The best, if not, the most entertaining film of 2003!

Rating: 10/10 (21 October 2003)

Oooh baby! I've been a fan of Quentin Tarantino since I first saw RESIVOR DOGS over ten years ago. In my Intro. to Cinema class I took my freshman year at college, in the fall of '94, I did a report on RESIVOR DOGS. When I was asked by my classmates on what film I was doing my report on, I replied RESIVOR DOGS, directed by Quentin Tarantino. I got a blank and expressionless reaction after saying that, with a response of "who's he?" I had to answer, "he's the man who wrote NATURAL BORN KILLERS," to get a full response from the classmate. Then two months later to my pleasure and enjoyment, Quentin Tarantino became a household name, and PULP FICTION would change cinema history. Then to my displeasure, EVERYBODY loved PULP FICTION. People would dress up like the characters, quote the movie, even explain philosophical sub-text of the movie. The film attracted the same people who thought Ferris Buller was a "righteous dude": sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, etc. In the later part of 1994 until 1996, a cinema geek couldn't go anywhere without hearing the name Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino surprised everybody with his follow-up to PULP FICTION with JACKIE BROWN, a well done and intelligent homage to the blaxploitation film of the 1970's. A majority of the people that were attracted to Tarantino from PULP FICTION (like the people associated with Ferris Buller) felt Tarantino didn't have what it took to make a entertaining movie. But JACKIE BROWN did deliver a great story with detailed characters and great dialogue. It was just a film that needed to be seen more than once to enjoy. Years later rumors and spectulation began to arise on Tarantino's whereabouts. Causing a mystery surrounding a man who was claimed to be the man who "talked too much." Now, 2003, six years later, Tarantino returns with his 4th film, KILL BILL, and for those who felt Tarantino "lost his touch" will be reborn again, and for those like me, who always enjoyed all of Tarantino's films, will have their expectations surpassed with this film. The plot for KILL BILL Vol. 1 is very simple, it's a revenge story. However, since Tarantino directs the film, it's not important on what the story is about, but how the story is told. Look at RESIVOR DOGS and PULP FICTION. Both films have stories that are pretty simple, a diamond hiest gone wrong, and two men delivering a briefcase to their boss. But seeing the way the storyteller tells those stories is what makes Tarantino a brilliant director. The story is about The Bride (AKA Black Mamba; Uma Thurman) is shot and left for dead on her wedding day. The Bride was attacked by the team she use to work for The Deadly Vemon Viper Squad: O-Ren Ishii/Cottonmouth (Lucy Liu); Vernita Green/Copperhead (Vivica A. Fox); Budd/Sidewinder (Michael Madsen); Elle Driver/California Mountain Snake (Daryl Hannah); and their leader, Bill (David Carradine). Four years later, the bride comes out of her coma and immediately seeks revenge on the people that tried to kill her. But, since this is a Tarantino film there is his usual style of filmmaking including: fantastic shots, complex characters, great dialogue and monologues, a groovy soundtrack, wonderful settings, and even a style of its own. The characters are explained their background in detail as well. However, with BILL the actors then display impressive and amazing acrobatic movement as they fight. Tarantino even does a Jean Luc-Godard approach by manipulating the audience with having total control of the film and even the viewers. Such a case is by having the dialogue of the Bride character name "Bleep" out when characters speak it. It similar to the "what's in the briefcase" theory of PULP FICTION, it's left up to the viewers opinion. Then there is the tast of retro-feel with the beginning title have the "Shaw Scope" and the 70's style music and title card with the words "Our Feature Presentation" appear. And like a Tarantino film, watching the film a second time around, one could pick up on things that they missed. (i.e. CHAPTER ONE- 2 ). There is the flashy and stylish scenes, such as when O-Ren Ishii and her crew, Sofie Fatale (Julie Dreyfus), Go Go Yubari (Chiaki Kuriyama), and others as they arrive at "The House of the Blue Leaves." With the people moving in slow-motion to the cool beat of Tomoyasu Hotei's "Battle Without Honor of Humanity," then Tarantino giving the film a great tracking shot following the character's around the club. Should I not forget the fight scenes? Which I say make THE MARTIX RELOADED look pale in comparision (since the MATRIX resorted to being a philosophy movie instead of action) and even surpasses the upcoming LAST SAMUARI with Tom Cruise (yes, I've already seen that film and KILL BILL's fight scenes are more impressive). And why shouldn't they be, it was advised by the legendary Woo-ping Yuen who also did all three MATRIX films and CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON. Yet, while the Wachowski focused on the complex meaning and mystery of what the Matrix is, and give less action, Tarantino gives more action and having the viewer decide the meaning, which makes the film more meaningful and
enjoyable. Don't get me wrong, I highly enjoy MATRIX and MATRIX RELOADED, but the action in those films are not as impressive as KILL BILL. Then there is the discussion of blood, is there a lot? Well, the blood ratio in this film makes PULP FICTION look like a PG13 film, and no I'm not kidding. There is blood in this film, a lot of blood. Then Tarantino hints to the audience that the blood factor shouldn't be taken seriously, such as a decapitation with blood shooting out like a fountain. That obviously could never happen, we know that and Tarantino knows it, and makes that point clearly with this film. Tarantino even makes it more clear about the violence by having a Japanesse animatied sequence showing massive blood and violence. Yet to inform the audience that it shouldn't be taken seriously. I haven't been excited watching a movie the second time around more than the first time since last years GANGS OF NEW YORK. This was one fantastic and highly entertaining film. It's a point that most Hollywood and studio filmmakers should acknowlege when it comes to filmmaking. It's not important on what the story is about, but how you tell the story. Tarantino believes in that statement and it shows with KILL BILL. My only complaint is that I could have easily watched another 100 minutes or so of this film being how entertaining it is. I will say this and stand by this comment. I think KILL BILL would be more entertaining as a whole than watching any one of the LORD OF THE RINGS films. Which isn't really a fair statement to make, but as for pacing and enjoyment, it is a true statement.
It's a shame that Tarantino doesn't release Vol. 2 by December 31st, since the quality and satisfaction Vol. 1 shows, it could have easily been a contender for this years Oscars. I might be dreaming and off in la-la land thinking of that statement, KILL BILL nominated for Best Picture, since there is a lot of violence (the Academy ignored the modern masterpiece CITY OF GOD). But hey, PULP FICTION was nominated for Best Picture. With the exception of SEABISCUIT, LOST IN TRANSLATION, RETURN OF THE KING, FINDING NEMO, MYSTIC RIVER and maybe LAST SAMUARI and MASTER AND COMMAND, is there any other film that should be nominated for Best Picture? Until then, if KILL BILL gets any awards or not, there will be a following for it for the next couple of years, making the PULP FICTION following becomming a thing of the past. ***** (out of five)