A lamentable mess for some, but for the rest of us...

Rating: 10/10 (1 November 2003)

*SPOILERS HEREIN* This is my very first commentary on IMDB.com over a motion picture. And frankly, I've never seen so much heated controversy over whether or not this film actually deserves full merit, or none at all. And me, I know I can't quite match wits or opinions with some of the others who have posted here, being a high school senior myself, but I shall try, in 1,000 words or less.
First off, something that must be made abundantly clear: THIS FILM IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. If you hate buckets of blood, obviously real OR fake, this film is not for you. The same for those who don't approve of heavy collections of different cinematic angles and gimmicks OR slightly cheesy and camped-up dialogue. However, for those of us who look past this and have the ability to see the true art behind a film's campiness (The Boondock Saints, Superman II, Ed Wood), then I HIGHLY recommend this film.
A few controversial subjects on the film I feel the need to justify.
1. The violence: As much as we hate to admit it, some of the best filmmakers of this year have proven themselves artistic through the gore they deliver on-screen. And frankly, no one has been able to pull it off better this year than Tarantino has. Unlike his previous films which deliver blood HARD, FAST and REAL, this film, rather, delivers it with good taste. Where there is an abundance of blood (as there usually is in this slash n' dash Japanese films), he overstates it with extremely fake SHOWERS of blood. And where there is but a little blood, it is performed in good taste, with a true artistic liscense. Personally, I have yet to see blood strewn out more beautifully in a motion picture than A. Go-Go Yubari `crying' tears of her own blood, and B. O-Ren Ishii's foot padding having blood trickle between her toes and on the side as well. In my opinion, Tarantino has overused the blood in this film, simply because there was no better way to deliver it AS WELL as to make it so abundant, so we really had no choice but to get use to just how much there was.
2. The cinematography: Yes, a lot of tricks and gimmicks were pulled in this film, treating us to much EYE CANDY. And yet, while it may appear as a mere distraction to some, for others, it is a feast for our optical senses. And yes, it is possible to look at all the different angles and camera tricks and say that it was simply thrown together. But for me, what I saw was Tarantino making each segment of the movie its own, as each if section was a short story (Yes, a `chapter') of a much grander story. Personally, I found the Anime to be very authentic and full of class, for what it was. The switch to black and white, then back to color, then the blue lighting.not distractions, mind you, but accentuations to scenes beautiful as they already are.
3. The setting/music: Two in one. I have personally been to Tokyo AND Okinawa, and can personally claim that this movie held VERY TRUE to its roots in these locations. There are tea bar JUST LIKE the house of blue leaves. The acting from the Japanese `thespians' was very true to form. And save the fact that it RARELY ever snows in Tokyo.other than that, I could see very little that would say to someone who knows SLIGHTLY about true modern culture in Japan `This just doesn't fit.' As for the music, VERY WELL DONE. Again, I can see how someone would consider this to be the most pathetic, cheesed-up, thrown in plate of garbage in the world. In response, all I can do is point out the ceremony of the sword: Authentic Japanese woodwinds with MARIACHI HORNS. Sorry.you just can't beat that.
4. The dialogue/plot: Campy? Indeed. Simplistic? Yes, at first sight. I mean, what could be more blunt and elementary than `Uma Thurman WILL Kill Bill?' BUT.it takes an eye to look past the first dimension of Quentin's usually flawless and realistic dialogue to see that this, like Fiction, Dogs and Brown, it IS an art film.but under a different genre. Tarantino is much like one of my favorite actors, Mr. Johnny Depp. Everything said and acted is melodramatic, over-reactive, over-stated and EXTREMELY drawn out. However, unlike the many flops of this year, the difference is how these two men perform the task of `over-acting' on PURPOSE. Tarantino purposely over-did the entire script, simply to add not only to the tribute of previous classic Marital Arts flicks of oriental descent, but also to prove that he can take a plot-line, with dialogue, which would have BOMBED with `Gigli' proportions under another director/writer.and make it work. Also.did anyone else notice a slight feeling of De Ja Vu when Uma Thurman quickly drew out a `square' with her finger in the beginning, ala `Pulp Fiction'? Meh.maybe it's just me.
To me, I consider this film an epic. Not a `Lawrence of Arabia' epic to the very least. But in it's own right, under this day and age, it is considered well done, and WILL be remembered. If for nothing else, for reminding us of a time when plot and dialogue was allowed to be cheesy as hell, and it worked. And forget what everyone else said. Personally, for having to cut the movie into two volumes, I LIKE the ending. Sure beats what we had to put up with for `Reloaded'.'What if I told you.her daughter was still alive?'
Casey's Review: 97% - A+