Kill Bill: Vol. 2

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. (08/01/2014)

Although both parts are mainly different in terms of expression like day and night, Kill Bill is still a unique and cohesive film work that functions in every aspect. Combining neowestern with samurai swords is such an eccentric idea that it could only result in a disaster or an unforgettable experience. It is to Tarantino's credit that he accomplished the latter, and his creation matures at an unexpectedly fast pace. (15/08/2006)

A star better than Vol 1. It has more good dialogues (which is where Tarantino traditionally excels), the story is told in a more interesting way (the first part is pretty straightforward, unlike the second) and there’s less action (which I don’t think it’s bad). The scene with Pai Mei, who loves to constantly fix his moustache, is hilarious. (17/06/2010)

Lawrence Bender is said to have regretted cutting even a minute of the material Tarantino shot. I don’t believe a word of it. As a seasoned businessman, he must have made the calculations that a film like Kill Bill could only make money if it was released in two parts. As it is, we have "only" two highly above-average films that would have made the best Tarantino movie by combining the wild and entertaining first part and the slowed down and sometimes too talkative second. The master once again proved that he has ideas to spare, although visually the second part is poorer than the previous one. He also proves again that he can write dialogues that are a joy to listen to, but some of them are too drawn out and some situations and characters are unnecessary (the pimp, Budd's boss and the scene with him). And Quentin also proved again that he can squeeze the best out of actors who are past the zenith of their careers, David Carradine is a class act. But alas, we could have enjoyed a brilliant piece of cinema, instead we watched two successful parts, thanks to the interference of the producers, or perhaps Quentin's overconfidence. Who knows. (23/05/2004)

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*- (19/09/2022)