April
14, 2004
Why
is Kill Bill, Volume 2 the most shocking film in years?
Because it is probably
the greatest sucker bet for film critics in years.
Sadly, it may well
become the ultimate "who can you really trust" document for
many, many viewers who choose to buy into the crap that has been spewed
in advance reviews.
Simply put, as a
stand alone movie, this is easily the lamest writing in the history
of Tarantino's career, offering one slightly interesting idea about
Superman's psyche that may make for good post-theater discussion, but
is not particularly well written. In fact, as the Volume of Kill
Bill that is meant to be the chatty, dialogue-driven half of this
bloated thing, it is notable for not offering even a single repeatable
piece of dialogue in it's 127 running time that is more padded in more
ways than Martin Lawrence in Big Momma's House.
You can try to turn
this turd into a fudgicle if you like. I had a post-game chat with one
smart guy who liked the movie in context of the first film. And indeed,
one film, which is all there really was here, would surely have been
better. Instead, what you get is the action-packed first half, which
will trick some audiences into thinking that Volume Two is worth paying
for, if only for some cool action. And if they sleep through Volume
Two, which is more than a little bit possible, they may believe that
they experienced something worthwhile. But they would be wrong.
I hardly know where
to start writing about this movie, since in reality, there are fewer
highlights than I can count on one hand. David Carradine is,
simply, terrible. He can't handle the dialogue and his laconic pace
turns what might have been somewhat compelling into an afternoon stuck
with your sickly grandparents. (He is a little better in the final scenes
he is in.) Michael Madsen's character is never quite as interesting
as his plastic surgery. (He looks pretty good… for Tom Sizemore.)
Daryl Hannah still can't act much. And Uma Thurman just
isn't as cool as she was in the first piece, in great part because she
is mostly a victim in this volume.
Worse, the great
Robert Richardson, who deserved an Oscar nomination for the first
film, is reduced to "so what?" status. The music, original
and classic hits, is unmemorable. Sally Menke cuts this at a
pace that could make a snail shout, "Come on… move along!"
They should patent whatever machine they built that sucked every frame
of footage off the cutting room floor and through it on screen, even
if we were seeing the same thing for the third, fourth or fifth time.
But the real shock
is the dialogue. The shock is the absolute nothing of it all. In the
first half, there were at least a dozen memorable things to walk away
from, whether you liked the movie or not. The fight in the garden, the
fight with the Krazy 88, the suburban fight interrupted by the innocent
child, Lucy Liu on the table, the animated segment, the feet,
the attempted hospital rape, the yellow motorcycle in the Japanese streets,
etc. Here, if seeing Gordon Liu wearing a white wig makes you
moist, I guess you can take that away. There is a body part that gets
squished. And there is a mid-fight exchange that is little more than
a pale reference back to the Vernita Green kitchen fight, though it
is probably the single best sustained written sequence of the film.
But not great… and that's pretty much it.
And this film cheats
the audience over and over. The Kill Bill, Volume 2 answer to
the Krazy 88 fight in Volume 1 would be to have Uma confronted with
all of these people and then to have an earthquake kill them all before
the could fight.
You'll read a lot
of tap dancing in the reviews for this film. The answer to why is simple.
Critics desperately want to keep the Tarantino train going and will
suckle whatever bosom he offers, no matter how sour or unfilling the
milk.
The result are some
truly idiotic comments, like "Daryl Hannah's Elle Driver,
who almost makes one forget Charlize Theron's Oscar-snagging
turn as Eileen Wuornos in Monster."
Or "Here's
a movie that both academics bundled in film theories and teenagers on
hot dates will find supercool."
Or "The comic
book frivolity of Volume 1 is carried into this second installment but
deftly counterbalanced by an operatic pathos that makes this one of
the most heart-poundingly visceral movies ever made."
Or "With Kill
Bill, both volumes, he wants to take us on a wild ride into the
dirty fun of movies and do it so artfully that we want to return to
the film to shake out its secrets. It's a bold swing, and Tarantino
knocks it out of the park."
Never let it be
said that I refused equal time to utter critic-wanking bullshit.
Of course, my passion
about this film is high because I am so stunned by the utter nothingness
of it all. And the extreme cynicism. Kill Bill, which should
have been a movie of just over two hours in any sane world, became two
films because it was so far over budget. And here is what they did…
they took the hot action sequences, without bothering to offer much
context, and put them in "Volume 1," creating a fan base that
would come to Volume 2's opening weekend expecting more heat… and would
get two hours of mediocre chat. (The dialogue is not even on the level
of Scott Rosenberg or bad Carrie Fisher, much less good
Tarantino.) The first film actually held up okay at the box office because
kids wanted to go back for the action. But there is so little action
here and so much waiting, while actors speak with the slow pretentiousness
of collegiate Shakespeare, Miramax is unlike to do any better than to
double their opening box office, whatever that is.
I'm sorry to feel
so strongly about this and I am even more sorry that a reader predicted
a negative review by me for this film a few weeks ago. I really, really,
really wanted to like this one. And the unanimity of the reviews that
are out made me hopeful. But there is one word that I have never been
able to use for a film that QT wrote ever before… boring. This film
isn't boring because it is talky. It's boring because nothing is being
said and in the end, all that is left is the cheapest sentimentality
possible. There are no other Tarantino films from which I cannot recite
multiple chunks of dialogue by memory. Here, I defy anyone who sees
it to repeat one. You will hear people talking about the Superman speech.
But really, in the opening sequence of Reservoir Dogs, QT did
a much better job of dissecting pop culture from a skewed viewpoint
in half the time and twice as memorably. It doesn't help that once the
idea of the Superman speech gets over, the idea is then repeated twice
again, like everything else in this film. And more to the point, people
referring to the speech will not, you'll find, offer chucks of dialogue,
but try to explain the idea behind the speech. BZZT! We all lose!
I am not being facetious
when I say that I would prefer most genre fluff to this pretentious
choke job. Having QT "present" Hero, now that I have
seen this, is a spectacular insult to Zhang Yimou, a director
who offers more in one sequence of Hero than QT manages in both
Kill Bills combined. Somehow, Hero is meant to be infinitely
more pretentious, but Volume 2 beats it by a country mile. Remember
when Quentin had a sense of humor about himself? You and I both! If
only Quentin did.
But don't tell the
other critics. They are busy chewing Quentin's cud.
E
ME: Kill Dave, Volume 2