Corona Coming Attractions wrote:Reviewed: Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill"
Darwin wonders what the hell happened to the guy who wrote "Reservoir Dogs"
Friday, June 28, 2002

KILL BILL, which clocks in at a ponderous and unnecessary 202 pages, is one thing: a self-indulgent mess.

It starts on the cover page. In a childish scrawl, it says:

[align=center]The 4th film by
QUENTIN TARANTINO
UMA THURMAN
is going to

KILL BILL

Written
&
Directed
by
Quentin Tarantino

Based on the character
of “The Bride,” created by
Q & U[/align]

The one thing I never thought I’d see from Tarantino is lameness. The reason we love PULP FICTION and RESERVOIR DOGS so much, the reason they are so long-lasting, is because of their moody coolness. Those movies defined their own cool, and though they might have been a hodgepodge of other films, it’s the swagger-step lurch of tough-guy chatter and braggadocio that propelled them along.

KILL BILL, on the other hand, is a sweaty, overworked disaster that reads like something a QT imitator dreamed up. Remember the TV show Mia Wallace talks about in PULP FICTION? FOX FORCE FIVE? Well, KILL BILL brings it to life. Only it’s not even as good or cognizant-of-itself as that fatuous TV premise.

The lead character, known as the Bride for most of the script, is shot in the head and slips into a five-year-long coma. It was her wedding day, and her past caught up to her in the form of her old boss and his coterie of female assassins. She is pregnant with his baby, but marrying another man. After they do away with her hubby-to-be and everyone else in the church -- including the poor organ lady -- Bill puts a gun to her head. She tells him she has his baby inside of her and he shoots her anyway. Unluckily for him, she lived. And when she awakes from that coma, she’s angry...and coming for him...and all those that have done her wrong. Cue the lightning effect and the hyped-up, remixed, funky ‘70s music.

KILL BILL stinks of an exhaustive effort to redo everything that made PULP FICTION so different and such a joy. The title cards and the “chapters” in the story. The glib dialogue pre- and post-violence. The warped timeline. Slick cut-aways and flashbacks. It’s all here. And it’s downright embarrassing. QT comes off as a desperate guy trying to recapture his old fame and renown. An aged guy past his time revisiting what people once responded to because he’s come to the end of his creative road. (That this is only Tarantino’s fourth go-round makes the whole thing even weirder.) For some reason, these quirks in form never come off as “a style”; it always reeks of self-imitation.

KILL BILL’s problem is that it has no story, no drive, no narrative thrust. Unlike PULP, which set its interesting characters through mazes of obstacles, KILL BILL has a one-track mind. The subhead of the title should be “How to Murder Your Enemies,” because that’s all we see. The entire script is nothing more than, no joke, protracted scenes where the Bride enters a room with a weapon, sees the person she wants to kill, and does. It’s not even like an action film where our hero must battle it out and we get a nice jolt from, say, someone jumping off a roof attached to a water hose. The Bride literally struts into a location and kills thirty guys with a sword. That’s it. Nothing more to it. These scenes are humorlessly and dully violent, with heads decapitated and limbs chopped off, and that whole hip, fatalistic view of death -- it’s just a thing -- seems absurd in this day and age. I guess it would be one thing to see the Bride whup ass a few times set within a story. As a matter of fact, females kicking ass is quite trendy nowadays. KILL BILL takes up the idea that you’ll want to see nothing but the Bride smashing men and women apart. It’s the same scene over and over again, a nightmare of repetition that blissfully orbits the same material in heedless ignorance or defiant hubris.

This is apparently an homage to QT’s beloved Hong Kong chop-socky flicks. In fact, the Shaw Brothers are mentioned so many times (we hear about Shaw Brothers zoom-ins and flashbacks) -- at one point we’re even presented with Shaw Brothers movies -- that I wondered why I didn’t forget all about KILL BILL and just rent one of their damn films.

The most staggering thing about reading KILL BILL is that you see Tarantino has not matured one bit since he wrote his first script. Maybe he’s even slipped back a notch. KILL BILL reads like a teenager’s idea of a “cool revenge flick,” the sort of thing Pam Grier starred in back in the ‘70s. “You did me wrong -- I’m gonna kill you -- blood, blood, blood.” If QT wrote his fight scenes like most people do -- which is to say with a one-sentence description, e.g., “They have a grand battle” -- his script would be about fifty pages long. The dialogue in this script is just terrible. Whatever ability QT had at writing the street- eloquent prattle of bad guys and gals has passed him by. There isn’t a memorable quote in this overlong script, and the pasty, dried-out, stilted dialogue we’re presented with reads like the instructions to your computer. (“Well that’s a demonstration of Bill’s complete ignorance when it comes to the subject of me, and what I’m doing, and what I might do. It’s mercy, compassion, and forgiveness I lack, not rationality.”)

There’s no doubt in my mind that PULP and DOGS were classics. I love them to death. But whatever QT had -- to write four excellent scripts (PULP, DOGS, TRUE ROMANCE, and NBK) -- it must have been a fluke. That’s what I believe now. After FOUR ROOMS, JACKIE BROWN and this -- which, though I didn’t think it was possible, is even more pitiful than JACKIE BROWN -- what else can you think?

Does QT really think people want to see this? The script is so one-eyed-blinded by its revenge plot that the story is like barreling down the road in an out-of-control truck. There are no left turns in the story. She sets out to kill everyone who wronged her that day, and does -- with a minimum of trouble. She has to stop to get a sword from some famous Japanese guy, she runs into trouble with Bill’s brother, but otherwise -- it’s sit back and watch the carnage. Setup and payoff. Which is the last thing you’d expect from the guy who dreamed up the twisty, loopy plot machinations of PULP FICTION.

I have no problem with violence in movies, but senseless, slick, indulgent violence in action movies does get on my nerves. And it’s on ample display here. Every single page of the script is chockablock with people being brutally murdered. That disregard for life -- where a woman shoots a man in the head without breaking stride -- has Tarantino not got beyond that? Being an adult now, a man who has gotten out of that video store and led a real life, hasn’t altered his view on life in any way? And what about Uma Thurman, who helped create this story -- doesn’t she, as a mother of two, feel a little odd making a movie so drenched in blood? So childishly and brainlessly set in its violent way? Sergio Leoni and John Woo, who inspired guys like Tarantino, showed a roomful of men going down, but without blood or gore. Guys like QT changed that, and in the ‘90s all the cynical, straight-out-of-film-school directors crafted all their hip, bloody violence in its high-contrast glory. It never bugged me, and I dug the show. But now -- in this time in our lives -- with all that’s happened -- call me crazy...but it just doesn’t work for me anymore. Not even in a movie can I just accept a person being savagely murdered. Death has a new number now, in 2002, and if QT can’t see that, he’s more lost than we know.

With the exception of maybe Nick Kazan’s ENOUGH (which is a sister to this project), I can’t remember ever reading something this inept. (Quick digression: someone stole from someone here; both movies are chick-revenge flicks, and they share the “chapters” in the story and the title cards and the big bloody showdown at the end; plus the two scripts have the same odd eccentricities in the prose.) The timeline shenanigans here are used for the same reason most people use them today: to mask how anemic the story is. The characters are emptily shallow. Our entire interest in this script is based on the Bride’s white-hot rage. But we never know her. QT gives her extensive voice-over, but she’s never talking about herself -- only explaining, in lengthy detail, the motivations of others. And what about Bill? Who the hell is this guy and what’s his story? He’s the leader of this dangerous group of killers, and apparently “the best assassin in the world,” but he leads a pretty normal, even domestic life. The Bride and Bill were lovers before she got pregnant and scrammed. Did she love him? Was it purely a boss-and-worker sex thing? We get a cool flashback to the Japanese killer’s past, but how did this group -- The Deadly Viper Assassination Squad (“D.iV.A.S.”) -- get started? What is Bill’s relationship to these people? And exactly what was going on between Bill and the Bride before she left? He more than happily put a gun to her head and killed her (or so he thought). And all because he felt spurned? The awkward conversation Bill and the Bride have in the end does nothing to explain anything beyond its facile border. Tarantino actually has a pretty cool story here -- about the D.iV.A.S. and the CHARLIE’S ANGELS-like missions they probably were involved with and Bill feeling betrayed and the Bride’s attempt at a new life (and how the group disbanded and each person went on to new things) -- but he’s too wrapped up in telling this moronic and simple tale of revenge to see the story for the trees.

Throughout the script QT strokes his own chain with utterly frantic attempts to be hip and “novel” again. To play around with screenplay/movie structure. For instance, we don’t hear the Bride’s name till almost the end of the script. Until that time, whenever someone says her name it’s bleeped out. (When you finally do get to hear her name it’s a goddamned letdown, and it makes no sense why we couldn’t hear it!) QT lists his own credits -- “The 4th Film by Quentin Tarantino” and “Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino” -- in the text! QT, my man, KILL BILL has to be much, much better for you to be that annoying.

The Bride makes one interesting stop-off in her flashbacks. We get to see her train with the famous, one-hundred-and-fifty-year-old Pai Mei. It’s sort of like KUNG FU and KICKBOXER, with the silliness ratcheted up. It was at the very least a fun distraction, if only for its ludicrous predictability and hokey dorkiness. You’ve seen it a million times before -- exactly as it’s presented -- but it makes for a nice aside, since it’s so out of place. (QT immediately contradicts the proficiency of the training by making the Bride walk into the most obvious, shotgun-behind-the-door ambush.)

KILL BILL allows QT to throw some of his favorite stuff -- Hong Kong flicks, Pam Grier, revenge blaxploitation films, CHARLIE’S ANGELS and ALIAS -- into a blender and mix it up. The fact that no one but him and Uma Thurman could enjoy this must not have crossed his mind.

Maybe someone like J.J. Abrams (creator of ALIAS and a great director) or Mike Bay could whip this up into a blistering, lightning-quick froth and spin you around so fast that you don’t notice the only thing you’re seeing is a woman monotonously kill a bunch of people. But Tarantino? QT’s style of directing is hands-off bordering on lazy, and if he intends to use that technique on his action scenes -- which consist mostly of the Bride slicing people -- we’re in store for a three-hour debacle that will once and forever erase the memory of his greatness.

Though I find this script deplorable and despise it, I’m simply keen to see it on the big screen. This will be the most spectacular failure since MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. I have no doubt that people will sit there, shell-shocked and bewildered, as they watch the body count rise and rise and wonder when the hell the story is going to start.

QT inspired a generation of filmmakers. And that’s a good thing. But KILL BILL almost surely signals that his time is over.

KILL BILL is a plodding, stiflingly stupid mess about nothing much more than the film-geek pleasures of reimagining someone else’s work. It’s silly and malodorous, lame and shameful, childish and petulant, self-engrossed and overextended, shortsighted and claustrophobic, and in the end even the script, just the words on paper, crumbles down upon itself and scatters in the uncaring wind.

-- Darwin Mayflower

TC wrote:i have been mentioning the new QT project "Kill Bill". well, here's a review of the shooting script for you. i had hoped that QT would follow Jackie Brown with something more true to his roots, but apparently his downhill slide continues....

MonkeyPeaches wrote:Quentin Tarantino Interview - KILL BILL And Others (MonkeyPeaches Exclusive)
July 17, 2002

We only have a few questions, because we know you are busy. The first one is: which experience has made your today’s success, working at the video store or fighting in the streets? In other words, where do you find your inspiration, from movies or from your life?

(Laugh) I think it’s from both, 50%-50%. Half of my inspiration is from life and the other half is from those movies I watched. Movies bring me passion to create, let me know today’s movie trend, and what happening in the movie circle; life can keep enlightening me and inspire me, and I keep getting ideas from life.

Let’s talk about KILL BILL.

Why not!

