|Page 4 of 227:||             |
|Index||2267 reviews in total|
When Pulp Fiction hit the theaters it had an incredible word-of-mouth
recommendation. And Palme d'Or cemented its reputation. Bear in mind,
it was before internet was relevant and watching movies online was
possible. Therefore it was a must see. And after the movie i was
satisfied but also asked myself self: Was that it?
Some years down the line i've seen more contemporary TV shows from the US and it became clear why Pulp Fiction stood apart. As the title suggest it is a pulp novel brought to screen, done brilliantly, if you accept there is an extraordinary way to do a below-average thing. Why the critics saw a masterpiece in it is hard to explain, but it simply isn't. There were other things where Pulp Fiction excelled. For example, the soundtrack became an inevitable part of any CD collection at the end of the 20th century.
The way i understood Tarantino after watching some interviews, he is a movie buff and makes movies he always wanted to see. Although not the only to try this approach, he is one of the lucky few that made a living out of it.
Overall, Pulp Fiction is an exercise in marketing. The title, as well as author's statements, suggest it is an entertaining movie. However, a lot of people read higher meaning into it, elevating it's reputation to being one of the best movies of all times.
One of the worst movies I have seen. Sure, the dialogue is interesting, but pointless. If I wanted to have conversation about random things, I would just talk to my friends. I don't want to hear Samuel L. Jackson talk about television or John Travolta about European travel. I don't care. This movie could have been about 1/4 as long as it was. The jumps back in time serve no purpose. It seems like Tarantino tried too hard to make something different and strange. It just didn't work. So if you like random violence and cursing, this movie is for you. Violence and cursing doesn't bother me in movies, but in this film it just seemed forced. It did not piece well together or flow. Poor job of writing this time around in my opinion.
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.
I watch it last night after reading millions of praising reviews for it and i was hoping i would see a spectacular classic movie but i was disappointed a lot..I agree Music was good..great cast..but something was lacking in it...movie ends and i was hoping it should have better end although climatic speech was good..... some 3 interrelated stories are combined by the Tarantino..dialogs are average entertaining with lots of f stuffs..you would hate scene of accidental shootout and cleaning brains stuffs after it so it's cruel, stupid, idiotic. It's full of violence & f-words to the point that it's sickening...it should be carefully viewed and analysis....you can have glimpse of dark humor..yeah i agree acting of Uma Thurman is good but why the hell Travolta nominated for Oscar.. but two and a half hours was too long in my view ...I will give it 7 out of 10 due to good casting and music and its average movie for me but it does not deserved in IMDb top 250 and it was not touching in any sense..
I really don't know what the big deal is. This is obviously another one
of those "highly intellectual" movies I am too stupid to understand.
The critics compare it to "The Godfather"... I find that to be
sacrilegious! I agree with one critic only when he states that the film
"presents meaningless issues in an intensely-fascinating and almost
lyrical fashion", and I would like to put a big emphasis on
MEANINGLESS!!! How can something meaningless be good?
Another famous critic, Roger Ebert, claims "Seeing this movie last May at the Cannes Film Festival, I knew it was either one of the year's best films, or one of the worst. Tarantino is too gifted a filmmaker to make a boring movie, but he could possibly make a bad one..." That is amazing! One of the world's most acclaimed film critics watches a 'masterpiece', and right after that cannot decide whether it is really a masterpiece or garbage? Then he goes on to say, 'oh, but it can't be garbage if such an in-director made it, so it must be a masterpiece'. So much for competent individual judgment... I suppose you would not be able to call yourself a critic if you wrote that Tarantino simply screwed up this time...
In my opinion, the film has a ton of famous actors, an "in" director, and nothing else. The plot is practically non-existent, there is no message, no "higher" meaning, nothing but violence for the sake of violence..., and above all, it does not entertain either! If this is art nowadays, I want to go back to the past!
The movie is as bad. If Aleksandr Nevsky directed it it would be very very wonderful. YOur Tarantino is no talent he is in a shadow of Aleksandr Nevsky. His movies are not badass nor funny. Aleksnadr Nevsky's movies are actiony good sotry and good jokes. the movie has not script it was directed on the go. Tarantino no scirpt means bad business. I thought the movie is gonna be as beautiful as Treasure Hunters by Aleksandr Nevksy but it is no. No no no just very really no. Avoid your spending time of life on this garbage go and watch Aleksandr Nevsky's movies. They are very underrated. Pulp fiction is overrated because Tarantino is no Aleksandr NEvsky. I know good you know bad.
To contradict my summary line, this film is actually one of the least
appealing films I have ever seen. It's violent, disgusting and crude,
and none of these are particularly bad traits, its just that it offers
me nothing, and leaves me with an emptiness, the fact that I have
wasted 2 1/2 hrs watching this, then not to be compensated.
This is entirely my opinion, and clearly mine alone. Nearly everyone loves this film, and they are honest enough to clarify it, but if my review is completely the opposite, I still feel compelled to write.
I'm sorry, but 9th on the list of the top 250 films, seems grossly inappropriate.
Boring. Rubbish Film as per most of Tarantino's stuff. The only good film Tarantino ever directed was the first half of 'Dusk till Dawn'. 'True Romance' was good as well,though he didn't direct it. It was also let down somewhat by Tarantino's poor dialogue (see Patricia Arquette's speech where she reveals she's a call girl. Appalling dialogue. Very Tarantino.) I recommend you spend you time better by watching all the films he's paid homage to (ripped off) such as 'Vanishing Point', 'Death rides a horse', 'the Baby Cart series', The original 'Inglorious Bastards' etc Tarantino and his rehashing of films which have passed out of the collective conscious is pretty unpleasant and not clever. The whole point of taking influence from other people's work is to then create something of your own which is greater than the sum of its part. This Tarantino fails to do repeatedly.
This movie is definitely the most overrated piece of sh*t ever.
No story, no plot, no message, just Tarantino so totally in love with his own "witty" dialogue.
The movie is empty in every sense of the word. In addition, it's also horribly boring and therefore ridiculously hard to watch. I always try to sit through every movie I start, but damn, with this one it was a hard task not to simply get up and walk away.
Pulp Fiction does not deserve to be on top of IMDb's list of best rated movies with actual masterpieces like "The Shawshank Revenge". The latter is a work of art, Pulp Fiction is merely a piece of sh*t dressed up as one and it's amazing how many people fall for it.
The 90s sucked. It was one of the major eras of entitlement, and dagnummit, Quentin Tarantino was ENTITLED to the stylistic gimmicks he absorbed from French new wave, 70s exploitation and martial arts films. He was entitled to use every character as a mouthpiece for his preciously quirky, offbeat voice. He was entitled to that word that makes Spike Lee mad when white people use it. He was entitled to co-opt obnoxious heroin- chic, "hip" retro-fauxhemian fashion trends. Tarantino's movies echo the problem with Modernism: okay, you think the status quo is Bad, but if what you do is just a kneejerk reaction to that status quo with no values, ethos or any sort of moral core, how can you be sure the result won't also be Bad? In fact, chances are it will probably be Worse! Right? Nonsense. The emperor doesn't appear to have clothes, but that's just because only the most profound, virtuous people can see them. You want to be part of that group, right...?
|Page 4 of 227:||             |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|