Kill Bill: Vol. 2

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. (03/05/2004)

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)

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. (14/10/2005)

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)

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)