You have said KILL BILL would be your greatest work. How is it different from PULP FICTION?

It’s so far the purest action or kung-fu I have made. The movie, with a story about a killer seeking revenge, got lots of action scenes. I I will make it to the coolest movie. Drive people crazy, and make people shaking. Fight scenes in the movie have strong flavor of Chinese kung-fu. This is my attempt of trying new film type, and I will take this opportunity to push me to a new era. In this movie, I will explore my inspiration as much as I like. Meanwhile, the biggest challenge is, I must see whether I can make it to a movie I have imaged and see how high can I reach.

I saw many pigeons in the courtyard outside. Will there be any pigeon scene in the movie?

(Laugh) No, No, No! I don’t know where did these lovely creatures come from. I guess they are just some pigeons, dogs and rabbits being raised there. They are not related to the movie.

Pigeon is John Woo’s trademark.

Right, right! So, there won’t be any pigeon in my movie. like that's ever stopped him before!! --TC

I heard to make those gangster movies look real, you have talked to criminals, drug addicts, and even gangsters. Is that true?

Except filmmakers, I don’t really know too many people. I create a character based on my personal experience. My gangsters are just characters. The so called realism is only referring to the dramatization I did to my movies.

Judging from dialogues and plots of your movies, (I say) you are a specialist of Western Pop Culture.

I love Pop Culture.

What made you decided to work with your Chinese partner, attracted by Chinese culture, or some other reason?

I have very good impression on China. You can say I came here because I was attracted by Chinese culture, but the main reason is there are many kung-fu scenes (in the movie). The Chinese are the authority of kung-fu films. They know how to use stuffs like wires to make exciting fight scenes, this is cool. I love Chinese style of jumping, punching and kicking.

Have you ever encountered any difficulty?

(Weird laugh) I got pretty good relationship with Chinese officials. Our cultural backgrounds made us seeing and understanding movies differently, but I am an excellent diplomat. After all, I am a guest here. When dealing with disagreement, you have two choices: one is clenching your fists to play hardball, the other one is extending your friendly hand to shake with them and communicate with them. I chose the latter and got the invitation.

The character played by John Travolta in PULP FICTION is surprisingly similar to the character played by Jean-Paul Belmondo in À BOUT DE SOUFFLE (BREATHLESS). Do you agree?

Eh… Eh… I really never thought about this question. This question is very interesting. À BOUT DE SOUFFLE is one of my favorite movies and Jean-Paul Belmondo is a great actor. None of these two characters is able to control his destiny but I never tried to pursuit such similarity.

PULP FICTION is sending a massage of a kind of existentialism – dirty and ridiculous life, and destiny being controlled by random act. Have you ever done any research on such philosophy?

I have never intended to use my movie to show such philosophical thinking. I will never try to think what does this part mean and what is part about. Sometimes, doing so can put me in a very awkward position. I am just telling a story with some of my thoughts burying inside. I don’t want to be the god on the set, telling actors their roles are vessels of some kind of thinking, doing this by this way and doing that by that way. I am just trying to let them give full play to their acting talent, and follow their roles. The existentialism you mentioned is a kind of state of living. It's presented through events and objectively exists in the story.

You are just like a big kid playing with your favorite toys and always maintaining your passion and curiosity about movies.

I agree with what you said. First of all, I am a movie fan. It’s scary if a filmmaker never watching movies.

We are also fans of Oliver Stone…

Who? I didn’t get that.

Oliver Stone.

Oh, I see.

Why did you have disagreement? Because of differences in styles or life experiences?

I think style difference is not the key. He not only stole my NATURAL BORN KILLER script, but also ruined everything. That is not the original story I wrote and the movie was also made to a f**king piece of crap. I have never seen NATURAL BORN KILLER.

Never seen it?

Never.

If you were making NATURAL BORN KILLER, how are you going to do?

Definitely will be different, no matter in the content or style. That sitcom looklike opening scene, the male and female leads only know chopping people off … @#$%^& …, the ??? Indian … Ridiculous!

The Chinese folk music.

