Kill Bill: Volume One

[brockly]

Uma Thurman plays the Bride, but she has no acting to do--only physical exploits for which she must have trained hard. Except for Thurman's name, Tarantino could have used any good-looking female athlete in the part, along with the same stunt doubles.

......... what a fucking load of shit!!!!

[Alethia]

anybody who accuses the showdown at the house of blue leaves as being ludicrous COMPLETELY misses the point of the movie.  and it pisses me off when people complain about not knowing why she was left for dead - hello, wait for fucking VOLUME 2!!!!!  and jesus, just in bills opening lines it becomes kind of apparent why he did that to her......

[Gold Trumpet]

anybody who accuses the showdown at the house of blue leaves as being ludicrous COMPLETELY misses the point of the movie.  and it pisses me off when people complain about not knowing why she was left for dead - hello, wait for fucking VOLUME 2!!!!!  and jesus, just in bills opening lines it becomes kind of apparent why he did that to her......

maybe you missed by how he meant "ludicrous". His point that there is no drama nor really any intrigue at the beginning of it at all. We know she'll just kill them and do it unbelievable fashion. Kauffmann argues that at least for his other films, Tarantino was effective at going for something dramatically. This is a dish served to us. But, as he said in earlier in the review, Tarantino is merely bringing exceptional skill to juvenile material.

Wait for Volume 2 to learn why he wanted her dead? I wasn't able to see Vol. 2 right after Vol. 1, so I am taking this film as a film and judging on its own standards. And what did Bill say in the opening lines? I miss something?

[bonanzataz]

basically, bill wipes the blood off uma's face and says, "hey, fanboys. shut the fuck up, it was only a movie. some people will like it, others won't."

sheesh, being pta fans i'd think you people would have become desensitized to idiots not liking your favorite movie.

[brockly]

i really couldn't care less that he didn't like the film, but saying uma didn't need to act is ridiculous

[ElPandaRoyal]

i really couldn't care less that he didn't like the film, but saying uma didn't need to act is ridiculous

I agree. I think she was great in the movie and I can give you two examples. The first scene, which I think is now a classic in modern cinema is just amazing. I was really impressed by her facial expression. The other is when she awakes from her coma and realizes she lost her baby and starts crying. I mean, with stuff like that, saying that any athlete could have done that film is just beeing really stupid. It's OK not to like a film, but it's really sad to diss a film using that kind of arguments.

[cine]

saying that any athlete could have done that film is just being really stupid.

Right, but people are ignoring the facts here. The reality is that Tarantino is NOT 'any athlete. She's Uma fuckin' Thurman, and SHE pulled off the part. That's why if people say QT could've cast any female athlete, well instead, you could be saying "Thurman pulled off the role effortlessly with great physical acting" etc. UMA did the great work as an actor so why should people suggest that somebody else (like an athlete) might've been better?

[Alethia]

anybody who accuses the showdown at the house of blue leaves as being ludicrous COMPLETELY misses the point of the movie.  and it pisses me off when people complain about not knowing why she was left for dead - hello, wait for fucking VOLUME 2!!!!!  and jesus, just in bills opening lines it becomes kind of apparent why he did that to her......

maybe you missed by how he meant "ludicrous". His point that there is no drama nor really any intrigue at the beginning of it at all. We know she'll just kill them and do it unbelievable fashion. Kauffmann argues that at least for his other films, Tarantino was effective at going for something dramatically. This is a dish served to us. But, as he said in earlier in the review, Tarantino is merely bringing exceptional skill to juvenile material.

Wait for Volume 2 to learn why he wanted her dead? I wasn't able to see Vol. 2 right after Vol. 1, so I am taking this film as a film and judging on its own standards. And what did Bill say in the opening lines? I miss something?

the whole "masochistic" deal.  i never said he states specifically why he is doing it, but it's not too hard to at least get an idea of why he did it.

the whole ludicrous thing, yeah i guess i did misunderstand what he meant.  my bad.  by ludicrous i thought he meant "unbelievable", which i thought was odd bc stanley kauffman, this review not withstanding, seems reasonably intelligent.  but that's not the case, so maybe i'm stupid.

