Holy Mother of God, it ROCKED!!!!!!! My heart was pumping by the time the end credits began!

Running time: 1 hour and 50 minutes (1 hour and 43 minutes without end credits.)

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino

---Cast:
Uma Thurman Beatrix Kiddo aka The Bride (“Black Mamba”)
David Carradine Bill
Daryl Hannah Elle Driver (“California Mountain Snake”)
Michael Madsen Budd (“Sidewinder”)
Vivica A. Fox Vernita Green (“Cobra”)
Lucy Liu O-Ren Ishii (“Cottonmouth”)
Chiaki Kuriyama Go Go Yubari (The bolo-wielding girl in the schoolgirl outfit)
Sonny Chiba Hattori Hanzo (The swordmaker)
Julie Dreyfus Sofie Fatale (O-Ren Ishii’s assistant)

Kill Bill, Quentin Tarantino’s fourth film, is a pure homage to the Kung Fu and Spaghetti Western genres of Tarantino’s geekboy youth. It is a stylish, incredibly bloody meat grinder of a film that takes the simplest of plots, a character on a journey to take revenge on the five people who nearly murdered her and put her into a coma for four years, and makes us feel like we’ve been given a full-course meal. The movie is so methodical and circumspect in the way it focuses on the incidental, the way it takes things other movies might deem mundane and places them under a microscope with style, that it turns ponderousness into a virtue, elevating the trivia of blood drops and the minutiae of scratches on the head of a bullet into the salient and celebrated. It is gut-wrenchingly thrilling and incredibly graphic in its violence, but makes us want more.

In the beginning of the film we see pregnant lead Uma Thurman, beaten to a pulp on her wedding day, and shot by her mentor Bill in a shot so shocking that it just has to be seen to be understood in its potential to make you gasp. Left strewn at a desert wedding chapel with the entire wedding party dead, Thurman, known throughout most of the story as simply “The Bride” (and as assassin Black Mamba), wakes up out of a coma four years later in a hospital, shrieking as she grabs at her now-flat stomach for the pregnancy that ended in tragedy, and after writing down the names of the former associates that betrayed her, proceeds on an entrails-soaked journey to vengeance.

That’s pretty much all you need to know in terms of the plot, which shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who’s seen Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, who knows that as in the best tradition of modern storytelling, Quentin Tarantino’s signature is not in what the plot is, or how original it is, but in how he executes it through the homage-tinted glasses of a former video store nerd. Indeed, even though this is the first movie whose script I ever read prior to seeing the film, doing so did not spoil the film for me, it only enhanced it. The out of sequence vignettes detailing The Bride’s methodical elimination of her betrayers, interspersed with others depicting her reawakening, her reacquaintane with her atrophied limbs, and an animated origin story, work even better here than they did in Pulp Fiction, the dialogue is adroit in its delivery (though pared down for a Tarantino flick), and of course, the martial arts sword-fighting scenes are indescribably thrilling. While most of the music (with the exception of that played as the Bride flies into Japan) is cheesy to the point of being grating (Grated cheese?), that’s to be expected from Tarantino, the nerd of pastiche/homage, and the film does succeed in forming a rapport between us and the Bride, makes us root for her as she places in her life in mortal danger to collect on a huge blood debt, and has us hungering for more the movie ends with a tantalizing plot revelation/twist. If you read the script, and you’re ticked that the story was broken into two parts, don’t be. The film milks so much detail out of the hour and forty-three minutes of the first half of the story that when I looked at the time one hour into the film, it seemed like I had sat through two hours of story (and I mean that in a good way).

See it when it comes out October 10th, and see Vol. II when it comes out February 20th.

You can watch the movie’s trailer here.

You can read the script here.

NITS:
Sometimes Tarantino’s slavish devotion to trivia and homage is really corny, and can be particularly annoying when it’s out of place. The title card on screen before the movie begins states the old proverb that “Revenge is a dish best served cold,” but instead of attributing it as a Sicilian proverb, he refers to it as an old “Klingon” proverb? Was he genuinely unaware that it’s actually a Sicilian proverb, and actually thought it was invented by the writers of Star Trek II, or did he know this, but choose this attribution anyway? Either way, it was annoying. If it’s the latter, he’s incompetent for not researching the proverb, and if it’s the latter, it’s just plain stupid.

Okay, so why didn’t anyone realize the Bride was still alive until the Sheriff showed up?

Can someone explain to me why the movie doesn’t want the audience to know the Bride’s real name? I read the script, and I can see no reason why revealing it only later (and even censoring both Uma Thurman and Vivica Fox as they say her name in an early scene) adds to the film, since it doesn’t really pertain to anything, nor the manner in which it’s revealed. If anything, I wonder what those in the audience who didn’t read the script though when those censor sounds were heard.

The shots of the Bride’s airplane descending in Japan near the film’s climax were really, really, awful. Who in the world would buy those cardboard buildings and toy plane as real? My friend Chris Lopez remarked in mock Japanese voice, “Look! Gojira! Run!” Was this yet another piece of deliberate cheese by Tarantino? Ugh.

SPOILER NIT:
So if The Bride’s baby is actually alive, and is a young girl, then when was it delivered? She still had her bulge when found at the wedding chapel, with no sign of having given birth, but if it was after she was placed in the hospital, how was the baby procured by Bill? Wouldn’t the baby likely have died given the horrific beaten and loss of blood suffered by the Bride?

Oh, Jake, can you add "vol. I" to this board's title? Thanks.

And of course, this movie is further enhanced with the casting of the great Sonny Chiba, who played none other than Space Chief in the ultimate Japanese sci-fi classic, "Invasion of the Neptune Men".

One thing I forgot to mention was all the blood-gushing shots every time someone lost a limb or head. My friend and I both thought it got just ridiculous after a while.

I don't particularly like the idea of one long film being broken down into two parts. Maybe other producers and studios will play copycat and break their long films into two parts. (After all, one thing Hollywood doesn't excel at is originality.) Financially, this would hedge the producer's bets, but the public may see it as doubling the admission price, and stay away in droves. Consider yourself lucky that the studios didn't do it before. Can you imagine - Scarface, volumes I and II? Or Titanic - Parts 1 and 2?

Adam: That's one way to look at it, but how many Special Edition DVDs are out there with extended versions of films? How many director's commentaries have you heard where the director complains about being strongarmed by the studio to make the moive shorter and shorter in order to sneak in one or two more screenings a day thus alledgedly making more money? And how often are these extended versions better (not always, but that's not my point)? I think this splitting a long moive into 2 parts, instead of posibly having to drop an important scene or in the case of poor Illeanea Douglas in Chasing Amy, an entire CHARACTER, could mean writers and directors can tell the story they want to tell and have a little more freedom as artists. Of course, this is assuming it's only done with good moives, which at first most of them will be, then it'll be with moives like Godfather 3 or Star Trek V.

I don't think that even if this sets a precedent that it will occur beyond filmmakers with a fanbase like Quentin Tarantino. HE can get away with it. Joe Blow nobody director can't. Hell, it could argued that even someone like Spielberg could not get away with it, because the genre of the films he works wouldn't tend to motivate the 18-34 demographic to the theaters for two volumes the way the genres that Tarantino or the Wachowski brothers do. People will go to see multiple volumes of Lord of the Rings and The Matrix. I'm not sure they'd do so with Scarface or Titanic. Those stories just doesn't seem to lend themselves well to serialization.

Neither, I think can you get away with it with movies that are less than three hours long. Would keeping Illeana Douglas to Chasing Amy make it three hours long? I doubt it. Since Kill Bill vol. I is one hour and forty-three minutes of story (not counting five minutes of end credits), then a vol. II of only ninety minutes would mean a combined three hours and eighteen minutes, which justifies two volumes. If vol. II is longer, say, the same length as vol. I, then it would be a total of three hours and thirty-one minutes.

Besides, this isn't really the precedent. Keep in mind that Tolkien originally wrote Lord of the Rings as one book, and it was the publisher, not Tolkien, who broke it up into three. Filming it as three movies is justified because of its length. Two volumes of Kill Bill are justified for the same reason. I mean, really, what is the difference between the two Kill Bills, and say, the two Die Hards, or the two Spider-Man films? Some may respond that in the case of the latter two, those stories are more self-contained, but isn't that subjective? Kill Bill vol. I certainly seemed self-contained by the end. Some may argue that it has a cliffhanger that leads into the second movie, but so what? Didn't Superman contain scenes meant to set up the plot of Superman II? Didn't Empire Strikes Back set up Return of the Jedi? No one seemed bothered by that. It would seem to me that if viewers like a good movie, that they want to see more of the story if there is more of it to tell.

Ultimately, it seems that some people are ambiguous about two volumes of Kill Bill simply because it wasn't originally conceived that way, which to me, doesn't seem to be the one criteria by which the decision to break it up should be judged.

If vol. II is longer, say, the same length as vol. I, then it would be a total of three hours and thirty-one minutes.

Well wait a sec , Titanic (the biggest grosser of all time)is 3 hours 14 minutes long. Gone With the Wind is nearly 4 hours long. Hell if lord of the rings proves anything it proves that people will sit though a 3 hour long movie in droves if it's good enough. I mean Lord of the rings, if done as one movie would be 9+ hours long (not counting the special edition) that's not even the same thing as 3+ hours of Kill Bill.

But the story in Titanic doesn't lend itself well to serialization. The story in Kill Bill does, since each of the five people that Beatrix goes after constitutes an Act of sorts.

I saw it again Saturday night for the second time, and I liked it even more. Sometimes you need to see a film more than once--even one that you liked the first time--to gain a better perspective of it. Although it was the same cut I saw on September 24th, it seemed to move at a brisker pace, and whereas the only music I liked in the movie the first time was that guitar piece that accompanies Beatrix's flight into Tokyo (the main music in the first trailer), this time I warmed up to the rest of the soundtrack as well: The combination of Spaghetti Western and Japanese Samurai genre music was really nice.

This one also had the “Shawscope” title card tribute to the Shaw Brothers right after the Miramax title card, and even a 60’s-esque “Feature Presentation” one after that.

I even saw it with four friends this time (one of which was with me the first time), and it was so cool seeing the reaction of the one sitting next to me who was seeing it for the first time.

Cool film.

I saw the moive today, and now I'm extremely PO'ed at Qunetin Tarantino. Why? BECAUSE THIS MOVIE WAS SO DAMNED GOOD I CAN'T WAIT FOR VOL. II!!! Gaah! I'm being bombarded by cliffhangers! The West Wing, Smallville, Third Watch, and now this frikkin' movie!

That out of the way, this is the most fun I've had at the moives in a long time. Great action, funny dialouge, cool music, swords, hot women, black & white, slo-mo, kung-fu, anime; this movie has everything a growing boy needs. *wink*

P.S. The trailer for Matrix Revolutions looked ••••••• sweet!

Oh, BTW, I thought the "Old Klingon Proverb" gag was great.

Without looking at the board, here's mine:

Yes, the fight scene (and the rest) are completely unbelievable. So? Enjoy a f-cking movie; it's not supposed to seem extremely realistic.


I for one enjoy disjointed timelines such as this; then again, I'm a sci-fi and Trek geek.


My nits:

The beginning of the fight scene, while it's still in color: She slices a few guys in half. You see her ripping down the chest. Shot of them a minute later? Bodies, sans blood.

Okinawa was on the wrong island. Bottom of the map; they showed it on Kyushu.


"Domo" is not thank you; it's "very much." "Arrigato" is thank you; Uma interchanges them, constantly.

Oh, and I LOVED it!


(Note that this is my first Tarantino movie)

Hannah: This was my second Tarantino flick, though to be honest, I didn't care for Pulp Ficiton very much. But it's not really Quentin's fault. I just have a visceral aversion to John Travolta (though I did like Grease, Face/Off, Michael, and Phenomenon).

You liked Michael but not Pulp? Hmmm.

I wish I had the eloquence of Luigi in expressing how absolutely brilliant this film is.
There wasn't any CGI trickery involved with this film (unless you count the Anime section I guess) so all the people in the fight scene were real.
To me, this film just blew away every film I saw this year in the cinema by a country mile. My heart was going a million miles an hour and I wanted to turn to the projection booth and shout "HEY- ROLL PART 2 NOW, BUDDY!!!"
If you are after a deep, cerebral film that analyses the nature of human existence whilst juxtaposing that against a setting of human love and conflict- then I suggest that this may not be the film for you.
If however, to quote Samuel Jackson, you just like seeing "a bunch of ugly motherf*****s get the s**t kicked out of them", then this is definately for you!
loved it,loved it,loved it

I didn't notice any CGI during the anime sequence.

That was a really, really good film. Definitely in my top 3 of the year. It was visually spectacular, funny at the right moments, and touching in others. Many of the characters seemed truly human, especially the Bride. I think Uma does a great job in this movie. I wasn't a big fan of the anime sequence, but, then again, I'm not a huge anime fan. While I liked Pulp Fiction more, this movie is right up there. Bring on Vol. II.

Did that girl not look 4 to anyone else? Slightly older?

Luigi Novi: Sometimes Tarantino’s slavish devotion to trivia and homage is really corny, and can be particularly annoying when it’s out of place. The title card on screen before the movie begins states the old proverb that “Revenge is a dish best served cold,” but instead of attributing it as a Sicilian proverb, he refers to it as an old “Klingon” proverb? Was he genuinely unaware that it’s actually a Sicilian proverb, and actually thought it was invented by the writers of Star Trek II, or did he know this, but choose this attribution anyway? Either way, it was annoying. If it’s the latter, he’s incompetent for not researching the proverb, and if it’s the latter, it’s just plain ••••••.
That, of course, is your opinion (are opinions nits? Anyway...) It made me laugh, partly because I knew it truly was both a Sicilian and a "Klingon" proverb.

Luigi Novi: Can someone explain to me why the movie doesn’t want the audience to know the Bride’s real name? I read the script, and I can see no reason why revealing it only later (and even censoring both Uma Thurman and Vivica Fox as they say her name in an early scene) adds to the film, since it doesn’t really pertain to anything, nor the manner in which it’s revealed. If anything, I wonder what those in the audience who didn’t read the script though when those censor sounds were heard.
The critics seemed to like it. I guess it adds to the mystery of the Bride, such as it is. I don't know.

Luigi's SPOILER NIT
He simply said that the baby's alive. That doesn't mean that Bill has the baby. If it were somehow delivered while she was in a coma (I don't know if that's even possible) it could have been placed into an orphanage or some kind of foster care. If the Bride were ever to wake, she would undoubtedly be told this. But the hospital staff didn't realize that she was awake until she was gone.

Luigi Novi: One thing I forgot to mention was all the blood-gushing shots every time someone lost a limb or head. My friend and I both thought it got just ridiculous after a while.
I figure it was meant to be. Like the bleeping of the name, just Tarantino doing his thing. Homage to any crazy blood effects of the past.

Luigi- I wasn't sure if the anime section was done on computers (thus making it cgi) or actually done the old-fashioned way by animators.

It was clearly traditional animation.

THE SPOILER NIT:
JoshM: He simply said that the baby's alive. That doesn't mean that Bill has the baby. If it were somehow delivered while she was in a coma (I don't know if that's even possible) it could have been placed into an orphanage or some kind of foster care.

Luigi Novi: Bill has her. Her name is B.B., and becomes a point of conflict when Beatrix confronts Bill in vol II.

Ah...

Of course, You read the whole script. Forgot about that one. So, will you repost that nit on the Vol. II board whenever that's created? I didn't know it was a Volume II spoiler...

Um, hold on a sec Luigi:

Why did you post her real name at the top. It's kept deliberately secret in the film. Shouldn't that be modified since it's basically a spoiler from the next movie?

JoshM: Ah...
...So, will you repost that nit on the Vol. II board whenever that's created? I didn't know it was a Volume II spoiler...

Luigi Novi: No, because the revelation about B.B. being alive occurred at the end of this one, so this is where I made the nit.

JohM: Um, hold on a sec Luigi:
...Why did you post her real name at the top. It's kept deliberately secret in the film. Shouldn't that be modified since it's basically a spoiler from the next movie?

Luigi Novi: No, because it's not central to the plot. Tarantino's decision to censor it until later in the script was entirely arbitrary, and has nothing to do with the advancement of the plot, or even the character, so I didn't think it would matter.

Once the bride climbs into the car, and starts trying to get her legs working again, we go off on part of the backstory, and come back with a caption saying 13 hours later.
By this time, hospital staff should have gone into the room, seen the two dead bodies, alerted security, checked Buck's car, dragged her out and arrested her.
Also, why were her legs atrophied, and her arms not? Wouldn't they both have suffered the same level of degradation after 4 years?

Ah, but...

It was clearly traditional animation.

Well, yes and no. While much of it was probably hand-drawn, they probably used cell-shading and CGI colour to perfect it. "Traditional" animation is pretty rare these days.

Just saw this today. Tarantino is one sick geekboy, but a great director. I enjoyed it greatly.


"The shots of the Bride’s airplane descending in Japan near the film’s climax were really, really, awful. Who in the world would buy those cardboard buildings and toy plane as real? My friend Chris Lopez remarked in mock Japanese voice, “Look! Gojira! Run!” Was this yet another piece of deliberate cheese by Tarantino? Ugh."

IIRC, Luigi, it the same mini-Tokyo from a recent Godzilla movie. The 2001 movie, I believe.


Also, about her name. If they really wanted to keep it secret, then they should have blurred it on her plane tickets. Thats how I found out what it was.

Just before the Bride wakes up, we hear an insect buzzing around the room. It sounded like a fly to me, but when the insect lands on the Bride’s arm, it’s a mosquito. A mosquito has a much higher buzz than a fly.

I also wondered why the Bride kept the Pussy Wagon. She presumably kept it hidden somewhere while she flew out to Japan and killed O-Ren, but I would have expected her to get rid of the Pussy Wagon and get a more discreet vehicle, as Buck’s next-of-kin could have reported the Pussy Wagon stolen.

Other than that, I could forgive other nits, like the Bride having such strength in her arms immediately after waking up from a four-year coma. If she hadn’t, it would have been a very short film! I also forgave the OTT blood-spurting scenes, because you can’t expect anything else from a Tarantino film. I’m with most others who’ve already written about this film – it was just fantastic!

So I finally got around to seeing this one recently, and I was duly impressed. It was tremendously engaging from the first shot (heh) to the last.

The film's level of violence teetered (sp?) right at my acceptance level, so I was glad that Tarentino used the black-and-white trick during the big swordfight. Yay for all that. Now, onto a couple of nits/observations.

Can someone explain to me why the movie doesn’t want the audience to know the Bride’s real name? Luigi Novi

I'm thinking it was because Tarentino realized that Beatrix was a stupid name. But that's just me. (Seriously, though, it looked to me as if he wanted something he could use in the same way as the briefcase in "Pulp Fiction." Never revealed, always speculated about.)

When The Bride is talking to Hattori Hanzo, she says she needs a sword in her mission of vengence against one of Hanzo's former disciples. Hanzo immediately figures out that this means Bill, and expresses that by writing it on the (dirty? fogged up?) window. This sequence raised a couple of flags for me. How did Hanzo immediately know she was talking about Bill? Granted, I don't know the full backstory there; it may be more explained in Vol.II (and if it is, I don't want anyone spoiling me!), but it seemed incredibly sudden. And once he figures it out, why does he write the name on the window? Just so The Bride would have something to erase, therefore proving the full extent of her vengance that she wants to erase Bill's name from the face of the earth?

Meanwhile, how did The Bride get the money to fly to Okinawa, Tokyo, and the U.S.? I thought she could have been using the late Buck's money somehow, but wouldn't the authorities have been watching his funds somehow? I would imagine a similar watch would have been placed on any of The Bride's money.

Why did the airline let The Bride carry her sword on the plane?

I'm a-thinkin' that Sofie should have been passed out from blood loss and/or shock by the end of that fight.

And speaking of that fight, The Bride tells the defeated Crazy 88 that their severed limbs belong to her now. So... what did she do with them, exactly?

Sparrow47: When The Bride is talking to Hattori Hanzo, she says she needs a sword in her mission of vengence against one of Hanzo's former disciples. Hanzo immediately figures out that this means Bill, and expresses that by writing it on the (dirty? fogged up?) window. This sequence raised a couple of flags for me. How did Hanzo immediately know she was talking about Bill?
Luigi Novi: Maybe because he knew Bill was a bad seed. Or maybe Bill was the only white man he ever had as a disciple.

Sparrow47: And once he figures it out, why does he write the name on the window?
Luigi Novi: Maybe he couldn't bring himself to say it. To me, this worked.

Sparrow47: Meanwhile, how did The Bride get the money to fly to Okinawa, Tokyo, and the U.S.? I thought she could have been using the late Buck's money somehow...
Luigi Novi: She used her own bank accounts. Why is this in question? Why would she have to use Buck's?

Sparrow47:And speaking of that fight, The Bride tells the defeated Crazy 88 that their severed limbs belong to her now. So... what did she do with them, exactly?
Luigi Novi: She gave them to Martha Stewart, who made them into a series of little sculptured umbrella holders.

Luigi Novi: She gave them to Martha Stewart, who made them into a series of little sculptured umbrella holders.

If I'd been eating when I read that you'd be responsible for my choking death buster. *LOL*

Maybe because he knew Bill was a bad seed. Or maybe Bill was the only white man he ever had as a disciple. Luigi Novi

Possible. There are lots of potential explanations; it would have been nice to get one there.

Maybe he couldn't bring himself to say it. To me, this worked. Luigi Novi

Meh, it just seemed contrived to me. To each their own, I suppose.

She used her own bank accounts. Why is this in question? Why would she have to use Buck's? Luigi Novi

Well, first of all, after four years in a coma, what shape would her finances be in? Did she have money in El Paso somewhere? If so, where? How did she get it? Who was paying her taxes for the past four years? It very well could have been easier for her to use any money of Buck's she could get her hands on, although it still wouldn't be easy. Either way, I still think the authorities would have been tipped off.

Why would her finances be in bad shape after four years? If anything, wouldn't they have accrued interest, and be in better shape than they were back then? And what taxes would she have to pay? She was in a coma!

Besides, she could have other hidden accounts, like maybe some in the Kamen islands, etc. I'm guessing professional assassins have those types of contingency plans. She could also have friends and contacts, much like Leon's relationship with Danny Aiello's character in The Professional.

If she has U.S. accounts, wouldn't any interest gained be taxable?

The offshore account idea sounds good (like the Cayman Islands! pick, pick, pick...); I hadn't condsidered that originally.

This movie was on cable last night. I wouldn't have watched it if Roger Ebert hadn't praised it so extravagantly. I must say it wasn't my cup of tea. It was downright disgusting much of the time. This is what Tarentino has on his mind (he wrote this)? Men humping comatose women. Mass slaughter. Who finds this entertaining? Many people agree that there has been a coarsening of American culture. With this film's popularity, there's no doubt about that. The film also shows a total disrespect for the worth of human lives. People are brutally slashed apart in a mayhem of pornagraphic violence (in the Japanese club). The dismemberment of the French-Japanese woman is so mean-spirited, I can only assume Tarentino is a France-hating Republican. Why make a film inspired by kung-fu movies. How about aiming for something more high brow.

You know, Rona, there is such a thing as an "off switch".

For what it's worth Rona, I love this film. The violence is so over-the-top that it's hard to take it seriously. It's just unrealistic. And for the record, I also know of a couple of women who liked it as well.

But I'm not surprised you didn't like it. It's not exactly a Rona movie. Not gentle and PC enough.

"France hating Republican" I really don't think so; espically because the right is generally deeply offended by his movies. On the From Dusk Till Dawn DVD he even talks about deciding to make the movie bloodyer as a result of the industry shying away from gore in 1996 as a result of Bob Dole's attacks on Hollywood during that election. Except fot that Tarantino has remained pretty apolitical and has lived in Europe for a while, which inspired the Amsterdam conversation at the begining of "Pulp Fiction".

Rona: Men humping comatose women. Mass slaughter. Who finds this entertaining?
Luigi Novi: I agree. In the Star Wars trilogy, we have an entire planet filled with billions of people destroyed, creating mass genocide. We have people chopping off their extremities. He have a father and son trying to kill each other. Who finds this entertaining?

Thus the folly of asking such a question regarding aspects of a story that are supposed to be bad, Rona. You could ask the same question of any film that features a rape, such as The Accused, American History X, etc., which ignores the fact that those scenes are not supposed to be entertaining in and of themselves. The movies are supposed to be entertaining only as a whole, with those scenes in question serving as a part of the story. To argue that my enjoyment of Kill Bill, therefore, means that I enjoy the rape of comatose patients is a blatant falsity of reasoning, the same sort that unfortunately litters most of your posts, Rona.

As for the mass slaughter, I don’t enjoy slaughter per se, but rather the artistry in the martial arts and swordfighting choreography. I’d be perfectly fine if the level of blood were less cartoony and gratuitous, but it doesn’t offend me. I find it silly at best.

