User Reviews (3,023)

Add a Review

  • One of the early scenes in "Pulp Fiction" features two hit-men discussing what a Big Mac is called in other countries. Their dialogue is witty and entertaining, and it's also disarming, because it makes these two thugs seem all too normal. If you didn't know better, you might assume these were regular guys having chit-chat on their way to work. Other than the comic payoff at the end of the scene, in which they use parts of this conversation to taunt their victims, their talk has no relevance to anything in the film, or to anything else, for that matter. Yet without such scenes, "Pulp Fiction" wouldn't be "Pulp Fiction." I get the sense that Tarantino put into the film whatever struck his fancy, and somehow the final product is not only coherent but wonderfully textured.

    It's no wonder that fans spend so much time debating what was in the suitcase, reading far more into the story than Tarantino probably intended. The film is so intricately structured, with so many astonishing details, many of which you won't pick up on the first viewing, that it seems to cry out for some deeper explanation. But there is no deeper explanation. "Pulp Fiction," is, as the title indicates, purely an exercise in technique and style, albeit a brilliant and layered one. Containing numerous references to other films, it is like a great work of abstract art, or "art about art." It has all the characteristics we associate with great movies: fine writing, first-rate acting, unforgettable characters, and one of the most well-constructed narratives I've ever seen in a film. But to what end? The self-contained story does not seem to have bearing on anything but itself.

    The movie becomes a bit easier to understand once you realize that it's essentially a black comedy dressed up as a crime drama. Each of the three main story threads begins with a situation that could easily form the subplot of any standard gangster movie. But something always goes wrong, some small unexpected accident that causes the whole situation to come tumbling down, leading the increasingly desperate characters to absurd measures. Tarantino's originality stems from his ability to focus on small details and follow them where they lead, even if they move the story away from conventional plot developments.

    Perhaps no screenplay has ever found a better use for digressions. Indeed, the whole film seems to consist of digressions. No character ever says anything in a simple, straightforward manner. Jules could have simply told Yolanda, "Be cool and no one's going to get hurt," which is just the type of line you'd find in a generic, run-of-the-mill action flick. Instead, he goes off on a tangent about what Fonzie is like. Tarantino savors every word of his characters, finding a potential wisecrack in every statement and infusing the dialogue with clever pop culture references. But the lines aren't just witty; they are full of intelligent observations about human behavior. Think of Mia's statement to Vincent, "That's when you know you've found somebody special: when you can just shut the f--- up for a minute and comfortably enjoy the silence."

    What is the movie's purpose exactly? I'm not sure, but it does deal a lot with the theme of power. Marsellus is the sort of character who looms over the entire film while being invisible most of the time. The whole point of the big date sequence, which happens to be my favorite section of the film, is the power that Marsellus has over his men without even being present. This power is what gets Vincent to act in ways you would not ordinarily expect from a dumb, stoned gangster faced with an attractive woman whose husband has gone away. The power theme also helps explain one of the more controversial aspects of the film, its liberal use of the N-word. In this film, the word isn't just used as an epithet to describe blacks: Jules, for instance, at one point applies the term to Vincent. It has more to do with power than with race. The powerful characters utter the word to express their dominance over weaker characters. Most of these gangsters are not racist in practice. Indeed, they are intermingled racially, and have achieved a level of equality that surpasses the habits of many law-abiding citizens in our society. They resort to racial epithets because it's a patter that establishes their separateness from the non-criminal world.

    There's a nice moral progression to the stories. We presume that Vincent hesitates to sleep with Mia out of fear rather than loyalty. Later, Butch's act of heroism could be motivated by honor, but we're never sure. The film ends, however, with Jules making a clear moral choice. Thus, the movie seems to be exploring whether violent outlaws can act other than for self-preservation.

    Still, it's hard to find much of a larger meaning tying together these eccentric set of stories. None of the stories are really "about" anything. They certainly are not about hit-men pontificating about burgers. Nor is the film really a satire or a farce, although it contains elements of both. At times, it feels like a tale that didn't need to be told, but for whatever reason this movie tells it and does a better job than most films of its kind, or of any other kind.
  • I can only speak for myself, but I had never seen anything as stylish, cleverly constructed, well written and electrifying as this milestone when I first saw it in 1994. What really pulled me in right from the start is what we've now come to know as a Tarantino trademark: the dialogue. When gangsters Jules and Vincent talk to each other (or all the other characters, for that matter) there is a natural flow, a sense of realism and yet something slightly over the top and very theatrical about their lines – it's a mixture that immediately grabs your attention (even if it's just two dudes talking about what kind of hamburger they prefer, or contemplating the value of a foot-massage). Then there's the music: the songs Tarantino chose for his masterpiece fit their respective scenes so perfectly that most of those pieces of music are now immediately associated with 'Pulp Fiction'. And the narrative: the different story lines that come together, the elegantly used flashbacks, the use of "chapters" – there is so much playful creativity at play here, it's just a pure joy to watch.

    If you're a bit of a film geek, you realize how much knowledge about film and love for the work of other greats – and inspiration from them - went into this (Leone, DePalma, Scorsese and, of course, dozens of hyper-stylized Asian gangster flicks), but to those accusing Tarantino of copying or even "stealing" from other film-makers I can only say: There has never been an artist who adored his kind of art that was NOT inspired or influenced by his favorite artists. And if you watch Tarantino's masterpiece today, it's impossible not to recognize just what a breath of fresh air it was (still is, actually). Somehow, movies - especially gangster films - never looked quite the same after 'Pulp Fiction'. Probably the most influential film of the last 20 years, it's got simply everything: amazing performances (especially Sam Jackson); it features some of the most sizzling, iconic dialogue ever written; it has arguably one of the best non-original soundtracks ever - it's such a crazy, cool, inspirational ride that you feel dizzy after watching it for the first time. It's – well: it's 'Pulp Fiction'. 10 stars out of 10.

    Favorite films: http://www.IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

    Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

    Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/
  • wolvesrug9 January 2005
    To put this in context, I am 34 years old and I have to say that this is the best film I have seen without doubt and I don't expect it will be beaten as far as I am concerned. Obviously times move on, and I acknowledge that due to its violence and one particularly uncomfortable scene this film is not for everyone, but I still remember watching it for the first time, and it blew me away. Anyone who watches it now has to remember that it actually changed the history of cinema. In context- it followed a decade or more of action films that always ended with a chase sequence where the hero saved the day - you could have written those films yourself. Pulp had you gripped and credited the audience with intelligence. There is not a line of wasted dialogue and the movie incorporates a number of complexities that are not immediately obvious. It also resurrected the career of Grease icon John Travolta and highlighted the acting talent of Samuel L Jackson. There are many films now that are edited out of sequence and have multiple plots etc but this is the one they all want to be, or all want to beat, but never will.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If you think "Pulp Fiction" is brilliant, you're wrong. It's more than that. It's a milestone in the history of film making. It's already a classic. But why? Because of the many "f" words, or maybe because of the brain and skull pieces on the rear window of a car? No, that's surely not the point (unfortunately some other users - fortunately the minority - don't get it). Tarantino has made a movie that's someway different from many other action, gangster or crime movies. What's so different? He knows the subject of the movie is "cool", he knows it's a product of mass culture, and he even likes it by himself. But he smiles at it and tells three great stories with a lot of irony. And this irony is the first point. The second point is that he gave souls to extremely schematic characters. They surely aren't another action heroes who you forget as fast as you can twinkle. They are human beings like we are, talking about Burger King and McDonalds, about TV series and a foot massage. They just earn their money with killing others or selling drugs. What else is so great about "Pulp Fiction"? It's the acting, the directing, the cinematography, the soundtrack, the sense of humour and the whole rest. In my opinion it's all worth nothing less than a 10 out of 10. A masterpiece.
  • Viewers are taken on a ride through three different stories that entertwine together around the world of Marcellus Wallace. Quentin Tarantino proves that he is the master of witty dialogue and a fast plot that doesn't allow the viewer a moment of boredom or rest. From the story of two hit-man on a job, to a fixed boxing match to a date between a hit-man and the wife of a mob boss. There was definitely a lot of care into the writing of the script, as everything no matter the order it is in, fits with the story. Many mysteries have been left such as what is inside of the briefcase and why Marcellus Wallace has a band-aid on the back of his neck, which may be connected. The movie redefined the action genre and reinvigorated the careers of both John Travolta and Bruce Willis. This movie is required viewing for any fan of film.
  • discoelephant6419 January 2005
    Pulp Fiction may be the single best film ever made, and quite appropriately it is by one of the most creative directors of all time, Quentin Tarantino. This movie is amazing from the beginning definition of pulp to the end credits and boasts one of the best casts ever assembled with the likes of Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth and Christopher Walken. The dialog is surprisingly humorous for this type of film, and I think that's what has made it so successful. Wrongfully denied the many Oscars it was nominated for, Pulp Fiction is by far the best film of the 90s and no Tarantino film has surpassed the quality of this movie (although Kill Bill came close). As far as I'm concerned this is the top film of all-time and definitely deserves a watch if you haven't seen it.
  • My oh my. "Pulp Fiction" is one of those roller-coasters of a movie. It is both a joy and a trial to sit through. Amazingly original and unforgettable, Quentin Tarantino's trash masterpiece never gets old or seem outdated. It put a face on American independent film making in 1994. Miramax had been around since the 1970s and no one had heard of it before this film. Studios went into a panic when this film came out because they knew it would be an amazing hit. Of course it was. Independent film making became the rage and hit its peak in 1996 when four of the five nominated Best Picture films were from independent studios. The screenplay and direction by Tarantino are quite amazing, but the cast makes the film work. John Travolta (Oscar nominated) re-invented his career with this film. Bruce Willis cemented his celebrity. Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman (both Oscar nominees) became marketable superstars. Others who make appearances include: Ving Rhames, Christopher Walken, Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Steve Buscemi, Frank Whaley, Harvey Keitel, and of course Quentin Tarantino himself. They all leave lasting impressions as well. Samuel L. Jackson stood out the most to me, his lack of substantial screen time may have cost him the Oscar. Just an amazing accomplishment, all involved deserve recognition. Easily 5 stars out of 5.
  • A groundbreaking movie from QT that intertwines several stories,a couple of BONNIE and CLYDE type criminals kick of this ROLLER COASTER ride with a spontaneous madcap robbery,a couple of gangsters go to retrieve a suitcase for their boss with dire consequence and an ageing boxer has an early retirement bout arranged in his favor,each story unfolds in ultra violent fashion with characters crossing paths through a criminal and corrupt network,dialogue between each unique individual is world class as the balance between humor and terror is achieved beautifully.an all star cast featuring some of QTs favorites put in memorable performances here and JOHN TRAVOLTA reinvents himself and plays VINCENT flawlessly.written and directed by QT this is one of the best crime movies ever made and caps off a crime trilogy from QT in only the space of 3 years - RESERVOIR DOGS 1992 - TRUE ROMANCE 1993 and now PULP FICTION 1994 - truly amazing..........
  • wsigtbqtz1 January 2020
    9/10
    Watch
    This if you have not already.

    It is violent, action-packed and sexy.

    Watch it again if you have already. It is just too much fun to watch once.
  • Tarantino is without a doubt one of the best directors of all time and maybe the best of the 90's. His first film, Reservoir Dogs was amazing and claustrophobic, his segment in Four Rooms was by far the greatest (even though Rodriguez's was excellent too)and Jackie Brown is a wonderful homage to the Blaxploitation films of the 70's. However, Pulp Fiction remains my favourite.

    It was nominated for so many Oscars that I still find it hard to believe that it only got one: Best original script. I'm not complaining because Forrest Gump got best picture, since that film was also Oscar-worthy, but come on, movies like Tarantino's or the Shawshank Redemption deserved much more.

    Anyway, going back to the movie, I particularly liked the first and second chapters, and that's really a contradiction because one of the movie's finest characters, Mr. Wolf, appears on the third. Bruce Willis also does a great job, and as far as I'm concerned he fell in love with the movie right after having read the script. I like the way his character gives a "tough guy" image at the beginning and then we discover he's so affectionate and tender to his wife. Travolta is obviously the star of the movie and his second encounter with Bruce Willis in the kitchen along with the scene where he dances with Uma Thurman is when the movie reaches it's highest point.

    The other star is Samuel L. Jackson, who plays a wise assassin that obviously knows how to handle situations. "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger..." is my favourite quote.

    Summarizing, Pulp Fiction is a modern classic and a must-see for anyone who is at least aware of what a movie is. I give it a 9 out of 10.
  • Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is a terrific film. It also gets better with each viewing, especially if one of those happens to be on a big theatrical screen where all of the BIG compositions get bigger and more detailed. How much else is there to talk about it after all these years? It's filled with dynamite, sudden and always interesting action, great and naturally clever dialogue, and memorable characters. Also, the acting is always something to behold as by turns straightforward, over the top, subtle, and just downright menacing and spot-on. The directing is one of the strongest that we've seen from Tarantino, as he makes his choices in pacing with shots in unconventional ways but never in a way that would be distracting. And writing, already noted, has been copied by many, and only equaled by a select few.

    The dance sequence. Samuel L. Jackson's superlative monologuing. It has loyalty among low lifes, and many other odd characters that are all bad and not one is a villain or hero. And somehow even after years of parody and terrible rip-offs, it holds its own and- as one can say after seeing it at a midnight screening- holds its audience as much as it had the countless times before they saw it (or if they are, the first time). The first time you're surprised, the second time you look for the clues or other ambiguity, and then the third time you laugh you head off. The fourth time... I'll leave to you.
  • Gatorman918 April 2004
    I just finished screening this movie for the first time after putting it off for a number of years because of what seemed like equivocating appraisals from some of my friends. In hindsight, however, it seems to me that while the movie must have definitely bowled them over, overall they weren't sure exactly what to make of it or how to articulate what were probably a confused mix of feelings. But I am so impressed that I feel compelled to add a few specific observations to the many fine reviews already on this database.

    First, this movie hits you with an impact somewhere in between, say, APOCALYPSE NOW and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and for some people may be just as disturbing (however, in this respect I am happy to report I didn't think it rose to the level of NATURAL BORN KILLERS). Full of graphically violent action and language, PULP FICTION is not a picture for everyone - I would definitely not recommend it to my parents, born in the 1930's (even to my one fairly "hip" relative of the same generation who, at age 66, still teaches high school sex education and likes to talk about things like sunbathing nude, among other potentially sensitive issues).

    Irrespective of audience sensibilities, however, the film-makers, supported by superb acting in every role, manage to create a world full of the most fascinating sleazy characters possibly ever to appear on screen. From Travolta's pronounced almost-child-like curiosity about the world to Jackson's sincere and thoughtful philosophical ruminating and Willis's deep devotion to the memory of his father, I think such fascination lies not only in the characters' personalities as they are portrayed but in the way they tantalize the viewer into considering the possibility that such people could actually exist. As a lawyer of some years' experience dealing with all sorts of people I was particularly drawn to this aspect of the film.

    Thus, and in response to some other reviewers' comments, I think this movie is more character-driven than plot-driven. Instead of a story peopled by basically weakly developed characters employed primarily as a mere device to move the plot along, as is too frequently the case in the movies (especially these days), the undeniably strong, clever, and unpredictable plot lines in PULP FICTION are actually of essentially secondary interest and importance, serving primarily as vehicles to get you worried about the fate of characters you can't help caring about despite the truly low attributes that otherwise form the basis for their respective personas. As at least one other reviewer noted, when the film ends you are actually disappointed, left craving more of these crazy people and their explosive lives.

    Finally, and as strange as it may sound, this film reminds me of another Monumentally Great Film which one would never typically associate with it in any way in a million years - CASABLANCA. As in that film made way back in 1942, and as another reviewer has suggested, perhaps its special appeal - its unusually high degree of emotional impact - lies in its distinctly successful simultaneous application of several different genres in a single film - drama, action, dark humor - with the whole thing bound together by essentially flawless execution in every department. And while CASABLANCA is no doubt clearly much more wholesome and high-minded, like the older film PULP FICTION is not without a pronounced theme of redemption, even if it is not as strongly felt, considering all the later film's sleaze and violence.

    In sum, when people say that this is probably the best film of the 1990's, it is easy to see why. Fundamentally a truly outstanding movie, it is a must-see for anyone who considers themself a film buff and can handle graphic subject matter.

    (Incidentally, if you would like a more toned-down, much more overtly humorous and less serious picture with a not-altogether dissimilar look and feel, don't miss another 1990's Travolta picture, GET SHORTY.)
  • Pulp Fiction, despite borrowing from just about every movie ever made, is the most invigorating cinema experience a filmgoer can ever hope for. Its hodgepodge of violence, mayhem, and generally deviant behavior is an assault on the senses, not to mention political correctness. However, despite all the film's cleverness and style, it hinges on the performance put forth by Samuel L. Jackson as Jules. The fact that he was denied an Oscar is a downright shame. Martin Landau, the best supporting actor winner that year, was terrific and funny in Ed Wood, but Jackson was perhaps the most commanding screen presence in film history as the bible-quoting, godfearing hitman. The last scene in the coffee shop with Tim Roth still sends chills down my spine, no matter how many times I've seen it. Rumors of a prequel involving Jules and Vincent (John Travolta) have been floating around lately. If Quentin Tarantino wishes to regain the fans he lost with the dissapointing (but still pretty good) Jackie Brown, he should get to work right away. I'll be the first in line to see the finished product.
  • A masterpiece? Do me a favour! Perhaps it's because of the hype that surrounds this film, but I was really disappointed with what I saw.

    Two and a half hours was too long in my view, and nothing particularly out of the ordinary happens.

    I didn't find it clever, nor were the "unforgettable" scenes like the dance between Travolta and Thurman or Samuel L Jackson's speech unforgettable.

    Maybe because cinema has advanced so much since 1994 that I would have had to watch it then to appreciate it, but I only recently saw Hitchcock's Rear Window for the first time and enjoyed that immensely.

    People go on as if this film has the best storyline and gangster scenes ever but quite frankly, it doesn't.

    Moreover, I found Natural Born Killers more affective for it's style than Pulp Fiction.

    It does have some good scenes, and I was rooting for Bruce Willis' character throughout, but I saw nothing that makes this film outstanding or worthy of being so high in IMDb's rankings.
  • I was tempted to stop watching it about four times. I went up to the end just to see if, at least, there is something extraordinary or unexpected there. I really can't understand what all these viewers found to this film, to score it so high. It's the first time (or the second I'm not sure!) that I get into the mood of writing a review. The reason, I guess, is because this film is the fifth in the top 250 ranking and I couldn't see why. The curiosity of the ranking was also the reason of watching it at the first place. There is a high end casting and a top level director but nothing more, IN MY OPINION. I tried looking it through the eyes of 1994 but still compared to other productions of the age is far behind. If you find yourself in the position wondering whether to watch this film or not, due to its place in the list… don't waste your time!
  • 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 on.

