the brilliant music by The RZA
question: Does the soundtrack perfect?, context: Having just seen Kill Bill, Vol. 2, I can confirm that the interviews and press reports are accurate:  By splitting one film into two, what you get are two halves that each has its own very pronounced merits, but need each other to survive.  In fact, I think if the two volumes had cross-pollinated a little more, you wouldn't have had just a good movie and a half, but two great films.But for now, Kill Bill Vol. 1.  It's the &quot;action&quot; half of the twins, and it dazzles right from the start with an audacious, extended extreme close-up on Uma Thurman's face.  The scene after, the duel between The Bride and Vernita Green, is classic Quentin Tarantino, heralding a return to his outrageous, dramatically intense roots.  Probably the strongest scene he's directed since the Mr. Pink-Mr. White altercation in Reservoir Dogs.  Unfortunately, after The Bride wakes up from her coma, the dramatic content flies down the meter, with a lot of posing and one-liners but very little in terms of character or emotional satisfaction.  Which means it's up to the endless action set pieces to grab our attention.  And they do.  However, I find them a little too bloody, even though I've spent the last 16 months digging through Shaw Brothers films (through the excellent Celestial Pictures VCD and DVD releases).  The endless bloodletting in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is shocking in the beginning, but after about five minutes in the extended climactic massacre, it's numbing.And for the record, Kill Bill Vol. 1 is not a Shaw Brothers kind of film, despite the Shaw logo which opens the film.  You would have to wait until the &quot;training&quot; sequences in Vol. 2 to get Shaw Brothers-style cinema (which Tarantino appropriates very well there).  Vol. 1 is much more a paean to the Japanese style of filmmaking:  Extremely saturated colours courtesy of cinematographer Robert Richardson (even Shaw films didn't go this far in terms of garish colours -- we're in '80s Kurosawa territory here), emphasis on extreme wide shots, the very long builds, the brilliant music by The RZA.  And the martial-arts sequences are modern in their multi-angularity and speed cuts; Shaw Brothers action as epitomized by Chang Cheh's style focuses much more on choreography and mise en scene than multi-angularity, letting long medium shots capture the movement of the actors and fighters, relying very little on cuts.All in all, the most lacking element in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is still story and character.  Uma Thurman has some great moments (such as when The Bride first wakes up in the hospital), but after those blazing first 30 minutes, she will mostly become a statuesque hellfire angel who doesn't have a great deal of emotional advancement.  You will get that in spades in Vol. 2, which is hands down a superior story and film -- without the visual eye candy and endless action of Vol. 1, but with such powerful dramatic moments that it barely matters.  Again, I think if Tarantino had been able to meld the action and the drama a little more, rather than separate them into two movies that contain most of one and almost none of the other, he would have made both films greater than what they are.  As it stands, Vol. 2 will be what truly burns these characters and Tarantino's vision into your mind, while Vol. 1 is the adrenalized thrill ride with energy to spare, but without much in terms of thematic depth. 
Does the soundtrack perfect?
1 is much more a paean to the Japanese style of filmmaking:  Extremely saturated colours courtesy of cinematographer Robert Richardson (even Shaw films didn't go this far in terms of garish colours -- we're in '80s Kurosawa territory here), emphasis on extreme wide shots, the very long builds, the brilliant music by The RZA .
Having just seen Kill Bill, Vol. 2, I can confirm that the interviews and press reports are accurate:  By splitting one film into two, what you get are two halves that each has its own very pronounced merits, but need each other to survive.  In fact, I think if the two volumes had cross-pollinated a little more, you wouldn't have had just a good movie and a half, but two great films.But for now, Kill Bill Vol. 1.  It's the &quot;action&quot; half of the twins, and it dazzles right from the start with an audacious, extended extreme close-up on Uma Thurman's face.  The scene after, the duel between The Bride and Vernita Green, is classic Quentin Tarantino, heralding a return to his outrageous, dramatically intense roots.  Probably the strongest scene he's directed since the Mr. Pink-Mr. White altercation in Reservoir Dogs.  Unfortunately, after The Bride wakes up from her coma, the dramatic content flies down the meter, with a lot of posing and one-liners but very little in terms of character or emotional satisfaction.  Which means it's up to the endless action set pieces to grab our attention.  And they do.  However, I find them a little too bloody, even though I've spent the last 16 months digging through Shaw Brothers films (through the excellent Celestial Pictures VCD and DVD releases).  The endless bloodletting in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is shocking in the beginning, but after about five minutes in the extended climactic massacre, it's numbing.And for the record, Kill Bill Vol. 1 is not a Shaw Brothers kind of film, despite the Shaw logo which opens the film.  You would have to wait until the &quot;training&quot; sequences in Vol. 2 to get Shaw Brothers-style cinema (which Tarantino appropriates very well there).  Vol. 1 is much more a paean to the Japanese style of filmmaking:  Extremely saturated colours courtesy of cinematographer Robert Richardson (even Shaw films didn't go this far in terms of garish colours -- we're in '80s Kurosawa territory here), emphasis on extreme wide shots, the very long builds, the brilliant music by The RZA.  And the martial-arts sequences are modern in their multi-angularity and speed cuts; Shaw Brothers action as epitomized by Chang Cheh's style focuses much more on choreography and mise en scene than multi-angularity, letting long medium shots capture the movement of the actors and fighters, relying very little on cuts.All in all, the most lacking element in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is still story and character.  Uma Thurman has some great moments (such as when The Bride first wakes up in the hospital), but after those blazing first 30 minutes, she will mostly become a statuesque hellfire angel who doesn't have a great deal of emotional advancement.  You will get that in spades in Vol. 2, which is hands down a superior story and film -- without the visual eye candy and endless action of Vol. 1, but with such powerful dramatic moments that it barely matters.  Again, I think if Tarantino had been able to meld the action and the drama a little more, rather than separate them into two movies that contain most of one and almost none of the other, he would have made both films greater than what they are.  As it stands, Vol. 2 will be what truly burns these characters and Tarantino's vision into your mind, while Vol. 1 is the adrenalized thrill ride with energy to spare, but without much in terms of thematic depth. 
1 is much more a paean to the Japanese style of filmmaking: Extremely saturated colours courtesy of cinematographer Robert Richardson (even Shaw films didn't go this far in terms of garish colours -- we're in '80s Kurosawa territory here), emphasis on extreme wide shots, the very long builds, <hl> the brilliant music by The RZA <hl> .
Having just seen Kill Bill, Vol. 2, I can confirm that the interviews and press reports are accurate: By splitting one film into two, what you get are two halves that each has its own very pronounced merits, but need each other to survive. In fact, I think if the two volumes had cross-pollinated a little more, you wouldn't have had just a good movie and a half, but two great films.But for now, Kill Bill Vol. 1. It's the &quot;action&quot; half of the twins, and it dazzles right from the start with an audacious, extended extreme close-up on Uma Thurman's face. The scene after, the duel between The Bride and Vernita Green, is classic Quentin Tarantino, heralding a return to his outrageous, dramatically intense roots. Probably the strongest scene he's directed since the Mr. Pink-Mr. White altercation in Reservoir Dogs. Unfortunately, after The Bride wakes up from her coma, the dramatic content flies down the meter, with a lot of posing and one-liners but very little in terms of character or emotional satisfaction. Which means it's up to the endless action set pieces to grab our attention. And they do. However, I find them a little too bloody, even though I've spent the last 16 months digging through Shaw Brothers films (through the excellent Celestial Pictures VCD and DVD releases). The endless bloodletting in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is shocking in the beginning, but after about five minutes in the extended climactic massacre, it's numbing.And for the record, Kill Bill Vol. 1 is not a Shaw Brothers kind of film, despite the Shaw logo which opens the film. You would have to wait until the &quot;training&quot; sequences in Vol. 2 to get Shaw Brothers-style cinema (which Tarantino appropriates very well there). Vol. 1 is much more a paean to the Japanese style of filmmaking: Extremely saturated colours courtesy of cinematographer Robert Richardson (even Shaw films didn't go this far in terms of garish colours -- we're in '80s Kurosawa territory here), emphasis on extreme wide shots, the very long builds, <hl> the brilliant music by The RZA <hl>. And the martial-arts sequences are modern in their multi-angularity and speed cuts; Shaw Brothers action as epitomized by Chang Cheh's style focuses much more on choreography and mise en scene than multi-angularity, letting long medium shots capture the movement of the actors and fighters, relying very little on cuts.All in all, the most lacking element in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is still story and character. Uma Thurman has some great moments (such as when The Bride first wakes up in the hospital), but after those blazing first 30 minutes, she will mostly become a statuesque hellfire angel who doesn't have a great deal of emotional advancement. You will get that in spades in Vol. 2, which is hands down a superior story and film -- without the visual eye candy and endless action of Vol. 1, but with such powerful dramatic moments that it barely matters. Again, I think if Tarantino had been able to meld the action and the drama a little more, rather than separate them into two movies that contain most of one and almost none of the other, he would have made both films greater than what they are. As it stands, Vol. 2 will be what truly burns these characters and Tarantino's vision into your mind, while Vol. 1 is the adrenalized thrill ride with energy to spare, but without much in terms of thematic depth. 
Having just seen Kill Bill, Vol. 2, I can confirm that the interviews and press reports are accurate: By splitting one film into two, what you get are two halves that each has its own very pronounced merits, but need each other to survive. In fact, I think if the two volumes had cross-pollinated a little more, you wouldn't have had just a good movie and a half, but two great films. But for now, Kill Bill Vol. 1. It's the &quot;action&quot; half of the twins, and it dazzles right from the start with an audacious, extended extreme close-up on Uma Thurman's face. The scene after, the duel between The Bride and Vernita Green, is classic Quentin Tarantino, heralding a return to his outrageous, dramatically intense roots. Probably the strongest scene he's directed since the Mr. Pink-Mr. White altercation in Reservoir Dogs. Unfortunately, after The Bride wakes up from her coma, the dramatic content flies down the meter, with a lot of posing and one-liners but very little in terms of character or emotional satisfaction. Which means it's up to the endless action set pieces to grab our attention. And they do. However, I find them a little too bloody, even though I've spent the last 16 months digging through Shaw Brothers films (through the excellent Celestial Pictures VCD and DVD releases). The endless bloodletting in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is shocking in the beginning, but after about five minutes in the extended climactic massacre, it's numbing. And for the record, Kill Bill Vol. 1 is not a Shaw Brothers kind of film, despite the Shaw logo which opens the film. You would have to wait until the &quot;training&quot; sequences in Vol. 2 to get Shaw Brothers-style cinema (which Tarantino appropriates very well there). Vol. <hl> 1 is much more a paean to the Japanese style of filmmaking: Extremely saturated colours courtesy of cinematographer Robert Richardson (even Shaw films didn't go this far in terms of garish colours -- we're in '80s Kurosawa territory here), emphasis on extreme wide shots, the very long builds, the brilliant music by The RZA . <hl> And the martial-arts sequences are modern in their multi-angularity and speed cuts; Shaw Brothers action as epitomized by Chang Cheh's style focuses much more on choreography and mise en scene than multi-angularity, letting long medium shots capture the movement of the actors and fighters, relying very little on cuts. All in all, the most lacking element in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is still story and character. Uma Thurman has some great moments (such as when The Bride first wakes up in the hospital), but after those blazing first 30 minutes, she will mostly become a statuesque hellfire angel who doesn't have a great deal of emotional advancement. You will get that in spades in Vol. 2, which is hands down a superior story and film -- without the visual eye candy and endless action of Vol. 1, but with such powerful dramatic moments that it barely matters. Again, I think if Tarantino had been able to meld the action and the drama a little more, rather than separate them into two movies that contain most of one and almost none of the other, he would have made both films greater than what they are. As it stands, Vol. 2 will be what truly burns these characters and Tarantino's vision into your mind, while Vol. 1 is the adrenalized thrill ride with energy to spare, but without much in terms of thematic depth.