I need some inconsistency

An amalgamation of content: the aim not to politicise, but exercise. I'll think aloud about politics, technology, current news, as well as being a gay boy and what that really entails.

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Kill Bill

So in preparing to go out to 'In America' I did some research on how good it was, what it was like etc. Unfortunately, the reviews I turned up were dreadful. It really wasn't liked. One source I trust rather a lot - the Guardian - hated it. The review ended with:

[The] movie lacks conviction from implausible beginning to sentimental end.


So, we went to Kill Bill instead. Which was great. Did I say great, I meant superb. It was a bloodbath of action from beginning to end. The cinematography was superb with some of the most beautiful shots displayed amongst the melee of movement. Some of this is inherent in the fact that the film focuses on Samurai where the grace of their combat creates fine opportunities for staged shots. The good thing was that this was taken advantage of without the drama of a ‘dramatic shot’ that often accompanies such things where there can almost be a subtitle indicating the amount of awe the audience is supposed to express at the given point.
One thing that was rather comic about the film was the spurting blood. There’s no hesitance in chopping off limbs and then showing the resultant blood. What’s hilarious is the way the blood gushes much like one would expect a fire hydrant to - in a way of course this is realistic. If in a high school biology class (or equivalent) you’ve ever seen that video which shows a chicken’s throat being slit and the blood spurting out afterward, the film is reminiscent of that. However, the victims in the film move their bodies around spreading the blood about as wide an area as possible whilst making no attempt to cut off the supply of blood gushing out. It’s completely implausible, which is the point, which makes it funny.


Post a Comment

<< Home