User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 567 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 50 out of 567
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 21, 2011
    5
    Slightly cleaner and organized than its prequel, but nevertheless its a messy film.
  2. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    (NOTE: This review covers only Vol. 2 of the Kill Bill Saga. For Vol. 1, see my profile page. For a complete overall score on the entire Kill Bill saga, see after this review)
    Part 2 of this elaborate revenge, murder rampage concentrates more on the actual plot and less on the violence. Is that good thing? No, not at all. The violence and fighting sequences as well as the unique blend of
    (NOTE: This review covers only Vol. 2 of the Kill Bill Saga. For Vol. 1, see my profile page. For a complete overall score on the entire Kill Bill saga, see after this review)
    Part 2 of this elaborate revenge, murder rampage concentrates more on the actual plot and less on the violence. Is that good thing? No, not at all. The violence and fighting sequences as well as the unique blend of Asian cinema homages and cinematography are what actually kept Vol. 1 above 5/10 for me. However, for Vol. 2, the homages and unique style of Vol. 1 is almost completely non-existent (no, the training segment with Pai Mei does not qualify to a homage as its cliche' as hell and has been done hundreds of times in modern films), the action sequences are reduces to a few disappointing minutes, the actual movie itself is set in some of the most bland locales (as opposed to exotic locations of Vol. 1), and the characters...you just dont care anymore. The new characters dont really bring much to the table and are all uninspiring to the point of mediocrity. You can almost feel that Thurman herself as a character is losing steam as opposed to her great portrayal in Vol.1. And finally, they decided to focus on the plot, the weakest aspect of the entire saga. Well, I guess they have to. Imagine Transformers with barely any cool fight sequences and have Shia Lebouf and Optimus Prime talk for most of the film. This is like Vol. 2 - instead of more violent sequences in the unique style and soundtrack as pinpointed by Vol. 1, Vol. 2 decided to just throw all that in the bin and opted for a more quiet and ultimately, more lacking concluding film which, while wraps up Kiddo's tale (the final 'boss fight' just feels disjointed and lacks tension), is at the end of the day, becomes a cliche' drama rather than an action thriller. Dont watch this on drunk nights like Vol. 1, instead just read the wikipedia plot section. You're not missing anything by not watching it. Throwing away the elements which made Part 1 fun, Vol. 2 of Kill Bill is a mediocre, disappointing conclusion that feel like a Samurai warrior who basically used up all his strength for the first half of the fight while for the second half, decides to use a gun instead to finish his opponent. OVERALL: With Vol. 1 and 2 taken into considerable, Kill Bill feels disjointed with dramatic shifts to pace that just feels unnatural. Decent fight sequences, coupled with unique film styles and homages to Asian cinema make the first half of the saga enjoyable if you're feeling a little bloodlustful wheras you may be disappointed at the ending and concluding hour where the pace slackens and action is thrown out the window. Kill Bill as a whole with Vol. 1 and 2 combined receives a 6/10. A decent, intriguing piece of cinema that will divide audiences and is ultimately an enjoyable thriller for those after something more raw and intimate.
    Expand
  3. HelpU
    Jul 19, 2009
    5
    Everything in the movie seems out of place right down the over exaggerated action scenes to the terrible story.
  4. ChrisG.
    Apr 17, 2004
    4
    This movie is not like the first half. It has no action compared to the first one. It was a waste of time. A total of * people die in the movie, there's less than 2 minutes of any action and there's enough filler here to bore any person on the planet. They spend 15 minutes in a strip club, only to have nothing come of it. They explain the wedding massacre from the first movie This movie is not like the first half. It has no action compared to the first one. It was a waste of time. A total of * people die in the movie, there's less than 2 minutes of any action and there's enough filler here to bore any person on the planet. They spend 15 minutes in a strip club, only to have nothing come of it. They explain the wedding massacre from the first movie only to pull away right as the fighting begins. Nothing is redeeming in this movie whatsoever. There are some good jokes, and what little action there is (2 fight scenes) is quite nice, but not enough to make up for 90 minutes of filler. Expand
  5. LiefS.
    Sep 5, 2007
    5
    i know the two kill bills were originally intended to be one long movie but be that as it may, the second one did not do it for me. we went from seeing the slaying of the crazy 88 in the first movie to a three second chair fight against the main villain
  6. CameronS.
    Apr 17, 2004
    5
    I am a big fan of George A. Romero?s zombie classics Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. The latter film is a fun action movie, it contains many great scares, gore galore, and has biting humor in a world where humor is dying with the dead civilization. The characters are also well developed and the film is focused primarily on four stranded refugees in a vast mall, the pinnacle I am a big fan of George A. Romero?s zombie classics Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. The latter film is a fun action movie, it contains many great scares, gore galore, and has biting humor in a world where humor is dying with the dead civilization. The characters are also well developed and the film is focused primarily on four stranded refugees in a vast mall, the pinnacle of the 20th Century, while also creating many comic zombie fellows roaming the mall. Absent are the things that made Romero?s film a great horror-comedy achievement. The poorly shot and imprudently edited actions scenes are incomprehensible to a point where it is hard to tell what?s going on. There are far many more characters this time around, whose sole purpose is to get killed violently by the films climax. However, something did survive into this remake, and that?s the comedy. The film is terribly funny, making for something of an entertaining piece. What I especially liked about the much better zombie movie ?Return of the Living Dead? was that the characters lived in a world where zombie movies existed, especially Romero?s films. The characters, as dumb as they were at times knew that they were dealing with zombies. I note this because there is a scene when all the excess characters show up they wheel in a woman who is clearly about to turn into the dead, with her gray skin highlighting and her dying green veins becoming clearly noticeable. I was just thinking how dumb these people would have to be to let someone they knew would be turning into the mall. Note to everybody: when somebody is greyly pale with their veins popping out and the smell of death, don?t let them into your place of refugee. The direction is quite sophomoric and the screenplay is a serviceable homage to the original while coming up with some original tact and wit of its own, though it plays with the usual thoughts and clichés of most modern horror films. That being understood, the acting is quite serviceable for this kind of movie, with Ving Rhames spouting lines so intrepidly panicky they come off exceedingly humorous. The film feels terribly inspired by the far superior 28 Days Later, but not stealing anything that would have made a difference, like the anti-cliché of instant infection. Now we have zombies that are faster but just as dumb who can tip mobile vehicles that weigh several tons but are unable to break through a glass door. I didn?t wholly dislike this film, but I am curious as to why anybody would want to see this picture over Romero?s own classic. But a good comment I would like to say about it, it is far better than Tom Savini?s trite, inane, and ghastly Night of the Living Dead remake or even Romero?s own humdrum, flavorless, spendthrift, feeble Day of the Dead. But then again, that?s not much of an accomplishment either. Expand
  7. BarbaraM.
    Apr 20, 2004
    6
    Not bad.
  8. ChrisB.
    Apr 25, 2004
    5
    Better than the first, but both of these films are simply overrated.
  9. DamianP.
    Apr 29, 2004
    5
    It passes the time.
  10. A.PompousWindbag
    May 4, 2004
    5
    This certainly isn't the film that Vol. 1 is. Uma Thurman looks stunning and Darryl Hannah is a joy, but the David Carradine part is way, way too wordy and he isn't exactly easy on the eyes these days. Watch this on cable in a few months and don't waste money on a theatrical showing.
  11. EfeB.
    Jul 30, 2004
    6
    The problem here is that they have divided the movie into 2 parts, making us watch and talk about it as 2 different things.when in fact mr. tarantino envisioned it as a one very.very long film. but since we can rate what we have in our hands i am forced to say the first part was much better. it hurts me to say this because i love kill bill as a whole. my low rating comes only from my The problem here is that they have divided the movie into 2 parts, making us watch and talk about it as 2 different things.when in fact mr. tarantino envisioned it as a one very.very long film. but since we can rate what we have in our hands i am forced to say the first part was much better. it hurts me to say this because i love kill bill as a whole. my low rating comes only from my expectations and what i received at the end. first off, the darly hannah fight scene is too short and shot so close up that we have a hard time seeing whats taking place. when we finally see her with no eyes and rolling in pain, it's not very rewarding. the black mamba attack on the cowboy fella is handled this way also, two key people die rather simply and leaves us audiences wanting for more. some say that "leaving us wanting more" is a good film trick, but in the world of kill bill as was set up by the first film, demands more graphic and exciting ways of...killing. the exclusion of animatics this time around also makes the package a little weak. the first kill bill and kill bill 2 doesn't balance eachother well. the second film tries to wrap the story...why so and so did what and when. the chinese kung-fu teacher is the one and only highlight of kill bill 2. there is great drama between uma and the chinese fella, i could have watched those kung fu lessons for hours, but yet it is also cut short and we find uma in a coffin. a scene shamelessly "stolen" from the european (and american) version of the "vanishing". the film i speak of was released in the 90's...so iam not talking about some 70's homage thing here, tarantino loved that scene and just took it. hmmm. not very creative. bill is played to perfection by carradine. he needs little or no help from his co actors, as he is in the "zone". whatever that "zone" might be, either tarantino's expert direction or carradine's own real life twisted self is a mystery...maybe both. he seems like a guy who burns candles around his house and pray to the lost gods of the mount akuna matata (dont look for it, i made it up), pets a giant lizard and eats exotic leaves. whatever the case might be, he IS bill. so, am i sad that i did not see more blood spraying from limbs due to clean katana slashes? yes. do i feel cheated because all the cool carachters died faster than the shutter speed of quentin's camera?...i do and, seriously...why not give the audience what they want instead of trying to tie a stupid story anyway?...the fruits behind kill bill was never the story, but the execution of scenes and production design. i am willing to bet that people cared more about the action than uma's long lost baby girl. still, tarantino survives well into the 2004's and i am curious what his twisted mind will create next. Expand
  12. JoeW.
    Sep 26, 2004
    5
    Uma Thurman was GREAT ! But imagine if this were released under an unknown director's name. The critics would have lambasted it. Tarantino seems to have a "Special" spot when it comes to critical review.
  13. KelvinL.
    Aug 15, 2005
    5
    Just does not deliver the excitment and expectations of the first. The conclusion was painfully slow and talky, and very predictable. The first film was great, full of energy excitment style and lots of loose ends, the second volume though just looked like it ran out of steam! It was like travelling at 100 miles per hour and then slowing to 30 miles an hour! Very dissapointing!
  14. Triniman
    Apr 16, 2004
    6
    [***PLOT POINTS***] Kill Bill Vol. 2 3/5 The second installment of Kill Bill provides the background information about the first film. We see the Kung Fu training of the Bride, her wedding massacre and a buried-alive scene in a graveyard. Bill explains why the Bride was supposed to be killed off and the four year-old daughter of Bill and the Bride makes an appearance near the end. There[***PLOT POINTS***] Kill Bill Vol. 2 3/5 The second installment of Kill Bill provides the background information about the first film. We see the Kung Fu training of the Bride, her wedding massacre and a buried-alive scene in a graveyard. Bill explains why the Bride was supposed to be killed off and the four year-old daughter of Bill and the Bride makes an appearance near the end. There are some funny moments but this episode is far more laid back and less interesting than the first one. If the first film was a 5/5, this slower one has to be only 3/5. Definitely not the exciting blockbuster that the first one was. Review by Triniman Expand
  15. BloodAngel
    Apr 17, 2004
    5
    [***SPOILERS***] This movie is better than anything else out right now, but that doesn't mean it's flawless! The first film and the second film of Kill Bill aren't even close to one another. After seeing the Bride kill the Crazy 88's, and such a big climax in the first one with Oren, killing Bill vol. 2 died with a whimper. The fight between the Bride and Driver was[***SPOILERS***] This movie is better than anything else out right now, but that doesn't mean it's flawless! The first film and the second film of Kill Bill aren't even close to one another. After seeing the Bride kill the Crazy 88's, and such a big climax in the first one with Oren, killing Bill vol. 2 died with a whimper. The fight between the Bride and Driver was intense, but the only part worth mentioning for action. As for humor the old master was hilarious! Over all this movie has none of the flash or stylization of the first film! I would not recomend it unless you were a Tarantino fan... In the end it left a feeling of me saying "so what, that was pointless." I guess after seeing her cut through 60+ people the second film seemed pointless and less exciting. Expand
  16. TheIceMan
    Apr 18, 2004
    5
    This movie was just "ok" and nothing more. Those expecting a movie as exciting and quirky-weird as the first will be disappointed. Sure the movie fills in the gaps of information behind who everyone is and their connections to each other, but do we really care? The first movie was a treat to all your senses. The second film just seemed to drag. That does not mean that Vol2 did not have This movie was just "ok" and nothing more. Those expecting a movie as exciting and quirky-weird as the first will be disappointed. Sure the movie fills in the gaps of information behind who everyone is and their connections to each other, but do we really care? The first movie was a treat to all your senses. The second film just seemed to drag. That does not mean that Vol2 did not have some good parts to it. The Master was hilarious, the inability to unsheath the sword in the trailer was a riot! There was not enough action in this one...period. For all the hype surrounding how great Volume 2 is, and how it stands on its own, and how it is so much better than Volume 1...I was sorely let down when I actually saw it with my friends. Basically, don't go to Volume 2 expecting to be as thrilled and entertained as you were for Volume 1. Quentin could have done a better job by cutting down a lot of the unnecessary dialogue, and then taking Vol1 and vol2 - re-editting them to "spread out" the action, and then cut it into two movies. Some of the professional movie reviewers really leave me contemplating becoming one myself...just so I can inject some reliable commentary into the reviewing domain to balance out their uncanny ability to like what is terrible, and hate what is enjoyable. Expand
  17. JohnB.
    Apr 19, 2004
    6
    Part 2 to me was very uneven in that it is slow/dull for parts then energized in some fight scenes, back to dull...thus i prefer part 1...overall ok but had expected more.
  18. SteveG.
    May 31, 2004
    5
    Okay, here's a problem for would be film-makers: you have a movie that runs a shade too long for one movie and decide to divide it into two. That means you have to work in some of those 'filler' scenes that really you should have left on the cutting room floor to pad them both out. Dialog is okay though not outstanding, plot and character development unnecessary (you can Okay, here's a problem for would be film-makers: you have a movie that runs a shade too long for one movie and decide to divide it into two. That means you have to work in some of those 'filler' scenes that really you should have left on the cutting room floor to pad them both out. Dialog is okay though not outstanding, plot and character development unnecessary (you can always add things as you think of them anyway) but you can rely on your audience to buy it because of who you are and keeping them waiting for a conclusion adds to your mystique. Overall it isn't bad though nothing radical - after all, it's all been done before - but it passes the time and people might forgive you for at least one scene which is so improbable (apparently you can breathe through several feet of soil falling in on you in a confined space) it's almost laughable. You can even add that hint of a possible third episode with not one but two potential revenge seekers - though in all fairness one was from Kill Bill 1. Overall? Medium to average though a good editor and a more disciplined director might have raised it to the heights. Expand
  19. GregM.
    May 3, 2004
    5
    Vol. 1 was a crafty, witty, exciting, innovative, visual candy-type of movie. I've seen it criticized for being cartooney, which is exactly what it set out to be (and did magnificently, I might add.) Vol. 2 is drawn out, choppy and unintegrated. What happened to the purely evil Bill that was presented to us in Vol. 1? Was the truth serum really necessary? Did we need the Michael Vol. 1 was a crafty, witty, exciting, innovative, visual candy-type of movie. I've seen it criticized for being cartooney, which is exactly what it set out to be (and did magnificently, I might add.) Vol. 2 is drawn out, choppy and unintegrated. What happened to the purely evil Bill that was presented to us in Vol. 1? Was the truth serum really necessary? Did we need the Michael Madsen scene at the bar? Keep the coffin scene (improve it, though); keep the Pai Mai training (lengthen it); and by all means, keep the Darryl Hannah scenes (especially her spastic writhing scene and her eye removal, reminiscent of Blade Runner.); lose the rest. Expand
  20. Aug 16, 2010
    4
    Quentin Tarantino is a HIGHLY overrated director. All his movies are over the top with no good storylines and stupid sequences with one liners. I really didn't like this movie that much. It was entertaining at times but there are lots of better martial art flicks. This movie doesn't deserve to be on imdb's top 250 and neither does the first. Quentin Tarantino is not a genius he's just aQuentin Tarantino is a HIGHLY overrated director. All his movies are over the top with no good storylines and stupid sequences with one liners. I really didn't like this movie that much. It was entertaining at times but there are lots of better martial art flicks. This movie doesn't deserve to be on imdb's top 250 and neither does the first. Quentin Tarantino is not a genius he's just a guy with a sick mind who shows it to everyone. People may call him artistic I say he's full of sh*t. Any artist could just take a canvas and randomly start painting crap that's completely orignal on it people may like it but I say a real artist takes time to work on the details and everything. Expand
  21. JeffL
    Aug 15, 2004
    6
    There were things I liked about this movie: the cleverly choreographed fight scenes; Michael Madsen's performance; the story involving Uma's mentor. What i didn't like about this movie was that I was never quite clear of the characters' motivations until the end. For some reason, Tarantino foregrounds high paced action and quirky character dialogue for much of the There were things I liked about this movie: the cleverly choreographed fight scenes; Michael Madsen's performance; the story involving Uma's mentor. What i didn't like about this movie was that I was never quite clear of the characters' motivations until the end. For some reason, Tarantino foregrounds high paced action and quirky character dialogue for much of the film. This is fine -- but unless I watch those action scenes with a simple "gosh, that's Matrix-cool" mindset, I don't care about the absolution of the protagonist's revenge. Granted, this movie is apparently an hommage to Asian action films, which to me is just a flashy way of saying Tarrantino makes movies only a select group will fully understand. Again, this is fine -- but take away the elaborate fight scenes and you're left with a lot less than you want to be left with, especially when you're dealing with someone with Tarrantino's talent. Expand
