Hello, kids. I assume that you have now recovered from your fainting spell at seeing a brand new, honest-to-goodness Reviews On The Side posting. I hope you didn't bump your head on the way down.

Now, I'm not promising that I will be a good, regular contributor to the fine art of film critique again as I was in the past, because life simply has changed. As a Production Manager now, writing reviews at work is not as easy or morally acceptable as before, when I was just a Schmo. We'll see. It doesn't seem to be stopping me today, does it?

Okay, so why come back to this now? Well, one, just because I feel like it, and two, wouldn't it be fun to compare two incredibly violent, bloody, gory movies, one that will be predictably lambasted by religious hypocrites, and one that won't be simply because they are religious hypocrites? It would be fun, wouldn't it? I thought so. Hang on... it's a doozy!

I am not the target audience for this movie, I admit. I have trouble with a movie where the main character gets to use an article in front of his name. Not that his name is Christ, I guess, since his parents weren't named Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Christ. Oh, wait, Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, was he? So it's actually Mr. God Christ and Mrs. Mary Christ. Or is it just Joseph and Mary Hollings and God Christ?

Okay, see, I'm not the audience for this movie at all.

However, I'm not above learning about that in which I don't believe. For instance, I see now, looking in the dictionary, that Christ and Messiah are interchangeable. Sort of. So the article in front of Christ is okay: The Passion of the Messiah. Also, since I am not religious and strive to not be a hypocrite, I knew I could not participate in any arguments about the film unless I'd seen it first, a nicety not normally practiced by those across the aisle. As horrible as it was for me to give Mel Gibson any money for this project, I had to for the sake of being able to tell everyone how overrated it is.

Well, as Jesus said on numerous occasions, "First thing's first." (John 4:15) As a movie, disregarding any of the religious agenda attached, The Passion is okay. The cinematography is beautiful, the costumes are succulent, and the acting is pretty dang good. However, The Passion falls down in two very important areas: Story and character.

Yes, I know. It's friggin' JESUS. We all know him and his story. Well, in the context of a movie like this, that knowledge is not enough. Maybe the people who've wept loudly in theaters throughout the land think differently, but that's what's interesting about religious fervor: You don't need the details. Simplicity is key. They wept seeing what they already knew very well up there on the screen in blood-splattering simplicity. But I'm trying right now to talk about this as a movie.

For this movie to have been a good, solid piece of work, Mel would have had to offer more in the way of story and character. One device he tries using is flashbacks to show us Jesus before he gets all bloody and disgusting. These are certainly successful in showing background and relationships, but they don't do enough for the characters or the overall story. Frankly, Jesus comes off as a smug, sanctimonious bore. We are meant to accept that he is who he says he is because the movie offers nothing on that front, and so there is little conflict there. Jesus, played with the required smoldering stoicism/tortuous suffering by James Caviezel, goes through his own turmoil, but again, it's expected that you accept that he is the son of the Big Kahuna, and so there's no tension or drama. Jesus gets to pontificate and furrow his brow and wail in excruciating pain and fall down about a hundred times whist carrying his cross, but so what? The only root his character has is what we ourselves are meant to have come in with from outside the multiplex. That's not good moviemaking. (Mark 54:40)

The secondary characters run the gamut between flat and mostly not flat. Pontius Pilate, played by Hristo Shopov, is the most rounded character in the movie. Hristo's screen presence is more meaty than James', and Pontius' dilemma is more emotional and sympathetic than Jesus'. (More names ending in s, please!) Pontius is something of a protagonist, giving the people of Judea ample opportunity to release Jesus. In the end, because of course it's God's will, he has to have Jesus executed. This entire sequence contains the meat of the movie.

