Change Your Image
endeyequote
=====
-good films-
the life aquatic
se7en
burn after reading
princess mononoke
beetlejuice
full metal jacket
ghostbusters
eternal sunshine
darjeeling limited
ed wood
ghost in the shell
seven samurai
the departed
hellraiser
wall-e
the devil's rejects
the host
blazing saddles
no country for old men
gangs of new york
-good shows-
the wire
futurama
lost
ranma
carnivale
time & eric
venture bros.
mythbusters
planet earth
eastbound & down
frisky dingo
dirty jobs
aquateen
law & order
colbert report
realtime
fraggle rock
-good music-
pinkfloyd
tool
rem
deftones
led zepplin
massive attack
skinny puppy
faith no more
nine inch nails
arcadefire
nirvana
tv on the radio
saul williams
joy division
wutang
deltron
the pixies
allman bros.
the doors
cream
jimi hendrix
the beatles
-good books-
battle royale
the wasp factory
slaughterhouse five
watership down
the road
the books of blood
it
house of leaves
lullaby
the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy
animal farm
flatland
fear and loathing
pulp
choke
needful things
lord of the flies
torture the artist
the stand
1984
cat's cradel
his dark materials
neuromancer
===
==
Reviews
Halloween II (2009)
like staring at a blank wall
Where do I begin when it comes to Rob Zombie's Halloween 2?
Well first I should say that this review has virtually nothing positive to say about the movie. That does not mean I am trying to hate or troll, I hate trolls. I am just attempting to detail my opinion of the movie, which unfortunately, was not very good.
When I walked out of the movie I tried really hard to place how I felt, and what occurred to me is that I felt like I had just left a doctor's office where I was made to wait in the waiting room staring at all wall for two hours (which happens to me at one doctor in particular all the time).
Does this mean I hate the movie? Not exactly. I can't say it was a bad movie and I can't say it was a good movie either. Staring at a blank wall really is the perfect analogy. Why? Well because this movie offered absolutely nothing new or different to realm of movies much less the genre of horror.
A sequel to a remake. What does that mean? Nothing in reality. If the quality of the movie is good, to me it doesn't matter the source. Sure we have been inundated with way too many remakes, too many movies that were way to derivative of things that have come before, but on occasions even those have been excellent movies. (an example of this would be The Ring and Ringu, the movie which it remade. Imho The Ring is a better movie).
Saying that I am making it known I tried to walk in without any preconceived notions, though I had a feeling that it may not end up being very good. I dismissed that so I could go in unbiased. I am a fan of Rob Zombie and Halloween. I dug House of 1000 Corpses, thought Devils Rejects was incredible, and though I know a lot of people didn't like it, I enjoyed his Halloween and his take on it. And I am a big fan of Halloween 1,2,4&5. I went to show support and with hope that it would exceed expectations. I even went on my own because I know not a single person who wanted to see it, and I have a lot of big horror and rob zombie fans as friends.
So as I said, this movie offered nothing new at all. It was a series of recycled ideas, concepts, and scenes from so many horror movies that came before, pieced together in a different order, but still just a carbon copy of 40 years worth of horror.
The movie was filmed well, lit well, cut well, the actor's performances, while not mind-blowing, were decent enough. The pieces were all there, what was missing was a good story and an original and unique film.
The only reason I am even bothering writing this out is because I feel that it is sort of a sad thing have had happened. Rob Zombie was given free reign to do anything he wanted with the sequel, a freedom he did not have in the first film. This was the reason I wanted to see it, and despite the negative buzz, wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. With his ability to take the plot anyway he wanted I was hoping to get something that would surprise everyone who assumed it would be terrible, but was sadly disappointed.
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
The Curse of Lowered Expectations...
There is malignant growth that has been growing and festering within the movie industry and in the minds of movie goers within in recent years. It has a name: lowered expectations. And in a most disturbing way this malignancy has reared its ugly head with the release of Alien Vs. Predator.
Let me preface this argument by saying I am huge fan of the Alien and Predator movies. All of them. Including the ones that many people believe are sub par, like Predator 2, Alien3, and Alien Resurrection. In defense of those I say they are terribly underrated and suffer from the fact that they are very different from the ones that proceeded them. It is the change of style and flavor that irked many viewers, but not the actual quality of the films. Predator 2 being moved into a city setting dissatisfied many people, but taken on its own its still an excellent movie. The same is true for drastic changes in the last two Alien movies. Each film, individually, has its merits and has a place within the series and the mythos.
