Recently I saw the question "Is Quentin Tarantino still great?" My response was "Was he ever?" I didn't send the question for self-preservation reasons. Now, Tarantino's films will always be of note, if for nothing else, his violence. "Reservoir Dogs" and "Natural Born Killers" (which he disowned) rule in that sense; "True Romance" (his best film) for its screwball violence, but "Jackie Brown" showed that he could make a movie with more than tough dialogue.
But "Pulp Fiction" is his most memorable movie. It is undoubtedly the most influential movie of the 90s. It will always appear in Top 10 lists for the decade, and was placed in the AFI Top 100. However, it falls short of being great. Far short. It even falls short of being good.
On the plus side for this film is its inventiveness. I know that it references many films, but it takes all the good ideas together and puts them in one place. It’s just a pity that Tarantino is trying too hard. The criss-crossing of stories is terrific. A friend of mine watched it with me recently (it was my second viewing, her first), and she was completely confused for the first hour before things became clear. Some of the dialogue is great, especially the verbal dexterity between Vincent and Jules.
One of the strengths of this movie that is rarely discussed is its technical achievement. Too much time is spent lauding the screenplay, director, and actors, such that the marvellous editing of the film goes unnoticed. Its reaction shots, close ups, fadings and such are perfectly timed and spliced. The photography is also surprisingly good, for a movie that isn’t "Dances with Wolves" or "The English Patient."
But "Pulp Fiction" is let down by two incredibly important things: its characters, and its extreme overlength. The characters are variants on each other; all smooth talking tough guys with varying degrees of intelligence. Think about it. What separates Honey Bunny, Pumpkin, Jules, Butch, Marcellus, Vincent, Zed, The Wolf, Maynard and Mia? Even Jimmy, the ordinary guy, tries to be tough. Fabienne and Esmerelda are admittedly different, but they are there to provide dialogue for Butch as we find out about the watch and how Butch felt about the killing.
What gives these characters strength is the performances. Samuel Jackson eats up the screen as Jules – who didn’t know Ezekiel 25:17 but as a threat? The problem with his role is we don’t get enough of him. (I do admit that him being at the beginning and the end is vital for the structuring to work) John Travolta, Uma Thurman and Harvey Keitel also do well. But Ving Rhames, an actor I have high respect for, is really quite dull as Marcellus. How slow does he have to talk? I know that bosses do things in their own time, but does he have to be so measured?
154 minutes is far too long for this type of movie. At least half an hour should have been cut. For anyone trying to find the half hour, it should have been from somewhere in the middle. The problem is, the way the stories are set up, the information is given out in each scene. The Gold Watch story is the one, for my mind, that works least well, and needed to be shortened.
`What do you cut?’ is a good question, as good as `What can be cut?’. This is a pop culture movie, with instantly quotable lines, bad motherf*cker wallets, and a great soundtrack. This type of film is often forgettable, and Pulp Fiction does well to be at least memorable. But, sadly, it isn’t more when it should have been.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.