Tarantino dishes out the coldest revenge flick of them all

Rating: 9/10 (9 September 2016)

I was reminded once again throughout watching this movie of Tarantino's apparent "foot fetish", like all his other pictures with those close-up perversions. I'll be like, "Say what!?" No matter. It only seems like his idiosyncrasies only serve proof to his leaps of genius towards his "all-style" approach.
But he is more than that.
At the same time when those scenes happen (very few luckily), I was reminded yet another thing that Tarantino confidently strikes away the convention that most movies seem to have to choose between action or ideas, style or substance. It is rare for a great movie to do both but it's even rarer that a great movie can balance it with clarity and equilibrium. That elevates a "great" movie to a "masterpiece". Take for example of those brief scenes where the "Bride" sees in viewing distance of her target for vengeance after a quick cut into an overshadow flashback with urgent sounds of the importance and the actions of that target in the past. This is an action flick after all and the general audience doesn't want to waste time with stagnant, regurgitated exposition dialogue to sacrifice the pacing and momentum of the film's kinetic rhythm. Tarantino respects the audience and hence respects their intelligence for films. This intelligence is matched by the man himself. There's without question that he loves and knows the movies, and he exuberantly indulgences those classical homages and tropes as a celebration of the medium; but it always comes second to his classic Tarantino 'flavour' style. We always get a sense of his auteur; his personal creative vision that he's willing to transcend those references into something new and true. And that's the heart of where Kill Bill lies in. Just like so many of his other films, every scene sequence is so meticulously crafted with a sense of purpose and relevance the story and plot while at the same time, being polished to look as vintage as the Bride's "Pussy Wagon" vehicle, to give a childlike curiosity and enthusiasm for the movies-lovers to say "Hey! I know this reference and where it comes from!" Here's another example of how Tarantino loves to toy with the audience through creating and alternating subversive film expectations: the climax scene of the movie where the Bride fights off the Yakuza bodyguards at the restaurant. Notice how in the first sequence, Bride is only fighting one opponent at the time in a gauntlet-like fashion. There's absolutely no sense of logic in that (why not have all of them fight her at the same time?) which unsurprisingly is found in most action flicks but Tarantino makes us waitonly to spectacularly unleash us the remaining army soon afterwards with a proper sense of logic and purpose.
Tarantino isn't afraid to indulge in experimenting a multitude of styles in respects to the Japanese setting of the movie such as an- anime inspired sequence of O-Ren's backstory; an origin so violent and hyper-stylised that it's almost a disservice if it was live- action as it would dampen its aesthetic appeal. While the previously mentioned fighting climax scene at the restaurant incorporates a black-and- white photography and blue silhouette in order to maximise the "rule of cool" formula. But it's simply because it had to get pass the censors (unfortunately).
Above all, a Tarantino movie wouldn't be a Tarantino movie without the use of non-linear narrative. He uses it to great effect in the beginning with the circular narrative going forwards and backwards to add a human element to "The Bride", her motivations and a reason why we want to see the "revenge" part from the revenge flick in the first place. I'm sure actual "revenge" in real life is wrong itself. If we disregard the argument of "genre" preferences, sometimes it is how the movie is about and not what it's about. As said before, he doesn't forget the story because he believes an action sequences work better in the service of and around the plot; not the other way. Otherwise, having it backwards gives the illusion of fight- scenes as "stiff" and scripted. It's not a coincidence there's chapter titles within the film in the first place.In worst case scenario, Tarantino's over- indulgence might've been too apparent and the story (and structure) would've been nothing more than a technical exercise. Remember, even with most action movies, there's more minutes spent on the non-action scenes than the actual action scenes. Hence, the pacing and effect of the action scenes would be more effective if it had a coherent context in the first place.
Ironically, Tarantino's greatest achievement from this movie is making us forget about this in the first place. That is the sensation he creates. Isn't that why we go to a movie in a first place?