Back on point, the movie Alien Vs. Predator shamed its predecessors in many ways. But Alien Vs. Predators pitfalls and failings are not what I wish to discuss. Raging debate has ensued on many message boards and sci-fi printings as to whether or not people expected too much of the film. The argument for those who say the movie is passable is a simple one: that the audience expected too much of the film going in. This argument has a gigantic flaw, however. That flaw is called integrity. To those who thought that the movie was a passable entry into the series as long as one lowered their expectations I say this: why should the audience have to lower their standards in order to enjoy a film? Why must we become mindless drones for the movie industry to feed glitz, sex, and explosions too in order to now enjoy a series that was held to a high standard of quality in the sci-fi industry before? Why do we wish to continue to sit back and be fed, to be vulgar, crap, so that the industry can skimp on quality in favor of glamour?
Hollywood and the film industry in general is turning a corner. They are increasingly putting the focus on a marketable product rather than a quality one. This itself, however, doesn't make a lot of sense, because this philosophy has increasingly proved that it ultimately hurts a films ticket sales rather than help. Alien Vs. Predator may have made the number 1 spot this week, but its sales dropped dramatically from Friday to Saturday, which is actually extremely rare. Usually a weekend release does better numbers on Saturday than it does of Friday. It took one day for movie goers to tell people they knew that this movie was not worth seeing. It is likely that next week the movie will drop several, if not many, spots. If, however, the Fox had delivered a quality movie the word of mouth would have led people in greater numbers to attend the film on Saturday. That is the key: word of mouth. That is why Saturday does better than Friday, because many movie goers enjoy going opening weekend, but most want to see what their friends thought first. They wait for the most important review they will ever hear: those of people they know and trust. Not reviews on websites or in the paper, and not from cleverly cut trailers. So in the end the sub par product not only cheapens the theatre experience for movie goers, but hurts the entire industry because virtually every failed movie has an effect. In the time when movies on average cost between 20-150 million to make, every single failed feature impacts the industry to some degree. In the run for the quick buck many in the industry have lost sight of the long term picture. A bad movie affects their pockets for a long time to come. Fewer people see it more than once, fewer people attend in general, and in the end, fewer people by the dvds, and movie stations will pay less to air the film.
The Alien and Predator movies had always strived to be gritty, horrific, and frightening, while throwing a good balance of action. Some pulled this off better than others, but all did an admirable job at doing so. The movies also tried to be as realistic as a scf-fi movie could attempt to be, and to blend in amazing characters in rich well thought out environments. All of this was lacking in Alien Vs. Predator. Now the argument to save the film, as I have said, is a simple one: Why expect so much? And my answer: Why expect less? One should not lament on what could have been and be satisfied with an insufficient product. One should let themselves be annoyed that the industry increasingly insults our intelligence and their own integrity by expecting us to lower our standards of what a movie could be just so we can enjoy it. Remember this: you are PAYING for the movie. You are the customer. If you go to a restaurant and get a crappy meal do you lower your expectations and go back? No you don't, you don't eat there again is what you do. The longer the industry is intent on satisfying their profit margins rather than their customers the longer the movies they release will be less than quality entertainment and the more their profit margins, will ultimately, be hurt. This plague of lower standards is not just applicable for Alien Vs. Predator, and it is not exclusive to the movie industry. It is spreading across the board from television, to music, to literature, and even to news and media coverage. All of the entertainment and news industry is beginning to bare the stench of lowered expectations and those who cater to it.
It is time to stop having to walk into a movie thinking it will be horrible in order for one to enjoy it. Its time to stop watching bad television because 'it's the only thing on', or to accept inadequate news reporting just because its being reported to you by established news agencies. Don't accept what is being given to you. Take a stand. When you see a movie that was horrible, tell your friends. Turn off your TV or at least change the station when you are given a low quality product. Spread the word. The longer we lower our standards for the industry the longer they give us a product that is meant for only those level of standards.
Everyday People (2004)
a snapshot of life...
