Skip to main content

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 
(2004)

(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

There’s likely a degree to which Tarantino’s reasons for failing to avail himself of Warren Beatty for Bill are bombast (“We decided this movie shouldn’t be our first marriage” – there won’t be one at all now). He cited the Colonel Kurtz factor as key to the original plan with Beatty, so when the decision to introduce Bill earlier was made, the need for a star turn fell by the wayside. But even in his ultimate screenplay, there’s an anticipation for Bill that isn’t really served by the very serviceable but not that electric Carradine; he’s good in the same vanilla way Thurman is, which is to say, no one here overshadows the action itself, which is probably what Tarantino really wanted.

Not having Beatty is the difference between having Will Smith in Django Unchained and Jamie Foxx. The confrontation between Bill and the Bride is, uh, okay. Yeah, I guess it’s a decent twist that he turns out to have been a good dad to Uma’s child, announced as living at the end of Vol. 1, but we’ve already had children and violence domix twists in the first scene of the first volume, a fight with Vivica A Fox that leaves her daughter without a mother. The overall sense is one of “Quentin’s just trying to see how many tenuous tonal shifts he can stuff into his movie” rather than there being any genuine interest in exploring a mother’s relationship with her lost child (anything you get of that is all Uma). Who in any case has been etched out as a budding psychopath (the loveable scamp goldfish incident)

Will Self, in an excoriating review, claimed “Tarantino’s films aren’t merely bad, they also render reasonably intelligent people totally vacuous and stupid” (to which, the great unwashed Internet acolytes will doubtless respond “No, you’re totally vacuous and stupid”). He goes on to suggest, in a position I have some sympathy with, that they “come out spouting a load of gibberish about pop cultural synergy, the purity of the martial-arts genre and how Tarantino is pushing back the frontiers of contemporary cinematic art”. Albeit, I suspect a lot of them, even the professed film buffs, just think, like Quentin, that they’re cool flicks. I’ll leave you to read for yourself what he says about the director as a “masturbating video-store clerk”.

This is, basically, more of the same: more chapters, more fights and more flashbacks, with Chinese martial arts this time instead of Japanese, allowing the introduction of Chekov’s Shaolin King Kong Palm – I mean, Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique – and more choice cuts. Regarding which, while Quentin’s picks for his soundtracks are often inspired, it’s a mistake to lift something already iconic – such as a track from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – and try to make it your own. At least, if you assume or respect your audience has any of the kind of grounding in classic movies you do.

Robert Richardson’s cinematography is striking and colourful, but contrastingly, I don’t care for the switches to black and white in either volume. This time, the Bride must fight Daryl Hannah, a one-eyed Californian Mountain Snake who represents another example of the director – after such resounding early successes – entirely failing to show that a performer has any other sides to justify his lending them the honour of a second career wind. But then, it’s further testament to the mediocrity of his writing on Kill Bill that there wasn’t even a sliver of a Reservoir Dogs/ Pulp Fiction fairy dust effect. Given Self’s comments about masturbation, I shudder to think of how long Tarantino spent in the editing suite, playing and replaying the moment where Uma squidges Daryl’s one remaining eye between her toes.

I do like Michael Madsen’s performance, though, and when Tarantino isn’t switching back into lazy mercenary tactics on Budd’s part, there’s an appealing world weariness to the character and his belief that they’ve all got it coming (the Bride too). His not having pawned his priceless sword after all is also an appealing touch. While the Kill Bills can’t otherwise boast engaging characters, they consistently forward relentlessly seedy ones, in this case Larry Bishop making an impression as the berating manager of the strip club where Budd works.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 seems even longer than Vol. 1 – because it is – and has less variety to it. Which may actually be a good thing, in terms of Tarantino’s taste for distasteful mayhem. The final chapter goes on forever, and would only really justify itself with a Beatty. Hell, Dustin Hoffman would make you sit up in your seat for sheer incongruity value. But I suspect Beatty would have called his director on the sloppy material, which would have required shutting the butt of the then sexagenarian down. I mean, did anyone seriously not groan when Bill announces “As you know, I’m quite keen on comic books. Especially the ones about superheroes”. Yeah, and did you know, Woody sees a psychoanalyst.

Maybe Quentin was spending too much time with Robert Rodriguez, as evidenced by their subsequent ill-fated collaboration. Mostly, I think Kill Bill was an irreversible tipping point, after which, for better or worse, it became clear there’d be no retreat from full immersion in his own cinematic wonderland, where inter-referentiality was everything. Even if he ever got around to remaking Less Than Zero, as he has mooted, it would be an unapologetic ‘80s movie/music fest. The positive side is that, after he got the grindhouse out of his system, he’d return to something approaching form.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I am you, and you are me, and we are here. I am the dreamer. You are the dream.

Communion (1989)
(SPOILERS) Whitley Strieber’s Communion: A True Story was published in 1987, at which point the author (who would also pen Communion’s screenplay) had seen two of his novels adapted for the cinema (Wolfen and The Hunger), so he could hardly claim ignorance of the way Hollywood – or filmmaking generally – worked. So why then, did he entrust the translation of a highly personal work, an admission of/ confrontation with hidden demons/ experiences, to the auteur who unleashed Howling II and The Marsupials: Howling III upon an undeserving world? The answer seems to be that Strieber already knew director Philippe Mora, and the latter was genuinely interested in the authors’ uncanny encounters. Which is well and good and honourable, but the film entirely fails to deliver the stuff of cinematic legend. Except maybe in a negative sense.

Strieber professes dismay at the results, citing improvised scenes and additional themes, and Walken’s rendition of Whitley Strieber, protagonist…

I’m not the Jedi I should be.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
(SPOILERS) Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the only series entry (thus far) I haven’t seen at the cinema. After the first two prequels I felt no great urgency, and it isn’t an omission I’d be hugely disposed to redress for (say) a 12-hour movie marathon, were such a thing held in my vicinity. In the bare bones of Revenge of the Sith, however,George Lucas has probably the strongest, most confident of all Star Wars plots to date.

This is, after all, the reason we have the prequels in the first place; the genesis of Darth Vader, and the confrontation between Anakin and Obi Wan. That it ends up as a no more than middling movie is mostly due to Lucas’ gluttonous appetite for CGI (continuing reference to its corruptive influence is, alas, unavoidable here). But Episode III is also Exhibit A in a fundamental failure of casting and character work; this was the last chance to give Anakin Skywalker substance, to reveal his potential …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

How do you like that – Cuddles knew all the time!

The Pleasure Garden (1925)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first credit as director, and his account of the production difficulties, as related to Francois Truffaut, is by and large more pleasurable than The Pleasure Garden itself. The Italian location shoot in involved the confiscation of undeclared film stock, having to recast a key role and borrowing money from the star when Hitch ran out of the stuff.