Rona: Many people agree that there has been a coarsening of American culture. With this film's popularity, there's no doubt about that.
Luigi Novi: I doubt it. Hence, there is doubt about it. There is nothing in this film that has not been in many other films that predate it by decades. The idea that “things were better back then,” and that whatever we see on the tube or in the theaters is exemplary of things getting “worse than they used to be” is a tired old fallacy, regardless of whether “many people agree” on the notion.

Rona: The film also shows a total disrespect for the worth of human lives.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps. The film focuses on assassins, and the desire for revenge that one of them has on the others, and obviously, people consumed by such vendettas do not feel great respect about life as a whole, a point that the film comments on, if somehow half-heartedly.

Rona: People are brutally slashed apart in a mayhem of pornagraphic violence (in the Japanese club).
Luigi Novi: I see nothing pornographic in that fight scene. If you do, Rona, then that says more about you then it does about me or Tarantino.

Rona: The dismemberment of the French-Japanese woman is so mean-spirited, I can only assume Tarentino is a France-hating Republican.
Luigi Novi: If assumption is the only thing you “can” do, then I pity you, since it reveals you to be contemptuous of reserving judgment pending the discovery of actual facts rather than assumptions, and incapable of coherent logic. The idea that violence to a character who happens to be French must automatically mean that the author hates French, and that such an outlook is political in origin, is flat-out stupid.

Rona: Why make a film inspired by kung-fu movies.
Luigi Novi: Because many people, such as Tarantino (and myself) happen to actually like them, as shocking as that may be to you.

Rona: How about aiming for something more high brow.
Luigi Novi: Because there is room in the artistic spectrum for both. It doesn’t have to be an either/or question.

If it makes you happy, however, Tarantino is working on an epic WWII movie.

I also didn't like "The Core". Some movies I just don't like. This film is one of them. I think Tarentino is grossly overrated. His thinking for the slaughter scene was simply; " I saw some action scenes in The Matrix, I'll just copy them and throw in gratuitous gore. I'll get that many more 14 year olds to come see the film".

Wow, another post where you ignore others' refutations. I'm shocked.

First, you don't know what Tarantino's thinking was. Second, I saw no similarity between that scene and The Matrix, and lastly, the movie was rated R, so no 14-year olds were allowed to see it.

"I can only assume Tarentino is a France-hating Republican"

Didn't Tarentino support Kerry in the election?

Re: The Bride's Finances:

Personally, I'd be disappointed beyond all belief if one of the world's top assassins didn't have half a dozen untouchable bank accounts available at any given moment.


"Domo" is not thank you; it's "very much." "Arrigato" is thank you; Uma interchanges them, constantly.

While 'domo' means 'very much,' it is common slang for 'thank you' among casual acquaintances. This came up in a Japanese class I took once (which means that if I make a mistake feel free to blame my teacher ), and to my understanding there are five 'degrees' of 'thank you' depending on how formal you're being with someone. From most formal to least formal:

Domo arigato gozaimasu (the 'u' is silent, by the way)
Arigato gozaimasu
Domo arigato
Arigato
Domo

Elle dresses as a nurse and then draws some fluid up into a syringe. Watching the film this time around, I giggled when she did the standard routine of pointing the needle upwards and squirting fluid out of it. If you're about to kill someone, why would you be bothered about dangerous air bubbles?!

The colour of the names on Beatrix's death list changes. I didn't go back and check all of them, but when she crosses out O-ren's name, the names are in black. However, later in the movie/earlier in time when she's writing out the death list on the plane, she writes the numbers in black but the names in red.

Another question about nurse Elle is why did she go in and change her clothes? I can understand wearing a coat over the uniform but she put on white stockings and even changed her eye-patch.

The slow-motion view of Bill shooting the Bride showed the bullet travelling through a rifled barrel but not spinning as it emerged.

I'm not a big fan of anime but it worked well in this movie. When little O-Ren was hiding under the bed and began to cry, her tear ran down her cheek, but since she was lying on her back it should've ran off the corner of her eye. Also, no matter how good an assassin she is, I doubt she could've stood on that windy rooftop and so accurately shot a fifteen pound sniper rifle.

When O-Ren gets the top of her head sliced off, her brain still seems to be perfectly intact.

inblackestnight: Another question about nurse Elle is why did she go in and change her clothes? I can understand wearing a coat over the uniform but she put on white stockings and even changed her eye-patch.

I think she does it because she's a crazy, freaky lady.