Pulp Fiction (Two-Disc Collector's Edition) Reviews

• "Oh, I'm sorry. Did I break your concentration?"

  
  By A2ZLROGIL2V7GV on 2002-09-14
  Words cannot express how much I love this movie, but I will try my best. "Pulp Fiction" is one of my favorites. Quentin Tarantino is a very gifted director/writer. Although I love his directing, I must say it is his writing that really impresses me. But I will get to that later on in this review.

  I think it's safe to say that the first time this movie was released on DVD, it was a little more than disappointing. There were no special features, sound and picture was so-so; I mean, my laserdisk at least had three different trailers of the movie. So, of course, I was very excited to learn that this movie was being re-released in a fully loaded special edition. Re-buying the movie was well worth it, for this edition of the movie is far superior than the other one.

  The movie really consists of three different stories; not in any order. Any one of the stories could be their own little movies. The players are two hitmen, a boxer, the big boss, the big boss' wife, a crazy gun store owner, a gimp, a cop named, Zed, a man who makes problems go away, and a little suitcase with "666" for the combination. You add all this together and you get one hell of a movie.

  The acting is more than superb; including one terrific cast with some heavy hitters (Travolta, Jackson, Thurman, Willis, etc.). Tarantino is a master when it comes to writing and directing. Especially when it comes to writing. I have never heard such clever and brutally honest dialogue in any other movie. I have said it before, and I will say it again; Tarantino reminds me of Raymond Carver, except with more humor.

  Now, on to the special edition of this DVD. Is it better than the previous version? YES! Tons of special features, and not to forget the fact that the movie has been restored in high definition. Picture looks very clear. And the sound is also a lot better. You can watch the movie in DTS, which is always a good thing.

  Special features.....where do I begin? There's a ton of them! It's not even funny how much stuff is loaded on this bad boy. And every one of them is great. Features include a documentary, an interview with Tarantino on "The Charlie Rose Show," trailers, filmographies, and many more. If you love special features, then you will not be disappointed.

  "Pulp Fiction" is a great movie, and the new DVD edition is outstanding in every way. If you still have the older DVD of this movie, get this one now! If you haven't seen it yet, check it out when you can! Of course, with any other movie, there is a chance you may not like this movie. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. Don't let hype ruin your preception of the movie, just watch it as if it were any other movie. You like it, great; if not, well, at least you gave it a shot. Filled with sharp humor, great characters, outstanding dialogue, and some of the craziest surprises and twists, "Pulp Fiction" is a wonderful film, and will continue to be one of my favorites.
  
  

• Pure Golden Pulp

  
  By A8F2AZWB20X1H on 2000-02-19
  "Pulp Fiction" is like a novel with five chapters that was ripped apart and put back together with the chapters all mixed up in random order -- where does it start and where does it end? That said, it's a hilarious crazy-quilt of a movie, superbly directed by Quentin Tarantino. And yes, there is a straight story line throughout... chronologically, the actual story begins with Samuel Jackson and John Travolta on their way to a hit ordered by their boss Ving Rhames, and ends with Bruce Willis and his pregnant girlfriend zooming out of town on a homicidal maniac's stolen motorcycle. Each short story in the movie is complete in itself, and yet each makes up part of the whole. The actors are terrific. Jackson and Travolta are great as the two hitmen Jules and Vince; Uma Thurman is just right as the boss's wife; Bruce Willis is funny and yet moving as the boxer who saves the boss's life after the boss ordered a hit on him, and Harvey Keitel steals the whole movie with his performance as the almost inhumanly efficient Wolf. Even Tarantino himself can't resist joining the fun and plays the role of Jules's sometime partner Jimmie, very annoyed at being roused out of bed at the crack of dawn to help dispose of a semi-headless corpse. There are so many priceless scenes in this film that it's hard to pick a favorite. It's a wild, crazy, mind-boggling movie that gets better and better each time you watch it.
  
  

• Pulp fans demand a better DVD, PUNCHY!

  
  By A3ECM3FZCLIH8K on 2000-02-10
  This is of course the best film ever made. I own the DVD, but can't understand the shortage of extras. The laserdisc format has plenty of extras. For example it has the tralior and T.V. spots. Behind the scenes, the Making of Pulp, the Charlie Rose interview with QT, and four deleted scenes hosted by QT. Why couldn't we get those with the DVD format. Hopefully in the near future, a re-release of the DVD will include these goodies and maybe perhaps a Tarantino-Bender commentary track and a director's cut of the complete film. The current DVD provides average picture and sound. It is the best movie ever made and gets better each time you watch it. You will also find out new things every time you view it. For instance, the gun on Butch's counter didn't belong to Vincent, it belonged to Wallace. Remember, Jules had already quit. Butch doesn't have any intention in throwing the fight until Vincent picks a fight with him. It's true, go back and watch how Butch acts while talking with Wallace and then how mad he gets when Vincent starts with him. Plus Fabeine is pregnant in the movie, listen very closely to what she says. The movie also has a comic side to it. I think it's funny how Vincent basically caused everything in the movie. Just think, Vincent caused Mia's overdose by purchasing heroine from Lance, in the first chapter. In the second chapter, "The Gold Watch," Vincent picks a fight with Butch. Then Butch throws the boxing match. Then in "The Bonnie Situation," Vincent tells Jules, "Do you feel like having breakfast?" Then they go to the diner, and you know what happens. Vincent is the films main character, and without him there wouldn't have been a movie because he started all the problems. Ask yourself these questions while viewing this. Why DON'T Vincent and Jules die in the apartment? Why DO Vincent and Marvin die after "Devine Intervention?" Why does Jules let Ringo LIVE? Why does Butch go back to SAVE Wallace's life? What is in the BRIEFCASE? Tarantino wasn't lazy when writing and directing this film. The more you watch it, the more likely you'll have the answers to these questions and more. You need to watch it more than two times to understand it. If you didn't like it the first time, give it another try. This movie is NOT bad, overrated, boring or too long like some people say. The actors are great and perfect for thier roles. Any real movie fan will agree with me. People ask me what the movie is about and its difficult to say. It's about a lot of things like honor, pride, luck, faith and redemption.This is my favorite and the greatest movie ever made!
  
  

• Pure Pulp

  
  By A1GN8UJIZLCA59 on 2002-10-02
  Pulp Fiction was a groundbreaking film in a couple of different ways. It was an independent release and its success opened the door up for all kinds of maverick filmmakers and companies to release films that otherwise would have never been made. It also had a profound stylistic influence. It was a hip movie with sharp dialogue, graphic violence, cool soundtrack and intricate plotlines. In the wake of its success, many movies try to copy this style, but most failed as they lacked Quentin Tarantino's unique vision. Mr. Tarantino was able to pull John Travolta out of a decade long funk and directed him to the finest performance of his career and one that garnered his second Academy Award nomination. He also pushed Bruce Willis to a stellar performance that showed he was more than just an action hero. The cast is first rate including a beguiling Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Harvey Keitel, Eric Stolz, Rosanna Arquette and Christopher Walken. The best performance of all is given by Samuel L. Jackson who is absolutely amazing. It was a crime that he did not win the Academy Award for the role. Pulp Fiction is broken up into three parts and includes flashbacks, flash-forwards and twists and turns and some mysteries that are never revealed. It is a rare film that is both stylish and full of substance. The new Collector's Edition is a huge step up from the original edition which offered virtually no extras. The sound and visuals are crisper and cleaner and the extra features are great. One excellent extra is a Siskel & Ebert show dedicated to the Tarantino phenonmeon, which looking at it eight years later is quite interesting.
  
  

• No Point?

  
  By A2WL4VIB1HWSZH on 2000-05-06
  Several of the negative reviews on this page seem to claim that "Pulp Fiction" condones crime and that the film has "no point". This is an absolutely ridiculous assertion. Whether the fact that all of those bullets missed Jackson and Travolta was actually an act of God is debatable... What isn't debatable is that the character that recognized something wrong with his line of work and retired kept his life and that the character who continued a life of crime was killed. How does this condone crime? The people who watch this movie and think to themselves "Gee, I want to grow up and be a gangster" are the same people who watch "Platoon" and wish they were in Vietnam.

  Just for the record, I really like this movie. (though not one of my all time favorites) I put one star down so my review would get read. Those who were bored with this movie really need to see a doctor about their attention span.
  
  

• ABSOLUTE JUNK!
  By A1PT528VO1Y5CM on 2003-01-20
  This has to be one of the most overrated films in history. I believe that most people who said that they liked this piece of garbage only did so because they wanted to sound hip and cool. Many did not see Tarintino's previous films but were told how hip and cool these films were and so by the time Pulp Fiction was released they went to see it so that they could "jump on the bandwagon". Tarintino is trying to make mindless violence "trendy". There is no real plot to this picture and the characters are all obnoxious. It seems that for a film to be considered a masterpiece nowadays, it must contain weird situations and violent obnoxious characters. Because this film was so popular it is a sad commentary of the times we live in.
  
  
• overrated garbage
  By on 2003-06-26
  "Pulp Fiction" is quite possibly the most overrated film of the 1990's, bar-none.
  Quentin Tarantino has not an original bone in his body; everything in this film could be traced to some 1970's cop or blaxploitation flick a la "Shaft". His "brilliant" dialogue masks a lack of depth to his characters, and even now sounds dated, forced, and pointless.

  For anyone who still thinks this film is a work of "genius", I'd like for them to consider the following:
  The form of this film is weak. The entire first 1/3rd of "Pulp Fiction" serves no purpose other than to set up a shot of Uma Thurman with a cardiac needle sticking out of her chest. The Bruce Willis segment is simply a re-write of "Deliverance", albeit set in an urban area rather than the wilderness. The third segment does nothing to bring closure to what has already been seen, and doesn't tie anything together. It also contains the most embarrassing, narcissistic cameo by Tarantino himself, and is nothing more than an excuse for him to use the "N-word" several times and make himself look like a complete fool, not to mention that he is a horrible actor to boot.

  I'd point any Tarantino fan back to the 1970's, which is the cinematic well that Tarantino so shamelessly plunders: films of Gordon Parks, Robert Altman, William Friedkin, and other great directors of this era can easily prove that Quentin Tarantino is an unoriginal charlatan, and that "Pulp Fiction" is not much more than a pointless string of insufferably hip tripe.
  
  

• overpriced, overhyped
  By A105AO5C0KHXKV on 2002-08-16
  The movie is as great as ever (though its asethetic has been so thorougly integrated in mainstream culture that much of what was amazing when the film originally appeared is now less impressive). But either the director or Miramax (or both) are doing a disservice to the film's fans with this release. Aside from some fancy (but still uninteresting) packaging, there's little here besides the film itself - the musty "documentary" footage is run-of-the-mill infotainment, there are only a handful of extra scenes, and there is no audio commentary at all. Tellingly, the extra scenes are introduced by archival footage of Tarantino that's likely seven or eight years old, given that he references what other filmmakers do with the "laserdisc" versions of their movies. Given that Tarantino hasn't made a movie in five years, you'd assume that he would have time to jam this special edition with bells and whistles. Since he hasn't, you're better off buying the bare-bones version for half the price.
  
  
• The most overrated film ever?
  By on 2003-04-13
  Having been recommended this film by loads of people I was really looking forward to watching it, sadly by half way through I just could not wait for it to end. I cannot remember the last time I have been so completely bored by a film. This film may have an amazing cast with some stunning performances (Samuel L Jackson etc) but in the end I found that I really didn't care what happened to anybody anyway, a testimony to how bad everything else is. This is the kind of film that people always say is 'cool', well I'm sorry but half a dozen clever one liners does not make a classic film.
  I am a huge film fan and this film has really upset me by the complete pointlessness of it. As if it even teaches us anything about redemption, it is just an excuse for excessive violence, drug taking and swearing. This doesn't bother me if it is actually relevant to the film, sadly here it is basically all the film has to offer.
  So please please do not waste you money, seriously, this is one of the worst, most overrated films I have seen in years. There are many better gangster movies out there, and many other movies that weave multiple plot lines into one with a great deal more skill and relevance than this one does.
  
  
• Hollywood Regurgitates Itself
  By A13MFAU8EN1HAH on 2003-02-11
  Tarantino is Hollywood's dream creation, its very own superficial pop culture regurgitated by someone who is the direct product of years upon years of their superficial pop culture immersion. I mean, what could be more fascinating from a cultural studies point of view? Watching Pulp Fiction, one gets the impression that Tarantino does not have an original thought in his head, that his brain is literally overflowing with all of the ... American films he has consumed. Alas, I appear to be the only dissenting voice here and my vote will do little to detract from the 5-star overall rating. So it goes.
  
  
• Love it or hate it but you can't ignore it
  By A26JGAM6GZMM4V on 2003-09-23
  Almost everyone I know who has seen this film either loves it or hates it but all agree that it is almost impossible to take your eyes off of the screen. Pulp Fiction not only attracts our attention, it demands it. Much credit must be given to director Quentin Tarantino who co-authored the Academy Award winning best original screenplay with Roger Avary. The influences on his development as a filmmaker are too numerous to list here but it is worth noting that Orson Welles, Daffy Duck, Akiro Kurosawa, Dashiell Hammett, Spike Lee, and Francois Truffaut would be on it. Many believe that this film saved John Travolta's career. His portrayal of the dangerous but somewhat dimwitted hit man, Vincent Vega, is brilliant. In fact, Tarantino assembled an outstanding cast and somehow coordinated the various plots in which they are involved. Destinies intersect, sometimes causing violent collisions. The film's accelerated pace, however, does not preclude "eye of the hurricane" moments as when Vincent dances with Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) in a nightclub or when Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) and Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) are held against their will by a psychopath. Tarantino has a very traditional view of film making: He wants vivid PICTURES and he wants them to MOVE. He also cherishes effective use of language, almost to the point that some scenes seem "talky." My guess (only a guess) is that because Tarantino seems to be a compulsive conversationalist, he and members of his cast and crew never stopped talking about Pulp Fiction from the beginning to the end of its production and that many of them are still discussing it nine years after it was first released.

  This is a nasty, sometimes violent, occasionally hilarious, but never dull film. To those seeing it for the first time who almost immediately become uncomfortable, my advice is to be patient and allow the narrative to continue. You may end up being repulsed. Fair enough. But you may also find yourself enjoying what is deliberately and pre-eminently an unorthodox examination of how MOVING PICTURES can tell a story with compelling impact. For me, the vivid images and my emotional reactions to them dominate the literate, at times loopy dialogue. FYI, the special features provided with the DVD Miramax Collector's Edition include "Pulp Fiction: The Facts" (an original documentary), behind-the-scenes montages, a production design featurette, a Siskel & Ebert At The Movies feature ("The Tarantino Generation"), Tarantino's Cannes Film Festival - Palm d'Or acceptance speech, his appearance on the Charlie Rose Show, and various reviews and articles which discuss the film.
  
  

• Did I miss something?
  By A2YOU2NS0Y5MKO on 2000-05-28
  Gives new meaning to the phrases "gratuitous violence" and "meaningless profanity." (This opinion comes from a viewer who considers "A Clockwork Orange" and "Fargo" excellent films). How this useless and depressing trash can be praised is quite beyond me.
  
