 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
 email this review to a friend
How can anyone give 5-stars to half a film? Review originally written 10/11/03 I saw Kill Bill earlier today. Thankfully I saw a Matinee or I would have felt even more ripped of from this shamefully stretched film It's not that Kill Bill was a bad film, but I'm more against cutting the film in half than I ever was before. This film (or first half rather) is way too short. Even with 13-minutes of credits, it barely tops 90-minutes. Unfortunately, the film doesn't seem short when you are watching it because it moves along so slowly. This is mostly to do with the fact that Tarantino doesn't seem to know when to cut a film to save his life. On the contrary, this film is so completely loaded with filler that even people who don't understand the art of editing will likely be questioning Tarantino's choice of letting a shot drag on way too long or being chock full of redundant scenes. Of course we know exactly why Kill Bill was edited this way. Because it was already foolish enough to try to pass off an 80-minute film to audiences in this day and age, especially when it's not the full film. It would be beyond imbecilic to show a 60-minute film, but that's what it should have been. This story is way over told. As an audience member, watching Kill Bill is like listening to someone tell you something you very much want to here but they are talking very, very slooowly. Get on with it already! How many times do we need to see Uma Thurman sitting in her seat on the plan with her katana (do they allow katanas on planes?) at the ready? How many times do I need to see that exterior shot of the airliner she's a passenger on that lasts for twice as long as it should? This is an action movie for crying out loud! Or so Quentin lead us all to believe. There is action in Kill Bill, but there is action in a lot of films that aren't action films. Most of the action in this film is done the American way; quick cuts and close ups. I'm rather surprised seeing that Tarantino is such a student of Asian cinema that he would film Kill Bill in such a way. The reason Americans shoot like this is because it's far easier to imply action than actually show it. And after hearing Tarantino trash the Wachowski's I was really expecting fight scenes that at least lived up to anything in The Matrix. And for a simplistic film that is basically supposed to be all fighting with little story, there's far to little action. Indeed, you really only see any impressive action in the 5th (last) chapter of the film. And while the shows big money action finale is good, it really should make you appreciate the Burly Brawl from The Matrix Reloaded that much more. But as I said, Kill Bill isn't bad. There's the definate lack of editing, far too slow pacing for an action film, a decidedly weird change to animation for one long scene in the film, a completely non-sensical decision to have the film suddenly transition to black and white through the big money finale and later change back to color at the literal blink of an eye, and the fact that most of the key action is implied rather than shown among other things, but for all it's faults most people who can stomach gallons of blood spraying out of gaping wounds, severed limbs, and headless corpses should enjoy the film. Get one thing straight, even with as much blood and violence this film contains, Kill Bill is a drama. It's not the Godfather by any means, but it is akin to the speghetti westerns by Leone (which were ironically akin to old samurai films). Tarantino does what he always does; focuses on the scene and the characters dialogue in it. Even the action scenes are simply excuses for the characters to spout their messages to each other or communicate their motivation with some sort of body language. Like all Tarantino's films, Kill Bill basically a collection of scenes full of hip, cool dialogue, all connected together to form a story. I liked Kill Bill, but I didn't drool over it. 20-minutes could have been and more importantly, SHOULD have been edited out of the final cut, and I can only guess the second volume is the same way, leading me again back to the question, why wasn't this released as a single, solid 2-hour film instead of fluffed up to 3-hours and then cut in half? email this review to a friend
Comment on this Review:
 Subscribe to MatchFlick Movie Reviews through RSS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RSS | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | About MatchFlick® | Press | Contact Us | FAQs
Partnership and Advertising Opportunities | Movie Database | Merchandise ©2004-2008 MatchFlick®. All rights reserved. ©MOVIE IMAGES ARE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED AND THE PROPERTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS |