revenge it doesn't earn it.
As a whole, this movie could have been a smashing 139 minutes had they cut off Vivica Fox's character and peripheral stuff and just concentrated on the Bill and O ren Ishii characters. Miramax robbed me for paying twice to see one movie. Once again the joke's on us, the audience. But like I said, I give Tarantino benefit of the doubt and juicy stuff might come on volume 2.
There you have it. Those are my reasons. The movie will make a truckload of money but that won't hide the fact that this movie sucks. I'll skip vol 2 and rent Sword of vengance instead. Now that's a Samurai movie!