[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Kill Bill: Volume 2". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.



Crawdaddy

[Peter Kim]

Went to the only midnight showing in or around the Twin Cities about 30 miles away from home - glad I made the trip. The film ticked at a different pace than the first, perhaps slower (read deliberate), but rich nonetheless because of the dialogue.

Uma shines brighter here than in the first. It was a joy to see David Carradine play his flute again, a la Kwai Chang Caine. Uma's training sessions with Pai Mei really stood out for me - the master really wove a riot with his acerbic charm and tenderness.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 - 4/4, vintage Tarantino dazzle and violence.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 - 3.75/4, vintage Tarantino dialogue and resolution.

[Haggai]

I loved it, as I fully expected to. Definitely more depth with some of the characters here. A connection I'll draw with Vol. 1 is that while O-Ren's character is really fleshed out, motivation-wise, by the anime sequence in Vol. 1, Bill gets to do so for his own character in the final scenes of this movie, through the dialogue. Wonderful stuff, which I assume will only make Vol. 1 an even richer viewing experience now that the whole story has unfolded.

I should also point this out in the review thread, for people who haven't seen it yet--stay through the credits! I mean all of them, to the last second. They're pretty damn long, but it's absolutely worth it. A few nice character details pop up. And, at the final, final moment, there's a little outtake from the Vol. 1 House of Blue Leaves scene that's worth a chuckle.

[Chuck Mayer]

Color me underwhelmed. I really enjoyed the first film, not just for the action, but the clarity of purpose. Vol. 2 seems to drift in and out of the scenes, lingering on moments that mean little in the context of the film. I can understand the split decision, as this film is tonally different than the first. Sometimes I appreciated it, and sometimes I didn't. Uma Thurman does a stand-up job in this, however. Very impressive performance.

Like the first film, QT tries a bunch of different techniques, and some of them really work, and some exist to showcase a technique.

The highlight of the film are the scenes at the end between BB, Bill, and the Bride. Excellent writing and direction, as well as incredible interaction. Literally worth the price of admission.

On the way, however, there were numerous bits that felt like filler. QT is a genius, for certain, but a genius in need of some strong feedback.

Glad I saw the film, and glad most people like it.

7/10,
Chuck

[Travis_W]

I was really taken away with Volume 1. I had never experienced a film so fun and so near perfection like I had that night on October 10, 2003. Kill Bill Volume 1 was excellent, four stars, and all that cliche stuff.

I went to Volume 2 expecting a differnt kind of film. I got a different kind of film. I liked Volume 2 a lot but I was just waiting for something. I'm an action guy and it felt to me like all the action was in the first half and the second half was just an overblown ending.

All in all, worth seeing but I think it's better to watch both films back to back.

3 out of 4

[Patrick Sun]

I saw volume 2 after watching volume 1 today, so it was fresh on my mind, and the contrast between the 2 films seemed like night and day, and not in a good way. Is it always good to be different just to be different? In this case, I vote no.

Volume 2 is overly bloated with bits that derail the pacing of the film, and it meanders all over the place in many spots with little in terms of payoff for the viewer. I think there's a good 90 minute film in volume 2. As it stands, there's 30-40 minutes that could have been trimmed away without losing any of the story flow or impact.

The final chapter left me uninterested and a bit on the bored side with the resolution. It felt like watching a poorly staged TV drama. Or it was like Tarantino got such a rush at directing all the action sequences, that the dramatic character scenes just didn't leap off the written page and become compelling cinema.

I give it 2.5 stars, or a C+ (if you liked volume 1, go see it, but there's no way I'd recommend someone who hadn't seen volume 1 to go see it at all).

----

Upon second viewing, I think I'll bump up my rating to:

3 stars, or a grade of B.

[Chris Parham]

After seeing Vol 2 today, I have to count myself among those who feel that these two movies must be re-edited into one big film.
Usually my wife and I like to give a movie a star rating (out of five) after viewing. When leaving the theater after vol 1, we turned to each other and were speachless. We decided that although beautiful and fun, we could not rate it as we had just seen half a movie.
I felt the same way today. I have just seen half a movie! While I know that is the point of naming them volumes instead of parts, I really feel that this film in particular suffers from not being shown in one sitting.
Just my 2 cents

[Edwin Pereyra]

Kill Bill: Volume 2

It has been a while since I remember a film that was supposed to be shown as one complete treatise is broken down into two parts and the decision made only after principal photography has taken place. Kill Bill: Volume 2 (V2) is an example of a film with such an afterthought. Those expecting the same intensity as Volume 1 (V1) are going to be a little disappointed.

V2 picks up where V1 ends with the Bride (Uma Thurman) going after the remaining three individuals who have done her wrong – Budd (Michael Madsen), Elle (Daryl Hannah) and finally, Bill (David Carradine). But this second part is not as tightly edited as the first one. I can certainly understand the change in tone in V2 but there are some scenes that just felt added or too long and only for the sake of justifying the film’s two-part volume. The scenes involving the wedding rehearsal and the bar where Budd works quickly come to mind. Here, because of the powers that be, we are forced to sit through a longer version of the film in two parts, when a more definitive and shortened director’s cut is said to be in the works.

I enjoyed V2 only because I am able to put it in perspective in relation to V1. V2 still stands on its own but with limited success. As a standalone film, I wonder what my reaction would have been had V1 not been around. Even with its excess baggage, V2 is worthwhile only because of the underpinnings provided by V1. These two films really need each other. It is silly to even rate V2 on its own because both the first and second parts complement each other – V1 for the action sequences and forward-story, and V2 for its back-story and character buildup. However, V2 is not quite satisfying on its own. But when viewed with V1, they completely come together as one – a vintage Quentin Tarantino film.

Whether its 30 or however many minutes that end up on the cutting room floor, we can only hope that Tarantino’s final cut of Kill Bill will be the ultimate version that doesn’t succumb to the pressures put on by studio executives while at the same time trusting an audience that when a film is good, people will sit through it in one sitting even if it is 3-plus hours long without the need of breaking it up into two parts.

~Edwin

[Jason Seaver]

(out of four)
Seen 16 April 2004 at Loews Harvard Square #1 (first-run)

And now the question is, how could Quentin Tarantino have originally conceived this as one film?

Ignore for the moment that the two volumes together add up to four hours - the original cut was reportedly "only" three hours, which for a movie like this would still be pushing the limits of endurance. It would still have made for an oddly structured movie - the first half filled with over-the-top bloodshed and little of the witty dialogue that