IMDb > Pulp Fiction (1994) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Pulp Fiction
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Pulp Fiction More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 223:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 2226 reviews in total 

133 out of 257 people found the following review useful:

A creative and slick waste of time

Author: Tecun_Uman from United States
17 July 2005

You want to do something really neat? Take the movie "Pulp Fiction" and re-cut it, so that, instead of being out of sequence, it is actually in proper sequence. It can be done. Why do this? Because if you do, you will see what a nothing movie this really is. There is no central plot, there is no real theme, or story or climax. It is just a bunch of tricks and overly snappy dialog, masquerading a piece of fluff that has as much depth as the kiddie pool. Hey, more power to Tarantino, the guy is a Houdini, full of slight of hand. But are we really so simple, that we are ranking this one of the ten greatest movies ever made? Come on! OK, I know that Travolta is cool and Jackson is funny. However, let's reserve the greatest films of all-time category for real masterpieces and real stories, and not some overly slick pulp geared towards video store geeks.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Flat and Brainless

Author: mtthwibrahim from United States
28 July 2012

As a 13 year old just getting into cinema, this was the best film ever. How could I not be blown away by all the clever dialog, great characters, fantastic storyline, and gripping violence. It was just pure heaven. I saw this movie three times in the course of one year, and I still have such fond memories of watching it. It was around the time I got serious about cinema (about two years later) that I felt I needed to give this another go. I'd discovered the works of Bergman, Tarkovsky, Godard,etc, and felt a connection with film in ways I hadn't before, and I wanted to see if the movies I loved before still held up. I had every intention of loving "Pulp Fiction" just as much as I did back then, but I didn't. There was nothing there, no core. All the things I'd loved about it were gone. That clever dialog? Referential nonsense that gave no insight into who I was watching or attempted to expand the narrative. The great characters? Indistinctive cardboard cutouts that act as mouthpieces for Tarintino. Fantastic storyline? A pseudo throwback to film noir that can't decide whether it wants to take itself seriously or be intentionally stupid for the sake of irony. Gripping violence? It's violence that's harsh enough to put the average viewer in awe, safe enough as to not offend.

It's a dead film with no ideas. A common argument I hear in it's favor is that it's somehow objectively entertaining. Why? Because it has guys with guns and monologues about McDonalds? Sorry, but that's not entertainment in my mind. Entertainment is being engaged, having to think. A film like "Andrei Rublev" is entertaining because, while I watch it, it evokes thought and feeling, it has something I can sink my teeth into. I can still think about it, interpret it in different ways. "Pulp Fiction" is just shutting your brain off for two and half hours while a man with a God complex strokes his ego.

Basically, I can understand to some extent why it is so popular. It's very good at pleasing the masses, something Tarkovsky could never do. It's so perfectly designed to hook the average viewer in. But it's paper thin. This is exactly what I don't want in cinema

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

nothing but a bullshit art-house stuff

Author: tanvirashraf-417-537565
14 July 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

i watched the film 20 years later since it's making and attain 0% satisfaction of viewing pleasure considering it's 5h top position on IMDb. The movie is an experimental art house crap that chooses no destination and lack brilliant, appealing sketching of it's theme. The dialogues are the heartbeat of the film that lose it's rhythm every moment when stretching same words to make viewers understood the characters's stand, view in perplexing crime world and how they perceive.

The one thing, the film depressingly is in desire of clapping is Bruce Willis part of a boxer, who is feared but not a coward. The rare male protagonist with conscience.

Uma Thurman leaves a desire to see her complicated struggle with drug, lust and hunger to live free.

Tarantino has tried to harvest a violent creativity, but the offspring emits extragalactic passion that fail to make any beauty.

I have watched it and guarantee You waste of time

Was the above review useful to you?

40 out of 72 people found the following review useful:

People Acting Stupid

Author: The Ebullient One from Terra
8 February 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*********Spoiler Warning**********

When this movie came out a lot of people I knew were making a big deal about it because it was made by a guy from Knoxville who even talked about K-town in the movie---and guess where I lived at the time? Most people overlooked that Tarantino was only born there and lived most of his life somewhere else, and both Tarantino and Knoxville are highly overrated. Trust me.

I can't see why this movie is regarded as highly as it is; it seems the key to Tarantino's storytelling is to mix together story elements kind of like a blender. So we get things like the cab driver who's a sexy latin woman who'd look more at home in a luxury restaurant than a grungy cab, or the very seventies looking Samuel L. Jackson running around with the nineties looking John Travolta. The result is the average person goes "that's kind of strange," while the intelligentsia go "yes, the man is a GENIUS!"

I put off seeing this movie for several years because of the supposed extreme violence and the notorious rape scene. When I finally broke down and watched it I was surprised how tame it was, even the rape scene was mostly people shouting behind a closed door. It was nowhere near as scary or unnerving as the one in "Deliverance." In the end the violence was mainly psychological or limited, although the guy getting shot in the car and bits of you-know getting everywhere was a real turn-off.

But really what did the movie in for me was the plot, or lack thereof. Supposedly we're getting an homage to film noir and hardboiled fiction novels of the forties, done up in a modern story theme. What we see on the screen is a confused mess of people running around and doing the most stupid things. It's not a horrid movie, but there's a lot better ways to spend a few hours.

Was the above review useful to you?

183 out of 358 people found the following review useful:

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Author: Adam G from Toronto, Ontario, Canada
18 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There are many differing schools of thought regarding Quentin Tarantino and his so-called "style". There are those who believe that the director who began his career as a humble video store clerk with a voracious appetite for movies of every conceivable style is talented and worth imitating. While Tarantino has made some movies worth discussing for their positive qualities (Reservoir Dogs is, by far, his best effort), this group of movies is rather small, especially considering that he has only directed five movies. There is another school of thought who regards his works as inane, self-indulgent, and bloated. Pulp Fiction, written and directed by Tarantino, and released in 1994, is his most divisive movie simply by virtue of being his most well-known. Upon its release, it was hailed as a warning shot to a complacent Hollywood- the maverick behind the indie hit Reservoir Dogs apparently had something else up his sleeve.

Pulp Fiction is ostensibly a crime story featuring the interconnecting lives of several characters. However, upon repeat viewings, the viewer begins to wonder exactly what that something is. Personally, I found this movie ran too long in spots, likely because Tarantino is so ridiculously in love with the sound of his own voice as spoken by different actors that he is afraid to cut one speech or even a single line. Dialogue, though it doesn't necessarily need to serve the story to justify its inclusion, should not be so dense as to drive the viewer out of the experience. When John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson, on the way to retrieving a briefcase for their employer, are talking about European hamburgers and foot massages, the scene plays like a witty outtake- as though the actors so understood the style of the movie that they were in that they felt comfortable riffing with the material. Not so- the rest of the movie is filled with conversations of a similar type, including (but not limited to) body piercing, blueberry pancakes, hamburgers (again), and coffee (this one performed by Quentin Tarantino himself, as though he couldn't wait to get a shot at delivering his own lines).

The strangest thing is, while the characters are "in character", as Samuel L. Jackson says in an opening scene, the movie is quite enjoyable. When the characters are placed into real confrontations, the movie takes on an entirely different persona and becomes at least a decent crime movie. Ultimately, however, these scenes are few and far between and, unfortunately, the movie clocks in at 154 minutes. There's really only a decent short film in all of this.

The movie also lacks what I would call a plot. The movie is described as three stories about one story, though that one story (ending, chronologically, with Bruce Willis and his irritating Euro girlfriend riding off into the sunset) doesn't connect the characters enough to be truly about one thing.

Ultimately the movie is a prime example of what happens when a VCR and a wide selection of movies replace film school. The movie lacks a coherent center and seems more like something that was made for the sake of just committing something to film and resurrecting the flagging career of John Travolta. The movie is too large in scope to sustain itself, and, in the end, implodes because there is really no conviction behind the presentation- too concerned with being a hipster-cool riff on a crime story, rife with pop in-jokes and 70's music (perhaps the best part of the movie is the soundtrack), somebody must have neglected to mention that the movie went nowhere and lacked the momentum to even get there.

While all of these qualities combine to form a truly deplorable viewing experience, I do have to mention Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson as two performers in this movie who, I felt, got away clean. Bruce Willis probably gets away with it because he's alone for the majority of his segment and, therefore, doesn't have anybody with whom to trade despicably derisible dialogue. Samuel L. Jackson gets a mention because of the scene at the very end of the movie in which he confronts Tim Roth's character and makes him realize that there are far more fearsome powers at work in the world than robbing a diner. In fact, the scenes coming directly at the beginning and the end of the movie are the two best, and everything else is filler.

As you no doubt have guessed, I fall squarely in the latter of the two groups I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Pulp Fiction is inane, self-indulgent, and bloated.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 31 people found the following review useful:


Author: tskivolocki from United States
27 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So there is a lot of hype surrounding Pulp Fiction. It won Original Screenplay. It was nominated for six other Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director. I see it is given four out of four stars if it is on TV. It is also in IMDb's Top 250. (But) what is the big deal about it? I was bored and disappointed. Pulp Fiction did not really make a whole lot of sense. I can not remember if it was nominated for editing or not. If they wanted to be in that category or have a better chance at winning then obviously more editing should have happened. I do not see the point of Vince and Mia's date. All if not a lot of that should have been cut. Why drag on Bruce Willis being on the run from the mafia don? That took too long. Was the whole story about the watch necessary? Couldn't Bruce and his woman just talk about it? Aside from being disappointing and boring Pulp Fiction was confusing. Bruce shoots John Travolta. And kills him. So how is he alive in The Bonnie Situation? Does Quentin Tarrantino not like editing too much? Well more editing could be needed a lot of times.(PF hint hint.) So yeah Pulp Fiction was boring, disappointing, confusing, etc. It should not have won Original Screenplay. It should have gone to someone else but if all five nominees were bad then it should have been none of them. Too much hype. Too much movie. Overrated. I can not remember much of this movie and happily so. So what is such the big deal?

Was the above review useful to you?

55 out of 103 people found the following review useful:

9 IMDb? Really?

Author: Hazim Morsy from Egypt
7 March 2013

Sorry for the image, but if you take a bowl of crap, rearrange it, put some sugar and a little cherry on top, what to you get? ... a bowl of crap.

This is the most overrated film of all time. I'm even feeling strange to call it a film. It has no story, no feelings, no plot, no music - just 4 different scenes of disgusting, violent, abusive, offending and racist content put together in a mixed sequence.

How this crap scores a 9 on IMDb is beyond me. Sometimes when people see a 9 they automatically deceive themselves into believing this is a masterpiece and that maybe if they didn't like it, something is wrong with their opinion or taste. Nothing's wrong. It's a bad movie from beginning to end. The problem is that sometimes Hollywood movies are over-hyped for business reasons like what happened in Titanic and Avatar which by the way were "OK" movies but didn't deserve the huge credit they received.

I gave this a 1 because Samuel L. Jackson was the only thing interesting in this disaster. I'm not going to tell those of you that haven't seen it not to, you have to go through the experience on your own and make your fare judgment. Don't listen to anyone's opinion - especially the ones that think if you love this one, then you're COOL!

Was the above review useful to you?

87 out of 167 people found the following review useful:

One-dimensional modernist pap (minor spoilers)

Author: Anon Amos from United States
9 April 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Is it possible that something so loathsome and awful could actually be adored and lauded by millions of people? Is it only a matter of chance that some movies are loved and others hated, regardless of their content? I hope this is true, because I cannot believe that there is actually anything good about the movie Pulp Fiction to lead any sane, reasoned, drug-free person to write the glowing comments that surround mine, much less the oodles of people who actually handed over their money to see this thing.

Why is this movie so bad, you ask? Okay, I'll tell you, even though it's like pointing out why windows are transparent. Starting with the script, I see no reason to be impressed by an assemblage of overly stylistic dialogue and flat, boring characters. There is nothing amazing about two guys talking about French McDonald's restaurants, and then killing some guys. Every awful stretch of dialogue is dragged out as long as it will last, and then some. It's as if Tarantino said to himself "I think I can cram one more line about milkshakes in here". You have to give him credit for padding the film in ways that nobody's ever tried before. The actors look as though they're doing their best to salvage this turkey (and they are talented), all the while knowing in the back of their minds how much of a cow pie the whole thing is. As far as Tarantino's directorial style is concerned, he should just get himself a career in Nike commercials because that's where his talent level cuts off.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Pulp Trash

Author: crendine from United States
10 March 2015

I have to agree with those reviewers that find this film disjointed, overly and unnecessarily violent, and just plain difficult to understand. I, for one, fail to see how this movie resurrected the career of John Travolta as his performance was just totally unbelievable. Focusing on what appears to be several unrelated life experiences, Tarrantino once again utilizes his penchant for violence, drug addiction, rape, and other assorted seedy topics. The plot (if you want to call it that) is non-existent and the scene involving Ving Rhaimes is just flat-out disgusting. For Tarrantino fans, this may be the ultimate. But for me, it's just not a good film.

Was the above review useful to you?

52 out of 98 people found the following review useful:

Unadulterated dreck

Author: Matchboy from Wisconsin USA
25 September 2000

This is a great film? By what standards? Anyone can string together a bunch of violent, disjointed scenes, designed to shock and disturb the viewer. Violence, in and of itself, without context and pertinence to the story, is the tool of no-talent scoundrels masquerading as filmmakers. Such, unfortunately, is Tarantino. What a shame for Travolta that this was his 'comeback' film. For me, the only watchable part of this film was the sequence featuring Bruce Willis. Even that, Willis was convinced to be in this film is a mystery to me. Cameos by Emil Sitka, Christopher Walken's brief part, and Harvey Keitel's appearance cannot save this self-indulgent and troubling example of a director gone wild, suffused with the sense of his own talent. This was a BOMB.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 223:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history