Kill Bill was not a great film in any regards. It wasnt even all that fun. It was too dark, moody and masochistic to be truly fun. It was, however, highly enjoyable on a more visceral level. Tarantino hasnt made a single motion picture since his underratted1997 film, Jackie Brown, so seeing a new Tarantino film is like discovering a new flavor of Starburst. It was exciting to read that the script clocked in at 222 pages and would be split into two films. It was a bit exciting to read that the film would be a campy splatter fest, paying homage to the gratuitous and often hilarious nature of 70s chop-socky cinema and that the story would pay homage to spaghetti westerns.

            Did all of it add up? For the most part: yes. The film doesnt really hold the chop-socky homage perfectly. On many occasions it stumbles too far into the Tarantino 50s and 60s hipster mentality that Tarantino thinks he knows a lot about. The problem inherent in most of his homages is that Tarantino doesnt seem to go beyond what he saw on T.V. when he was growing up. His research doesnt extend any farther than that. It also doesnt help that we already had an homage to spaghetti westerns last month (Once Upon a Time in Mexico) from Tarantino buddy Robert Rodriguez. It seems that Tarantino is in some sort of film mid-life crisis. What he doesnt film while shooting, he makes up with self-indulgence, enough to make you want to vomit. The credits actually read, The 4^th film by Quentin Tarantino, as if the guy made Citizen Kane and this is his follow up. Those are simply the minor dislikes, nothing that would really hurt me from giving the film a bad review. Yeah, I didnt like those elements, but hey, the movie wasnt supposed to be fun nor was it supposed to be good. Come on, its a chop-socky revenge flick.

            The film is actually very vibrant and beautifully shot so much so that it deserves to win an Academy Award for its achievement. Each frame looks like a painting, beautifully shot with such artistry, one might think Bob Ross, the Joy of Painting guy, came in and touched up each frame after principal photography. The reds are glowing, the yellows are glimmering and the blues are bold and powerful. With so much violence on screen, the bold, vibrant colors assigned to the various sets, assist in making this film enjoyable instead of difficult to watch.

            And now for my big problem with the film. It was advertised heavily in several print sources that the film would feature a huge, elaborate twenty minute fight sequence that took gallons of blood and months to make. Yes, that sequence is laced within the first volume of Kill Bill. The problem: that wonderfully choreographed fight sequence is in black and white. As soon as the fight sequence begins, Uma tears out an eye of one of the fighters. The image switches to black and white during this act of violence. I assumed, as many 70s chop-socky films did this to avoid ratings issues, that it would go back to color once that scene was over. Nope. Some twenty minutes later, the film finally goes back to color.

            Its hard to figure out whether this was a style choice or a censor choice. If I had my pick of the two, Id say a censor choice. The problem with this scene is that it was filmed in color. The trailer actually features several shots of this fight and yes, they are in color. Its very hard to understand why Tarantino would want to do this. His use of black and white earlier in the film indicated a flashback. Everything in this film was wonderfully orchestrated until this battle. The black and white, having not been set up to be black and white when they filmed this sequence, appears very dark and some of the shots are almost impossible to see as not all vibrant bright colors photograph well when translated from color to black and white. Its hard to fathom that this choice was stylistic. With all the stuff that passes the censors these days, its hard to comprehend why they would not allow such campy gore to be passed. It would have been so much better to see this fight sequence the way it was intended to be.

            Finally, another irritation that has nothing to do with Tarantinos vision (exactly why Im mentioning it), the damn tracking dots. During the black and white sequence you might have noticed a few small, round brown dots that formed an L shaped object for about ten to fifteen seconds. Those were not intended to be in the film. They are tracking dots, the newest, and stupidest plan to track bootleggers, who will sell Kill Bill to about a thousand idiots who would rather watch a $15 VCD with horrible guy with cam quality, than pay $7 to see it on the big screen or to wait a few months and see it on DVD for a rental price of $3 or a purchase price of $14. If youve ever wondered what the people who go on Springer do when they arent on Springer, well, they buy bootleg movies.

            I went to see Kill Bill with several people. Most noticed the annoying dots, so much so, that it took them about a minute to get back into the film. The tracking dots take away from the films original intention and from the artistic vision thats trying to be conveyed. I find tracking dots to be more evil than the bootleggers out there. At least, theyre not trying to mess with the film. Theyre just trying to profit from it.