|Page 3 of 219:||            |
|Index||2187 reviews in total|
*** 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?
*** 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
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
Absolutely no idea why this film is so popular. I was bored out of my mind from the first scene to the last waiting patiently for a twist of some sort to tie the multiple stories together, which never happened. Probably my least favorite movie i've ever watched. The acting wasn't bad and the film did tie in some aspects of popular culture and previous films, but if the viewer doesn't give a crap about any of the characters whatsoever, or the plot(if you could call it that), then whats the point. I gained nothing from watching this movie besides an intense feeling of emptiness that usually comes after wasting 150 or so minutes of your life watching a pathetic piece of crap film about nothing. Was I at the edge of my seat, yes, however It wasn't because of the suspense, I couldn't keep my head from falling forward or my eyes open. And the way that the scenes were arranged, terrible. The movie memento is hard to follow sometimes and slightly dull at some points but at least there was a freaking point in the way the scenes were arranged, considering the main character had memory problems. In this movie, there was no reason for the random mix up of the scenes, except to just do something different and make a movie so weird and disgusting the critics think its a masterpiece. I usually like movies that are critically acclaimed, like The Godfather, one of my favorite movies, but Pulp Fiction isn't even in the ball park. There isn't the dark complex characters like in the godfather, just a bunch of rambling idiots tripping over their stupidity.
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, though...how 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.
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
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!
Yes, that's right. Crap. This film is just that. If you take a closer
look at f.ex. Bruce Willis, who seems to make people scream their head
off every time he's near the screen, you can clearly see that this
person lacks personality. He has two expressions: One that says ON,
(with a little wrinkle above his nose) the other is of course OFF, when
he's asleep. a machine of a man, which perhaps cries a bit when he
comes home, because he's in desperate need for a personality, some
feelings, a higher IQ and an even bigger paycheck.
Why this person has become so popular has to do with you mindless people out there. Voting, cheering and stamping your feet for talentless and retarded actors, musicians, artists etc. That is why this world goes straight down the toilette. Making your modern remarks that everything is so "Cool" all the time.
Pulp Fiction is at best a bad joke from a below average director. There is no inventions, no good or natural acting, no deeper meaning with this movie at all. Just exploitation.
The era of good movie-productions are long gone. Classic actor's like Chaplin, Bogart, Cooper, Peck, Holden and Quinn don't get born any more. Today it's just you gray and unpersonalized people out there (With some exceptions), watching to see if there's something that can kill your brain even more, with splatter and gore above your ears. Yeah, you're a really "cool" bunch, drowning on dry land.
Pulp Fiction is often considered the coolest and greatest film of all
time. But, the people who usually say this are pretentious film snobs
and people who think this is something extraordinary. Excuse me, it
First of all the film has NO plot. If a film has no plot, then why should we care about the unlikeable characters? Second, the diagloue is so....BAD. Does the director think people actually talk like this, because, well they don't.
Third, the grossly, glamorous violence, is disgusting. This isn't a horror film, so why do we need such violence popping in and out of the movie? So, I urge everyone to avoid the hype of this pretentious, terrible mess.
The proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating. The proof of the
movie is in the watching. Most of the top 250 IMDb movies have kept me
glued to my seat--with this one I found my mind wandering to that
jigsaw puzzle I hadn't finished or the possibility of some popcorn. I
found I had very little interest in the characters or in what was going
I asked myself why. Technically the film is very good. The actors all hit their marks and Samuel L. Jackson is particularly outstanding. I liked Maria de Madeiros also as Bruce Willis' wife Fabienne. The camera work is occasionally interesting, as the long scene where we watch Bruce Willis listen unemotionally to Marsellus go on. Interesting, certainly, but rather pointless.
Indeed, that's the problem: so much of what goes on is pointless. It's a big long shaggy dog story, told by one of those irritating people who can't get the story straight and have to keep going back: "Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you about that. Well, you know what I was telling you before . . ." I tried to find some justification for the higgledy-piggledy way in which this story is told. It does result in the best scene being the last one. But if this scene was the point then why not design the script so that the action is seen to be moving toward this goal and cut out everything that happens afterward? In the end I don't think Tarentino knew what story he was telling and that's why so much is so pointless.
The scenes of Butch attempting to control his temper, of his dilemma whether to help Marsellus, and the final scene in the restaurant are all good and entertaining as far as they go but they don't fall into a coherent framework. And the rest is quite dull.
The dialogue is not witty or clever although it occasionally has its moments. The constant profanity is as pointless as the rest; the point of profanity is presumably to emphasize what one is saying, but if everything is emphasized, nothing is. The mind becomes numbed by it. It's like someone who shouts all the time. Eventually you stop listening. The quotes give you a pretty good idea of what the dialogue is like: when "Shut the f*ck up, fat man!" is listed as a memorable quote, you know how inane the conversation is.
That this poorly composed script should have won an Oscar is a pretty clear indictment of the Academy.
This is, in my opinion, the most over-rated film of all time. Sure,
there is some snappy dialogue here and there, and Tarantino has a good
ear for music, but none of this warrants the gushing praise heaped upon
this movie, nor the godlike status bestowed upon Tarantino himself.
It's over-stylised, over-loud, over-acted, (sorry Samuel, Tim, John, Uma & Bruce) and the non-linear narrative so favoured by the director simply doesn't work.
But it's fashionable, so it's popular.
By the way, this is one of the few films where I've actually seen people get up and walk out of the cinema before the end, so I guess I'm not the only one who didn't like it.
Pulp Fiction is a movie all credited to its director....Mr. Q. T. This
movie is such an amazing and fast track of events all tied up nicely
and cohesively that one can't deny its grandeur.
But here comes the boom. It is a highly un-required movie that is overrated just due to its above mentioned qualities. But when something is made there must be a purpose behind its existence but the film is so useless and itchy that in my opinion this film is not the best film in history of cinema. Yes the film has a huge potential to influence movie making and direction but it itself is nothing but a crap of laughable and senseless events.
So to mention Sir i am not buying any of this movie but lets just consider the direction and cohesion of events.
|Page 3 of 219:||            |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|