  
• Garbage
  By A2SUXFVMLTDN7B on 2001-02-28
  It is disturbing that a film riddled with senceless violence, chronic drug abuse, and heartless cold blooded murder can somehow be considered as one of the years best films. I am confused how Quentin Tarantino can simply glorify these social ills in a perveted fantasy, and then be annointed as a cinematic genius. I can not appreciate how this trash can be put on film and still be mistaken for "talent". The vulgar lifestyles of the main characters are sickening. Two common thugs murder while mocking religious scriptures, then they accidently murder another and are more concerned about the stains in the car upholstery? What kind of story is this, and why is it considered entertainment? I'm no prude and I'm certainly not a saint, but this is the kind of rubbish that give the US and Hollywood a black eye. This is a distubing film and a sad commentary on the decline of the audience values. One of the year's best films??? Sorry, I don't get it.
  
  
• UNACCEPTABLE PACKAGING - A RIP OFF
  By A3VJEKFARKBO8K on 2002-10-09
  First off, the film is 5 stars. The package it comes in however is an utter disappointment. Upon opening you will find a soundtrack cd which is barely held in by a cheap plastic molding. Not only that, but the soundtrack is nothing but an 18 minute "sampler", featuring only 6 songs! This is NOT the same soundtrack (2 cds) which was recently reissued to coincide with the dvd rerelease. There are no descriptions of the special features in the accompanying booklet; the tray which holds the 2 dvds (on a single spindle, making them susceptible to popping out loose and getting scratched) easily falls out of the box. For this set to retail for [...] is outrageous. You are far better off purchasing the Buena Vista edition. This is a slipshod production and is a complete abomination package-wise.
  
  
• Simply AWFUL!
  By AZ050EDX4J93T on 2003-07-29
  I honestly thought I owed it to myself to see this movie, given the (nearly) unanimous high ratings it received in this venue and elsewhere. I needed to find out what all the hype was about. What a terrible disappointment.

  I actually saw this film a couple of years ago, so much of the detail of the film has blissfully receded into the recesses of my memory. Unfortunately, what remains is the revulsion I felt when it was over. I do not pretend to be a student of filmmaking, but as another reviewer has stated here, "I know what I like and I know what I don't like." This, I definitely didn't like.

  I found this film to be nothing more than an overlong vehicle for violence and profanity in the extreme. It's not that I morally object to bloodshed and profanity in the context of a movie if there is a point to it and if, at the end of the day, the movie entertains. This film didn't.

  Someone here said that one needs to see this movie at least twice to appreciate it. It took a tremendous act of will on my part to see it through to the end the first time around (always hoping until the credits appeared that something, ANYTHING, would happen that would make me feel the time was well spent-nothing did). I can't bear the thought of watching it again in the hope that I will finally see a point to anything this film had to offer.

  Although I'm obviously in the minority here, I'm afraid this is one flick I'll force myself to stay away from, no matter what other critics think. My recommendation is that you do the same.
  
  

• Obnoxious, Repulsive, Irresponsible, and Ultimately Empty
  By A5ZJFVV0564T6 on 2003-12-18
  ...those are are the best words I could think of to describe Mr. Tarantino, ditto this overrated, overpraised, and overhyped dung heap of a film. No wonder the world's in the state it's in.
  
  
• A Favourite Film of America, aka The Psychopathic Society
  By A3R6DJXXIZ3IRA on 2004-10-01
  This movie is unrelentingly violent and despicable; the fact that it tries to come across as "cool" really bothers me as well, and even worse, that most people seem to love the abhorrent depictions of violence as being "cool." Wake up! This isn't cool. The glorification of violence isn't cool!
  
  
• SLOP FICTION.....
  By A1GF7BR6K22GZD on 2002-10-15
  Everyone seems to like this movie but me. I just can't develope a taste for it. Even after seeing it on it's release in'94 I still hate it. I don't like swaggering attitude and this film has it in spades. There's a lot going on in it and it all comes to ....what? Samuel L. Jackson is good as a Bible spouting hit man but John Travolta is awful. I nicknamed him John Revolta after seeing this. The only interesting set piece was the 50's diner. That was cool. Watching Travolta and Uma Thurman dance was not. The intertwining stories are unpleasant and violent to the extreme. There's a lot of name association here. Like everyone HAD to be in a Quinton Tarantino movie. Tarantino thinks that by dunking the audiences' head repeatedly in a stinking garbage can will entertain them. Not me. "Pulp Fiction" is by far one of the most overrated excuses for a movie I've ever seen. It has caused me to question people's motives for seeking out entertainment and they're scary.
  
  
• Coolness revealed in a form of autism.
  By AX6CT38WZDCWL on 2002-10-30
  Pulp fiction hailed as a tribute to the genre of 30cent novels written on pulpwood, is not much of a tribute of all. It is more like an exploitation of the modern thinking inherent in Hollywood culture.

  Pulp Fiction does not satirize the Hollywood culture. It succumbs willingly to that culture and successfully spreads its meaningless violence [and plot] across all the characters viewed in the film. Even Samuel L. Jackson's character's (who wants to give up crime for some sort of holy vagabondage) conversion is somehow assimilated with moral aestheticism.

  Pulp Fiction asks for total suspension of disbelief, and attempts no psychological exploration of character. Pulp Fiction also has a message "What a lark crime can be!" an unsavory joke that murder should be viewed as somehow a fine art.

  In closing, Uma Thurman just can't dance...
  
  

• Clever But Shallow
  By on 2004-04-30
  An extremely clever and entertaining film composed of three interlocking stories, told in non-chronological order, covering 48 hours in the lives of several scummy, retro-chic L.A. gangsters. Tarantino has good ear and writes very funny (and occasionally quite eloquent) dialog that sounds like a hip, twisted Damon Runyon. The script is littered with sly references to the pop culture of the last fifty years--everything from James Dean and Elvis to blaxploitation and disco to Goddard and Truffaut--all delivered in knowing, smart-ass fashion. It's the most influential film of the 90s, the one that inspired a thousand pale, godawful imitations (and one good one: Amores Perros). It's the movie that made Samuel L. Jackson a star and revived the career of John Travolta. It was also the most enjoyable flick of 1994.

  That said, there isn't any depth to the film. Behind all the superficial cleverness lies...nothing at all. It's an empty exercise in Hip Nihilism. Its philosophy, to the extent that it even has one, is morally repugnant. Although Pulp Fiction is still entertaining on the third or fourth viewing, you won't get anything more from it than you did the first time. What you see is what you get. That's all, folks.
  
  

• the roman colosseum in 20th century garb.
  By on 1999-10-02
  It was comforting to read a few negative reviews of this vile film...I truly thought I was alone in my assessment of this moral mess...but what was most disturbing was the audience reaction. It was not possible to escape the imagery of the roman colosseum where human suffering was looked upon as an entertainment event. It was so disheartening. Yes, we can explain it in the "only a movie" terms..or "don't you get a satire when you see one"..heh, I guess not. Young people really don't "think" about the trash they allow themselves to digest. Even my own daughters enjoyed the movie. Pulp fiction damed itself on every level, but most especially in terms of its shallowness. I had recently seen "The Player(s)" and was strongly reminded of the ridiculous "group" writing that it claimed is a hallmark of Hollywood motion pictures
  
  
• You just had to be there man
  By A1BVKYCRW6W21A on 2005-06-29
  Everybody harps about this film being a modern classic and how rapturous they are about Tarantino's work. They'll look at you as a complete weirdo for not seeing this " masterpiece " and will end up telling you the whole thing scene by scene. Crack up, laugh at hilarious it seems. I've watched the movie once and I've never been more bored in all my life. If this was the pinnacle of 90s film-making then I'm glad I didn't see it when it came out ( I'm glad I was too young ). It's boring, sleep-inducing and not one bit funny save one scene from Christopher Walken. It's also rather empty which is not how I like films to be. It also feels like Tarantino just cutting everything he loved about the type of movies he loved and then pasted them together with nothing original to show for it. Oh the post modern touch - it's so original! Correction it's pathetic. Having tried to watch some of the other stuff he's directed I can't help but think that he makes really shallow films. They all seem to follow a set pattern which is extremely infuriating. Oh well, here's to mediocrity with high levels of boasting - gets you far in this world.
  
