Kill Bill 2.

A Kill Bill mindkét részét magasra értékelem. Tiszta élvezet és a filmrajongói vágyaim teljes értékű kielégítése. De nem örülök annak, hogy a saga egésze így van felosztva. Egyrészt azért, mert az első film végén van egy spoiler, pusztán üzleti okokból, ami megöli a 200 perces saga lényegét. És azért is, mert stilisztika szempontjából az egyes részek nem egyformák. Miután megnéztem az első filmet, azt akarom, hogy a második film is ugyanilyen lendületes tempóban és excentrikus stílusban menjen. És a második filmet nézve vágyom arra, hogy újra átéljem az első film eseményeit ugyanabban a kristálytiszta, Tarantino-szerű formában (lassabb tempó, csiszoltabb párbeszédek), mint a másodikban. (2004.05.17)

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. (2004.05.23)

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. (2010.06.17)

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. (2005.10.14)

While the first movie was just a showcase of Tarantino the director, this time the story gets a word in. Uma no longer has to strut her kung fu stuff, so she no longer looks like a paddle come to life and, most importantly, Quentin has moved closer to Sergio Leone. Which greatly benefits the movie (and Tarantino). A massive benefit! ♫ OST score: 4/5 (2006.08.13)

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. (2006.08.15)

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. (2004.05.03)

Kill Bill must be seen in its entirety – as soon as the first film is over, watch the second. Otherwise, you will compare and find that Vol. 1 is an average action flick, while Vol. 2 is excellent. (2009.06.22)

It’s amazing how this revenge feels different all of a sudden; more physical, more human, more patient. I believe Volume 1 and 2 would probably work better as one opulent three-hour movie, because I still don’t quite get the point of dividing it into two such formally different parts, but the second one is closer to the screenwriting exhibition of an adored dude able to turn a simple premise into an unpredictable but also somewhat bizarre and deeply human story. If I called the first one porn for geeks, this one would be geek for porn. Quentin takes traditions from western, kung-fu and revenge movies and other well-known narrative tropes and enriches them with his inimitable moment of surprise, which here is absolutely sudden and shocking, foreshadowed in very carefully built dialogues. This time he lets the heroine suffer without putting her against fighting machines, but against people who are probably blaming their past. It’s a pity that Tarantino doesn’t work with human emotions very well – one of the key twists is revealed at the end of the first volume, which weakens the brilliant game with the surprise, and the dialogues with Bill, one of the most interesting characters, are written mostly for the viewers and not for an inner climax. Volume 2 is better than Volume 1 for its more thoughtful arrangement of the episodes and how it works with the characters, whose fates are beautifully intertwined, without needing to remember the first part, but it’s still too deep into its own self-awareness to make you fall on your ass and shed a tear when the closing credits start rolling. 85% (2018.10.29)

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*- (2022.09.19)

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. (2014.01.08)