Peter Bogdanovich Makes His Own Woody Allen Movie With She's Funny That Way

The Good: Some amusing moments, Decent performances, Good cast
The Bad: Familiar and contrived plot, Derivative narrative voice, Unlikable characters
The Basics: She's Funny That Way might have been a fine movie . . . if it weren't for the thousand virtually identical films that preceded it!


When She's Funny That Way began, the interview narrative technique and the deadpan interactions between stars Imogen Poots and Illeana Douglas are instantly evocative of Woody Allen. Writers Louise Stratten and Peter Bogdanovich (who directed the film) are telling a story with a narrative voice and situation that seems like they are attempting to replicate a Woody Allen film. It is only in the film's final moments that it becomes painfully clear that the derivative nature of the lines and situation is intentional; the writers completely use an "everything's been done" defense within the narrative to excuse their own lack of originality for much of the film.

She's Funny That Way is not inherently bad; it has an impressive cast who works their parts well and there are a few good lines and moments of humor. But what the film lacks is a moment where it pops. I went into She's Funny That Way blind - no expectations or foreknowledge of the film - and I continued to wait for the film to make me care about any one of the characters. Instead, most of the enthusiasm I had for the film came from outside it - "It's so nice to see Cybill Shepherd!" "Oh my gosh, Jennifer Aniston is unrecognizable! Fantastic!" But more than all that, the longer it went on, the more I felt like I had already seen She's Funny That Way - my mind went back to State And Main (reviewed here!) an inordinate number of times.

After her rise to fame, Isabella Patterson gives an interview to Judy, a reporter who is adept at cutting through the crap her subjects throw at her. Isabella tries to put her past in the best light, while revealing her pre-acting career as a call girl going by the name Glow Stick. One night, director Arnold Albertson arrives in New York City (attempting to avoid contact with his wife and kid) from Los Angeles and hires Glow Stick for a night of companionship. Albertson offers Glow Stick $30,000 to start her acting career in earnest. Glow Stick takes the money and, after a trip to her therapist where she gets her new professional acting name, she goes to audition for a Broadway play.

The play is written by Joshua Fleet and is being directed by Arnold Albertson. Fleet, Delta Simmons, and the actor Seth Gilbert all love Isabella's performance during the audition, but Arnold does not want to cast her. After a disastrous night out at dinner - where Josh and Isabella, Jane (Izzy's therapist) and the Judge, the Judge's private detective, Arnold and Delta, and Seth and his date all end up at the same Italian restaurant - Delta convinces Arnold to give Isabella the job. The film quickly degenerates into repeated farcical situations based on the fact that everyone is related in one way or another (like the Judge, who shares the same therapist with Izzy, is romantically obsessed with Glow Stick, and has hired a private detective - who is, incidentally, Josh's father - to find Glow Stick). The collision of characters comes to a head at the table read for Josh and Arnold's play.

She's Funny That Way is not an unpleasant film to watch, but it does lack a spark that leads one to even be enthusiastic about reviewing it. There are moments, especially early on, that show a glimmer of originality and potential: Jane (Izzy's therapist) has a dog door in her office and when the German Shepherd runs in during her session, it felt fresh. But ideas like that and the cab driver who abruptly strands Seth and Delta when he tires of their bickering feel more like good ideas worked into a film that was otherwise devoid of them. In other words, they come up in the movie so abruptly that they feel like great ideas the writers had and this was the project they decided to stuff them into.

None of the characters in She's Funny That Way are particularly likable.

The farce plot allows the actors to play well-enough, though none are given big emotional moments. The surprise performance for me had to be that of Rhys Ifans as Seth Gilbert. Ifans was introduced to me (and most of the American moviegoing public) in The Amazing Spider-Man (reviewed here!). Seth Gilbert is utterly devoid of the intellect, posture and human compassion with which Rhys Ifans established his OsCorp scientist character in the summer blockbuster a few years back. Ifans has range and the more I see of him in roles where he plays a grimy schlub, the more impressed I am that Sony saw his potential for The Amazing Spider-Man!

