|
Reviews
for the Week of 10/12:
Quentin Tarantino’s latest film is usually astounding.
The fight choreography, dialogue (or lack thereof), and direction are all nearly
perfect. I was consistently fascinated and entertained by Kill Bill; it’s
one of the most interesting and unique productions to come along in the entire
history of film. But right when I was having the time of my life, ninety-five
minutes into the movie, it came to a screeching, inconclusive, idiotic, and
disappointing halt. I had seen Volume One of a two-part journey. When
each screening of this movie ends, the entire audience will be very, very angry.
We feel as though we’ve witnessed an episode of our favorite sitcom finish,
right before a very exciting scene is about to take place, and fade to a screen,
which features those three dreaded words: “To Be Continued.” But we don’t just
have to wait a week to see the rest of the episode, however. Kill Bill:
Volume Two will be released in February of 2004; that’s nearly four months
away!
Did Tarantino really split Kill Bill into two
parts because he thought that it would be more easily and thoughtfully viewed in
such a way? Positively not. It was obviously Miramax who made the decision, for
they’ll make double the amount of money that they would’ve made, if they had
released Kill Bill in one extraordinary long epic—the way it was
originally intended to be seen. While they clearly have some great businessmen
working for them, the quality of the motion pictures that they release is
definitely a second priority.
Thankfully, even though the split will leave a bad
aftertaste in viewer’s mouths, after viewing Volume One, most everyone
who witnesses it will eagerly await, and come back and see, Volume Two in
February. Tarantino has a masterful way of meshing the action scenes together;
it’s really phenomenal. Stunt choreographers Yuen Wo-Ping and Sonny Chiba
obviously spent a gigantic amount of time working on Kill Bill, and the
beauty of his work is extremely noticeable in the fight scenes. The
cinematography, by Robert Richardson, is also interesting. Every frame of every
shot is stunning, intrepid, and one of a kind. While many will not like Kill
Bill, simply because it’s so violent and disturbing, even they will be able
to appreciate the filmmakers’ work on it.
The cast is bold and witty in performing. From the
dialogue to the body language, the headlining members of the project, Uma
Thurman, Daryl Hannah, Lucy Lui, and Vivica A. Fox, are absolutely perfect. It’s
much harder than one would expect to actually act in an action film, let
alone a Tarantino action film, but these five are tremendous in doing so.
All in all, Kill Bill is certainly worth a sit,
because of the amazing photography, stunt-work, and performances. Prepare for
the disappointing ending, though—it’s disruptively uncalled for. There are
certain (even artful) ways that Tarantino could’ve cut Kill Bill into two
parts. Sadly, the way it has been, is not one of them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After Thoughts (added on
10/20/03): Lately, I've been thinking a lot about my rating for Kill Bill,
and why I deducted from its score, simply because of the two-part split. Is this
a flaw to the actual volume? Is it any less of a picture the way it is? Perhaps
I was being too harsh the first time around, and the film would be better judged
if the split wasn't taken into account; I would like to stress the fact that
Kill Bill would've earned a perfect score if it hadn't been
cut into two different volumes. Anyways, go see it, for that's all that matters.
Ratings now suck, in my opinion. People misperceive a reviewer's thoughts
greatly, just by reading the term "3/4 Buckets."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, yes, this is the
movie I’ve been waiting for all year. The Coen’s latest film, done
Hollywood-style, has a pleasingly divine atmosphere and an entrancing
style. The story and plot are inspired, the dialogue delicious; this is
about the only motion picture to come along in the last couple of months
that’s actually funny when it thinks it is. The screwball comedy is
comically charming, and the smoothly-executed, but rather eventful and
twisty plot is always a joy to watch unfold. This is one surprisingly
appealing film. George Clooney is fabulously hysterical in his role
(almost everyone will love his character’s obsession with the whiteness of
his teeth). The lovely Catherine Zeta Jones delivers one of the best
performances of the year, and also creates her fair-share of unscripted
laughs. Intolerable Cruelty is certainly one of the most watchably
well-done popcorn flicks to come along in a long time, and should not be
missed.
I really, truly wanted to
like this one. Starring Diane Lane as a writer, who divorces her husband
and ends up moving to Tuscany, only to live in a broken-down,
three-hundred year-old home, it’s aggravating that the plot of Under
the Tuscan Sun couldn’t have been a bit thicker. The entire movie is
like a soap opera; airy and all over the place, always introducing one
character after another. To my knowledge, it has been poorly adapted, as
well; those who have read the book tell me that all of the good things
featured in it are missing from the movie. Make no mistake—there is a lot
to appreciate in this picture—on the contrary. Lane does what she can with
a one-note role, and is always charming. The gorgeous photography is
fabulous; we always feel enriched when in the presence of the stunning
shots of Tuscany. Under the Tuscan Sun isn’t bad, but it certainly
isn’t good, either, which is very disappointing. It may be very enjoyable,
when rented, at a cheap rate. But for ten bucks, it’s definitely not worth
attending.
Once Upon a Time in
Mexico masters two arts—being cocky and being contrived. It’s a
hysterical hoot, full of big explosions, nutty editing, and powerful
weapons. It’s also insanely entertaining, and will definitely captivate
most audience members. Sadly, watching the same old shtick for nearly
one-hundred minutes is a relentless experience. When we finally reach the
grand climax, what should be a fabulous finale to a worthy film, all
that’s awaiting us is more guns, fighting, and cheesy poses made by
Antonio Banderas. Whoopee!
Essentially, Once Upon
a Time in Mexico is Robert Rodriguez’s latest Spy Kids movie;
all that’s changed is the PG rating. It’s goofy, dumb, and all in good
fun. But while the Spy Kids trilogy thrives on these very
characteristics, Mexico is able to accomplish very little, because
of them. Rodriguez is amazing—he directs, he edits, he writes, he
produces, he composes—but his talent is best utilized, when he’s working
with material that involves little kids with superpowers. His personal
Apple computer is his film studio, and when watching this movie, it
becomes very evident. Mexico is a rather mediocre motion picture.
There is one fabulous
feature to be seen in Once Upon a Time in Mexico, however. Johnny
Depp is great; his performance is hilariously funny, brilliantly witty,
and ingeniously outrageous. The two projects that he’s worked on this
year, this one and Pirates of the Caribbean, prove what a
tremendous comedian he is. Every time Depp is onscreen, in Mexico,
whopping amounts of laughter accompany him. Unfortunately, almost every
other component of this entertaining, but jumbled film is either missing
or out of place.
The material had
potential, but the execution is flawed. It’ll be a fun rental when it
comes out on video, however. Until then, I’d pass on it, for it certainly
isn’t worth the ten bucks multiplexes’ charge for admission.
Back to
Home
The Bucket Review's Rating
Scale
|
