April 15, 2004

A couple of times each year, a film will strike me in a very specific way… as a sucker bet. These are films that certain critics embrace, coddle and caress and which I feel are objectively unworthy of that praise. I did not feel that way about Kill Bill: Volume 1, which I felt was overrated, but whose charms were apparent. I was resentful of the split of the two films and the subsequent lie that it was a purely artistic conceit. And I was certainly disturbed by the acceptance of things in the film that would never be accepted in the work of 99% of filmmakers. Shallow exercises are fine… but they aren't a cause for parades. Nonetheless, I saw the charms that many feel under.

My experience of Volume 2 was set up by a shocking unanimity of reviews… reviews that were sought by Miramax… while almost every one I read seemed to be apologizing as often as they were spraying praise of a level that is rarely found. Yesterday's column was, indeed, somewhat an antidote to all of that. But most of all, it was what it said it was… a shocked response to a shockingly boring and irrelevant film from one of the most interesting minds in the business.

There were many e-mails of support. And I thank you all. But the majority was made up of outraged readers who offered more concern about my arrogance than about the movie. I get it. But I find myself unable to apologize. It is, simply, easier for me to understand a rave for The Alamo than one of these "it's genius" reviews of Volume 2. They didn't see "a different movie" than I did. They saw the same. And they are welcome to like it, love it or worship it. There are few if any objective standards in criticism. But when I read people bending themselves into pretzels, in the context of their body of work and in the context of the history of film, and I cannot find more than a tiny inkling of justification for it in the work itself, I take offense.

Directly after seeing the film, in the company of critics that I like and respect, I ranted and raved and left little room for disagreement. But as disagreeable as I was, neither of the men or their friends put up more than a small fight. A couple liked the film better than I did, but no one went to the extremes that some of these critics went to in their early reviews. And in none of these reviews did I find real support for the very powerful comments - every bit as powerful as mine were yesterday - that made me understand what they say that they thought was so exceptional. And I was looking. If someone likes something, they like something and nothing I say or write will change that. But my ranting yesterday was not about "liking" KBV2… it was about people using words like "masterpiece."

Anyway… I'm going to give this over to the letter writers now.

READERS OF THE DAY

CP writes: "Oh well...i guess you're a movie deity, and we should all follow your opinion (aka universal truth) like a satanic cult. What a sad thing that would be..."

THE COG writes: "Read your review of Kill Bill Vol. 2. Having not yet seen that movie, I'll reserve judgment on that film until I see it. But, regarding your review . . . is Vol. 2 really that bad? Or, were your expectations overly high based on Vol. 1? Expectations that one could argue were as high as those you had for Matrix Revolutions. My question is this; you had the capacity to write article upon article regarding Matrix Reloaded (articles, by the way that I found quite interesting) and what it all meant, and further you even speculated about how profound Revolutions would be based on all the
perceived multi-layered set-up in Reloaded. But the fact remains Revolutions hardly lived up to your expectations or many peoples' for that
matter. But where was your caustic review of that film? Where was your disappointment with those directors? If memory serves me, you seemed to dismiss Revolutions with a lame "enough has been written about that movie."

If I could guess, knowing you put a lot on the line with your articles regarding Reloaded, you couldn't bring yourself to either 1) admit the Revolutions didn't nearly live up to the set-up in Reloaded (and in doing so admit by implication you were wrong about Reloaded) or 2) attacking Tarantino and Vol 2. sells better than doing the same with the Wachowskis and the D.O.A Revolutions. Or maybe a little of both? Makes me question your credibility as a reviewer when you can treat two seemingly similar situations so differently."

DAVID RESPONDS: Actually, I treat every film quite individually. I don't think I put anything on the line with my Matrix articles. I just wrote about something that interested me and that I felt offered an opportunity for me to add to the conversation. The reason I never really wrote about Revolutions is that I never really wanted to. The third chapter was kind of perfect in its own way, but quite simplistic, really. There was nothing left to say. As regards Kill Bill, it ranks as my greatest film disappointment since Gangs of New York, just ahead of Seabiscuit. I have always held Tarantino to be one of the great dialogue writers of all time, even if his sense of context is forever steeped in regurgitation and a failure of original ideas. Not here. And I am still waiting for someone… anyone… to offer me one revelatory filmmaking moment in this film.

