Kill Bill


Gen X Review Kill BillJarring, violent, odd scenes of brutality: Check.

Disturbing, creepy misogynistic humor: Ditto.

Disjointed narrative punctuated with effects ripped off of ‘70s TV: Yep.

Weird disco kung-fu scenes… Weird disco kung-fu scenes? It must be the new Quentin Tarantino film! 
Hollywood just can’t kill Quentin Tarantino. The uber geek has done everything but club his career to a bloody pulp, but there’s no stopping this one-man car wreck from dragging a lot of bodies down with it.

Tarantino’s character-rich mug should be in the dictionary next to the words “overexposed,” “egotistical” and “faddish.” Not since Orson Wells has one man so completely sacrificed his skills to serve his ego.

(Tarantino appeared in so many places in the 1990s that rumors circulated that he’d somehow cloned himself in a satanic ritual overseen by fellow superstar nerd Bill Gates. How else could he occupy all the seats on the Hollywood Squares at one time?)

Kill Bill Vol. 1 is T-Bone’s fourth film and it’s a fun romp through Tarantino-Land, where every fight scene comes with a go-go dancer and a gong solo and every kiss is laced with blood. Kill Bill is sort of the campy lovechild of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Charlie’s Angels, with a few virgins tossed in for chuckles.

Kill Bill is without a doubt the most fun movie of 2003. How can you argue with a film as playfully sadistic as a mousetrap?

Ostensibly the story of an ex-assassin’s search for revenge against the gang that left her for dead four years earlier, Kill Bill is actually Tarantino’s cheesy stab at Citizen Kane. Its real purpose is to showcase the stunning directorial talent of a geek genius extraordinaire. Those looking for cohesive narrative structure or satisfying resolutions should just stay home and watch television, since that’s the only good reason to turn in to Law and Order.

Therefore I’m not going to bore you by going over the film’s plot. It’s unimportant and wouldn’t give you a clear impression of what the film is like. If you feel compelled to learn more about the characters go stare at the movie’s poster for a while.

Uma Thurman. Um. Samurai swords. Ah.  Okay, time to move on….

Tarantino is to films as Picasso was to art: He cuts things up in order to put them together in more interesting ways. Figures bubble up out of the chaos only to show he has the willpower to keep things in focus if he wants to, which marks him as a kind of weenie fantasy figure. But where most of us… erm, that is… most nerds can only pretend at this level of mastery, Tarantino is the real thing.

The newest Tarantino film is a behaviorist’s wet dream, presenting internal conflicts in the most basic manner and offering only superficial motivation. Working without a framing narrative, or with one so rudimentary as to be discarded in one sentence (that sentence being “Uma Thurman. Um. Samurai swords. Ah.”) Kill Bill is all about the body in motion – A stylized pornocopia of violence.

Like Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, Kill Bill uncovers the ordinary in the heart of violence. Even killers have to use the bathroom and assassins eat Capt. Crunch cereal, too. Tarantino uses these scenes to disturb expectations and undercut dramatic moments, postponing the audience’s satisfaction.

The film is so fresh and new that it threatens to disappear off the screen. The color is in constant flux and the film goes to black and white without warning. Scenes begin in real life and end in anime or so weirdly stylized that they feel like they’re the work of a 19th century expressionist, not some creepy grade-school dropout.

This novelty-at-all-cost credo does work against the film sometimes. Although the timing is brilliant, it can grate on you and the tricks are sometimes irritating. True story: The film cell became dislocated during the lead-up sequence to the best fight scene of the film, so that Uma’s feet were on top and her lower torso took up the lower portion of the screen. Ah, thought I, how strange. What can it mean? Is Tarantino putting us in the position of a foot fetishist? Is he deconstructing the action scene, showing us that what appears to be solid is actually many moving parts working is concert?

(Of course it was all just a trick to make me personally feel stupid and eventually some pimply slacker picked the camera off the floor.)

The point is there’s no trust with Tarantino. He’ll show you a good time, but don’t expect a box of chocolates and don’t wait up for a goodnight kiss. If you’re looking for a benevolent older man who will show you some good times, maybe guide you through some life-lessons, consult the classifieds.

Tarantino is a modern Marquis De Sade in ray-bans and wing-tip shoes.


Add comment

Security code

Want another opinion? Roger Ebert is one of my favorite reviewers and a personal hero.

Interested in hearing more? Download the eBook bound to change your life for $2.50 by clicking here!

Buy Now