Retarded but entertaining.

Rating: Null/10 (7 February 2007)

First of all, I am utterly bored with action movies. They are idiotic, repetitive and dull. So for someone to make a sort of homage  admittedly mixed with parody  to this genre says a lot about the person's intelligence. Tarantino, that ol' idiot savant, has great talent with the camera, and certainly can come up with an original scene or two. However: he is a moron. There isn't an iota of intellectuality in him or his movies. Not that this is at all essential in movies, because were it so, there would be about 5 good movies in the last 100 years. So to expect him to make an intelligent movie: this will never, ever happen. That he is fascinated by Asian actioners says a lot about his retardation. He has always been this childish nerd who made very good films and always will be. But while I like all his previous films, it has to be said that they are entertaining but cretinous. "Kill Bill" is his fourth and most cretinous film to date (as a director). It's also his weakest, perhaps. Rarely boring, I admit, but the action, though stylized, is still just people breaking each other's bones: not so fascinating; it's been done a zillion times. The teenage audiences would disagree, but then again, teens today have never been dumber (rap, fashion, and cell phones being the height of artistry and/or importance in their empty little lives).
The positive things about the movie are the music, which is so far the best of all his movies (I particularly hated some of it in "Pulp Fiction"; God knows why people love that awful soundtrack), the visual quality and the style, and the fact that it does maintain interest.
One of the problems I have with it is that I don't quite understand why Tarantino made a film that has comic-book Bugs-Bunny violence in it  and yet tries to make us take the main character and her mission of revenge too seriously. This simply can't work: you either make an all-out silly movie, or you make it in a serious vein, in which case you need action scenes that don't look like they came straight out of a Road Runner cartoon. But this only goes to show what a moron Tarantino is. Lucky for him that 90% of the public are about as dumb as he is, so not many are really bothered by this.
Another problem is the cast: the worst so far. I have no idea why, but apart from his first movie, "Reservoir Dogs", he has always chosen sub-par actors for his movies  with some notable exceptions. In PF he chose Travolta, Arquette, De Medeiros, Thurman Mediocrities. In BB he actually wasted his time casting Bridget Fonda and Keaton, the little twerp playing the cop. This time around, he practically employs a uniformly forgettable cast: Thurman, Carradine, Darryl Hannah Why? Two reasons: 1) It seems Tarantino definitely has a nepotism complex: he loves using sons and daughters of other actors, which maybe makes him feel closer to and hence part of Hollywood mythology and/or royalty; I know, this would be a pathetic and moronic way of thinking but, hey, it's Tarantino we're talking about; after all, when a moron like David Arquette shows up on the scene people talk about "Hollywood Royalty" (people without half a brain-cell, obviously). 2) Tarantino has revived Travolta's career and brought some other forgotten stars from the 70s (his favourite decade) into temporary spotlight. He must think that he has this power to re-juvenate the career of ANY actor that he wants; perhaps he feels that his movies are so good that any cast will be great in them. Where are the Keitels, Buscemis, Roths, Jacksons, and other good ones he used before? He doesn't have a single high-quality actor in this  in a film with plenty of (colourful - if clichéd) characters. His love for Thurman (and I mean genuine, sexual love) blinds him to the fact that she is a mediocre actress. It's a credit to him that she has been always best in his movies  but that's HER best, not worth much. Every non-Tarantino movie I'd seen her in she was mediocre or even amateurish. Typical model-turned-actress. And his private obsession with her goes so far as to film her disgusting, over-sized feet in one scene. Yuck! Does he actually think her feet are sexy? She's about 185 cm, that damn giraffe! The only potentially sexy thing about her would be her boobs  provided they're real.
If you're interested in my "Hollywood Nepotism List", with over 300 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail.