What makes pulp fiction a good movie

There is a method behind it. Ebert is explaining the tonal relevance of what seems an insipid conversation, as well as its narrative purpose. It seems effortless but is incredibly calculated, and takes talent. Tarantino is setting up his payoff.

QT never actually shows the needle entering the chest. He cuts away to a reaction shot in which everyone hovering over the victim springs back simultaneously as Mia leaps back to life. All in all, director Quentin Tarantino created a real masterpiece here.

Top-notch acting that spawned some famous lines and a great script combined for a real treat. Uma Thurman's scene might make some people's skin crawl, but if not, then enjoy. I think the title of the film relates to foreign New Wave film, and magazines, well the film starts with the definitions.

The story begins with what will be a continuing scene towards the end where Pumpkin Tim Roth and Honey Bunny Amanda Plummer plan the robbery of the cafeteria they are in. Jackson on their way to see one of their boss's associate's to retrieve the stolen valuable briefcase we never see what it is, but from the reflecting colour it looks like gold , asking questions about their boss, Marsellus Wallace Ving Rhames , and after Jules popular bible passage recitation killing two of the double-crossers.

It then skips to Butch Coolidge Bruce Willis who is paid to throw a boxing match, and Vincent comes in, leading to another story. Vincent is taking Marcellus's wife Mia Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe nominated Uma Thurman for the evening, in which they win a dance contest, she snorts what she thought was cocaine, but it was heroin, and she is revived with adrenalin at the house of drug dealer Lance Eric Stoltz.

It then flashes back to what would be the opening of the film young Butch receiving his father's watch from Capt. Koons Christopher Walken who tells him they both shoved it up their arses to keep it safe. Then it forwards to Butch's fight, and he did not throw it, and he escapes the city, there is a moment where Butch has to go back to his house when his girlfriend Fabienne Maria De Medeiros forgot his watch, and he kills Vincent who was waiting for him.

Driving back though, he also encounters Marcellus himself, but before they can kill each other, they are kidnapped and tied up by two homosexuals, one is Zed The Mask's Peter Greene. Butch manages to escape and save Marcellus from continued torture and male rape, and this is when their dept is settled, as long as Butch leaves town for good. The final flashback goes back to just after Jules has killed Lance, and another guy from the cupboard comes out shooting, but no bullets hit.

After killing him, and taking Marvin Phil LaMarr with them, they have another problem where Vincent accidentally shoots their hostage. To help clear up the mess they go to the house of Jimmie Dimmick Tarantino and call for help from the guy who can "solve problems", Winston 'The Wolf' Wolfe Harvey Keitel.

They manage to clear up the mess, and have to wear new, dorky clothes, and going to a cafeteria everything seems fine, till Pumpkin and Honeybunny start the robbery that you saw at the beginning , and eventually after a long chat and guns pointing Jules and Vincent stop them, before leaving, and that is the end.

I would have explained it all in the chronological order, but that would be complicated for those who don't know it. Tarantino's direction and script, where characters seem normal, e. The memorable quotes, besides Jules's bible recitation, "Bring out the Gimp" and "They call it a "Royale with Cheese".

Zed's dead. From what I gather, and my own reaction, people either love this movie or hate it. Strangely, I have been on both sides of the fence with this film. I never look at it in the same light, for some reason. At first I hated it and on a second chance, really liked it. Then the same two things happened on the third and fourth viewings until I finally stopped. This is an extremely profane film laced with a lot of dark humor.

I have a machine that can filter out much of the profanity and I often appreciate dark humor, but blowing a guy's brains out in the back seat of a car is funny? What am I missing? Two things I will say: the film doesn't lose me despite being two-and-a-half hours.

There are no boring lulls and the dialog is fascinating in parts, mainly between John Travolta and Samuel L. Their discussions are unique, to say the least, and one certainly remembers Uma Thurman's role and Travolta slamming a syringe into her chest. With f-words and the Lord's name in vain 28 times, I miss a lot of sentences with the filter. It's still an interesting film The other thing: yes, there is some dark comedy in here but overall this should NOT be labeled a comedy, or God help us all.

Tweekums 16 August This film from Quentin Tarantino tells the intertwining stories of a couple of gangsters, their boss's wife, Mia, and a boxer who is meant to throw a fight. There is little in the way of plot; we just observe their lives for a few days. The evening goes well until they get back to Mia's house and she overdoses on Vincent's heroin while he is in the bathroom. The second story follows Butch the boxer who rather than throwing a fight for Marsellus beats his opponent to death.

He knows he has to get out of town but first he must return home to retrieve his watch that has been in the family for generation. This puts him in a dangerous place when he bumps into Marsellus. Finally we see events that took place earlier after Vincent accidentally shoots somebody in a car and he and Jules have to get some help from 'The Wolf'. There is a decent amount of action; some of it sudden and shocking as well as great characters.

It is these characters that the film is really about. The cast does a fine job; most notably John Travolta and Samuel L. The non-linear way the story is told isn't confusing; I rather liked how the opening and ending scenes were concerned with the same event and chronologically took place in the middle of the story. Quentin Tarantino's dialogue is realistic but cool; I liked how the characters talked about mundane things; it made them feel far more real than if they had only talked about things relevant to the plot as characters in most films do.

Same thing applies here. Only more-so. Pulp Fiction is an exquisite patchwork-quilt of a movie, stitched together from ideas, elements and scenes gathered together by Tarantino during his formative years as a movie-obsessed video store clerk.

Assembled with an unerring eye for detail and the vision of a true artist, the film is a marvel to behold—over two and a half hours of pure cinematic brilliance which proves just as captivating for me now as when I first clapped eyes on it almost two decades ago.

Bold and bloody, with stunning performances from a wonderful ensemble cast, a flawless soundtrack, witty and highly quotable dialogue, and even a character called Brett, this impeccable slice of gritty neo-noir is fully deserving of top marks.

Quentin Tarantino co-wrote, directed and co-stars in this flamboyant, literate, byzantine drama which is structured like a dime-store novel. John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson are Los Angeles hit-men, Uma Thurman is a gangster's girl whom Travolta is asked to entertain, Bruce Willis plays a boxer on the run after one of his fights ended in death.

Critically-acclaimed picture caught fire with audiences as well, resulting in more show-biz success stories than any other film of the 's. Is it really that good? Yes, the verbal interplay and canny, cheeky handling is quite often exhilarating, and the performances by Travolta, Jackson and Willis and Harvey Keitel as a low-keyed Mob kingpin are near-perfection; however, the film's mixture of queasy, bloody violence undermined by the jokey tone and the barrage of foul-mouthed, low-life characters can easily become wearing.

It won't be to everyone's taste, surely, but it's a visceral, gripping cinematic experience nevertheless, one with a knockout soundtrack and an Oscar-winning screenplay. Love it or hate it, but I give it "5" of 10 for style!

TxMike 15 November Read the external reviews, like Ebert's or Barardinellis', if you want to know more about "content" of Pulp Fiction. Following is my personal take on the film. Many have praised this film for "interweaving 3 different stories. What this film does well is poke fun at the gangster movies, and does it with very witty writing.

I especially liked the way these sordid characters got into various "philosophical discussions", like why in France a quarter-pounder cannot be called that, because of the metric system. Or why Jackson's character would not eat pork, because it is a dirty animal. To really enjoy this film, you have to numb yourself to all the filthy language and the gratuitous violence. However, it is neither an innovative film nor one with lasting meaning. That is why I rate it 5 of 10, and only that high because of the clever screenplay and direction.

That reflects my own preference in movies. I give my highest ratings to such films as "Longitude", "Nixon", "Apollo Thirteen", "Amistad" - films based on great true stories. I give low ratings to such films as "The Game", "The Usual Suspects" - films which on the surface seem to dazzle, but in final analysis simply try to fool us into thinking they are something special. I don't think "Pulp Fiction" exactly does this, but its fans have given it high praise that I'd bet even its creator would hesitate to do.

Quinoa 20 January 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. You know that the several supposed unrelated stories are going to connect and some point and connect they do as the film reaches it climax.

The stories of a gangster's wife, a boxer, two hit-men and others have a way of blending in at the end that actually makes sense. This is also a story of redemption and how a perceived miracle affected our story in a way that when a young couple take place, a character such as that of Samuel L. Jackson seeks redemption by handing over the loot to Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer during their bold restaurant robbery.

It is also the story of a redeeming Bruce Willis who makes it out safely only to return to rescue leader Victor Rhames, who he had been shooting it out with when the two were captured by a white supremacy group ready to inflict severe pain on Rhames for being black.

An interesting premise nicely done, but the film is overly violent and you really don't know in the end if all concerned have learned their lessons. BandSAboutMovies 22 July There are movies and then there are forces of pop culture nature.

Pulp Fiction is just such a film. While so much before influenced it, nothing after would ever be the same. In its wake, so many films tried to xerox its non-linear narrative, ultraviolence and wildly veering plot points.

Pretty much not a single one of them is halfway decent by comparison. Tarantino took some scenes that Roger Avery intended for True Romance and decided that none of the film would appear in true order.

For many, it was the first film they had ever watched that had monologues and conversations that were at the same time about everything and nothing all at once. While TriStar Pictures turned down the film, it became the first movie that Miramax would fully finance. Why would TriStar not want to make this film, particularly after Tarantino had become so big after Reservoir Dogs? Roger Avary said that the studio had issues with nearly every part of the movie, as they basically said, "This is the worst thing ever written.

It makes no sense. Someone's dead and then they're alive. It's too long, violent and unfilmable. Obviously, this film was also a commercial success, remaking the career of John Travolta and causing people to take notice of the acting skills of Uma Thurman and Samuel Jackson.

There's a moment in this film that determines whether or not you like and understand Tarantino. Suddenly, the movie becomes animated and dashed lines illustrate her point and realism fades away. In this small moment, you either think that this is the dumbest thing you've ever seen, totally pretentious or completely and utterly awesome.

I fall into the latter category and began cheering the moment it happened on screen. I would rather have ten amazing films than a mixed bag of twenty good and bad films. Samuel L. It showed that weird, graphic arthouse films could very easily fall into the collective public consciousness — it led the way for hundreds more unique films to get made. We hope you're enjoying BRWC. You should check us out on our social channels, subscribe to our newsletter , and tell your friends.

He is a master student of film, and his ability to apply so many incredible ideas and jam them, brilliantly, into Pulp Fiction is why many consider the film to be his masterpiece. The conversation between Fabienne and Butch during which Fabienne explains that she thinks a potbelly is sexy, but only on women. It remains, like so many other moments in the film, unanswered.

The Royale with Cheese. In too many movies, characters speak so that they may advance the plot. They have wild, extrapolated tangents. Their minds work like our minds work. Pulp Fiction is not a perfect movie, but its performances are downright masterful.

Pulp Fiction is at its best when Tarantino pairs two actors and lets them do their thing. The obvious example is his brilliant pairing of Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta as a pair of buddy hit-men, which is probably the most inspired on-screen coupling of the nineties. But elsewhere he finds equally amazing success. Putting Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames together in a hellish shop basement.

Letting Amanda Plummer and Tim Roth scream out their love in a restaurant stick-up.