The Shrine

PostPosted:**Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:14 am**

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>So Kill Bill was awesome.</div>

PostPosted:**Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:32 pm**

PostPosted:**Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:39 pm**

<div style='font: 11pt "Fine Hand"; text-align: left; '>I conquer!</div>

PostPosted:**Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:21 pm**

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>It's a pretty good comedy that's impossible to take seriously for even a second. Pulp Fiction trounces it, though.</div>

PostPosted:**Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:22 pm**

<div style='font: 12pt "Cooper Black"; text-align: left; '>concur? lol.</div>

PostPosted:**Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:22 pm**

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Yeah, but that kinda misses the point. Kill Bill is going for more of a fun movie. It doesn't even attempt to have the level of dialouge that Pulp Fiction has.</div>

PostPosted:**Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:25 pm**

PostPosted:**Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:04 pm**

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>No, he conquers, worm!</div>

PostPosted:**Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:34 pm**

<div style='font: 11pt "Fine Hand"; text-align: left; '>I usually post "I conquer" after someone else replies "I concur". But you guys were slow today. =8^)</div>

PostPosted:**Sun Feb 01, 2004 2:30 am**

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>I think Pulp Fiction is far more of a fun movie than Kill Bill, if by "fun" you mean witty, stylish and graceful--and not absurd, excessive and preening.</div>

PostPosted:**Sun Feb 01, 2004 12:22 pm**

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Whatever words you use, I think the two movies tried for different things.</div>

PostPosted:**Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:20 pm**

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>That's what I tried to tell him before, Kupek, but he was mean and he yelled at me.</div>

PostPosted:**Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:55 pm**

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>I've never believed in constructing critical frameworks tailored specifically to certain films. No meaningful standard of value is achieved when one asks, "Is Kill Bill a good movie by Kill Bill standards?" If you ask me, that's pretty lousy criticism, and certainly no way to judge cinema or any kind of art.</div>

PostPosted:**Sun Feb 01, 2004 2:52 pm**

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>That's not what I'm doing. I'm comparing it to films that try do something similar - Snatch is a movie that I think tries to achieve a similar feel (not entirely, but same kind of "fun.") You can compare Braveheart to Half Baked, but I don't think you're going to produce anything meaningful.</div>

PostPosted:**Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:42 pm**

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Comparisons of quality and importance are surely not limited to films that share common styles or subject matter. People regularly rank and judge dissimilar films. To use your example, it is not meaningless or obtuse to say that Half Baked is a better or more important movie than Braveheart, or vice versa. To suggest otherwise, as you seem to be doing, is to effectively prevent any order of rank among films that belong to different genres. Under that intellectual straitjacket, can anyone say with authority that The Godfather is a better movie than Cat in the Hat?

Of course they can. The quality and/or importance of two or more films can be measured and ranked by a set of common variables and indicators. Different individuals with different opinions can of course assign greater or lesser weight to one aspect over another, but the overall point remains the same: It is not impossible or meaningless to ask whether Pulp Fiction is a better film than Kill Bill.</div>

PostPosted:**Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:46 pm**

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Comparisons of quality and importance are surely not limited to films that share common styles or subject matter. People regularly rank and judge dissimilar films. To use your example, it is not meaningless or obtuse to say that Half Baked is a better or more important movie than Braveheart, or vice versa. To suggest otherwise, as you seem to be doing, is to effectively prevent any order of rank among films that belong to different genres. Under that intellectual straitjacket, can anyone say with authority that The Godfather is a better movie than Cat in the Hat?

The quality and/or importance of two or more films can be measured and ranked by a set of common variables and indicators. Different individuals with different opinions can of course assign greater or lesser weight to one aspect over another, but the overall point remains the same: It is not impossible or meaningless to ask whether Pulp Fiction is a better film than Kill Bill.</div>

PostPosted:**Sun Feb 01, 2004 5:47 pm**

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I think Pulp Fiction is a better movie than Kill Bill, but so what? I'm appreciating different things when I'm watching the two movies.</div>

PostPosted:**Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:35 pm**

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>As for the rest, I don't think there's any real disagreement. While I do think Kill Bill is a pretty silly movie, it entertained me on a number of levels--I nearly died laughing during that over-the-top anime parody. That, I suppose, is one area where Kill Bill has an advantage over Pulp Fiction--being wildly, gleefully outrageous. But I still think Pulp Fiction surpasses Kill Bill in nearly every other respect.</div>

PostPosted:**Mon Feb 02, 2004 9:16 am**

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Word of the day calendar, eh?</div>

PostPosted:**Mon Feb 02, 2004 9:39 pm**

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Yeah, that's why I was disappointed. Action was great, but that's only a part of what makes Tarantino's films great. Other than the first battle, the dialogue was missing</div>

PostPosted:**Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:48 pm**

<div style='font: 11pt "Fine Hand"; text-align: left; '>Uh....they were busy fighting.</div>

PostPosted:**Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:54 pm**

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>My point exactly</div>

PostPosted:**Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:35 am**

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>For once, I agree with Stephen. Excessive would definately fit in my definition. It seemed like Q was just trying to see how much blood and gore he could get away with on an R rating.</div>

PostPosted:**Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:16 am**

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Support from an unexpected corner, indeed! As for Kill Bill, I suspect Quentin's just having a good joke at everyone's expense. It gives him the chance to riff off his favorite genres, not to mention show off all the neat cinematic forms he's learned.</div>

PostPosted:**Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:45 pm**

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Indeed.</div>

The Shrine

So Kill Bill was awesome.

So Kill Bill was awesome.

Well, yes, obviously. To an extent, they do have different ambitions. That doesn't mean we can't compare and measure the two films by a common criteria, or order of values, or whatever you want to call it.

Braveheart and Half Baked are far more removed from one another than Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction, but my point remains unchanged.

Braveheart and Half Baked are far more removed from one another than Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction, but my point remains unchanged.

I don't think the comparison is meaningless in this case, I just think it misses the point. That is, if you go into Kill Bill expecting something of Pulp Fiction caliber, you're going to be dissapointed.

Expectations are not the issue. I didn't go into Kill Bill thinking one way or another about how it would stand up to Pulp Fiction.