The rest of the cast - led by Imogen Poots, Owen Wilson, and Illeana Douglas - is good, but their roles and performances are unremarkable. Cybill Shepherd and Richard Lewis are basically given cameos as loud, nagging parents without any real depth or character; Kathryn Hahn and Will Forte play their parts as Delta and Josh without any spark or distinction that would make them stand out (both have had stand-out, distinctive, roles before, so this is a definite change for both).

Ultimately, She's Funny That Way is a lackluster indie comedy that is bound to get buried beneath the tripe this Summer Blockbuster Season . . . but it's not clear that it didn't deserve to go so overlooked.

For other works with Austin Pendleton, please check out my reviews of:
Game Change
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
A Beautiful Mind
Homicide: The Movie

3.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Greatness Out Of Order: Pulp Fiction Holds Up!

The Good: Good acting, Decent characters, Engaging direction
The Bad: Non-sequitor plot/lines do not add up to anything.
The Basics: Pulp Fiction is a delightful mix of funny and violent in a way that remains entertaining even today!


When it comes to modern classics, there are several films that I will grant have real greatness to them. Pulp Fiction is one that I – like many – have accepted as great without having watched it many, many times in order to justify that opinion. So, now that my wife has the deluxe Blu-Ray edition of Pulp Fiction, I’ve been granted the chance to really delve into the film to evaluate it from a well-rounded perspective. And, after rewatching the film three times in as many days (without and with the commentary track on), I’ve come to the place where I can appreciate all of the elements of the film, but I don’t think it adds up to a perfect film.

Pulp Fiction is funny, original, violent, and generally engaging, but so much of the originality of the dialogue does not add up to anything exceptional. In other words, while Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Jules, has a genuine epiphany and character growth, most of the other characters, like John Travolta’s Vincent Vega, might be distinctive or quirky in their dialogue, but they do not develop beyond that. Vincent Vega’s ramblings about Europe are, ultimately, nothing more than musings of a dope fiend and he never evolves beyond that. The point is, while Quentin Tarantino’s mainstream masterpiece has quotable lines, great stars, and an engaging presentation, objectively viewed, the story the film tells, with the characters involved, is hardly as original or as compelling as those in truly perfect films. So, while Pulp Fiction is incredible, it does not have the timeless greatness of, for example, Casablanca (reviewed here!).

Told in three parts, out of order, Pulp Fiction follows the people working for gangster Marsellus Wallace in Los Angeles. Marsellus employs two hitmen, Jules and Vincent, who are sent to recover a briefcase. The briefcase contains a mysterious artifact that belongs to Marsellus and in recovering the briefcase, Jules and Vincent end up in a bind when Vincent’s gun goes off and kills Marvin. Following a pretty terrible day, Vincent Vega is charged with taking Marsellus Wallace’s wife, Mia, out for the evening. When he does, she gets into Vincent’s heroin and has an overdose, so Vincent is in a race to save her life lest his life become forfeit by the gangster, who seems ruthless (as characterized by the rumor that Marsellus Wallace through a man off a building for giving his wife a foot massage).

Also working for Marsellus is the washed-up boxer, Butch Coolidge, who is paid by Marsellus to take a dive in the fifth round of his prize fight. When Butch resists, he flees with his girlfriend, Fabienne, who accidentally left his father’s watch behind. When recovering his father’s watch, Butch gets into a conflict with Wallace that results in them imprisoned by two male rapists who want to have their way with them. Given all they see and experience, Jules is put to the test when he and Vincent are out at a diner and the restaurant is taken hostage by two petty criminals.

The thrust of the character growth in Pulp Fiction comes in the form of Jules and to a lesser extent Butch. Jules is a trained killer who has had no trouble working for Marsellus until this particular day. After musing on how ruthless Marsellus is, Jules sees how fragile life is, has an epiphany and pledges to go in a different direction with his life. Writer and director Quentin Tarantino puts the story out of order, at least in part, to illustrate character development in Jules’s storyline.

