You can also read my original Kill Bill volume 1 review.
So as you know Rikke and I went to see Kill Bill, Volume 2 the other day. I was rather hyped about seeing it actually, being entirely in the mood for exactly the experience that the first Kill Bill delivered with such virtuous unrelenting power. This was even though I had read several reviews that all told me that it would be a distinctly different movie, and boy were they right.
When I walked out of the cinema after seeing the first volume I was quite indifferent towards it. I thought it was too long, entirely without any kind of substance and that whatever the sequel had to offer, should have been included in the first movie so as to not stretch the agony over four and a half hours.
Writing my review for it however, I started to change my mind, and by the time I had reached the end of it I was more or less converted. The reasons for this are many, mostly due to the fact that as I often do when I have seen a movie, I will Google it a bit and see what people are saying about it on IMDB. And to be fair Kill Bill is as such a piece of cinema that is well outside my otherwise rather comprehensive movie experience. When I was younger I used to watch a plethora of really crappy ninja and samurai movies, and once I had opened the floodgates on that I slowly started to get a better understanding of where Tarantino was trying to go.
And here is the plan in all its brilliant simplicity: If you emulate trash-cinema with a love like the love Tarantino displays, noone can criticize the movie. After all it’s supposed to be bad!
Obviously that’s not entirely true, but overall it’s a pretty watertight approach. And before you get me wrong, let me reiterate that I have the greatest respect for Tarantino. Think what you will about his personality, but he knows his shit, that’s for sure. And his love for grindhouse cinema and other niche genre’s that by and large have passed on, is not to be underestimated!
Which leads me to the absolutely best thing I can say about Kill Bill in its entirety. From what I can see, no precautions have been taken to make the film shorter or more accessible to general audiences. It’s all 100% what Tarantino has wanted to make from start to finish, and that is a rarity these days. And while I would personally like to make my own little Phantom Edit of Kill Bill, I just wanted to let you know that I recognize the uniqueness of this, Tarantino’s ‘Star Wars’ so to speak.
And come to think of it, that’s not a bad analogy. Star Wars that is. Just as Lucas used and reused from a broad spectrum of movies to create Star Wars, so have Tarantino digged deep into the recesses of his personal – and I hear quite substantial – library of genre flicks to produce Kill Bill. (a list of possible influences have been compiled by eager fans, and can be found here). Besides the fact that both Star Wars and Kill Bill build on their respective director’s favorite movies, and that they stand as somewhat massive tributes to them, the analogy doesn’t go much further than that.
Because essentially Kill Bill has little original work in it when it comes right down to it. Which really was one of my original points of critique. Of course when you dig into it a little bit, then you realize that, therein lies the whole point. The ultimate postmodern tribute work if you will.
And that’s really what makes Kill Bill such an absolute masterpiece. Yes it’s long and yes it is by and large shallow. Yes it cuts corners very often and borrows mostly everything from other movies. But overall it has been put together with so much love and care that all of those things to some extend are entirely irrelevant.
At least that’s how I think I feel. Though not even Tarantino is untouched by Miramax’s need to sell the movie to as young (and thus as large) an audience as possible, it is by and large exactly what Tarantino wants to see, nothing more, nothing less. Fuck the audience, they’re fickle anyway, what do they know?!
And while I enjoy Fight Club and The Matrix as much as the next man for their tight unrelenting pace and homerun scripts, I can’t help but be somewhat touched by Tarantino’s honesty in making his films.
But that doesn’t really tell you what I think about Kill Bill 2 now does it?
Well, it’s nowhere near it’s predecessor. Not even close. And quite frankly I think it was a mistake to differentiate the two movies to such a degree. Tarantino himself explains that where volume 1 was primarily eastern in its influences, with only minor western thing making an entrance here and there, volume 2 is just the opposite, drawing its influences mostly from spaghetti westerns and whatnot, with the eastern influence staying mostly in the background. And that’s certainly true for the entire picture.