That is how i see this movie: like a living photograph. There is not much going on plot wise, and nothing epic occurs at all, but this movie is engrossing just the same. It is a quick look into the lives of these people, and an unabashed, unbiased look at race relations.
To begin with, this largely unknown cast gives a fine performance. In particular i enjoyed Billoah Greene as Samel and Reg E. Cathey as Akbar. Samel was perhaps the most interesting character in the movie because, more than any of the others, he brakes through stereotypes. He is a young black man, but he has a white foster mother whom he greatly respects, he is smart, and not a womanizer. He represents in this movie, i feel, hope and forward movement in today's society, and the idea that things can get better. The interaction with him and the elderly man at the counter was one of the three most powerful in the movie (the other two being the mother and the daughter interaction and the interaction in the end between the corporate man and the older woman). All three of those interactions depicted the gap in generations trying to communicate with each other in varying degrees of positive and negative. His interaction showed a very positive and understanding interaction and seemed to show that these two very different people, only knowing each other for a few moments, could come to some understanding of what the other was about. This is opposed to the two other interactions that stalled and broke down as the characters were unwilling to accept each other. Samel stands in a stark contrast to the hoodlums show in the movie. He is also the opposite to Akbar who has lost hope completely but seems to be trying to convince himself that there is still some. It is as if his overly pro-black talk is more for himself to hear than anyone else and that he is trying to convince himself that what the corporate man said is not true, but what sadly is true in many inner city areas. Being white and from New York both these characters, in their actions and motivations was, for me, a powerful insight into the black male perspective in 21st century America.
The other life glimpses were profound as well. The single very young mother realizing that she has to resort to degrading herself just to make ends meet, while barely getting to see the son she is doing it for; the corporate man trying to find peace between what some see as selling out his roots and what he sees as the inevitable evolution of the city; the woman trying to make it the business world with an overabundant contempt for white people and her own black roots; the elderly men with families who are coming to realize that their lives have amounted to very little and the simple act of losing a low paying job could ruin even that; and the washed up ex-con who wants the life he threw away back. Overall these were brilliantly thought out caricatures and expertly played.
Before we go giving all the praise to the actors one cannot forget the writer/director. I have not had the privilege to see Jim McKay's previous two films, but based on the reviews, and what i have seen here in everyday People, he shows a strong ability to capture the images and essence of people of all races, religions, and ages. He has a keen understanding of the personal mind, the human condition, the collective unconscious, and how the three interact in the modern world on the everyday level of the average person. He also showed the slow death of 20th century America at the hands of 21st corporate America in ways so subtle it was brilliant. A good example of this is when the corporate man comments, while sitting in a genuine New York diner, that the Hard Rock Cafe will come in and bring real diner food to the neighborhood. He then goes on to chide the simple fact that he has been given free coleslaw and pickles with his meal. This showed so easily his utter ignorance to everyday America and to the lower working class. New York diners are considered some of the best in the world, and you always get a pickle and coleslaw with your meal so this comment illustrated that the corporate man may never have even set foot in a diner before then, which was a profound comment in and of itself. Aside from his screen writing he has a good director's eye for setting up his scenes to show contrast between interacting characters, and of the environments they cohabitate. I look forward to see where his skill takes him next and what he will have to give us in the future.
I find myself drawing a natural comparison between this and Monster's Ball, as Everyday People seems to deal with many of the same issues that it did. Monster's Ball was a big budget attempt at the same type of snapshot of life movie. I felt, next to Everyday People, that Monster's Ball was dry and forced, and handled by people who have been long out of touch with the types of characters they tried to create. Everyday People, with its low budget and its unknown actors, didn't let itself get distracted by its own weight and rolled out very naturally, as if you yourself could have been sitting in the restaurant simply observing these people.
A really good dramatic piece that feels almost documentive feature rather than a film, which is a testament to how close it came to its intent. I definitely recommend this film to anyone who wants a bit of an insight on lives they may never see or interact with.
