Kill Bill: Vol. 2

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)

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. (16/08/2006)

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. (15/10/2005)

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. (04/05/2004)

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)