Kill Bill: Vol. 2

Almost literally the same as the first film. Formal expressiveness disappears and the dialogues drag on like the saliva of a drunk Mexican. I liked a few things (the characters of Master Pai Mei and the typical Tarantino dirty man Budd), but the whole is terribly annoying, stretched, fragmented, disharmonious, awkward and hopeless. Moreover, Uma Thurman seems rigid and unnatural in the kung fu scenes. Yes, I'm biased, I admit, but I really don't care for this. I understand what Tarantino is up to, I appreciate the certain grip on his aesthetic plan, but I can't do anything about the fact that the whole seems like total stupidity to me. All I really like about Kill Bill is the final duel with Bill, for which I give the second film one more star. (2005-10-14)

What I liked about "Kill Bill" is partly suppressed in the second installment. The first film was primarily about action, which was absolutely captivating, but I fell in love with the movie mainly because of its exquisite B-movie style, perfected by superb visuals, characters, and their dialogues. Tarantino abandoned the action and put the characters and dialogues at the forefront, which resulted in a different but not worse second film, rather even better. He elevated action choreography to art. Listening to the dialogues is truly a delight because they are never boring, even during relatively calm passages. The conversation with Bill and its outcome is an absolutely mesmerizing scene and the highlight of David Carradine's career. This is what Tarantino is capable of. Just like he is capable of making films that are hard to forget. (2014-01-08)

I rate both parts of Kill Bill highly. They are a pure pleasure for me, as they fully satisfy my cravings as a movie fan. However, I don’t like the fact that the saga as a whole is divided into two films. That’s partly because there is a spoiler at the end of the first one solely for commercial reasons, which kills the main point of the entire 200-minute saga. And also because the individual parts are stylistically incongruous. After watching the first one, I wanted the second one to have the same brisk pace and eccentric style. And when watching the second one, I longed to experience the events of the first one in the same crystal-clear Tarantino form (slower pace, intense dialogue) that the second one has. (2004-05-17)

Quentin Tarantino is very original and his directing is apparent every single second, whether it's the craftsmanship (black and white passages, animated parts, etc.) or the content. More than bloody killings, he focuses on what makes a film a film (dialogues, characters, etc.) and he does it well. Uma Thurman is excellent, David Carradine is a superb villain, and it's all very stylish. (2004-05-03)

The second part of the story was built up in a different way than the first one. To be honest, I liked the original style a little better. The second film was full of lengthy dialogue the absence of which surprised me last time. I was disappointed because it did not reach Tarantino’s standard quality. In fact, I couldn’t help feeling that Quentin Tarantino gave the first film his all, and the second one fell short of my expectations. I’m not saying it was bad, it just didn't reach the level of its predecessor. Again, I managed to see past some gaping logic holes, I even liked how they were used to create black humor. What disappointed me was the little girl. I'm not a big fan of kids, but I've seen a few in my lifetime, and I think that even if they know you from photos and stories, they probably won't run up to you full of excitement the first time they see you. P.S.: I’m giving the film four stars because of Samuel L. Jackson's role of a lifetime. / Lesson learned: If you want to get rid of someone, bury them alive as a vampire. 4*- (2022-09-19)