9 out of 10
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
left, right, left, right, left, right
Michael Moore is a lot of things, but probably the most important is a strongly left minded political force. Bush is the opposite. Now i am not for Bush, or, on the whole, republicans. But that does not make me a democrat. In the USA we are limited to our choice between these two extremes. With that said, while i do believe Bush needs to be taken out of office in a very bad way, one shouldn't let their disgust for one side, in this case the political right, allow them to be sold on an equally elitist point of view from the opposite side, in this case the political left. Michael Moore uses the same scare and shock tactics his opponents do, he just uses them to further his political view. That is not always a bad thing on either side, sometimes the best way to get people's attention and to get them talking is to give them a shock of reality. The question then lies in: what is reality, Moore's version, or the ruling Republican version?
If Moore makes one think that is good. If Moore makes one question that is good. If he makes one do their own research that is good. What is dangerous is if one easily buys into what he says as easily as some buy into the ruling power in the US today.
Go see this film no matter who you are and do it with an open but cautious mind. Don't let others make decisions for you, or let them force their opinions on you. Educate yourself. Vote. Either way you do, let your decision count.
Batoru rowaiaru II: Chinkonka (2003)
An Unfocused Mess
Many spoilers lie here in.
I was a big fan of Battle Royale - so much so that i read the book it was based on and it is now my favorite book of all time, anybody who hasn't read it should. It goes into much more detail on virtually every kid on the island, and the whole point of the story - why Battle Royale takes place - is completely different and incredibly more profound. It is 1984 meets Lord of the Flies - it is amazing.
So with that said - i went into watching Battle Royale 2 with high hopes and was severely let down. I didn't dislike this movie because it was so different than the first - I knew in the onset it would be. I really liked the concept of taking a class and sending them after Shuya just to screw with him. The sort of government portrayed in the first movie would do something just like that. I really enjoyed the scene with the white line - i liked the concept of them getting to chose - added a whole new level on vileness to Battle Royale. I had no problem with how quickly the kids got wasted, the way the story was set up it made perfect sense. And i liked that the daughter of the teacher from the first movie was out for blood - because she had hated her father and that was really an interesting side plot in this one. In fact i was enjoying this movie up until one point. That is when they were captured by Shuya's crew.
At this point the movie completely lost all focus - to the point of making almost no sense at all.
Before i get into the problems with the ploy i have one film making complaint. The whole storming the beach scene was far too reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan, from the camera angels, to the washed out color, to the jerky camera. It felt way to derived. I wouldn't have had a problem with it had that not been the only place in the movie it was done. As a result it stuck out like a sore thumb. I'm sure this could have been done in a much more original way.
now the plot
First of all - why would they hold up on an island where they would just be sitting ducks? The logic is just not there at all.
Second, I'm sorry I know this isn't Battle Royale 1, but the character of Shuya as portrayed in the movie and book would NEVER have taken thousands of innocent lives. That is not fighting for what you believe at any cost - that is just genocidal. The Shuya in the first movie and in this one were two very different characters. I know that what happened to him would have changed him - but it wouldn't have changed him into a homicidal lunatic. I found myself feeling no sympathy for him at all. It wasn't the adults who let this happen, it was a corrupt government. This whole kids vs. adults theme just became silly and contrived and after awhile didn't even make much sense.
Third - the teacher this time was INCREDIBLY overacted. That was one of the worst performances i have ever seen. And again, the scene where he shows up in the end in a rugby uniform, made absolutely no sense, and just came off as comical. And the whole bit with him having a collar? What? Who else missed something there?
Fourth - i found the digs at the US didn't fit into the plot at all. i know that many countries around the world don't have high opinions of us Americans, and i have no problem with that - from their perspective it is very justified. In the beginning when the teacher made that list of countries at first i thought that this could turn out to be a really interesting plot. But it went no where. They never explained its relevance to Battle Royale or what was going on in Japan. And in the end when they were going to attack Japan just because of what Shuya said - it made even less sense, and had even less to do with the plot. They further went on to suggest that somehow Battle Royale was in part the fault of the US because Japan sat by and let the US do whatever they wanted - this again made no sense.
Fifth and final - even though there are many more complaints ill leave it here. Already i said why would they go to and island and corner themselves, but why would they then refuse to leave? If they really want to make a difference what good are they all going to dead? This follows no logic at all.
This movie had a lot of potential, but out of no where it was like the movie forgot what it was about.
