Review of Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004) by Rudy M — 19 Sep 2015

After re-watching Kill Bill: Vol. 1 of course I had to re-see Vol. 2 as well. At the end of Vol. 1 everything slowly came back to me. Why was this movie cut up in two parts again? How did I feel about it in 2004? How did I feel about it a decade later?

Like I said in my last review, Quentin Tarantino directed this movie and he wrote the story together with lead actress Uma Thurman. Thurman plays Beatrice Kiddo, also known as The Bride, who wakes up from a coma after four years to find that her unborn child is gone and that she was betrayed by a team of assassins that she used to be part of.

Both movies document the payback rampage she embarks on. While the first keeps the back story to a minimum, this second part delves deep into the history of Beatrice Kiddo.

Problem is, from all the flashbacks and hints in the first movie, you already know what went on. Here, Tarantino is merely colouring a more elaborate picture of the set he's already outlined well enough for the story to hold.

So here I was with 130 of the 137 minutes still to go, thinking: "Oh yeah, I remember this. This is going to be long and drawn out and with a lot of bumps in the road.".

And my memory served me well. Again, a decade later, I was wondering why this tale was cut up into two parts. So of course I looked it up. Thanks, Google. Seems like the story in 2003 was that the original movie was indeed intended to be 4 hours long and that the production company wanted to cut it in two parts because no audience would want to sit down that long. Or something close to that, depending on what source you visit.

This doesn't make sense to me. Granted, it's a plausible theory, something not many people would contend. But alas, I am a Cookie Monster, not people, and I am not satisfied with this explanation.

Vol.2 clearly was produced at the same time as Vol.1 with the same cast and production value. But the editing is quite different. Whereas Vol. 1 (111 minutes) flowed at a pleasant and regular pace, Vol 2 (137 minutes) seemed deliberately slowed down, while not really adding much to the back story that was absolutely necessary.

If I had enough time (which I don't, obviously, I barely have enough time to write all these reviews) I would load both installments into my Adobe Premiere and create my own edit to prove the following point: If you'd edit Vol. 2 the way Vol. 1 was done, removed all double scenes between the two installments and removed the double credit sequences, you'd end up with a running time under two and a half hours, which is perfectly fine for a single theatre release.

Anyway, I read some boo-hoos about how it was not easy for the production company to have to market this twice and have the second installment come out at a bad time for the Academy Awards, etc. Cowcrap, if you ask me. Just the news of the two installments was enough promo in itself, and why does no-one mention that all fans and viewers had to pay double the money to see the whole story?

Pros: You have to see it to know how it ends.

Cons: Slow, unneccesarily drawn out.

Verdict: Meh, go see if you wanna know how it ends.