JAN-NIX writes: "Ummm, Dave… Where are those rules of criticism that you swore you'd adhere to? Could you repost them so I can see how many you broke in this one review?"

DAVID RESPONDS:: Right here. I would say that most of the critics I quoted yesterday broke every rule. And if I broke any, it was the "furthermore" at the end. I may be a prick sometimes, but I believe in the principles of those rules and live by them even when enraged.

ANOTHER CROW writes: "I definitely take your opinion of Kill Bill Volume 2 with a gigantic grain of salt. If my memory serves me, you weren't near a fan of the first volume, and I think you've been very anti-Tarantino lately. You giving Kill Bill Volume 2 a negative review was as predictable as you giving The Passion a negative review.

Obviously I don't know whether you are right or wrong about your summation of Kill Bill because I haven't seen it, so I can't start screaming at you. I do know that Roger Ebert loved it, and I respect his opinion more than any critics in the country, but I'll see it myself this wkend and make my decision.

With regards to Tarantino though, I feel like you have some sort of chip on your shoulder when it comes to him. Face it, the guy makes some of the most interesting movies that come out of Hollywood, that is, when he makes movies. He's a super talent who's filmography is actually becoming pretty diverse to a point (crime, epic, character piece, action). He's probably the best director around, and though you continue to kill him over his budgets, his attitude or his ego, that doesn't change the fact that I'd rather see a shitty Tarantino movie than most any other movie out. I like the dissenting voice that you give on him, but I find it somewhat forced, as if you are trying to make a stink because everyone else loves him. That's cool, but it kinda kills your cred when it comes to reviewing his flicks."

DAVID RESPONDS: You are welcome to your opinion. And if you think Tarantino is the best director around, we are sure to disagree about a lot of things. One of the 50 best maybe. But then again, I think I probably respect the work of other directors a bit more than you.

DREIDEL writes: "Dave, you are usually pretty level-headed. And you seem to be outraged (and rightly so) when someone accuses you of being false, pretentious, phony (or whatever else critics are accused of) when you say you like a film that may not be popular to others...when others simply disagree with you. So why the vehement calling out of critics on Kill Bill Vol. 2...isn't it POSSIBLE...they...actually...liked...the...film? I guess not. You did the same thing on Vol. 1 stating critics were giving QT a pass. This time your take is more amplified...a lot more amplified.

I am not a critic. I love movies. And I loved the shit out of Vol. 1. I read the script 2 years ago. I dug the script, it seemed like it would make a cool, fun flick. But Vol. 1 surpassed all expectations. It was filmmaking of the highest order...yes, it's a slasher flick. But it was made with so much obvious passion, you feel it in your own bones. Well, maybe not you. You didn't feel it. That's fine. Ebert feels it. Film Threat felt it. Roeper felt it. Variety felt it. Hollywood Reporter...Entertainment Weekly...whoever. Hey, I didn't feel Undercover Brother like you. I thought it was okay, but way overrated. But I didn't think you or Harry Knowles or a surprising number of critics who dug the flick were being phony. I HATED Irreversible. I hated, hated, hated that movie. But I will not accuse someone else of being a phony for liking it. That is what you are calling your fellow writers, Dave...phonies. They are phonies for liking a movie that you do not. You say there is no reason to like the film, and yet their reviews are their reasons. If those reasons do not sit well with you, so be it. I'm sorry there were not enough quotes of dialogue in their reviews, Dave. You know, you loved Lost In Translation...and I don't see a single quote of dialogue in your initial review for that film.

I loved Vol. 1. I don't consider it a "quotable" movie. In fact it is Tarantino's least quotable movie he's made. But it's one of my absolute favorites of his. I'm pretty positive I will love Vol. 2...not because I know I want to love it...let me let you in on something...I wasn't sure Kill Bill worked when I first started reading it...I was thinking, "what is this??" but as it continued, it grabbed me and somewhere along the line, it connected- by the time the script went into the Origin Of O-Ren Ishii, I was Tarantino's bitch. But I guess I'm a phony too, Dave. I guess I didn't really love Vol. 1. When I see Vol. 2 and if I love it...I guess the love isn't going to be real, no matter what my heart is telling me...it will be as phony as any other critic you quoted in your article today. We're all a bunch of big fat phonies."