Now i know that in Japanese cinema there is a lot placed on the subtext of a movie and to the symbolism as well, maybe being American i just don't get it, I'm willing to concede that as a possibility. Like the movie Suicide club, i didn't get it at all, but i couldn't say its a bad movie, i just realize that i cant fully understand a lot of its symbolism and imagery, the societal translation is just lacking. But BR2 is a bit different. I felt i understood exactly what it was trying to get at - but it just lost all its balance.
Well that's that. Sorry i through around "made no sense" a lot - but i cant really think of any other way to really put most of the problems in this movie.
The last thing i will say is this: this is just my opinion. The boards here seem to be holding a steady 50/50 point of view on this film. The relative 5.0 rating further prooves that - although it recently dropped to 4.9 so the dissenters are ahead just a bit. It seems that some people really thought this film was amazing. That is great for them i am glad they enjoyed it - so that said see it for yourself and decide for yourself. Never let someone elses opinion decide for you.
my score: 3 out of 10
Batoru rowaiaru II: Chinkonka (2003)
An Unfocused Mess
Many spoilers lie here in.
I was a big fan of Battle Royale - so much so that i read the book it was based on and it is now my favorite book of all time, anybody who hasn't read it should. It goes into much more detail on virtually every kid on the island, and the whole point of the story - why Battle Royale takes place - is completely different and incredibly more profound. It is 1984 meets Lord of the Flies - it is amazing.
So with that said - i went into watching Battle Royale 2 with high hopes and was severely let down. I didn't dislike this movie because it was so different than the first - I knew in the onset it would be. I really liked the concept of taking a class and sending them after Shuya just to screw with him. The sort of government portrayed in the first movie would do something just like that. I really enjoyed the scene with the white line - i liked the concept of them getting to chose - added a whole new level on vileness to Battle Royale. I had no problem with how quickly the kids got wasted, the way the story was set up it made perfect sense. And i liked that the daughter of the teacher from the first movie was out for blood - because she had hated her father and that was really an interesting side plot in this one. In fact i was enjoying this movie up until one point. That is when they were captured by Shuya's crew.
At this point the movie completely lost all focus - to the point of making almost no sense at all.
Before i get into the problems with the ploy i have one film making complaint. The whole storming the beach scene was far too reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan, from the camera angels, to the washed out color, to the jerky camera. It felt way to derived. I wouldn't have had a problem with it had that not been the only place in the movie it was done. As a result it stuck out like a sore thumb. I'm sure this could have been done in a much more original way.
now the plot
First of all - why would they hold up on an island where they would just be sitting ducks? The logic is just not there at all.
Second, I'm sorry I know this isn't Battle Royale 1, but the character of Shuya as portrayed in the movie and book would NEVER have taken thousands of innocent lives. That is not fighting for what you believe at any cost - that is just genocidal. The Shuya in the first movie and in this one were two very different characters. I know that what happened to him would have changed him - but it wouldn't have changed him into a homicidal lunatic. I found myself feeling no sympathy for him at all. It wasn't the adults who let this happen, it was a corrupt government. This whole kids vs. adults theme just became silly and contrived and after awhile didn't even make much sense.
Third - the teacher this time was INCREDIBLY overacted. That was one of the worst performances i have ever seen. And again, the scene where he shows up in the end in a rugby uniform, made absolutely no sense, and just came off as comical. And the whole bit with him having a collar? What? Who else missed something there?
Fourth - i found the digs at the US didn't fit into the plot at all. i know that many countries around the world don't have high opinions of us Americans, and i have no problem with that - from their perspective it is very justified. In the beginning when the teacher made that list of countries at first i thought that this could turn out to be a really interesting plot. But it went no where. They never explained its relevance to Battle Royale or what was going on in Japan. And in the end when they were going to attack Japan just because of what Shuya said - it made even less sense, and had even less to do with the plot. They further went on to suggest that somehow Battle Royale was in part the fault of the US because Japan sat by and let the US do whatever they wanted - this again made no sense.
Fifth and final - even though there are many more complaints ill leave it here. Already i said why would they go to and island and corner themselves, but why would they then refuse to leave? If they really want to make a difference what good are they all going to dead? This follows no logic at all.
This movie had a lot of potential, but out of no where it was like the movie forgot what it was about.