The fight-scenes are almost non-existent and character scenes and long monologues are the order of the day. And some of it is pretty good. I loved the parts with Pei Mei, an old-school ‘training montage’ shot so as to look like those ‘good’ old kungfu flicks from the 70’s. I loved The Bride vs. Elle (a kinetic fight scene if ever there was one, now if only it was 5 minutes longer). Budd was overall a really boring character in my opinion and his whole story could easily see its way out of the movie if it were up to me.
I loved Bill’s Superman speech, quite clever and just the kind of thing that I was hoping for. Unfortunately I found most of the banter in the movie to be stale and for the most part rather boring. Shots with the bride and her daughter linger on and on for ages way past the point where their emotional climax have been reached.
And as I think back on the movie, the image I’m left with – what I feel takes up most of the movie – is Budd’s trailer. Which is some sort of sign that the whole desert thing took way too long, especially seeing as – excepting Elle vs. Bride – that part of the movie was my least favorite.
But you can’t win them all as they say, and while I will undoubtedly come off as ranting, I did enjoy they movie for what it was. It just fell short of the masterpiece that I had hoped for. Not much different I guess, than what Reloaded and Revolutions did for many people who had hoped for them to live up to the original.
Having said all of that, let me just highlight the cinematography. It’s flawless. Period.
It’s worth your time alright, but it’s no volume 1.
I have just seen the movie and I am dissapointed, it was long dull and not what I expect from Tarantino.
If you watch Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs and then watch kill bill volume 2 you’ll know where I am coming from.
I saw the movie earlier this week, but I am still writing my “review” and I have to agree on a lot of your points.
It was definatelly more Pulp Fiction than Volume 1 mix of nija/kung-fu goodness, the pace and style were completely different, and dialogue/story was dominant.
Budd’s story was dissapointing, I was expecting much more. Same goes for standoff with Elle. Lack of action ala V1 and use of anime/B&W was also dissapointing, after the bloodshed and fighting in V1 I was expection something similar with perhaps more story (but no this much). The “superman” was very clever.
The worst, I knew how Bill is going to die 1/4 through the movie … was it too obvious or is it just me?
Yeah, it was rather obvious.
Spoilers ahead.
I very much agree with your take on Budd’s character Michael. He just didn’t interest me. Even the way he died was boring. To be honest, I think what the 2nd movie suffered from most was its lack of interesting characters.
If nothing else, Kill Bill Volume 1 gave me a bunch of damn cool characters that ignited the screen every time they appeared. Gogo and Oren-Ishi spring to mind, but even the little characters (Hattori Hanso and his ‘General’) were just outstanding and VERY entertaining. I found this severely lacking in the sequel. Yes, the ‘Pei Mei’ stuff was great, but it wasn’t enough for me considering how poor the Budd and Elle characters were.
While I did like the Elle vs Bride fight sequence, I did not like how QT threw in the bit about her killing Pei Mei. I’m not morally opposed to it because I liked the character so much, it could have worked… I just don’t think it did. Of course, the poetic justice this allows the Bride to get on Elle was pretty damn cool.
What I actually wanted to say was that the opening scene in the wedding chappel was beautifully executed. Once Bill showed up, I could feel the tension surrounding my entire body. As they talked to each other, while being excrutiatingly polite, the tension grew and grew until I thought it would burst right through me. Very rarely am I ever at a loss for what is going to happen next, but with Tarantino’s movies I find that to be the norm; perhaps this scene is the best example of that. I sincerely doubt I breathed throughout the whole bit.
The fact that I actually knew what was going to happen just makes it more amazing. Bravo QT.
Yeah I liked that scene a lot as well. Though I would’ve liked to see it trimmed down a bit :) I felt it took a while for the movie to get started.
So what if it doesn’t have an anime sequence?
