I have a feeling that when Volume 2 comes to DVD, they will release that movie seperately, then maybe wait a little while, then release a special edition where both movies are combined as they were originally intended. That's the only thing holding me back from buying Volume 1 right now.

I am not going to say I enjoyed it more or less than Vol.1. The two work together so unbelievably well. I liked the first one because it was so stylistic (the same reason I liked Matrix Reloaded)--it was so visual and visceral and fun. Tarantino made a wonderful contemporary vision of the old Asian kung-fu movies with a bit of a Western flair. It was like watching a well-choreographed and paced two-hour music video. The lack of substance (story) was the only flaw of the movie and I was worried for the film's longevity, as relying only on spectacle does not hold up very well through time. The story was linear, but whatever the story lacked, the film made up for it big time in amazing sequences, such as the anime chapter and especially the last one with O-Ren-Ishii and the Crazy 88.

I was skeptical about Vol.2 because I didn't see how such a linear story could be drawn out in the second one. I was not able to predict how much more dense the story could become, seeing as how it was made out to be a simple revenge story. I was very wrong, however, as Tarantino created the rest of the story with such a layered quality to it, that it had me in intrigue for the entire movie. For those of you who did not like Vol.1 because of the lack of story, trust me, this one has the bulk of it, and it's wonderfully executed and written. I couldn't believe how witty, sad, and eloquent the writing was at some points! The score isn't as fun as the first one. In fact, everything was much more subdued in this film. It's much more gritty, as the Asian movie spoof of blood squirting like sprinklers in the first film is not seen here. There is one scene where this kung-fu style reappears, and it's very enjoyable and important for the story. Tarantino also uses less trick shots and other film techniques in this film; you won't find anything awkward in his techniques here, with his most daring being mere black and white, the odd split screen and silhouette.

The ending was excellent, with a more emotional dominance than we're used to seeing in a Tarantino film. I was particularly impressed with the Oscar-worthy perfomance of Uma Thurman and even Bill Carradine (who plays Bill).

See it!! Even if you sat through the first one and had mixed feelings, give this one a try (we all did it with Matrix Revolutions, and this time the second KB won't disappoint!) I give this movie ****1/2 /5

And I don't think it was particularly "funny" Nachtkriechen...It had some comedic moments that were "smart/witty" funny, but I wouldn't say it was "humourous" as the defining theme...It certainly didn't make me roll. It was much more emotional (which I would call the dominant theme) than Vol.1 that's for sure.

You know, the more that people discuss "Kill Bill Vol. 1", the more that I wonder if "lack of substance" is a real issue with this movie. It is dense with allusions/references, done with so much love for the movies, and made so elegantly and well that it rises above the usual "concerns" when it comes to looking at movies.

Think of it this way--paintings tell stories only if you know about background information. However, even if you don't know anything about a great painting, you can still gawk at it and admire the technique. The same goes for "Kill Bill Vol. 1"--it's not over the top for the sake of outrageousness; rather, it's over the top because that's the method to its madness. Great stuff.

gandalf2250,

Being that each individual person is going to have a decidedly different take on any given film, purely from perspective, and differing backgrounds, to that, I'll acquiesce. However, in defense of my own perspective, I found everything from ANY of "Pai Mai's" scenes, to some of the diliberate and cheesey (but masterfully performed) lines by Uma Therman could be anything BUT hilarious! Unless you were asleep during the 60's & 70's and missed all of the outrageous martial arts films (that Quentin was obviously imitating), I find it hard not to see more than just "humor" in the scenes. Not to be confrontational, but if you re-read what I originally posted, I comented on Tarantino's intelligent or "witty" humor, and also mentioned (to quote myself) that "at times has you rolling". It wasn't my intention to make KBV2 out to be a comedy, or to show it to be it's "defineing theme". I'm not denying the "oscar" level performance Uma gave in those very dramatic and sorowful moments. They were very impressive, and in my opinion, that drastic sway of emotion is an integral part of what makes a Tarantino movie so unique. Having seen a few interviews with Quentin, he seems to like taking his audience on a rollercoaster ride. Any given perspective will always differ, one to another (by definition) on any given movie, or topic of discussion. You (gandalf2250) seem to have been more in tune with the more serious or dramatic side of the movie, where I (at the time) was more in tune with the comedic side of it. To each their own.

Eddie,

I think you hit the nail on the head. This could get a bit phylosophical, but I think that maybe people the world over, have taken on a mundane attitude towards movie going. It seems to me that people are more concerned with what they can argue about the film, or weather it was lacking this or that, or what the director "could have done" versus did they actually like the movie? Did they have a good time? The fact that Tarantino is a movie fenatic himself, I think he's brought the "love" of movie watching back to a lot of people that may have lost it. Quentin's movies are fun to watch on so many different levels. They're enjoyed by the vast spectrum of intellect's, and what's more, he's got a sort of "Howard Stern" following as well... meaning, even the people that don't like his films, wind up watching them just to see what he's going to do next. I don't think Quentin likes to "follow the rules" despite the fact that he's subject to them. For people to argue weather or not his films have "substance" is subjective at best. I think you're right. I think his films offer something to almost any adult audience.

- Josh 8)

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Apr 18, 2004]

The choreography in the fight with Elle was amazing. Though, I think 136 mins is a little long. I think the movie could of been edited more tightly.

Josh,

Well, every movie has to be viewed differently. For example, I don't have fun have watching Kieslowski's "Three Colors" trilogy, but the point isn't to have fun. On the other hand, "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is fun all the way. For example, some of that dialogue is very stilted, but you know what? It's supposed to be stilted because it's making fun of
a) the bad dub jobs that used to be made for Asian action movies that were imported to the U.S.;
b) the self-important tone of characters talking about "serious" things just before they splatter blood all over the screen;
c) the wooden characters of exploitation/mindless action movies;
d) the wooden acting of exploitation/mindless action movies.

Therefore, what's "bad" in something like "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is done because the filmmakers know that it's "bad". :)

Eddie

Eddie,

I know what you mean. Actually my use of "fun" was an attempt to not completely rip off Tarantino's self description of his movies. He (Tarantino) said he wanted to "give people a good time at the movies".

I grew up watching those badly dubbed (and yes, cheesey) movies, along with Bruce Lee's as well. It's probably what's driven my obsession with martial arts, and martial arts movies. I'm a fan of just about every genre of movie. As I mentioned before, I don't think you can undoubtedly label something good, bad, or ugly. It's all relative, and subjective. Sorry to go cliche' on you, but... "one mans trash, is another mans treasure". And vice versa for that matter.

- Josh:D

yeah, but michael bay's movies are trash to everyone. :D