catapult magazine

Random thoughts.

Visually the movie is spectacular.
I liked the anime.
It’s hard to tell whether the story will have any substance until Vol. 2 comes out.
Loved Uma.
Cool soundtrack as expected.
If I cut off someone’s arm does it really spray blood in all directions like that?
In Pulp Fiction, it seemed like there was actually less violence in the movie than the audience thinks there is (much of the violence was implied – left to the audience’s imagination). In Kill Bill, it seems like there is more violence than the audience thinks there is (much of the violence is cartoon-like or shown in black and white or shown as silhouette).
Don’t anyone dare compare the fight scene in this movie to the fight scene in the Matrix Reloaded.

Quentin reportedly used over 15,000 gallons of fake blood for Part 1. There have been no hard numbers for Part 2, yet. Funny how I must have seen the film some 20 times in one week and I never got bored of it. Everytime I was just as wrapped up into it as the time before.

Bill isn’t God….he’s David Carradine. I refuse to believe that David Carradine is God. He may thinks he is, but he isn’t.

I know Bill is David Carridine, but he has many God-like characteristics nevertheless, like the way he decides who dies and who doesn’t. There was a very God-like moment when Bill calls on the phone in the nick of time in the hospital room.

And I checked to be sure it wasn’t just me that was bored. Joel was bored a few times too and Dan Snook said he fell asleep the first time he saw it. I agree that there were several great moments that were cinematically beautiful, but there were also many drawn-out periods of “dramatic” silence and predictable dialogue, especially in the snow scene, that caused the film to drag on.

I was bored too. I think I groaned out loud at the point when I realized I was going to have to watch her kill dozens more people.

I’m glad to hear I wasn’t the only one. I hear that the next one might be more interesting, though, especially if we see the training of our precious Uma (what’s her character’s name, again?). I must say, though, that it was very very refreshing to see women getting violent revenge on the men in this film—the scene where the little girl “penetrates” the man for wanting to have sex with her is the finest example, with the beautiful blood-geyser guy running a close second. It makes sense especially in the context of an NPR interview I heard recently with a psychologist who is tracing an increase in domestic violence cases against men.

And in response to mrsanniep’s rebuke, I really don’t think it can apply to this topic. At one point I thought about treating this film from a Christian perspective, but it’s really quite pointless. I don’t think anyone would try to make a case for the goodness of this film in any way other than a few of its technical achievements. Tarantino loves the cathartic nature of film and he loves violence and he has his own fetishes and toyz that he likes to play with in his films. We all know that there really isn’t anything in the briefcase.

Heck, I’m not saying you should try to find good in this movie. I believe a Christian perspective finds nothing redeemable or entertaining about it. Quite the opposite. I think paying to see this movie is a waste of many things, especially since the $8 could be sent to fund *cino. Put money in Tarantino’s pocket vs. money in Rob and Kirstin’s. Hmm. That’s just an example.

…or $8 in Grant’s (the other unpaid cino staff member) pocket…

And what about being culturally aware, well-versed, and engaged? Unimportant?

Culturally aware and well-versed in whose eyes?

The conversation about it here isn’t exactly genius. This is an interesting insight no one’s really mentioned, but would probably up the Christian perspective in this discussion:

“The question remains open: Will “the Bride” eventually see the futility and damaging effects of her vengeful killing spree? Or will she finish her story as she began, believing that she is the punishing hand of God, justly delivering judgment upon those who so grievously wronged her?" (from Christianity Today)

But also …

“No single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all does not cry, ‘Mine!’”

- Abraham Kuyper, PhD; Member of Parliament, Netherlands; Prime Minister of the Netherlands; founder and professor at the Free University in Amsterdam.

as someone who hasn’t seen the film and has only read the reviews contained in this thread, i need some clarification. how do i reconcile grant’s idea that it’s pointless to approach this film from a Christian perspective with the frequent statements that others absolutely loved it? is it possible to love a film that is apparently not constructively redemptive in any way?

is Kill Bill another commentary on our obsession with violence and, if so, how many movies can Tarantino make make about violence before we suspect that he’s offering only offering us Turkish Delight?

