Kill Bill

So last night we caved and saw Kill Bill 2. I didn't see the first one. But several people have said or written that viewing Vol. 1 before seeing Vol. 2 isn't required. And they were right.

It's a self-contained story. The opening carefully sums up what has transpired and what's coming next. I mean, the title is Kill Bill, so what do you think is going to happen?

I think Charles Taylor best addressed many of the things I had trouble with in the movie. Mr. Tarantino is very skilled at recreating a feeling - and I think there's a place for that - of old-school Hong Kong films and spaghetti westerns. But he doesn't really comment on it or make it feel different or new. I could get the same effect at the video store. It's part of the same problem I had with Far from Heaven. That film was easily a Douglas Sirk film. It could have been made by Sirk and there was such reverence paid by Todd Haynes to re-create the feeling of a Sirk film, he didn't add anything new to it.

Were the performances good - yes. Daryl Hannah was really impressive. She was genuinely menacing. And Uma Thurman was also good. I've never been a big fan of either blonde, but they make their substantial roles even more weighty. But not all the performances are good. Much has been made about David Carradine's "come-back" role. I found him to be exceedingly wooden and stiff. And he made a few speeches that felt very unnatural, even within the stilted context that the film creates. (You can't make a good spaghetti western or Hong Kong flick with out being a bit stilted.)

That doesn't make the film bad in any way (either Kill Bill 2 or Far from Heaven). On the one hand it opens a viewer up to an experience she may not have had in the past - especially if she is unfamiliar with the films of Hong Kong, Sergio Leone or even Douglas Sirk. But if you are a fan, then you'll find it is a slick imitation that offers nothing more than fleeting favor - it tickles the tastebuds but leaves you longing for something more substantial.

Labels: 2004