Religious folks might offer up as an alternative meaty morsel the portrayal of Mary Christ (a.k.a. Mary Hollings), the doomed prophet's mom. Sorry, kiddos, but she's nothing but a tear machine. Of course, the tragedy of a mother watching her son go through such an evil ordeal is a moving situation. But here we don't even know who the hell she is, so, really, it's no big deal. (Luke RED:5)

As J.C. is going through torture and crucifixion (with a festive parade in between), there are two other characters hanging out with Mary and giving her support and consolation: Mary Magdalene and Disciple X. I call him Disciple X because I have no idea who he was. That's probably my fault for not catching the names at the beginning of the movie. Mary M. I know only because of the flashback showing Jesus saving her from being stoned. Until then, I had no idea who the hell she was because she was never introduced. And Disciple X? No idea. Just some guy. Am I supposed to connect with these non-characters?

You see the problem here, and why this film is not a triumphant success based on the usual properties of cinematic excellence. It is assumed that we, the audience, are completely on-board and know who and what is going on. (Janice 18:9) Fine. Okay. But since it's a conceited conceit to go about making the movie this way, people like me will need to judge the movie on merits contrary to this design. Which I have done. So let's move on.

Okay, so what about the message? The violence? The Word? If I were devoutly religious—though it is the case where many religious people are unhappy with this film—I might click right into lockstep and rend my garments in pious anguish over the emotion of the message Mel has shown me. But if you really look at the movie from outside the cult of Christianity (including its sub-sects), certain uncomfortable hypocrisies become apparent, both in the teachings of the church and in those who follow them. I will cite three examples.

First, and least important, is the raven. Toward the end of the movie, as Christ is up on the cross, there are some more flashbacks to better, coiffed days. In one of these, Jesus says, and I paraphrase, "There are those who say you should love your friends and hate your enemies. I say that sucks and is bad. I say you should love your enemy as you love your friends." Groovy. I'm down with that. Now, back to the site of the crucifixion: Flanking Jesus are two fellows who have the honor of being crucified at the same time as he. One hears what Jesus is saying to dad up in the sky and to the people who have surrounded the area to watch the grisly spectacle. He turns to Jesus and, with sobbing words, accepts Him into his life, like a good Christian is supposed to. Jesus turns to him and says, "I shall see you in heaven." Swell. But the other crucifixion buddy just laughs and calls J.C. and the other crucifixion buddy crazy—an understandable reaction when you're up on a cross, waiting to die, having to listen to this nutjob who thinks he's the son of God. Now, here is a wonderful opportunity for God to show that the message he sent down through his son—treat your enemy as you would your friends—is valid. But what happens instead? A raven perches in top of the "bad" guy's cross and pecks at his head and face! More blood! More violence! What for? You can be sure that man is going to hell. (Stan 8:14am)

Perhaps it could be argued that the raven was sent by Satan, who actually appears in the film as a creepy, masculine woman. (I was gonna call Satan a creepy feminine man, but he's played by a woman, so...) I don't know. I don't know the Bible like I do, say, "Fox In Socks." But I can see where a big, black bird symbolizing death might be interpreted as being a servant of Saruman— er, I mean, Satan. But the movie doesn't specify in any way, so I'm gonna assume it was one of God's creatures that came to torment and punish an "enemy" of Jesus by pecking the hell out of him. That's HYPOCRISY!

Second example of hypocrisy: Demonizing the Jews for not believing. While I wouldn't call The Passion anti-Semitic by any means, most of the Jewish leaders are made out to be fairly horrible people. Mel roundly condemns them for being so foolish as to not believe that Jesus was the son of God.

Okay, let's look at that for a moment, shall we? Let's say today some scruffy skateboarder kid from Kansas made claims to being the second coming, or even, say, just the second son of God. Maybe that's the same thing, maybe not. I don't know. Let's say he had some scruffy followers, and they believed in his message of tolerance and acceptance. Now let's say some of today's branches of Christianity got wind of this guy, and they did not like that he was making waves, and they did not believe that he was the second coming. And let's say that, oh, this new kid was becoming popular in a way that threatened the established churches.