Allow me to jump in. I have refained from voicing an opinion because I’ve only seen it once and that is not enough. Plus, it and I need time. History will sort this one out, I believe. There was a point at which I poo-pooed Tarintino as fluke, but I have rescinded and I continue to stand by his earlier works as brilliant, and I do not use that word lightly. They are brilliant (in a specific way), whether you hate them or not. This doesn’t mean people should watch him.
For example, last night, the independant cinema down the street from me had a Pasollini double feature last night. So I spent eleven hard earned Canadian dollars to spend four hours in the dark (when I should be attending my take home exam) watching The Gospel of St. Matthew and Salo, or 120 Days of Sodom. Salo, by most opinions, is perhaps the most distrubing film you will ever have the chance to see. It’s based on a Marquie de Sade work (if that gives you any hint) and set in facist Italy. The basic plot involves four elite men who capture young men and women and drag them to a remote villa to abuse and consume them at will by all means, including sex, shit, and death.
This is a not a movie I recommend to people, even to people I normally recommend movies to, like Jasonvb or grant. Stay away from it unless you really are interested in film and film history. This is not for public consumption.
Nor is Kill Bill. Tarintino is a cinephile’s director because he is one himself. He could make a PG romantic comedy and people would still love it because he loves movies and it shows in his work. That’s why people are so entertained by this even if they don’t get it. The vast majority of people who love(d) Pulp Fiction liked it because it was “cool.” The same for Kill Bill: it’s fresh and it’s unique, but they don’t “get” what he’s doing (I include myself in this). All his movies require extensive knowledge of film history if you’re going to take it seriously. Can you enjoy it without this background? Sure. I think it’s dangerous though. And it can be frustrating. This is my complaint with a lot of modern art: it’s not excessable to people who don’t have a masters in art history.
So don’t see Kill Bill unless you’re interested in film. It’s an art film. In fact, I would argue that this is the only plain on which Tarintino exists anymore. Nor do I think he is so relevant to the times anymore. Long gone are the days of Pulp Fiction, which had a massive impact on Hollywood through the mid and late 90’s, and none of whose predecessors got even close. His influence has waned and the only interest generated is “academic.”
But I’m interested in that, so I want to give my unformed opinion about it, which, admittedly, suffers from a lack of knowledge of a genre which makes up a large portion of this film, Asian action movies. I know zip about any of it. But I know the 70’s a bit more and Tarintino has always drawn from the decade. I enjoyed that he made a “balls to the wall vengence movie” as I heard him describe it once. The vengence movies of the 70’s like the Dirty Harry and Death Wish series, Walking Tall, Rolling Thunder, even Taxi Driver and plenty of lesser exploitation movies have a certain desperation in that I like. It’s a populist genre which both at once glorifies and abhors authority in a violent manner while lamenting the breakdown of social structures which created monsters like Travis Bickle lost in an isolating culture. It fit perfectly in the 70’s quasi post apocolyptic environment when everything started falling apart.
Kill Bill is very much in this vain, although filtered through Tarintino’s self-referential movieness, and I quietly cheer its arrival in 2003, post-9/11, when the ghosts of Reagan and Nixon wander the halls of Washington, and in the midst of a resurrection of both the Western (a genre celebrating will to power) and the Musical (a genre of glitz and glamour), both which I dislike immensly. Anyway, it asks the question like others in its genre What’s the appeal of this movie? Why does it strike a chord? Vengence movies exist to both horrify and titliate viewers, which is pure Tarintino, so it makes sense he would turn to them. Like I said before, they’re films of desperation: a victim is horribly, brutally beaten, and the victim or friend/lover/family member of the victim seeks revenge. It’s an old story; justice is sought because justice is not present. Vengence rarely solves anything in any of these movies and when all is said and done, most end up in either disgust or desolation. Something’s wrong and we don’t know how to fix it.
And, no, it ain’t God’s justice, I realize that, but these are not morality tales. They’re lamentations, not sermons.

I have to see how it ends, though.

I haven’t responded to the question. My opinion: I am watching this from a Christian perspective and I am watching this from a historical and cinematic perspective. I’m not judging this on whether or not the characters are doing God’s will . Nor am I watching this because I like violence. If you watch film because you like violence, that’s wrong. People have argued that Tarintino makes you like the violence. I don’t know about that, but I think he’s walking an extremely thin line. I do like the vengence genre because I like the lamentations it makes, but not everyone can eat meat.
So my question is: do the people who liked this movie like the violence, do they like the style, or do they like what he is “saying” (I don’t like using that term, but for the lack of a better one…)? If it’s the style, that’s a whole different can o’worms because then we have to argue about what his style is, is it worthwhile, and what is he “saying” in this.

holy crap! That’s so long. I’m sorry.