> > I think both volumes of Kill Bill were
> > amazing. When I first saw Kill Bill I, it was
> > uncomfortable to watch, but after I thought
> > about it and got myself used to it, it was a
> > lot of fun. It's a very unique movie. And it
> > is a movie. Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs and
> > Pulp Fiction, while certainly unique as well,
> > had more of a realistic tone to them: it was
> > basically as if you had put a camera down in
> > front of these gangsters and filmed them going
> > about their business.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> If you think either RD or PF were realistic, QT
> (yay acronyms!) fooled you with his dialogue. I
> could maybe see a case for RD being realistic,
> but Pulp Fiction is completely insanely
> unrealistic in so many ways. It's just that the
> dialogue does a good job of grounding in you
> reality, that it seems more real than it should.

I didn't mean that they're more realistic in that their storylines are more likely to occur in reality, I meant that stylistically they're more realistic: they're made to look more realistic. Things happen on dirty L.A. streets, and everything that happens in them is more or less relatively possible. This is unlike Kill Bill, which does take place in a movie universe. I don't mean this as a movie-universe-within-a-"real"-movie-universe as you were talking about; I mean it as . . . I don't know quite how to word it, actually. It's just more cinematic, I guess, if that's the word I'm looking for. It's shot more like a movie, and the things that happen are definitely much more cinematic. It's as if, with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, Tarantino said "These movies are basically going to present some sort of reality, even if that reality is obviously fictional", while with Kill Bill he went "This movie is going to be a MOVIE 115%."

-Eric Sleator