Full of much, but not quite bloated...

Rating: Null/10 (21 November 2003)

"Kill Bill" has caused a stir among movie fans. It hasn't polarized audiences the way "Matrix:Reloaded" did earlier this year (this is only the first of many comparisons to the Matrix sequel), but this was to be expected: the majority of viewers went in to the movie expecting to love it. This is due in no small part to Quentin Tarantino's ostentatious presentation of his brand name on this film. I thought it was goofy enough for him to have "The Fourth Film by Quentin Tarantino" on all the trailers, but this phrase replaces the "directed by" credit in the opening credits.
This is nothing new, its fairly well established that Tarantino is an obnoxious, loudmouth who takes his method of assembling films out of pop culture snippets far too seriously. I don't like Quentin Tarantino the man, but try as I might I can't transfer that distaste to his movies. Yes, "Reservoir Dogs" is nothing but Hong Kong heist movies injected with Madonna references and other dialogue and imagery that Tarantino included because he thinks its "cool". But, it is cool. Its a thoroughly enjoyable movie. Then there's his tour de force, "Pulp Fiction" which is the movie that made him a house hold name. The film is clearly still juvenile and immature, but I can't help but love it. "Jackie Brown" is the other end of the spectrum, a film where you can vividly picture Tarantino behind the camera squinting in his effort to make a 'mature' movie. That is, when he's not orgasaming over how genius he is to have cast Robert Deniro in a mostly silent role. Yet "Brown" may be my favorite of the three movies.
From the first announcement of the project, `Kill Bill' was touted as being a grind house tribute, a mishmash of cinematic influences. Tarantino supposedly spent his six year hiatus renewing his love affair with cinema. It was clear that it was going to be something very different from his other movies. I read the first draft of the script that was released online, and had to love it despite the glaring departures from the Tarantino form: the script was very lax on dialogue and strong on action, and by far the most ridiculous and the most fun while taking itself deadly serious. I wanted to see the movie, I was excited to see this samurai sword epic with exaggerated kung fu sound effects and ridiculous decapitations.
The undeniable truth is this: `Kill Bill' is a good movie. Regardless of what your or my opinion is, it's a very well made movie. Even though you're aware that what you're seeing on the screen is ridiculous and outrageous and is an absolute parody.its never presented in that manner. Its all straightforward and executed in a very classy way. A friend who saw the movie with me said that the opening credits sequence went on too long, but I loved every second of it. And as far as the anime sequence is concerned, I thought it was unnecessary but very well done. I can't agree with all the people calling Tarantino a genius and pioneer and true artist for including the sequence..that's exactly what he wants.
A friend who wasn't a big fan of `Kill Bill' complained that Tarantino feels the need to skew the chronology of all of his films just to be different and `cool'. This is wrong. `Reservoir Dogs' makes use of the various flashbacks to tell the story, but that is of little consequence. `Jackie Brown' only time shifts in one scene and that is only because Elmore Leonard made use of the device in his novel. `Pulp Fiction' is the movie most people think of when confronted with Tarantino's time shifting. Is the disjointed timeline in the movie arbitrary? Not at all. If you reedited the film so that it played in chronological order, the emotional impact would be all but erased. The final scene would be Vincent getting shot coming out of the bathroom. You lose the emotional bookends that make the movie what it is. The same goes for `Kill Bill'. The movie wouldn't work if it was in chronological order. I heard plenty of complaints about the seemingly random jumps backwards four years in time. But they are the glue that hold the rest of the paper thin plot together. The fight with Vernita Green would be a yawnfest if it had followed the cinematic wonder that is The Showdown at the House of Blue Leaves.
Now the Matrix parallels. The House of Blue Leaves sequence is similar to the Burly Brawl in Reloaded, except for one key element: real people are fighting. It may be an over the top battle, but it never becomes a videogame. Comparing the two fights brings up my favorite aspect of the Blue Leaves fight: the majority of it is presented without music. Matrix obviously suffered from horrendous techno-pop music. Tarantino is well renowned for his musical selections in his film, but he really shines when he knows how to use silence. Also, both Reloaded and `Kill Bill' feature the use of samurai swords. In `Reloaded' the swords are futile, scratching a cheek at their most lethal. In `Kill Bill' limbs are liberally severed from the rest of their bodies and foes are sliced all the way down the middle. Where the Wachowski's wimped out in favor of CGI effects, Tarantino made a balls-to-the-wall action sequence. Finally, `Reloaded' has one of the worst, most laughable cliffhanger endings that I have ever seen. Many people I have spoken too disliked `Kill Bill's ending, but I think that it couldn't have been more perfect. The concluding sequence features the most impressive bouncing back and forth between different time frames that I have seen in recent memory. Instead of ending on a laughable note, it ends on a powerful one, even for me and I knew what was coming.
`Kill Bill' is extremely well executed B-movie schlock. The plot, characters and motivations are all superficial, but Tarantino once again proves to be a master of the frame. The logistical implications behind the movie's many impressive scenes are enough to tide 'film buffs' over, but `Kill Bill' is far from an empty shell.