It is somewhat ambiguous if Butch actually develops – certainly in a positive way – in Pulp Fiction. Butch is characterized as a generally decent guy who simply is blooming late and may have missed his chance to be a contender. When asked, he admits he has never killed another person, but when he refuses to take a dive, he accidentally kills his opponent. In the hours that follow, Butch consciously kills at least three people (one only over a watch!). While fans of the film might argue that Butch develops as a character because he goes back into his captive’s lair, but that fits with his initial characterization of being a good guy who is just trying to make his way through the world.

Unlike many of Tarantino’s works, Pulp Fiction is laugh-out-loud funny in many places. Instead of just being gory or disturbing (though the rape scene in Pulp Fiction is quite disturbing, though it leads to a very Tarantino catharsis), Pulp Fiction is actually funny. A lot of the humor comes from straightlaced tough guys talking about ridiculous and mundane topics and the odd nonsequitors they experience enforcing the will of the gangster.

Tarantino stacks the deck by populating Pulp Fiction with pretty incredible actors. While John Travolta is delightfully goofy as Vincent Vega, Samuel L. Jackson and Ving Rhames are completely badass as Jules and Marsellus. Jackson is a credible killer going through an enlightenment, just as Bruce Willis is entirely believable as a prize fighter who might have peaked too late in his career to be taken seriously. Willis and Maria De Medeiros play off one another to be a credible couple who might run off with each other after all other hope is gone.

Ultimately, Pulp Fiction is enjoyable and different and it showcases some impressive acting talent. Even as the lines amuse and the situation intrigues and the actors perform, it becomes difficult to become invested in how the characters will resolve their various problems. That makes Pulp Fiction more entertaining than substantive.

For other works by Quentin Tarantino, please visit my reviews of:
Kill Bill, Volume 2
Kill Bill, Volume 1
Jackie Brown
Reservoir Dogs

9/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for a listing of movies from best to worst!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Tarantino Film Worth Watching: Jackie Brown!

The Good: Excellent acting, Good story, Amusing, Intriguing characters, Good pace
The Bad: Some of the dialog, or more accurately, the diction of criminals.
The Basics: An excellent cast, utilized well and put in an interesting plot makes Jackie Brown a success. Bare with the language.


While nine out of ten reviewers might recommend the drug-filled, openly violent (and bloody), foul-language flick Pulp Fiction, by Quentin Tarantino, Jackie Brown is the best work of his I've yet seen. Well, to be fair to Tarantino, I've been itching to see Reservoir Dogs for years and I enjoyed his guest stint on Alias in that show’s first season.

The film is pretty simple in plot, despite the workings and reworkings of it throughout the film. Quite simply, Jackie Brown is about airline stewardess Jackie Brown who is smuggling money into the country for gun runner Ordell. In the process, Jackie is caught and extorted by the feds as well as aided by a bail bondsman named Cherry. After establishing the characters, Jackie Brown turns into a sting/heist/plan to smuggle in $500,000 and bring down Ordell in the process. As she works that whole angle, she and bail bondsman Cherry come closer and closer together.

What works in the film is not the glorified robber plot. Instead, it's the characters. They are interesting, to say the least. The gun runner surrounds himself with a classy smuggler, a mope of a hitman and a jailbait girl. Strangely, all of those characters have enough to them to watch over and over again.

Equally as good, they are well acted. While Samuel L. Jackson gives his usual great performance as the slick illegal arms dealer Ordell, the film is stolen by Robert Forster, who plays Cherry. His acting is subtle and he plays the part with a number of nuances; a tick of the eyebrow here, a subtle smirk there. His true greatness in this film is in his understated acting. His character is very realistic and he plays the character with a great deal of realistic detail that is often lacking in today's films. Cherry seems like someone any one of us might know, the benevolent friend who wants to see the good in everyone, though experience has taught him the opposite.