Right, the background music of the Indian scene is a Chinese folk music.

Eh. (Laugh) Nonsense!

In 1996, you refused to join Directors Guild of America. Why? As a directors’ group, it is really protecting the interest of your directors.

I don’t want to be restricted by those rules. I don’t want let anyone telling me I should do this, should do that. Joining the Guild and too many rules. They even intervene how you arranging the cast list. Inside the Guild, directors will be protected, but I can protect myself.

You enjoy freedom.

I don’t want my thinking and style being distorted too much. Yes, I enjoy freedom.

You like movies by Jean-Luc Godard, Brian De Palma and John Woo, and call yourself “student of the world cinema”.

That’s right.

What have you learned from them?

Everything of mine, movie language or style, is from movies. I have learned a lot from others. I can get to know the trend of movies through them. At the same time, I can use my own experience to absorb from others, change it into something of my own, and present it with my own style. As a filmmaker, I must be open-minded, must study everything, and must be sensitive.

I don’t know whether you have seen YI GE ZI TOU DE DAN SHENG (TOO MANY WAYS TO BE NO. 1), it’s done by Hong Kong director …

Johnnie To’s movies. Really great! (translator's note: the movie is actually directed by Wai Ka-fai).

I think it is very Tarantino? What do you think?

(Laugh) It is a amazing movie which couldn’t be better. To say it got my style is my honor. That movie is perfect. It conquered me. It has brand new and unique way to narrate, telling the truth of different choices leading to different consequences. The movie’s narration is brilliant, and the story is appealing, but the most classic is the ending. It brought me a surprise and shock, super cool. Not until the last moment, you can’t understand meaning of the title. The ending is closely tired to the title. Usually, the English title of a Hong Kong movie is just a decor, but this one is different. TOO MANY WAYS TO BE NO. 1. Here, “Too” is the key, so smart. Our hero had two choices. First time, it’s a death road and it’s over (?); second time, he really became the boss, but also went lame and got sit in a wheelchair. Controls everything but also lost everything. The ending is so clever, so deep. Too bad, I can't remember some of the details.

What do you think of the exact definition of Tarantinoism really is?

(Laugh) I don’t want to answer this question. Let me ask you.

!?

Yes, what do you think?

Being cool, being different, being forward (?), and being exiting.

Eh…

Can you give us an evaluation on the actors you have worked with? Like John Travolta, Uma Thurman, and Harvey Keitel.

They are all excellent actors and it's very comfortable to work with them. That's why I am working with them over and over again. Uma Thurman is my leading lady, just like Gong Li to Zhang Yimou or Jean-Paul Belmondo (?) to Jean-Luc Godard.

You have played roles in many movies. Like PULP FICTION, DESPERADO (?) and FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, all got you in it. Which role is closest to yourself? [i know the answer - four rooms!!! --TC]

These roles are quite different from myself. To me, a role is something outside of myself. When playing it, I only think about the role, not me. So I never played any role close to myself. The guy in PULP FICTION is not me.

Are you going to making dark movies forever?

I don't think my movies are dark, or dark movies. Really, they are crime movies. RESERVOIR DOGS and PULP FICTION are all that type. They got very shocking and terrifying crime scenes. I will try other film types. KILL BILL is an action / kung-fu movie. Later I will try more movies of this type to widen my road.

If adapting your experience at the video store into the big screen, that would be a very romantic movie.

I don't want to make autobiography and don't want to play myself. If asking me to make a movie about those years, I will put the story on a different background and the characters will also be changed. The time working at the video store is very memorable. Several buddies who didn't have much money but was very happily hanging together, just like a family.

What are your favorite Chinese films?

China has a lot of films and filmmakers. Zhang Yimou's works are very good. I think he is cool, and is always cool, even cooler than I thought. Jiang Wen is China's best director. His YANG GUANG CAN LAN DE RI ZI (IN THE HEAT OF THE SUN) is really great. It tells an old story happened in a special period of time, but it shows the general character of young people. Such general character is universal despite races and regions. And, movies from China's new generation director are also pretty good. About last weekend, I watched one called YI BAI GE (100, directed by Teng Hua). The movie is very entertaining, pretty good.