It’s hard to say whether I liked it better than Vol 1 or not, because they’re very different movies. I liked it a lot, though. I can see how someone who expected Vol 2 to be just like Vol 1 would be disappointed, since Vol 2 doesn’t have a lot of action and isn’t as steeped in the kung-fu cliche’s. The lack of kung-fu cliche’s is made up for by the Pai Mai scene, though, and the wedding rehearsal sequence is superb.
Long takes and long sequences are just Tarantino’s style. Asking him to shorten them would be like asking Sean Connery to stop speaking with a Scottish accent.
I agree entirely, and to be quite honest I wouldn’t have it any other way, since it’s proof that ‘honest’ movies are still made ;) — I had just hoped (not so much expected, since I had read some reviews) for something more akin to the first volume.
Michael,
I realize that this is an old thread, but I just read it and find it interesting that so many viewers shared your opinion of boredom in vol. 2.
I have the opposite opinion. I enjoyed the first film, for its pure feeling of vengeance. The fighting, quite honestly, bored me after the first half hour, and the final showdown was simply anticlimactic. But ironically, I don’t think film wasn’t about the fighting.
Tarantino is a character director, I think, in that character development is always the point of his stories. The first film illustrated the measure of its main character’s purity — total, unequivocal commitment to vengeance. Her courage, skill, and dedication was shown by the ridiculous measure of each fight scene, until finally, she, her enemies, and the audience were either utterly exhausted, or dead.
The second film was about the relationships between the assassins, which, to me, was the most interesting thing about the movies. Why did the group split up in the first place? Why would they ever work together at all? What was the hierarchy between them while they were together? Why should we root for “the bride” when she is essentially one of them? Why would they want to assassinate her at all?
These are all things that give “the bride” her place, and a sense of her peril throughout her fight. They must also differentiate her character from the “bad” characters she is trying to defeat.
Of course, Tarantino has made quite a reputation for himself by making movies where everyone is a bad guy. But still, there is always someone to root for in his films, and that is the important thing.
Why should we like Uma’s character? That’s what the second movie is all about, and I find that infinitely more interesting than the cheap gimmicks used in the first film to “force” her hand of likeability: Uma’s sexuality, and her character’s “bad ass” reputation.
Being buried alive in the second film was a masterstroke. Uma’s scene in that coffin really blew my mind. And the subterranean attraction and simultaneous hatred Budd showed for her was palpable. Why did he have such complex feelings for her? I was riveted.
Budd was definitely not a throw away character. He established a ruthlessness that none of the other characters came close to reaching in either film.
Am I alone in my conclusion (piecing dialog clues together) that Budd was Elle’s lover, and that he lost her to his brother Bill, whom we can only assume took her as a “replacement” for “the bride” after she left him to begin a new life? Perhaps more importantly, am I alone in my satisfaction at finally being given some insight into the rivalry between Elle and “the brideâ€, the tension between “the bride†and Budd, and the power Bill has over them all? to at last be able to get on board with “the bride” just as she takes on Bill himself?
I find the way Tarantino developed the story, its timing, and the mood of the climactic meeting between “the bride” and Bill to be a master stroke. Everything that came before, every fight, dialog, and monolog effectively establishes the power and importance of Bill’s character.
I’ve read that David Caradine’s performance stole the films from Uma. I disagree. However, it is easy to see that upon their meeting, within the story I mean, that David’s character towers over Uma’s.
She is, quite simply, overpowered by him. Heck, she was overpowered by Budd, and Budd was a sullen puppy in Bill’s presence.
NOW were talking about an engaging showdown! The ultimate assassin, the heroine of the film taking on her mentor, the unassailable tyrant! The climax of the second film justifies the anticlimactic ending of the first film.
In short, I find Kill Bill to be one cohesive story and not two films at all. The fact that there is an entire back-story illustrated in glimpses and with such pop culture style, makes it in my mind, some of the finest storytelling in recent years.
Three cheers for the dialog!