I credit that to Tarantino. The film's direction becomes rather important, even to those who don't usually notice direction. Tarantino, to his credit, captures the greatness of the actors at his disposal. Forster may be the best example, but he's not the only one. Pam Grier uses facial expressions well and with expert direction from Tarantino, they come through. Michael Keaton, who plays the federal officer who is hunting Ordell, gives a good performance that seems to be what he's good at, too; simple. His character stands out as one of the few that's flat (the other is Bridget Fonda's jailbait character). Actually, it's hard to tell if their acting is bad or they're playing poorly written characters exceptionally well. Go figure.

As it turns out, Jackie Brown is well paced, and one of the few films I can easily cite where the soundtrack is both noticeable and great. The series of songs - usually r&b by such artists as the Delphonics - is expertly used to enhance the film's visual elements.

Throughout the film there's a wonderful sense of movement, so even while two characters sit around doing drugs for a scene mulling over their options, the viewer feels like they are going somewhere. And the film picks up rapidly during the final sequence wherein Jackie attempts to foil all of her pursuers and get away with the money.

All in all, the movie comes together expertly, as do the machinations of Jackie Brown. My only true objections to the film were in language. Now I'm not usually a prude about language, but the word "nigger" is thrown around a little too often for my taste. I figure, however, that it works and isn't gratuitous here, in that the characters who keep throwing the word around are the same ones who are selling guns and doing drugs and it's pretty obvious language is just another tool being employed to illustrate the caliber of people they are.

For other works with Robert Forster, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Descendants
Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past
Heroes - Season Three
Mulholland Drive

9/10

For other movie reviews, check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Violence And What Is Not Shown Makes Reservoir Dogs!

The Good: Good acting, Some interesting characters, Concept, Mood
The Bad: Carnage, Too much exposition, Lack of fleshing out of some characters
The Basics: In Quentin Tarantino's classic crime film Reservoir Dogs, a bunch of guys get together and talk about events we don't see and find hard to get passionate about caring about.


Quentin Tarantino seems to be one of those directors whose work people either love or hate. It's rare to find someone with a middle-of-the-road view on the way he continually pushes the envelope with violence in his movies. At long last, I was able to sit down and watch Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino's first successful film and I found myself with a razor decision on my hands (no pun intended, for those who have seen the film).

Reservoir Dogs follows the lives of a small group of career criminals. They set out to make a heist, but things go horribly awry. Now, following the botched job, the criminals converge on an abandoned warehouse to figure out what happened, who survived, and what to do next. But the problems what went down before and during the heist, like the presence of a snitching undercover cop and a bona fide psychopath, resurface and threaten the survival of the survivors.

The first thing of import to know about Reservoir Dogs is that it is not terribly violent. Indeed, almost all of the gore and horrific violence occurs off-screen. The viewer, for example, does not see the actual heist or how it degenerates into a killing spree. We are only told about it by the surviving characters.

So, unlike some of Tarantino's other films, this is a real talking picture. It's a bunch of people standing around, for the most part, talking. It is, essentially, a stage play performed on a movie screen by a group of very well-cast actors. But, in the end, the bulk of the movie is a bunch of people talking and it could conceivably have been pulled off as a play.

Two of the criminals, Mr. White and Mr. Orange, arrive at the warehouse, Mr. Orange having been shot in the belly. Mr. Orange is dying, rapidly, and Mr. White is trying to figure out how to save his life. As he frets about, Mr. Pink arrives. Mr. Pink is mostly a professional, quickly emphasizing that the speed at which the police appeared on the scene of the heist indicates a snitch in their midst. Acting as a professional, Mr. Pink wants to make a getaway, fearing that whoever set up the group, is likely to show up at the warehouse. Mr. White and Mr. Pink provide needed exposition, describing how Mr. Blonde began killing people in the jewelry store, when Mr. Blonde arrives.

Mr. Blonde's arrival introduces the criminals to their opportunity for vengeance, as the criminal has abducted a police officer from the scene of the heist. The officer is tied to a chair and tortured, but it is through his presence that all of the truths about the bungled heist are revealed. Interspersed with the present pageant of the failed heist are the stories of how each of the main surviving characters arrived at the job.