In China, people like you are called "Hooligan Literators" and Jiang Wen is a typical example of them. If you were born in China, you would not make PULP FICTION, because the bigger environment didn't allow it. If so, you might become an "Angry Youth". In China, there are many "Angry Youths" who should become "China's Tarantino". Want to say something to them?

Let me think about it ... This might be a little bit too absolute. If they think they have no opportunity, they will have no opportunity. You know more than I do. Such discouragement is a mistake in attitude and ideal (?). The Hollywood is a giant commercial machine. Why does it allow directors like me who doesn't have much education to exit? If I always think I got no opportunity, I would not become today's Tarantino. I have never given up and always fight for opportunity, never lost my faith. Finally by accident, I got my opportunity, and could do what ever I want to do. Young people should learn to persuade others, should fight for opportunities. A few years back, the Chinese Angry Youth sharing the same personality with me might not have any opportunity to make a Chinese PULP FICTION, but now the policy and the circumstance are good, we all came making movies here. Soon they will have their opportunities to test their talent. Soon, maybe now, right now.

Maybe it's right now.

Right.

One last question: if asking you to make a movie based on the Bible, what would the movie be?

(Surprise) Interesting, interesting. I ... eh ... of course it won't be the whole Bible. I will choose a part of it. Maybe ... eh ... let me think ... I will come out an interesting idea. I will choose the part with the forbidden fruit. Let's call it EVEN AND SNAKE. It's not a bad thing for Eve and Adam to taste the forbidden fruit. On the contrary, it's a good thing. The tree filled with forbidden fruits is the tree of knowledge. If they didn't taste the forbidden fruit, our life today would not be so colorful, so enjoyable. Maybe live like animals, see the rabbits in the yard? (Ha ... Ha ...)

I see.

Just like them. The tree bore the fruits of freedom and the snake gave the fruit to them. He was a messenger of freedom and Adam (translator's note: should be Eve) was a hero.

Who would play Eve?

... I don't have an answer yet. (Ha ... Ha ...) Let Uma try? (Ha ... Ha ...)

Who would play the snake?

Let me give it a shot? (Ha ... Ha ...)

MonkeyPeaches wrote:Quentin Tarantino Interview - KILL BILL And Others (MonkeyPeaches Exclusive)
July 17, 2002

I think style difference is not the key. He not only stole my NATURAL BORN KILLER script, but also ruined everything. That is not the original story I wrote and the movie was also made to a f**king piece of crap. I have never seen NATURAL BORN KILLER.

Definitely will be different, no matter in the content or style. That sitcom looklike opening scene, the male and female leads only know chopping people off … @#$%^& …, the ??? Indian … Ridiculous!

TC wrote:but when he jumped ollie in that restaurant, i'm pretty sure he was yelling about the movie. and yes, as you pointed out, for someone who's never seen it, he sure has some specific thoughts on it.

TC wrote:all of that being said, yes he is a fucking child, but i thought that his NBK script was great, and i would still like to see it done, since it is so different from the film that got made. not that i didn't like NBK, because i did, but QT's NBK was completely different.

TC wrote:which leads to the question, "why the fuck does he care?"

"Kill Bill" - A Review by 'Spongebob Durden' (Positive, Major Spoilers)

INTRODUCTION

It was a bitch and a half to write this review. The insane hype for this film started with Harry’s, post Star Trek 2 screening, review of the script. He rambled on with orgasmic ravings that appeared to be biased as all hell. Then came the near psychotic CA review. I really do not understand what was going through Mayflower’s head. You don’t read a script for Legally Blonde 2, and complain about the lack of explosions. This script lays it’s intentions bare on the first page. This review is the closest you will get to an unbiased review.

THE SCRIPT

This films starts with a fucking bang. In fact, it is without a doubt one of the greatest openings of any film in history. (Unless QT decides to recast the films with midgets and shoot it with the Sony 24p camera, there is no way he could fuck it up) It is bloody, brutal and it grabs you by the balls. Immediately you realize why The Bride will go completely appeshit for the rest of the film.