    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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I think one of the problems many people have with this movie is that it defined and set into motion an extremely irritating trend in contemporary film. The god-awful clones of Tarantino pouring out of indie and mainstream studios alike should not, however, detract from the brilliance and subtlety of this movie. It works simply because those moments of brilliance (I have to admit I know the whole "Jules redemption-speech" by heart) that its imitators lack come in the midst of the camp and gore they all do so well. Tarantino alone uses an adolescent obsession with shallowness and morbidity to high satirical effect--like all great films (or even novels), this movie sets itself into a two-dimensional genre (absurd, pop-culture, comic-book situations) and then undermines its own genre by exposing the heart and soul underneath. There are too many points in the movie in which this happens to mention, but a few come to mind: the blown kiss from Vincent to Mia at the end of the first (or maybe second) story; the death of Vincent; the obvious emotional dedication of Butch to his wife at the end of his own story; Vincent's unwillingness to believe in his own supernatural salvation without realizing he's doomed; and, of course, the climactic speech. With the exception of Jules's final words, many of these moments seem at first to be horrifying or funny--but this is only because they fit so well into the flow of the script. A second glance shows them to be moments so poignant that the only reason they work is because they are so unique to the characters and their situations. The changes in each (or the lack of change) come, in a sense, as they individually choose to either drive for them or fall behind. Most die-hard fans of the movie, I'm sure, have heard the story of the briefcase and the band-aids on the back of Wallace's neck (the entire movie being a quest to bring back his stolen soul), and although Tarantino has denied it, he can't deny that the movie is full of such heroic themes: escape by trial, the reclamation of past, love as both physical salvation and personal security, a will to believe in something beyond one's own selfish world. I won't say that if you don't like this movie that you're mistaken or ignorant, but I think that Tarantino puts his audience into settings much like his characters are in: cheap, full of profanity and nastiness, fleeting. The best of them break through; I think he asks that anyone watching do the same.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Pulp Fiction is one of those movies that not everyone can enjoy. Many people say that it's boring and senseless. It is true that the plot isn't something special but it isn't the plot that makes this movie so unique but the awesome script and great cinematography.

    Probably one of the greatest things in this movie are the dialogues. The dialogues just like in all other Tarantino movies aren't directly connected with the plot. Take the first dialogue between Samuel Jackson and John Travolta. They are talking about how a certain burger is called in France. This and many others dialogues don't have a direct relation with the plot line but their function is to somehow build the characters' personalities.

    The other thing that makes this movie so unique is the unexpected turn of events. Like in all other Tarantino movies you don't know who they are going to kill next or what is going to happen. The scene where Vincent shoots Marvin in the face is a great example for such unexpected turn of events. This makes the viewer more intrigued and thus makes the whole experience form the movie way better.

    There isn't much more that can be said about Pulp Fiction. It's not a movie that everyone will enjoy but still deserves to be seen.
  • Conflicted on this one. I like a lot of elements of it, the characters are (mostly) really compelling and interesting. I think some of the "Segments" are a lot stronger than others. I think that the first part of Bruce Willis's story is just... bland. I didn't find it very interesting or compelling. It gets interesting though. The first and last are by far my favourite, but for the most part it's pretty strong. I do think this film is slightly overrated. That's not to say that it isn't good, but I think a lot of people think it is a whole lot better then it is. The film is acted well and I enjoyed all the action, not to mention the comedy in this film caught me by surprise. I found it really hilarious. I see why everyone had/has a crush on Uma Thurman now, she really is deserving of the main character on the cover. I also remembered how much I like long shots. I think they allow exposition to be delivered in a way that is more pleasing to the audience. Overall, good crime flick with some great comedy and action but a tad overrated. 7-8/10.
  • It kind of feels redundant trying to write a review for Pulp Fiction as it approaches its 20th birthday. As a film it needs no introduction, it won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, won a BAFTA and Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (Tarantino), and garnered a whole host of other awards and nominations. Box office beef was meaty and its reputation even now shows no sign of waning (it currently sits at number 4 on the IMDb top 100 list), it is by definition one cool MOFO of a movie, a picture loved by a cross section of demographics. But why?

    Pulp Fiction oozes humour, romance, violence and stylish flourishes. It remains compulsive viewing throughout; even as it threatens to get submerged in its own complex structure. Film lover Tarantino takes a number of low life and unfortunate characters from Los Angeles, mainlines then with movie clichés, and then amazingly breathes new life into them. It knowingly winks at B movies from the past yet always remains fresh on its own terms. I myself having just revisited the film after a 5 year gap can attest to just how well it holds up, laughing at the dialogue, perched on the edge of the seat as violence starts to rumble, and yes, singing along with that most catchy of soundtracks.

