Kill Bill: Vol. 2

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)

The same as the first part: there is no less nonsense, there’s less action and more dialogue - classic Tarantino. I could have been enchanted at the time, but Kill Bill now is simply past its zenith. In short, a film that has nothing to get excited about. (30/03/2022)

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)

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. (17/05/2004)

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)