  22. T.M.
    Feb 18, 2005
    5
    [***SPOILERS***] I liked Vol. I a lot better. I thought the plot twist of the Bride having had a child by Bill was lame beyond belief, and the last half of this film moved at a snail's pace. Tarantino needs some lessons in learning to edit his work, but alas, he has so much clout that he won't have to learn that lesson any time soon. He could have presented this thin story and[***SPOILERS***] I liked Vol. I a lot better. I thought the plot twist of the Bride having had a child by Bill was lame beyond belief, and the last half of this film moved at a snail's pace. Tarantino needs some lessons in learning to edit his work, but alas, he has so much clout that he won't have to learn that lesson any time soon. He could have presented this thin story and barely-conceived characters in nearly half the time both installments took. I enjoyed the style and eye candy of the first installment, but by the second installment the style and eye candy weren't enough. And no, talkiness does not substitute for emotional depth. As for Uma Thurman...She's beautiful, talented, and has charisma, but she needs to eat a few fattening meals. She looked much better a few years ago before she developed this current gaunt, over-muscular look. The best scene in KB Vol. II was where she broke out of the underground casket. Expand
  23. PatrickD.
    Apr 18, 2006
    6
    I agree with evil D. This was better than the first, (Thank God) but it was so slow. So slow...... It's trying to un-do the shallow-ness of the first. But, we spend more time learning about Bud than learning about the hero. Every scene is overstuffed, ecspecially the part when Bill and The Bride are talking. I remember my mother saying something about the superhero speech being I agree with evil D. This was better than the first, (Thank God) but it was so slow. So slow...... It's trying to un-do the shallow-ness of the first. But, we spend more time learning about Bud than learning about the hero. Every scene is overstuffed, ecspecially the part when Bill and The Bride are talking. I remember my mother saying something about the superhero speech being overdrawn. True, true. Expand
  24. DanK.
    Apr 16, 2008
    6
    I loved the first one, it was so amazing to watch a movie with iconic moments and swift action sequences. The first was intentionally designed to make you react on a gut level not a brain level. The problem here is that this film just goes on too long with so little material. Even the eventual showdown with Bill is a letdown and the samurai violence that the first one was great for has I loved the first one, it was so amazing to watch a movie with iconic moments and swift action sequences. The first was intentionally designed to make you react on a gut level not a brain level. The problem here is that this film just goes on too long with so little material. Even the eventual showdown with Bill is a letdown and the samurai violence that the first one was great for has become joyless and depleted. This film is much different and probably owes more to the spaghetti western genre than the samurai/exlpoitation genre, but it fails at that to. Nothing is inconic, everything is forgettable. I would watch it once if you are dying to find out what happens, but after that, you'll have already forgotten why you cared. It was the journey that counted, and volume 1 was the better half of that journey. Expand
  25. Aug 23, 2010
    6
    pretty much like the first film . your nostalgia will affect how much you like this film . its a little slower paced then the first but fills in the story gaps . i liked this movie about the same as the first . its entertaining but doesnt pull off the fun that sin city pulled off.
  26. Sep 20, 2010
    6
    Although Kill Bill: Vol. 1 is greater movie than Kill Bill: Vol. 2, Kill Bill: Vol.2 more concentrates on revealing the shocking moment and half-like epic story rather than Kung-fu fighting or stylistic action.
  27. Mar 30, 2012
    5
    I feel the same way about Kill Bill Vol. 2 as i did the first. Again no big deal with solid acting and slightly better action scenes. The ending though is way overdone. Please just Kill Bill already.
  28. Mar 9, 2013
    6
    It escapes from its silly setting and focuses on all plot. But even with one of the best performances of all time from Uma Thurman, Tarantino still can't escape from Kill Bills messy plot.
Metascore
83

Universal acclaim - based on 41 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 41
  2. Negative: 1 out of 41
  1. Kill Bill-Vol. 2 puts to shame doubts entertained about aesthetic strategies or structural imbalance provoked by "Kill Bill-Vol. 1." Now that the entirety of Quentin Tarantino's epic revenge melodrama is on view, "Kill Bill" emerges as a brilliant, invigorating work, one to muse over for years to come.
  2. 100
    You'll thrill to the action, savor the tasty dialogue and laugh like bloody hell.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    100
    Originally conceived as one film, the two-parter that has finally emerged can now be seen as a truly epic work.