    Yet for all its flashiness and hipster chattering, there's one thing that often gets overlooked when talk of Pulp Fiction's greatness arises. That of a basic human urge to survive or find salvation, Tarantino's main characters may be bottom feeders or scummy operatives of the underworld, but there's love and needing beating slowly in its dark heart before the drugs and violence take a hold. Neat trick that from Tarantino, brilliant in fact. 10/10
  • I will never understand why Pulp Fiction is hailed by so many as one of the greatest films ever made. Quentin Tarintino's first film Reservoir Dogs was amazing. It had excellent performances, some good action scenes, an impressive structure and fantastic sound track. When Pulp Fiction came out in my country in October 1994, i could not wait to see it. Empire Magazine gave it 5 stars. I remember when i went up to Glasgow to see it with an anticipation i had not felt since i had went to see some thing like Star Wars or Indiana Jones.

    Oh boy, twenty minutes in and i was already sick to death of Samuel Jackson's character. He just talked and talked and talked and....talked. John Travolta's Vince Vega was a guy i wanted to decimate, oh Travolta you looked ridiculous with those hair extensions and then you talked and talked and talked with Uma Thurman in a silly black wig. There was so much talking in this film that it made me want to walk out. I have only ever done this once in my life and it was with that utter garbage Jack Nicholson flick Wolf. Tosh.

    So i kept hoping that something good would happen...Christopher Walken as an army bloke talking and talking about a gold watch up his ass...NOT GOOD...a male rape scene with talk...NOT GOOD...Quentin Tarintino turning up in a cameo that should have got him shot (in real life) talk talk about disposing of bodies...oh, this film was the pits, i must have been the only one in the audience that hated this film, because everyone was whooping and hollering like they were watching a Naked Gun comedy. Oh yes, they loved it.

    Quiet frankly my admiration of Tarintino was gone forever, he got his head together with the brilliant Jackie Brown then lost the plot again with the silly Kill Bill volumes. Pulp Fiction is one of the worst movies I've ever had to endure, its a long boring ride to a sore head.
  • biology_7928 August 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is for all the guys who voted to make this movie a masterpiece. I don't know on what everyone depended in evaluating this movie. Everyone agrees that the cast includes some of the best actors out there, but a good cast doesn't mean that the movie is a masterpiece. This movie was without a subject, no message, too much repeated sentences, nothing connected with each other. You will get tired of listening to duologue's about "foot massage", "hamburgers", "Butch's fathers watch" .…etc, these things cover more than a half of the movies length without meaning anything to the movie.

    I was very disappointed when I saw this movie. This movie is way overrated and should be among "IMBD 100 Bottom". If you want to waste two and a half hours listening only to duologue's without a subject then this is the movie and if you really want to know how a masterpiece looks like then you should watch The Shawshank Redemption.
  • brenttraft19 February 2001
    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.
  • Pulp Fiction is one of those movies you feel uncomfortable to talk about in negative terms since mainstream loves it. The real killer of this movie are the dialogs supposedly so cool but instead being silly and irritating, from the very first scene when endless minutes are waisted talking about a frivolous argument. The violence in this film, rather strong, is very often disturbing but never fun or entertaining. Tarantino takes himself a little too seriously making the movie lose most of its ironical aspect. Unless you are a fan that goes wild for the overweight Travolta, you will find his so-called cult scenes dull and of no interest. All the characters in this movie are exaggerated, and that wouldn't be a bad thing, but they also are not fun. There are some good action scenes, very few, which anyhow will not save from failure a movie that lasts 2hrs 40min!
  • Pulp Fiction is a good, well-acted movie that is way, way, way over hyped by its fans. The core of the movie, the blathering of Vincent and Jules is fun and enjoyable. Bruce Willis as a hot-headed boxer does an excellent job communicating his fear and desperation.

    In the end, the movie's quirks and twists are merely to make a rather run-of-the-mill arthouse film seem more edgy. There is no question that this is a well made and fun movie. However it is not the amazing Second Coming of Christ as many Tarantinophiles would have us all believing. Many of the components are merely there to make us, the audience, gasp in horror or gaze in amazement. Do we REALLY need to watch John Travolta stick a needle in Uma Thurmond? Yeah, sure it was cool at the time but that coolness quickly wears off when you realize there is really nothing likeable about any of these people.
An error has occured. Please try again.