jrphelan

Kill Bill did not live up to its promise. Interestingly, preceding the movie I saw previews for Lord of the Ring: The King Returns and Matrix Revolutions. Both films rely heavily on film technique, martial arts/fighting, and violence. The difference between Kill Bill, and LOTR and Matrix, is that Kill Bill has no substance and invokes no emotional resonance with me. LOTR and Matrix in contrast, tell a compelling story on multi-levels.

Unfortunately Kill Bill is all flash, all technique, all form (borrowed and copied), and no story that resonates with the audience. I felt nothing on walking out of the movie. I never got involved with any character. I sat back and watched the movie noting and appreciating its technique, music, and staged fights. More importantly, I felt sad that Tarentino's considerable talents are wasted on copying and inflating the martial arts form instead of using that form to tell a compelling story. Kill Bill is that classic movie – style over substance. Maybe Q. Tarentino Is not interested in stories with emotional content. Maybe he is just interested in the technique of telling a story.

My rating: **1/2 out of *****. I almost walked out of this movie several times during the first hour, as I was bored. I did not read the book before seeing the movie so I would not have any expectations. Maybe I should have, as the movie leaves so many unanswered questions. This film is a major disappointment for me. I had looked forward to seeing this movie after hearing all the hype and the great story. The story of Seabiscuit and the men around him has all the ingredients of a great movie. Unfortunately Gary Ross, the director and script writer, screws everything up, except the casting, which is great. The music is inappropriate and irritating. The editing is lousy. The cinematography swamps the story and is uninspired. The script is mawkish and portentous. I felt like I was watching a comic book. All the scenes are short and framed and beautiful, like pages in a comic book. Is this a documentary of the depression a la Ken Burns TV projects? An epic film a la Dances With Wolves? A human story of three wounded men who find redemption? Or a story of a mistreated and badly trained horse who finally wins? Gary Ross attempts to combine all these stories into one movie. He consistently chokes off emotional climaxes leaving me teased and frustrated. And the ending is uninspired and maddening. Mildly recommended, after all it is a great story and the lead characters are great. I watched Michelangelo Antonioni's Red Desert that evening. What a difference - a director who knows how to use the camera, set scenes, camera angles, who creates deep complex characters, and knows how to use color in a film...and this film is from 1964!

I was stunned by this film. I have been renting Antonioni's films/rediscovering them, and this film showed me the climax and fruits of his 50 years of directing. What an eye for setting, color, and detail! I have never seen such visual beauty and poetry filmed before. I had to stop after the first story and hold back the tears. Yes, beauty moves me, like it moved Keats to write Ode on a Grecian Urn. This movie is made for the mature, emotionally and intellectually, audience. Those hoping to see physical action and soap opera will be disappointed. I will have to see this film several times before I can truly appreciate it and judge it. This film should be required viewing for all cinematographers and directors.

Possibly a truly great film, on the order of Kurosawa's Dreams.