why?

Rating: Null/10 (25 June 2004)

does anyone wonder why they made the second part nothing compared to the first? i know that the second part tells the 'story', but did anyone else think that it needed less story, and more of the great fight scenes in the first one? me and my friends were bored by the opening sequence, never mind some for the rest of the film. Uma Therman wasn't even in it that much, and when she was, her character wasn't as strong as she was in the first one. i saw the first one and thought it was great, so when the second one came out i saw it straight away, but i was disappointed. they should have just combined the two so one half wasn't all fighting and the other wasn't all story.what does everyone else think?