I don’t want to ruin any of the great moments, but I love how QT switches back and for between black and white, color, and an orange filter look. I have a feeling it will be great looking film, and I am even more convinced considering he has Robert Richardson on as DP. Extraneous note: does anyone else think it is a little weird that QT hired the guy who shot Natural Born Killers?

After the beginning, we are assaulted with primarily scene after scene of *bleep* exacting her sweet revenge. Sure there are a few other scenes, like the kick ass hotel scene with Bill, but mainly the entire script is filled with her gory comeuppance.

I really do not want to ruin any of this flick, so I am going to be treading lightly with the spoilers. At the end I am going to have a spoiler ridden section where I address some specific scenes and actions.

THE CHARACTERS

The Bride at first seems like a cardboard character. Her only motivation is: revenge. Go figure. But as the script goes along you begin to respect her tenacity. The last chapter solidifies her as a human being, and makes the whole thing feel a lot more tragic. If Uma nails it, which she should, it could become a classic film character.

Bill. Holy fucking shit on a stick. This is a GREAT character. David Carradine is going to knock this out of the park. I know this because Quentin knows this. I trust him as a director, his choices for his other films have always been unconventional and perfect. I watched Warden of Red Rock with Jimmy Caan and Carradine last week, and let me tell you...Carradine oozed evil with every word and look. I am fucking psyched to see him hit this out of the park. Bill has the best and juiciest dialogue (more on that later).

Budd is my favorite of the smaller roles. His inner turmoil and his surrender to the bottled beast seemed very natural. I really wished we could have seen him in action to find out why he was in the group, I honestly think he only was because he is Bill’s brother.

I am not going to go into detail on all the other characters but they are great, everyone makes their mark in the film. The casting is a little off, but I know QT will nail it. I think Michael Jai White might make his small character very memorable. I don’t think he has done a good job in any movie so far, but this role seems perfectly suited for him.

THE GORE

Keeeeristies. This will not get past the MPAA in the form I read. This is the final shooting draft and it is fucking gory as all hell. Imagine if the gore of the lawnmower scene in Dead Alive, put into a fight sequence. Limbs, heads, etc. fly all over the place in this flick.

I honestly have no idea why QT thinks he could this past the MPAA, they are going to shit their pants when they see this. Expect a lot of controversy when it is sent to the ratings board.

THE ACTION

As much as I loved the action, I was pretty disappointed. There is next to no kung fu or gun fights. I was hoping it would not be primarily samurai shit but it is 95% samurai shit.

That being said...

The House of Blue Leaves is going to go down in film history. Harry was definitely right about that. This sequence will kick your ass so fucking hard you will never know what hit you. There is an midpoint to it where I thought she was done with the Crazy 88’s and next thing you knew, thirty more showed up. The sequence is ballsy, you really are going to be cheering when it is over. I cannot wait to see this on film.

The rest of the film only has a few other small action sequences, in fact they are pretty damn small. They are all very cool, and evoke nostalgia for the great Hong Kong and Kurasowa flicks.

THE DIALOGUE, MY QUIBBLES, AND OTHER INCOHERENT RAMBLINGS...

Okay the script has major problems, but it is so fucking amazing that they don’t really matter.

The dialogue is severely lacking, in substance and in quantity. This is practically a silent film. (Maybe it seems that way because I am used to the great QT talking heads pictures) I’d say half the pages on the script don’t have a word of dialogue. The dialogue that is left is good but not on par with other QT films, there are a few gems left in there:

“You fucked with the Wong sisters.” (best line in the script, had me laughing my fucking ass off)

“I can tell you with no ego, this is my finest sword. If on your journey you should encounter God, God will be cut.”

The other quotable lines will spoil key moments in the film. But there is a conversation between two characters on a porch near the very end of the film that is fucking classic.