In the final analysis, it's easy to see why Tarantino achieved so much following this film. It's a decent film. The characters are mostly interesting, especially Mr. Pink and Mr. White. But beyond that, the acting is tremendous. Tarantino cast the parts in Reservoir Dogs perfectly, with wonderful visual differences and distinctive characteristics for each character cast.

Harvey Keitel is wonderful as Mr. White. He is at times hard, at times surprisingly tender and likable. Tim Roth is decent as Mr. Orange, taking a role that could easily have degenerated into a whiny, annoying character, and presenting him with genuine pathos and emotion. Roth makes Mr. Orange tortured and sympathetic in his plight. And Michael Madsen is wonderfully stone-faced as Mr. Blonde, adding true menace to the psychopathic character.

It is Steve Buscemi who steals the show, though, as Mr. Pink. Buscemi has presence and serves as more than simple comic relief. He infuses a character with a catch phrase ("I'm a professional") with real emotion, connoting in his body language and the passion expressed through his eyes that he is someone who believes in what he is doing and the "rules of the game." Buscemi is quick and has an excellent sense of timing to keep his character feeling very real and genuine.

And Tarantino must be credited with keeping in so much of the movie's moments where the characters are expressed by miniscule slips by the actors. Indeed, there are moments where Buscemi is yelling at Keitel that he pauses awkwardly, clearly rephrasing on a line, and it works to make the character seem more frantic and true-to-life and Tarantino keeps it in the film. It adds to the tension and reality of the time and place the viewer finds themselves in.

But ultimately, like the most mediocre of plays, Reservoir Dogs suffers because of the burdens that are put on the characters to explain the plot. I, for one, like the fact that we do not see what went down at the heist. However, it forces the characters to tell and retell their stories and the process of trying to piece together the events sometimes comes across as clumsy or repetitive. And the line that opens one of the film's most memorable scenes, delivered by Michael Madsen, seems a bit on the nose, even for a psychopath who knows what he is.

As well, the movie suffers from character inconsistencies. Mr. White seems like an intelligent criminal, a guy who has been around. His loss of professionalism in his conversations with Mr. Orange, then, are terribly troubling. Nice Guy Eddie is a terrible waste of space (he is overshadowed by his boss, Joe Cabot, played powerfully by Lawrence Tierney) and the film could have done without him. As well, two of the characters, Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue, are completely underused and one wonders why they were present other than to add realism to the carnage related by revealing they have been killed.

In all, Reservoir Dogs is not a bad movie, though it has its moments of graphic violence, the majority of the worst of it happens off camera. But it's also one that is hard to want to rewatch for someone who is a fan of a well-conceived crime caper (The Usual Suspects still reigns supreme in my book for the genre) because too much of it is repetitive or explaining what happened. Thus, the razor falls just barely on the side of "not recommend." A great cast populating a world of characters that are on the edge of worth-watching, falls just short of the classic I had hoped.

For other works by Quentin Tarantino, please visit my reviews of:
Kill Bill, Volume 2
Kill Bill, Volume 1

5.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all movies that I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2007, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Quentin Tarantino Zigs, Then Zags With Kill Bill, Vol. 2.

The Good: Good dialogue, Interesting story, Does what it sets out to do.
The Bad: Limited DVD bonus features, Somewhat repetitive feel to it.
The Basics: Weird, filled with menace and great dialogue, Kill Bill, Vol. 2. is a violent story that takes an abrupt right turn into . . . conversation!


When the Kill Bill movies by Quentin Tarantino were coming out, I recall reading how Tarantino wanted the films to be together as a single film, but the sheer volume of the movie and the unrelenting nature of the revenge plot seemed difficult for viewers to handle in a single sitting. As a result, he released two films, Kill Bill, Vol. 1 and Kill Bill, Vol. 2. Kill Bill, Vol. 2 picks up more or less where the first volume (reviewed here!) left off. The second film is a little longer and it lacks the chapter feel to it ("Vol. 1" had several cards with titles and while there are a few in "Vol. 2" there are fewer and the narrative is a bit more linear).