DAVID RESPONDS: Boy, you are assuming a lot about those critics and you are taking on a lot of responsibility that I am not putting on you. You have no responsibility at the movies other than to have your experience and feel how you feel. Professional film critics, on the other hand, do have a responsibility. And again, it is not about liking Kill Bill. If people were simply giving positive reviews to this film, I would not really care and surely, my writing last night would have been less intense. But someone needs to be willing to call out the emperor for his nakedness. I would be more than willing to sit with any of the raving critics and if they could offer any real insights as to what the "felt" about V2, I would bow to that… that is, other than creaming their jeans over Tarantino's ability to trace over film history and repeat gags that turn critics on because they get them while the regular public tends not to. Love what you want. But of you want to tell me it's genius, you had better have a real reason to offer if you want to tango with me.

ER, PHONE HOME writes: "Your treatise on Kill Bill Vol. 2 hit a nerve, not so much because you tore down a movie I really like, but because you tore down the people who liked it, essentially calling them fools for doing so. As one of the "suckers" who is blithely chewing Quentin's cud, I take umbrage at that.

If you were horribly disappointed by the movie, that's fine. I totally disagree with you, and I'm sorry you didn't get the same kick out of it that I did. But the vibe I got reading your column was, "I hated it and I see this steaming pile for what it truly is, while the people who like it are a bunch of sycophantic sheep who want to massage Tarantino's feet." Forgive me if I misread you, but that struck me as arrogant as all get-out.

Let's take a look at some of these "suckers" you quoted:

"Here's a movie that both academics bundled in film theories and teenagers on hot dates will find supercool."--Granted, this came from a rave, but that line could have been taken from someone slamming the film. Put the words "What a shame" after that, and the meaning of the first sentence is still the same. It predicts that academics and teens will both like it. I bet he's right. Is he really a sucker?

"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."---OK, so he/she puts it on a bit of a pedestal, but what are you saying here? That because you think the movie not at that level, anyone who does is a moron who must be blind? Please.

"Daryl Hannah's Elle Driver, almost makes one forget Charlize Theron's Oscar-snagging turn as Eileen Wuornos in Monster."---OK, I agree that's a stretch and rather silly. But "moron" seems out of line to me.

We all have our disagreements in which we sail alone against the tide. Usually about once a year there's a movie the critics go bananas over that I just can't get into. "The Deep End" was one. "The Triplettes of Belleville" was another. I may read some of those reviews and shake my head and mutter, "You gotta be kiddin' me." I might even make a smart-ass remark. But I never thought of those critics as "suckers." Sometimes I thank critics fall too hard for originality alone. But if I disagreed with them, I RESPECTFULLY disagreed with them.

So you thought Quentin wasn't at his best here. That's all well and good. I disagreed with Denby too, but at least he didn't take potshots at those who didn't see the same movie he did. When you write these kind of spiteful rants, you're not at your best either, Dave."

DAVID RESPONDS: Maybe. Or maybe I am telling the greatest truth when I write this way. I feel strongly both ways. And I do believe that there are suckers bet movies for critics. I did not invent the bandwagon. But I sure as hell know when people are piling onto it. As I always say to one friend, as soon as I hear the phrase "everybody knows," I know that I am about to have a load of crap thrown in my direction. "Everybody" doesn't know anything. There are critics, like Armond White, with whom I disagree often. But in what often seems like insanity, I find insightful and sustaining ideas, even when I disagree with the larger context.

But when I see a unanimous series of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, proclaiming a sadly unfulfilling film as an epic of genius, I will not be silenced by the hand-selected vocal majority. I will speak. And I will speak with a directness and abruptness that decorum rarely affords me. I am loathe to make this reference, as I have always felt the movie from which it came was overrated and over time, it has become the subject of excessive derision, but "Snap out of it!"

E ME: Yeah? What?!?!