[rustinglass]

 my sister didn't like it and we usually agree on everything

[Gold Trumpet]

Hah, I never really believed myself Uma Thurman was acting or anything really great was required for the movie in her role at all anyways. I mean, the part is genre disposable. Thurman does do fine though with what she gets, but really, the bulk of her role consists of her fighting or just speaking lines. RT named two examples to defend this. The first scene, which he liked her facial expressions, I must have missed something. I don't remember anything really good in her facial expressions at all. The scene of where she's crying heavily? An over emotional scene that most actors can do anyways. Make up allowed Thurman to look more desperate. Ben Affleck gets by on his bland acting by crying at some point in most of his movies. Its not a good thing, but reliance on doing something easy to make people think he is a good actor. He lacks most acting control to make a character interesting or show he is within the character enough to go beyond speaking his lines with just a louder voice when trying to be dramatic.

I liked how Taz was nice in telling everyone to calm down with the fan boy reaction and just reverted back to it himself when he just dismissed that review as being done by an idiot. Idiotic, fine, but how so?

[modage]

saying any actress could've played that part is idiotic and cruel.  well, guess what asshole?  no actress did, uma did.  you could take any movie you wanted to critique and say ANY ONE of hte parts could have been done by ANYONE else.  but, why would you?  what the hell does that have to do with the film?  why is he trying to judge the film on what it isnt?  why doesnt he accept what it IS and think abou thtat?

[Jeremy Blackman]

Hah, I never really believed myself Uma Thurman was acting or anything really great was required for the movie in her role at all anyways. I mean, the part is genre disposable.

She helped Tarantino create the character, first of all. She has a creative connection with him to begin with, so on that alone I can't see how any actress could have more accurately carried out his vision.

Is there an actress better suited for this role that you'd like to name?

[Newtron]

Is there an actress better suited for this role that you'd like to name?

Bruce Willis in drag.

[Gold Trumpet]

saying any actress could've played that part is idiotic and cruel.  well, guess what asshole?  no actress did, uma did.  you could take any movie you wanted to critique and say ANY ONE of hte parts could have been done by ANYONE else.  but, why would you?  what the hell does that have to do with the film?  why is he trying to judge the film on what it isnt?  why doesnt he accept what it IS and think abou thtat?

It is NOT idiotic and cruel. I wasn't even commenting on the limitations of Thurman as an actress. Every part of the criticism deals with the requirements of the role, or the lack of. And no, not ANY actress could do any role to better performance than someone who does it because some roles do require acting and Kill Bill isn't one. The movie also seems to realize, itself, that it has little to offer besides inventive action sequences. I said why I don't believe the role of The Bride had little to offer by way of acting potential and no one is going after me for that. The criticism is accepting Thurman in the role and criticizing the requirements of that role.

She helped Tarantino create the character, first of all. She has a creative connection with him to begin with, so on that alone I can't see how any actress could have more accurately carried out his vision.

Could have more accurately carried out his vision through brainstorming and helping him write it. The interpretation of an actor of a role and judging it is an entirely different matter. The idea that an actor developed a movie does not entitle them to being the best actor to play the movie's lead at all. This is general talk anyways. Like I said, the role of The Bride required really little. Thurman is fine, but she isn't asked to do anything special.

Is there an actress better suited for this role that you'd like to name?

Personally, I think Angelina Jolie would have been better. She's already proven her ability at action play with the Tomb Raider films but also, physically, she is much more striking as a Bride out for revenge in the most ass kicking sense. Thurman's look and presence, in comparison to Jolie's, feels more middle America in look. More classical beauty that hinders effectiveness to explore the role of an American literally taking on everyone who fucked her over. Jolie, with her American but exotic look, encompasses a face of danger and a believability that she would be out for revenge if these things happened. At attack, she would be more intimidating to face just from presence. The movie seems to stand from that kind of role a lot, as with Eastwood in the Man With No Name Trilogy in where it looks to someone who'd be the most intimidating to face if you had to face her. Jolie is better suited for that role than Thurman.

[modage]

Like I said, the role of The Bride required really little. Thurman is fine, but she isn't asked to do anything special..

i dont think you have any idea what you are talking about.  do you know how that part reads on the page?  do you know how easy it would be to fuck it up?  do you know how difficult it must be to make that part believable and sympathetic and asskicking?  withOUT coming off completely cheesy?

Personally, I think Angelina Jolie would have been better.

ahh, now its clear you are insane.  angelina jolie is a one trick pony, who would have been so dull and awful in this part i cant believe you would think that.  she has been, as of late, laughably terrible in most of her films.  dont you think its more interesting to cast AGAINST type?  uma thurman is not who i would think of to be an action heroine out for revenge, but THATS exactly what makes her so interesting!  thats also what makes her a good actress, because she doesnt FIT the part.  but when you watch the movie you believe.  she looks like a beautiful lanky praying mantis and you believe she can kick that much ass.  
thinking about angelina jolie 'acting' in the bar scene almost makes me want to puke.