With Kill Bill, Vol. 2 Quentin Tarantino wraps up the story he began in the first volume and he creates one of the archetypal kung-fu movies of contemporary times, complete with their campy conceits and a high level of violence. Unlike the first volume, there is less gore in Kill Bill, Vol. 2, but there is more graphic violence and the gore that there is - the pulling out of a human eyeball being chief among them - is much more visible and dwelt on than in the first volume. This film is also of almost no interest to those who have not seen the first film. That said, it is remarkably easy to get caught up as the opening monologue lays out the plot.

The Bride, identified now as Beatrix Kiddo, is driving to finally kill Bill, the man who shot her in the head and left her for dead over four years prior. From that declaration, the film flashes back to Bill meeting with his former lackey, Budd, who is now an alcoholic redneck who works as a bouncer for a club in the middle of nowhere. Budd, however, manages to get the drop on Beatrix, filling her full of buckshot and burying her alive. As Beatrix struggles to break free of her coffin, Elle Driver resurfaces and dispatches Budd.

Beatrix recalls her initial meeting with Bill and how he had her trained under the kung-fu master Pai Mei. Remembering her training, Beatrix recalls as well how Bill betrayed her at the wedding chapel by having her beaten to a pulp and almost killed. With renewed strength, Beatrix breaks out, hunts Elle and then goes after Bill, only to discover that there are still secrets to be revealed to her!

Kill Bill, Vol. 2 is largely a hero coming to power story, with one big divergence. In fact, those who are not familiar with Quentin Tarantino's quirky sense of humor are likely to be quite thrown by the movie. As Beatrix moves in on Bill, Tarantino shakes things up, not by extending the chase, but by ending it prematurely. Tarantino stops the violence and has Bill and Beatrix sit down and talk for over half an hour and the abruptness of the turn of events is funny, weird and refreshing after the catfight between Beatrix and Elle.

In the film's resolution, Kill Bill, Vol. 2 becomes an archetypal Quentin Tarantino movie in a way that the first volume never managed to, through the dialogue. Between the final scene and the otherwise unrelated scene between Budd and his boss at the club, Tarantino re-establishes himself as a master of weird, humorous dialogue which creates quirky dialogue. In this movie, characters talk a lot more and outside the scenes involving Beatrix and Pai Mei, the film is much more about the weird, often horrible characters than it is about simple slaughter.

And for a film that is so over-the-top violent in so many parts, Tarantino takes a surprisingly classy turn by not graphically illustrating the slaughter in the church that has been tiptoed around the whole series. The first film shows the effects, this movie leads up to the moment the death squad enters the chapel, but Tarantino does not fill in that particular gap and it works nicely for the overall film.

Still, this is a primarily plot-driven film. Beatrix has set her sights on killing bill and the movie does not really diverge from that and it doesn't explain it much either. Why Beatrix chooses to go on a killing spree as opposed to hiding out from her former mentor and lover is never explored, but the film remains interesting by taking the surprising turns it does in promoting conversation over violence. The characters are merely the vessels to the plot and the plot is very simple in this case. Tarantino's narrative technique, which mixes up time yet again, keeps the simple plot flowing with decent speed.

In addition to his usual narrative conceits and level of dialogue, Tarantino uses more of his cache of regular actors in Kill Bill, Vol. 2 to enhance the dark drama. As such, Michael Madsen (memorable from Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs!) has a meaty role as Budd and Samuel L. Jackson pops up as well. Tarantino also uses lesser known actors like Gordon Liu as Pai Mei and Liu is great as the strict martial arts teacher. He has the ability to screw up his face in ways that are hilarious and it fits the tongue-in-cheek nods to kung-fu movies of yore that Tarantino is attempting to reinvent with this movie.