What do you think would happen? Can you honestly tell me, with a straight face, that todays Christian churches—some of them, at least—would not stoop to doing anything to protect the great thing they've got going? Can you tell me they would not do anything in their power to discredit and ruin this kid? Killing people is not as accepted by civilized communities today as it was back in Jesus #1's day, so perhaps Jesus #2 would not be killed in such a demented and public fashion. But I can guarantee you, the behavior of the Jews in The Passion would be exactly the kind of thing you'd find today with those who are supposed to be the followers of Jesus. Don't criticize those whose behavior you emulate. It's... HYPOCRITICAL! (Bush 1:1)

Finally, point number three: Violence. This movie is disgustingly violent. Tediously so. It's not fun and giggly violence like Kill Bill. Yet religious right-wingers are embracing it. "Context," I was told by someone, but that doesn't fly. True, some violence in movies is unnecessary and repugnant. But there are other instances of sound context, instances which the supposedly squeamish religious right soundly ignore. You can not tell me the only acceptable instance of extreme graphic violence in a movie is in this case, where it shows the torture and mutilation of "the Savior." This story could have been told in a less graphic fashion. It could have been told in a more artful manner. However, and this is just a theory, of course, those who bitch and kvetch about violence in movies and on TV are as desensitized by the prevalent graphic depiction of violence today as those of us who are unenlightened. Therefore, it takes something gruesomely bloody like The Passion to make its point.

Whether or not that theory is true or false, it is impossible to argue that these pious protectors of "American values" and "traditional families" should ever rail against media violence again. If they do—and they will—they are nothing but... HYPOCRITES!

I am not the audience for this film. I was destined to not be moved by it. To those who do not use this film as ammunition and who can be as tolerant of other viewpoints as their religion suggests they should be... to those who truly believe in Christ but also enjoy a good zombie movie now and then... to those who are religious and cringe at the behavior of the hypocritical elements I mentioned... to all of you, I say in all sincerity, enjoy this film.

This is a movie the religious conservative whack-jobs will complain about, despite having just sat through an hour and a half of a man being whipped, flayed, pierced, punched, kicked, dragged, stabbed, and stigmata'd. While Kill Bill: Vol. 2 is not nearly as bloody as Vol. 1, thanks, in large part, to there being no scene involving dozens of Japanese gang members being mowed down by Uma Thurman in a tight-ass yellow motorcycle suit, it is still violent and bloody, and that's all it takes to stoke the God-emboldened fires of the zealots.

But who cares? Let them stew. Let them fester with ire. As I said above, they're hypocrites if they liked The Passion and then complain about this. Let's the rest of us all go and enjoy the second half of the Kill Bill treasure!

I didn't write a review of Vol. 1 because I just didn't. But in brief summary, I shall say I found it to be incredibly stylish, fun, amusing, original, engrossing, yucky, crazy, bizarre, unique, and even, at times, brilliant. I've seen it three times, and it's incredible fun to watch, despite feeling maybe you don't want to give Quentin too much pleasure in acknowledging he's got that much talent.

So Vol. 1 left off in wonderful cliff-hanger fashion. [Skip to the next paragraph if you haven't seen Vol. 1 and want to remain in the dark.] We were left wanting to know more about Uma's nameless character, her past. Who is this Bill guy? Why did he kill her? Why was Uma leaving the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad? And what about her daughter? Well, Vol. 2 answers a lot of the questions you may have had at the end of Vol. 1. It does, however, also leave some strange gaps, these being mostly in character detail.

Despite the gaps, Vol. 2 is a good movie, and a fitting companion to Vol. 1. Yes, I know, they were all one movie once, but now they are being revealed to us as two movies, so Vol. 2 is a companion, as it stands, to Vol. 1. If you are expecting more of the same in Vol. 2, I have to warn you that the tone of this film is very different. It is still unmistakably Kill Bill, but while the first movie revolved mostly around setting up the story and the amazing battle at the Japanese club, Vol. 2 is more subdued and works more on relationships and back story. I wasn't sure I liked it very much when it was done, but when I do think about the movie, it is just as much fun and definitely a great time at the movies.

