Who Killed (Kill Bill) ?!

Rating: 4/10 (29 March 2009)

"Holes like the ones in the moon!"
(The Bride) enters a big hotel, where (Bill) stays, with obvious sword; and nobody demurs at that?! She goes to kill (Madsen) with the help of a sword? How naive! At least he's not like O-Ren and her crazy 88 who don't believe in guns! How a respectable professional killer like (Madsen) became that miserable poor person? The script didn't bother itself making him an addict or something!, or why he offered the option to (The Bride) between eye spray or battery, since he would bury her both ways?, and really how could he live this have-not life while he already owns a legendary sword that equals millions???!!! The answer might be: it's emotionally valuable to him, but I think the more right answer is: this is written by the same man who directed it, so no one got to ask questions like that in the middle!
"The monk, the fish, and Superman!"
It has some of the most stupid dialogues ever written for a movie. The thing to provoke is when you suddenly find the movie wear the wisdom's sackcloth, speaking in sick elaborately about things that seem out of the whole thing or too silly like the kind of the snake that killed (Madsen) and in full details, the monk that began a massacre in the year of 1003, and the memorable lecture about (Superman) which is so judicious and also inserted when it relates itself to the story. Even the good tale of the fish and the kid, who has the killer's seed inside of her, was done so tastelessly. Actually these stuffs beg to be spoofed. In any case, I know that I enjoyed them as comic moments!
"Kill The Audience!"
(David Carradine) was so ludicrous while playing his flute, as if he's presenting himself: "Hey, I'm David Carradine, you may remember me from the 1972 classic TV series "Kung Fu!". He seems a 100 year old, so how did he manage to be a father for this child?! Moreover, I think his age was the reason why there wasn't any fair fight at the end, which reminds me; this movie sufferers from one bad rhythmic disorder whereas there is a big battle at the end of its first half, then nothing like it later. As an action movie, it didn't deliver here, so forget about any thrill, and when you watch a long movie, in 2 volumes, about a hot revenge story on a guy named (Bill), to get at its end that (Bill), and to kill him as simple as that; then this is disappointing for the movie-goers that (Tarantino) supposedly knows best!
"What was that?!"
Maybe (Tarantino) used the most popular theme in all the world's B-movies: the revenge, to pay a homage, ANOTHER homage, to the cinemas that he loves, through the characters of the killers: the blaxploitation (Vivica A. Fox), the far Eastern action cinema (Lucy Liu), the western (Michael Madsen), and perhaps the European violent movies (Daryl Hannah). It would've been kind of attractive if he really made it this way. As with easy pretending writing, the story was mere yet stark flat, and all the characters, so their events, seemed hanging in the air (read: Tarantino's poor hallucination). He built the nonsense world in a nonsensical way as well, concentrating mainly on certain sequences or nostalgic details (for him!), more than the big picture, degrading the personality of his movie, and achieving a heavy emptiness!
As an album for B movies, this volume isn't creative but lazy and sleazy. And as a whole, it lacks originality in a way that made some say how (Tarantino) is a copycat! For me, it's one of the worst as alleged more than done. So, it ended up as not a good B movie or a good homage.
It mirrors BADLY how he's a conceited moviemaker, making a long boring idiot trivial movie (the rest of the attributes is in my review about Vol. 1), believing that it's the opposite. You can sense his vainglory as well as delusion through touches like: mentioning at the closing credits that the character of (The Bride) is written by Q & U; meaning (Quentin Tarantino) and (Uma Thurman)!!, his description of (The Bride)'s massacre as "legendary"!, plus some irritating publicity like (The Fourth Movie By Quentin Tarantino!!) while no one ever used that with more honored, better, directors.
(Tarantino) already killed his own movie, creating something not good on artistic or entertaining levels, delivering us a complete waste of time, which works only as a nasty caprice for its maker.
"Someday, they'll see the light!"
Although it's not a groundbreaking, it's a breakdown, but you'll have countless dull ones who'll tell you: "Yes, it's bad, but being bad was the point"!!!!!!!, so it's good in being bad????? If you love it as it is; fine, nobody can control their heart, but arguing in this way is the dumbest, most manipulative, ever which turns any bad into great! It is fool work, and with all the hype around it, it's super fool. Someday, someone will get out of their deep sleep, to say what a lousy bunkum that is!
"Name good thing about it?"
Well, there are 4. The action choreography, the solid sequence of the mentor; with the character itself so all the Hong Kong zoom-ins, the pretty smiling child who played Bill's daughter, and seeing (Lucy Liu) without scalp; I've never thought that I would thank (Tarantino) for anything!