he's done better

Rating: 4/10 (5 November 2005)

I might have more regard for the movie if I didn't think Tarantino accomplished more, and was just simply deeper, in his other films.
Tarantino the artist, in my opinion, was just a better overall communicator and creator in each of his other films. I really don't think "Kill Bill" succeeds on any level as much as the others, and I'm very surprised to see so many critics that are so seduced by Tarantino's technical skill in the film (which, indisputably, is substantial) that they simply fail to see it.
In other words, it plays to me like one of your less-liked episodes from your favorite TV show. Just not as strong.
For example, to me, the 'funny' moments weren't funny in Kill Bill, except for when the main character 'emerges' and heads across the street in Vol. 2 (I don't want to give anything away). I thought that was brilliantly funny...
But the guy who won't get the tea, the 'want some coffee?' thing, other moments meant to be funny just didn't work; certainly not in the way that they did in "Reservoir Dogs": 'You're gonna be okaaaaaay!', "Pulp Fiction": 'Royale with cheese! ha ha'', or "Jackie Brown": 'Killer had a 45. THEY want a 45.' From a TECHNICAL standpoint, many of the action sequences are fast and well-crafted and etc. There's much more that has to make ANY artistic creation resonate and work, though.
There are so many things that happen in the movie that aren't realistic from a character or plot standpoint. And, no, I'm not even talking about the violence. I don't want to give away details for people who haven't seen the movies, but there are so many times when characters showed NO REACTION to something quite surprising happening in the story. They just fought out their well-choreographed, well-shot, well-edited fight scene that was scheduled for that day, and it feels like it.
I wouldn't have a problem with the violence if it didn't feel like it just came form someone who likes to see violence in movies. If more of it had true, dramatic motivation for being in there (like, say, HIS OTHER MOVIES), I'd be more understanding. But, so much of the time, this just isn't the case.
The example that comes most readily to mind is when Thurman's trying to will her toes to move and her flashback somehow comes around to the Anime sections involving the heartbreakingly disgusting and tragic murders of Lucy Liu's characters' parents. From a character standpoint, his is a MAJOR cheat. Thurman's character is in no position to know this. Obviously, she DOESN'T know it, but it was a convenient place to put in background about Lucy Liu's character. The scene itself, to me, doesn't play with any AUTHENTIC dramatic weight. It's just "Hey, major anime bloodbath! Awesome! Let's just make it as horrendous as possible" stuff.
It feels like, much of the time, Tarantino ratcheted up the "Shock-O-Meter" which is much easier, and less respectable, than reaching for deeper and more artistically valuable details and plot developments.
Some people enjoy this kind of thing. For someone who likes movies for their storytelling, creative and dramatic potentials, it's nothing short of revolting and upsetting.
I thought Thurman was amazing, and I thought the Crazy 88s demise and the aftermath was pretty funny.
I thought the very opening was The No. 1 Most Gripping Introduction I'd ever seen in a film. Ever.
But I don't think the rest of the film lives up to it.