Vol. 2 continues with the wacky mixing of styles that was in Vol. 1. Maybe you noticed that the fonts in the first movie were changing all the time and didn't match. Or maybe you didn't. Well, that's what Kill Bill is all about. A mish-mash of styles, mixed and interwoven. Vol. 2 has some drastic changes in style, and it's not as jarring as you might think, first because it's what we expect after Vol. 1 and second because Quentin—don't get too cocky, now!—knows exactly what he's doing. It's a joy ride to see what will happen next in Vol. 1, both with the styles and with the story.

Kill Bill, both volumes, is fantastic storytelling. Yeah, there are gaps, as I mentioned, but as the story flows and unfolds, the movies are a constant surprise. In Vol. 2, especially, I noticed that I was so excited to see what would happen next, I was conscious of it. When the movie would go somewhere I wasn't expecting, it induced several smiles and some laughs because the unexpected was also completely satisfying. Some movies that take twists and turns end up taking turns that are uninteresting or uninspired, but Quentin, again, knows what he's doing, and so the surprises in Kill Bill: Vol. 2 are thoroughly entertaining.

I can not say more without damaging the plot line, and you don't want me to give that away. So I will just finish off by saying the acting is excellent. Uma is amazing and has more on-screen oomph than the entire cast of The Passion. Daryl Hannah gives you much more of what we all liked her for in Vol. 1, pulling off a noteworthy comic feat. David Carradine, as Bill, is disarmingly delightful and, at the same time, subterraneanly dangerous. And Gordon Liu, famous for his martial arts roles in Hong Kong action flicks, plays on his stereotype with perfection.

While I need to see this film again to make sure it's properly absorbed, I can recommend it without pause. Just be sure you've seen the first one first, or this one won't work as well. And if you've seen the first one, watch it again on DVD beforehand if you can. It will help to refresh your memory on some details and help with the payoff of certain "somethings" I won't mention.

I would be remiss if I did not tell you I saw Kill Bill: Vol. 2 at the premiere last week, courtesy Marcy, of course. It's the first time I've been to the Cinerama Dome since it was refurbished, and I can say I won't be back because the screen still bends the movie image much too annoyingly for me. It was great to see a fresh print, to see film on the screen instead of a digital image. I can't say it enough: Film looks better than digital if it's properly focused and maintained.

The after-movie party was at some club called Ivar, which is right near IO West. It was kind of a dull, clubby party at first. No dinner—WAH! But things got interesting as soon as Robert Rodriguez, who composed music for Vol. 2, played live with his band. It was loud, but fun! Some very good songs were in the mix. It was also amusing to watch Quentin and Uma cavort next to the stage, paparazzi cameras flashing the whole time.

Can I tell you how glamorous and elegant Uma is in person? I guess that's what you're supposed to think when you see a star with your own eyes. It's so Hollywood. But it struck me that she was glamorous beyond beautiful. After watching her kick ass, get her ass kicked, get bloodied and bruised and sweaty and very much de-beautified in Vol. 2, it was amazing to see her in the lobby of the Dome and slumming it with the crowd at Ivar in what some might call a "stunning ensemble." She was the bee's knees.

Marcy and I hung out for a while after Robert and his gang finished, just enough for me to see Daryl Hannah "on something" and to shake Robert Rodriguez's hand and congratulate him on a job well done. In all, it was not quite as fun as the All the Pretty Horses premiere, and was maybe on a par with Chicago's party. It was definitely a much better time than the Booty Call premiere back in '97.

—Steve

4/16/04

©2004 Steven Lekowicz except
The Passion of the Christ photos ©2004 Icon Distribution, Inc. All rights reserved;
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 photo ©2004 Miramax Film Corp. All rights reserved.