Now i know that in Japanese cinema there is a lot placed on the subtext of a movie and to the symbolism as well, maybe being American i just don't get it, I'm willing to concede that as a possibility. Like the movie Suicide club, i didn't get it at all, but i couldn't say its a bad movie, i just realize that i cant fully understand a lot of its symbolism and imagery, the societal translation is just lacking. But BR2 is a bit different. I felt i understood exactly what it was trying to get at - but it just lost all its balance.
Well that's that. Sorry i through around "made no sense" a lot - but i cant really think of any other way to really put most of the problems in this movie.
The last thing i will say is this: this is just my opinion. The boards here seem to be holding a steady 50/50 point of view on this film. The relative 5.0 rating further prooves that - although it recently dropped to 4.9 so the dissenters are ahead just a bit. It seems that some people really thought this film was amazing. That is great for them i am glad they enjoyed it - so that said see it for yourself and decide for yourself. Never let someone elses opinion decide for you.
my score: 3 out of 10
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Don't go see a movie you are not going to understand and then proceed to bash it.
Let me first say this: this movie was FANTASTIC. Don't let the title i gave my review mislead you. That title is directed at all the people here who have submitted nonsensical reviews.
KILL BILL is, from start to finish, a bloody master piece. Those who didn't like it simply didn't get it.
Tanatino's favorite films are old school Sonny Chiba/Bruce Lee-esque ultra violent movies classics. Anybody who has seen said films will know, as bloody as Kill BIll is, it does not even come close to some of those old classics.
SPOILERS LOOM AHEAD - YE BE WARNED
KILL BILL is a movie that blends together Tarantino's engrossing cinematic style with the favs of old school martial arts flicks with ease and genius. Tarantino was looking for nothing more here than to bring to the big screen for a mass audience in present day the sort of film that inspired him to create films. What can one say about this in a negative fashion in this respect? He has succeeded. The negative reviews prove that. Too much gore? Too much violence? If i had any complaint about this movie it was that it didn't have ENOUGH, and that was only because for the first half of KILL BILL Tarantino was shooting for an R rating. Believe it: if he could have gotten away with as much blood and guts as he wanted there would have been a lot more. Oh and fasten your seat belts kiddies and come to the theatre in a parka because KILL BILL vol. 2 has an NC-117 rating. That means more blood guts and mayhem than probably any Hollywood big budget movie ever.
For those who commented that there was too much blood and guts and nonsensical violence i say this: why do you continue to go to movies that you don't understand? I knew from the moment i saw the first trailer what was going to go down in this movie and i couldn't wait. Those that say its wrong to laugh at such scenes as a woman writhing on the floor with missing limbs, or sex fiends getting eviscerated i say this: sometimes its good to laugh at such things. With such real life horrors going on in the modern day its healthy to sit back and watch and laugh at over the top carnage. We laugh because we know how ridiculous it is and that is what makes it entertaining. And remember this as well: everyone one you saw writhing in pain or covered in blood was either a rapist, pedophile, or murderer. They are getting what they deserve anyway so what do you care? Not ONE innocent bystander was killed in this movie by the hero. Even the young yakuza kid got to get out with his life.
So enough with the simpletons. Let me get on with a legitimate review.
From the very first scene this movie sets the tone for the direction it will follow, and follow along a straight line it does. From the `Presented in Shaw-Scope' intro everyone should know that this is going to be a highly stylized trip down movie memory lane (apparently some didn't but i won't go there again) As i have said, Tarantino has masterfully blended together his pulp-action style with martial arts mayhem. Each scene moves fluidly to the next, one is never left with the feeling that something is missing or out of place. Again he moves in and out of chronological sequence as in Pulp Fiction, but this is one trick he has mastered. All it does is serve to deal the audience the story in a more intriguing way. The cinematography and imagery here is beautiful. Tarantino teams with Robert Richardson (of U-turn and Natural Born killers fame) superbly. From white picket fence american suburbia, to tilted angel, eye of the victim, trunk shots, to sweeping well placed fights, to a classic Japanese garden climax; one can tell that each scene was given careful consideration to how it looked and it shows. The story doesn't deviate from the traditional vengeance plot that many of the movies that inspired it followed. You know just why The Bride wants her victims dead and you are behind her all the way. Tarantino usefully recaptures the spirit of the warrior code and what it means to them to play the dance of life and death battles. It is their religion, and if that seems silly to you i encourage you to someday see a kitana in action in reality. The amount of damage these blades can deal in a single blow is frightening. Tarantino captures the idea that the perfect blade to the warrior is their ultimate prize and i applaud Tarantino for the scene where The Bride sees the collection of master work kitanas, for you truly get a sense of how beautiful they are to her. Tarantino doesn't let you go for a second through this whole film, and he has you believing every second of it. Those who were made uncomfortable i again assert: you simply just didn't get it and you never will.