Actor David Carradine appears as Bill and he plays his usual cool, quiet character. However, as Bill, Carradine is dangerous and has a projected menace that gives his character an air of power throughout the movie that is unsettling to watch. Tarantino gets an amazing performance out of Carradine.

As well, he pushes Uma Thurman in a more emotionally powerful direction. Tarantino got great work out of Thurman in the first volume, but in Kill Bill, Vol. 2 she takes on an added sense of strength that is enjoyable to watch. She carries the film and her ability to project shock, fear and determination is incredible.

On DVD, there is a lone deleted scene and a featurette, but that's all. This is somewhat disappointing to fans of Tarantino's works and it is likely to leave viewers who enjoy the movie hoping for a more impressive two-disc version down the road. That said, on its own, Kill Bill, Vol. 2 is an impressive work and a great way to cap off the story of the Bride.

For other movies with Samuel L. Jackson, please visit my reviews of:
Captain America: The First Avenger
Thor
The Other Guys
Iron Man 2
The Clone Wars
Iron Man
The Star Wars Prequel Trilogy
The Incredibles
XXX
Unbreakable
The Red Violin
Jurassic Park

8/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Ridiculous Gore, Extensive Violence, Kill Bill, Vol. 1 Is Still Impressive.

The Good: Decent acting, Interesting characters, Quirky at the right moments, DVD bonus features
The Bad: Very straightforward plot and plot execution
The Basics: Very violent and gory in an almost comic way, Kill Bill, Vol. 1 is very much a Quentin Tarantino classic.


There are few directors who illicit a "love it or hate it" reaction like Quentin Tarantino. I suspect largely that comes from the fact that Tarantino creates a very specific type of movie as opposed to actually liking or hating the specific works of Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino's films, the ones he writes and directs on his own, tend to be violent films that are not so much action adventure as they are quirky dramas. Often overshadowed by the sheer volume of gore and/or violence, many casual viewers of Tarantino films overlook the fact that his movies are packed with weird dialogue and his films tend to be surprisingly verbose. I tend to take Tarantino's works as they come. I, for example, enjoyed Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction, but felt no strong attachment to Reservoir Dogs. In fact, I felt Reservoir Dogs was overrated and so when my wife wanted us to watch the two Kill Bill films, I was more indifferent than excited or actively disinterested.

After watching Kill Bill, Vol. 1, it is easy to see why Quentin Tarantino has such a loyal audience as he does. The first of two Kill Bill films is weird, funny (often in dark ways) and exceptionally gory. In fact, there are scenes with such over-the-top gore on-screen that they had to be depicted using animated sequences as opposed to live-action presentations. And the way I knew how much I enjoyed Kill Bill, Vol. 1 was in how I wanted immediately to see the second volume. But for fans of the other works written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, they will find the first Kill Bill film to be surprisingly light on dialogue. There are a few explanations, but largely Kill Bill, Vol. 1 is a straightforward revenge story that follows one woman on a bloody rampage around the world.

After having her head shot by a vindictive masochist, the Bride is left for dead by a group of assassins on the day of her wedding (actually, it's the rehearsal, but that doesn't come up until the next film). She awakens, four years later, in a hospital with her muscles atrophied and a strong sense of injustice about what has happened to her. So, she begins to hunt those who wronged her. She stops at the home of Vernita Green, now a housewife with a daughter, where a bloody catfight ensues and the Bride tries to get information on the whereabouts of Bill, the man who led the group of assassins.

The Bride is crossing her enemies off a list as she nears Bill and in the process, she relates the backstory of how she was nearly killed, how she recovered and of her initial relationship with Bill. Her sword, an original by Hattori Hanzo, is explained and her tenure with Hanzo is illustrated. And after her apparent resurrection, she goes after O-Ren Ishii and the Crazy 88s, her personal army of trained killers.