Another small problem, besides the Blue Leaves segment there is at most ten minutes of action in the film. The last half seems like a let down, on the action front.

I hope he hits the animation segments right. If he does it will be so fucking cool, if not...Tank Girl.

I waited awhile to write this review so I could let it sit. Some problems I had dissapeared on repeat readings. The initial “kill” seemed pretty fucking stupid, but then I realized that it set up the rest of the film brilliantly. I think the actual kill will be a nice surprise when executed.

THE VERDICT

This film is going to rock the f**king planet. Don’t let my bitching near the end fool you, no film is perfect. I absolutely cannot wait to see this thing come to life. This will be one of the greatest films of all time (for the audience it is aimed at). Get ready, and sorry for making you all a lot more impatient but it will be worth the wait. I promise.

the QT archives wrote:THE QUENTIN TARANTINO ARCHIVES PRESENTS:
AN INTERVIEW WITH BO SVENSON

Legend Bo Svenson, playing 'The Preacher' in Kill Bill, gives us some information about his involvement in the movie and his future projects. I had the honor to personally ask Bo some questions.

Visit http://www.bosvenson.com if you want to read more.


QT Archives: Here we go, some random things I came up with that might be interesting for us fans. How did you get involved in the project?

Mr Svenson: Quentin offeredme the role in june 2002.

QT Archives: You played lots of cops before. Have you ever played a similar role as a preacher before?

Mr Svenson: No.

QT Archives: Is your character's name really "Reverand Harmony"?

Mr Svenson: The Preacher (Uma is The Bride, Samuel L. Jackson is The Organ Player, Chris Nelson is The Groom).

QT Archives: How do you think about the movie, will it be a big hit, and why?

Mr Svenson: Yes.it sets new standards for creativity and style.

QT Archives: Most of the people on the internet only know the very first draft of the script, which does not mention any surviving wedding participants. Does your part involve happenings before the massacre as well?

Mr Svenson: Yes.

QT Archives: Do you know if the sequence you're in, comes at the beginning or at the end of the movie?

Mr Svenson: In the beginning, later, and in the middle.

QT Archives: What are your next projects? For example, fans loved you in "Walking Tall", do you think there could be a remake?

Mr Svenson: There is talk of both a remake and a sequel.

QT Archives: How good is "viking" coming along?

Mr Svenson: Not.

QT Archvies: What's it about?

Mr Svenson: The discovery of america by vikings 500 years before columbus.

QT Archives: How high do you consider the level of violence in kill bill according to what you've seen?

Mr Svenson: Very high.

QT Archives: When did you establish your own website?

Mr Svenson: 4-5 years ago.

QT Archives: Not many actors do have their own. How did you get the idea, and do you think other celebrities will follow that example?

Mr Svenson: Fans started mine for me.

QT Archives: There will be a Kill Bill computer game. How do you think about that?

Mr Svenson: Great!

QT Archives: Would you like to appear in that?

Mr Svenson: Sure.

QT Archives: Anything you wanna get out (to those thousands of movie lovers who will float into theaters next year)?

Mr Svenson: Working with quentin is the high point of my 35 years in hollywood. He is the man

QT Archives: Thank you Mr Svenson.

Mr Svenson: Thank you

klimov wrote:JACKIE BROWN is the only good Tarantino movie!

Plus there's Pam Grier - and De Niro giving his best performance in ages.

Metallica’s Lars Ulrich to co-write score for next Quentin Tarantino film

October 17th, 2002

Metallica co-founder and drummer Lars Ulrich is expected to work along side Wu-Tang Clan member RZA on the musical score for the next Quentin Tarantino movie called ‘Kill Bill.’

‘Kill Bill’ is a martial arts movie that follows the story of a female assassin who is betrayed and nearly killed by her peers only to awaken from her coma five years later to seek revenge. ‘Kill Bill’ will star Uma Thurman, David Carradine, Daryl Hannah, Michael Madsen, Vivica A. Fox, Lucy Liu and LaTanya Richardson.

TC wrote:god, this is shitty news. lars is a worthless fuck.