The acting in this movie was equally on par with Tarantino's film making. I am not a huge fan of Uma Thurman so i had my doubts, but she has earned a new level of respect from me here. She played the vengeance seeking warrior to a T. I like the choice that Tarantino made here to go with an american blonde woman as the hero. With this subtle choice he came out on his own. Very few of the movies that inspired this had women heroines, and i cannot think of one that had an american. One thing that can be said about Tarantino: the man is certainly not gender biased and not afraid to give the audience a strong woman as the lead rather than a man. This movie probably would not have been as interesting if it was a man. Lucy Liu also gave a perfect performance and portrayed her character in the exact light it needed. Sonny Chiba was a nice reminder of the old days when this sort of movie was in its golden age. Even Karadine, who at this point is only voice acting, was excellent. The one who stole the show though was Chiaki Kuriyama as Go Go Yubari. Very few in american audiences will know her but she is most well known for her excellent performance in Battle Royale, an incredible piece of Japanese cinema. I was excited when i noticed her in the previews because much of the acting in Battle Royale was excellent and it is good to see that at least one of these you Japanese actors/actresses was noticed by Hollywood. Indeed, hers was one of the best performances in Battle Royale and she brings that same intensity to KILL BILL. Her character was truly disturbing, probably more so then all the others in the movie, and she played it in excellent fashion.
As for the music, again i was skeptical. When i heard the RZA of Wu-Tang Clan fame was doing the score i wasn't sure what to think, but it proved to be a perfect fit. There was no hip hop style beats here, the RZA truly created music that fit the movie taking obvious inspiration from the musicians that adorn the soundtracks of past Tarantino movies, 70s funk, and the music in the kung fu classics. He blended the styles in a way that was almost hypnotizing. In the end it wasn't surprising considering the Wu-Tang clan is inspired themselves by the same movies that inspired Tarantino.
There are only very mild criticisms for this movie that i and my fellows had, and none of them warrant taking off any points from a ten out of ten. I thought the movie dragged in a few spots, but upon reflection i went in expecting something a little different. One tends to romanticize older movies when one hasn't seen them in a long time and when i look back at Sonny Chiba, Bruce Lee, and Akira Kurosawa classics all i remember is sweeping samurai battles, and brawl after brawl. One forgets that these movies were not all fights. They relied heavily on thick drama in between to tell the stories of warriors, not just show case their battles. So in this respect i was anticipating non stop action from KILL BILL, but i am glad i turned out wrong. Without the drama and characterization this movie would have been the bland blood bath that others seem to think it was. The only other complaint is purely aesthetic in a film making sense. One of the draws of Tarantino is his engrossing dialog. We believe in his characters because of the lewd jokes and the foot message anecdotes. It brings them to our level as we see them concern themselves with every day things. This is lacking just a tad in this movie. Albeit there wasn't much room for it. The movie was crammed to the bursting point with content. Did it make the charac ters feel any less human? No because there was just enough of the Tarantino charm to still feel it. He still manages to add his genius details in characterization. In fact there was one point when i actually turned to my friend and said `Tarantino is a genius.' When the sheriff who came to survey the carnage of the church drove up in big 70s style smoked sunglasses and we then see on his dashboard several more pairs in varying colors, it was a brilliant touch. Here we have a character who is on screen for all of five minutes and yet Tarantino still feels the need to make him his own individual with his own unique personality and quirks. He isn't just a throw away character to serve a purpose in one scene as a transition to the next. He is a real life sheriff to us, a character that had enough personality that Tarantino could make a movie just about him if he wanted to. Its these little things that make Tarantino stand out from the ravenous pack and stand out with style, the style of a 70s 14th street pimp, and that is why we go see him.
10 out of 10