Kill Bill, Vol. 1 is intended to be a fairly direct story about bad people who do bad things and ultimately pay the price for it. The biggest problem with the story, outside the way the battles become somewhat monolithic as they progress, is that the ending is known to even less-than attentive viewers almost from the beginning. When the Bride goes to dispatch Vernita, we see her list and O-Ren Ishii's name is crossed off above it. Thus, the viewer knows throughout the entire sequence of the Bride fighting the small army (my partner and I counted seventy-two, as opposed to eighty-eight) of O-Ren Ishii's goons that the Bride will not only not die, she will slaughter O-Ren.

This is Quentin Tarantino's kung-fu magnum opus and for those who are not fond of kung-fu films, there is little getting around the fact that this is full of people hitting, kicking, and slicing one another up. I'm not a huge fan of the genre - in fact, I can only recall seeing Kung-Fu Hustle from the genre before this - but Quentin Tarantino's sense of mixing up the story points and visual stylings make the film flow well with violence and an excess of dark humor. The story, like many of Tarantino's is told out of chronological order and while the Bride's main story is a direct tale of revenge wherein the Bride hunts the four people who wronged her leading her to Bill, her former lover and commander, the divergences to explain her sword and the rise of O-Ren Ishi as part of the criminal underground add some spice to an otherwise monotonous plot.

Even the Bride, though, is not terribly good, which is obvious from some of the movie's first frames when she gets bloody revenge upon Vernita. It is hard to feel bad about the Bride, despite the fact that she had been sexually abused while in her coma, given how she violently exhibits her wrath at every opportunity. And there are plenty of chances for the Bride to not only be merciful, but go about her search for Bill another way. Of course, this isn't that type of story; Kill Bill, Vol. 1 is a straightforward revenge tale, which is why the Bride goes after O-Ren first, making sure to take out one of her strongest challenges immediately. And as far as revenge flicks go, Kill Bill, Vol. 1 is a solid start.

Part of what makes this bloodbath of a film so worthwhile is the acting. Because most of the characters are monolithic bad guys or the heroine, it is hard to say that any of the characters are even remotely likable. In fact, coming out of "Vol. 1" there is much we do not know about any of the characters. We know that the Bride was pregnant when she was shot by Bill and that while in the coma she was sexually abused, but we know little about her other than that she is filled with a furious anger and those associates she once ran with are all trained killers and are largely unlikable. In fact, by the simple act of having a child, living in a neighborhood and trying to negotiate with the Bride, Vernita is granted more character depth and information than either the Bride or Bill.

Vernita is played by Vivica A. Fox and the role is unlike anything Fox has taken on before. Absent is her strong comic ability and she realistically plays a ruthless killer who is trying to live as a normal woman in suburbia. She plays the part perfectly with a wonderful, upstanding quality that endures her entire scene. By contrast, Lucy Liu plays O-Ren Ishii in a similar way to how she has played many other villains who appear, fight and leave the film. Liu is well-cast, but not extraordinary in the role, easily outshined by Chiaki Kuriyama, who lays O-Ren's psychopathic protege Gogo.

The strength of the movie often comes to Uma Thurman to make work and Thurman does a surprisingly good job as the Bride. Usually I rail against Hollywood-thin women, but Thurman is great as the atrophied Bride and while it takes Tarantino a while to illustrate it, her recovery is reasonable and well-represented. Thurman has an intensity to her eyes that makes playing scenes opposite only her own foot work. She takes on an action hero quality for the role of the Bride and she is engaging - or at least realistic, as much as such a fantasy film can be - in the part.

On DVD, Kill Bill, Vol. 1 comes with a preview of the next film and a behind-the-scenes featurette. There is a commentary track which is informative and fun, and most of the track is on the development of the story and the shooting of the movies as opposed to plot points, which makes the track interesting to viewers.

Ultimately, though, this is a like-it or hate-it type movie; it is excessively violent, light on character and even plot and the stylized gore is often over-the-top. But for that type movie, a Quentin Tarantino movie, it does exactly what it sets out to do.

For other works with Lucy Liu, please visit my reviews of:
Chicago
Charlie’s Angels
Payback

8/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |