|Page 10 of 219:||               |
|Index||2188 reviews in total|
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.
It seems to me that much of the stylistic elements of the movie were taken from the 1955 film Kiss Me Deadly. Kiss Me Deadly was full of quirky characters and had a mysterious chest which contained a glowing object. The main difference in style was that the humor in Kiss Me Deadly is much more subtle, while Pulp Fiction is trying real hard to get a laugh or a reaction. Because of that, I feel that Kiss Me Deadly is the far superior of the two.
Golly, everyone is falling all over themselves about this one. Why, please? It's silly violent, nihilistic, pointless. And every character has the same way of talking -- talking about clever things in that pseudo-way that only Quentin could possibly dream up. Ooooooh, the talent! Pass.
Sometimes after seeing a lot of good movies people want to watch something undefined and different,but it does not necessarily mean that the movie is good.When the theme song is the best part of the movie you surely can understand the quality.Sometimes ranking and charts do not show the real picture,this movie does not have a good story,a good screenplay or good dialogues but still it is in the top 10.But believe me this movie can neither give you entertainment nor any sense of understanding.Yeah i agree the movie is not boring,but it is not enjoyable either.Movies like shawshank redemption,godfather or lord of the rings,all of them has a magic-feature.Sometimes it is screenplay(Shawshank redemption) sometimes its dialogue(Godfather) sometimes it is the story (The lord of the rings) .But all of them had the important feature called continuity.I think it is a very important quality of a movie to keep it's continuity.This movie is divided into four parts which actually made the movie look like a comedy-puppet dance just with humans(Because the parts do not define one-another). The most embarrassing thing about this movie is after watching it you will think who is the fool yourself or the writer and directer.Yes this movie is different but not always Difference make something great at least in motion pictures at least.Whatever this is a must see movie for all because you can differentiate the better movies after watching it.
Really like the style and feel of this flick. The opening in the Diner
really drew me in. Actually, it raised my expectations to a level that
the movie did not meet, though I still rate it an 8, which is very high
on my scale.
Tha alternating time sequences took a little getting used to, and the film dragged in parts. I felt the entire scene with the Wolf could have been cut or significantly edited with very little loss of entertainment value. The film was a bit self-indulgent in that regard. 2:34 alone tells you that. Nevertheless, it was highly entertaining, even if looking at Travolta's hair was revolting.
About my reviews: I do not offer a synopsis of the film -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.
My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very Good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A Classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating)
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Very strange film but one to be expected form Quentin Tarantino. I am
typically a fan of the majority of QT's films but the film proved to be
a little too much for me. It may have been that I was not expecting
such content from of film that was this old. Usually when I see a film
closer to "my time" I am pretty confident in what to expect in general
terms of filming but also the extent of the content.
The collaboration of actors was nice and the on screen chemistry was entertaining. These are all actors I think that work well together.
This film to me really interested me in terms of color usage. Not entire why this but I feel that many of these colors were intentional within certain scenes.
I enjoyed being taken into 4 different stories of violence and vengeance. Not sure if this is a film id like to see again, at least not for a while.
This is an excellent film and one of Tarentino's best. It has a powerful feeling to it that really captures you. This is one the most original movies I have ever seen. It is not told in chronological order at all, and therefore leaves you guessing on what is going to happen. The acting in this film is very well done, Travolta, Jackson, and Willis make a great combination of the rag tag criminals that make up this film. The thing about this film that really stands out is the cinematography and the editing. There are some very original shots in this movie that make it hard to turn away from. I recommend this film to anyone.
Pulp Fiction, a dark, gangster drama, directed by Quentin Tarantino, received many awards for best screenplay and revived many careers of the actors in the film. At the time of its release, the film reeked of cinematic expression. Mr. Tarantino is a clever storyteller, giving the audience exactly what they want in a gangster movie. The story is anything but typical and unconventionally follows the lives of a very colorful cast. To catalog Pulp Fiction in just one genre would be to discount it from other's and would be unfair. Often referred to as a "black comedy", the tale centers on the relationship between two gangsters / hit-men and could be categorized as an off -beat gangster flick. However, the story (like the scenes in the movie) jumps from one place to another. For example, one moment it is a serious "drama" (as characters are brutally assassinated), then comes a "romance" between a couple desperately attempting to escape reality. A night on the town, with flirtation amongst bizarrely matched characters leads to an overdose. This movie includes everything a Tarantino film lover demands; drugs, violence, sex, romance, music, dancing, sport, and even retention of one's soul. Each scene is developed first by dialog and then through actions, creating a series of consequences with serious and profound results. At first, the non-traditional editing was disturbing. However, after re-watching certain scenes again, it became clearer. Mr. Tarantino challenges the viewer to reassemble the pieces of the story in chronological order on their own. Figuring out what came first, the chicken or the egg is key to providing insight in solving the many puzzles in this story. The use of sound and score in Pulp Fiction effectively provided texture to each scene. The songs chosen for the film effortlessly set the stage for each escapade. Listening to the soundtrack provokes multifaceted thoughts and memories. The cunning cinematic techniques used in Pulp Fiction include eccentric configurations and framing, supporting both the tone and mood of the movie. The long pauses' precluding the violence fosters tension on screen, creating intensity driven drama. The use of such a wide variety of camera angles provides the audience with a unique viewing experience and indicates the work of a true artist. The direct and indirect influences of this movie are not readily apparent to the viewer. Each social class represented in Pulp Fiction faces some type of moral dilemma, and each character must work through their respective dilemma, despite their current situations. Lack of value and consequence seems to be the meaning of the story. Following the path of the righteous man is a common theme throughout. I feel as though each scene contained an exaggerated amount of morality, and the screenplay suffered a bit because of this. Too much time was spent on showing the audience the bad stuff, and not enough on the characters' lives. The best part of the film was the music and the dance scene between Vincent and Mia. I would recommend the film to a very mature, bored audience, as if you watch all 154 minutes of this film, you may wish for your time back.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Pulp Fiction is bold, profane, and violent. Combine the three and you
have one of the finest films ever made.
The constant violence may not appeal to everyone, but it is necessary to give you an in-depth look at what life in gangland is really like.
It's a movie full of ingenuity and has something that directly grips viewer's thought. It is a movie which includes elements that challenges the boundary of conventional film making. The film has amazing structure and screenplay.
Witty and zany dialog pervade this tumultuous film of violence and decadence. The characters are all incredible and each role is filled with a great actor who obviously relishes the chance to perform in this movie.
Pulp Fiction is merely a stage of randomness accentuated by ironies and goofs intertwining the roles each brilliant actor in it plays, not as a specific person. But as normal people. It was with a sense of quirky, cynical normality void of the formulaic prosaicness in cliché action flicks, that Director Quentin Tarrantino instigated the production, and hence boosted his fame into a household name of Pulp Fiction. Each actor plays a strong mental part in a precarious and cavernous compilation of events, which in a formulaic sense of direction would conclude idyllically with the bad guys locked away and the good guys grinning ear to ear.. But here's the ingenious twist to it.. There are no 'good guys' in the film! With witty mockery in his tone, good camera angles and blundered events, Quentin Tarrantino presents us with a cast of people who appear perfectly normal and then twist on a downward, devilish spiral. Simply said, Quentin Tarrantino castigates the formulaic 'good guy' in cheap action flicks with solid good to bad guy transitions inherent in each one of the most memorable cast of actors of the '90s. Tim Roth's Ringo and Amanda Plummer's Yolanda are just two characters whose quirky discussion at an average bar paves their identities from good to evil as Ringo deduces that robbing a coffee shop can be just as lucrative and more subtle than a bank heist. The last scene of the movie plays brilliantly to this effect as Jules and Vincent alleviate the situation. Quentin Tarrantino beautifully intertwines the story of Jules and Vincent in the coffee shop heist by showing us their random discussion of hamburgers and their translations overseas. Their stories along with the dazzling choreography of Mia and Vincent at a Saturday Night restaurant sets a stage of purely inspired abnormality. In order not to give away the rest of the plot of the film which has been generally known and globally discussed since the year of its release, I will cut my comment short by saying that if you wish to see anomalous directing, decked with a cast that is anything but incompetent, see this now..
|Page 10 of 219:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|