Kill Bill: Vol. 2 4K 2004

After Bride gave her rage an outlet, got her revenge and was satisfied with it, there were still unanswered questions, unrecovered debts and an unkilled Bill. After an adrenaline-fueled first installment that preached an Eastern take on revenge movies, Quentin decided to slow down and make what he said would be a more typical Tarantino movie with a lot more of the trademark dialog about nothing. The result is Quentin's most conversational and unhurried of all his movies.

This change of pace owes a lot to the change of genre. Whereas the first film was basically a samurai place movie with a little spaghetti western thrown in, the second installment became a spaghetti western with a little samurai movie insertions. Now the characters can afford to stand silently on the porch, stroll around waltzing, and pause for a minute in dialog.

In the second part, not only the form has changed, but also the content: while the first movie is a movie about a place where Bride leaves behind bloody geysers of freshly chopped enemies, in the second the emphasis is not so much on the place, but on the relationship between Bill and Bride, motherly love, betrayal and retribution. Although Quentin did not answer the main question - why Bride decided to become a deadly killer, but the director managed to do the almost impossible - to turn Bill from a sadist and maniac into a character for whom it is impossible not to sympathize. And the Bride, driven only by revenge, has found a new purpose, for which it is worth living ...

And whether it is necessary to regret what we supposed to get from the movie, but never got, when Tarantino saturated the picture, at first glance, absolutely unimportant for the plot, but incredibly cool in content scenes. Is it really that important to the audience that the Bride learned her way to Bill from Esteban Vihayo? Absolutely not. But isn't Michael Parks great in the role? Absolutely yes! He almost steals the entire movie with his five-minute performance. Is Bill's monologue about Superman so important to the movie? Absolutely not. But for some reason his discourse about one of the main comic book characters sticks in the memory, if not forever, then for a long time. Is such a lengthy flashback about Bride's apprenticeship with Pay-May necessary? Probably not. But didn't Gordon Liu have a super memorable role? Of course he did. Here, even scenes we've seen hundreds of times in other movies are viewed with some new, previously unexplored feeling. For example, how many times have we seen a funeral live, but in Tarantino's movie this scene looks really scary. Quentin deliberately sacrificed the dynamics of the narrative, but created roles for his favorite actors, in which they will appear at their best.

Summing up, there is only one question to answer - was it worth it to divide the picture into two parts? Yes, it was worth it. Because we got two very different movies, each of which is good in its own way.