  
• "Overrated" gets a significant meaning!
  By A18RBRV5S99XD8 on 1999-06-13
  I suppose I should apologise to the vast majority for what is about to follow (though I have no regrets) as my viewpoint on this movie is generally scorned. I give it one star for Samuel L. Jacksons amusing performance, another for being audacious. Not good, however, merely audacious. There have only been two occasions where I have felt like walking out during a cinema presentation, the latter being due to "Saving Private Ryan" making me feel nauseous at one point(though this is a compliment to realism, in what was a very good movie), the other through a distinct problem in staying awake during this movie (and no I was not excessively tired). I have seen hundreds of movies and am not averse to flashbacks in the least, but this was just preposterous. Ok some films start at the end then the remainder is flashback, so if the lead character dies at the start you accept the film will then build up to this point to explain the hows and whys. Pulp Fiction niether starts nor finishes with the lead character, but introduces him a short way in, flashes back, forward and sideways, kills him off in the MIDDLE, then expects you to retain interest in him with further flashbacks in the second half. On top of this, the Bruce Willis character is introduced late, and proceeds to send you into a soporific state of boredom. Whilst I concede he does also appear in the films one compelling scene, I cannot see how his performance was so highly rated. Personally I feel a lot of hype was built around the injection through the heart scene, although the build up to this, with Travolta and Thurman in a club, had virtually sent me to sleep anyway, and why people consider this whole portion to be cinematically magnificent is quite beyond me. Jackie Brown was simply stunning, this was simply nothing (apart from irritating).
  
  
• A waste of film
  By A2BH2BDFIDZY3K on 2003-10-08
  I wish someone had warned me before viewing this film. It was a horrible story, full of profanity and other filth. The sad part is that so many of our young people have viewed this piece of trash, and think it is the greatest thing. I found the story line offensive, and I came away depressed. If you are looking for an old movie to view, please don't waste your time with this one. Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta are both accomplished actors; I cannot why they wanted to waste their talent on this project.
  
  
• Sick
  By A1LD49GOGPF4Q4 on 2005-01-09
  This movie is disgusting. The people who made this have mental problems. It is pornographly violent and celebrates violence. The perspective of the flim maker is anti-social and psychotic. It is not just the subject matter than is so offensive it is the way murder and violence is glorified.
  
  
• Thank God That The '90s Are Over
  By on 2000-03-24
  What a mess. There were quite a few memorable lines, but even they could not redeem this atrocity. This film will go down as the perfect example of 1990s "style" - ugly, disrespectful, violent, colorless and disordered. And don't chalk up this negative review to the age of the viewer; I am a man who was born in 1970.

  In addition, how many of you parents out there have noticed that this movie was released by a DISNEY subsidiary (Miramax)? Walt must be spinning in his grave at how subversive his organization has become in the last two decades. For every family feature it produces, Disney/ABC/Miramax/etc. is now putting out ten productions akin to Pulp Fiction. They are no longer on the side of families.

  Quentin Tarantino should wake up and realize that he's not a teenager anymore.
  
  

• Some things shouldn't be recycled.
  By AYGEP8I4BQ3CK on 2000-05-23
  It would be easy to spend my 1,000 word alotment on moral ground, but a larger problem with this "orginal" film is its unoriginality. Quentin borrows much of the film ideas from other films he must have watched countless times while working at video a store. It disgusted me the first time with crude and often dump jokes, many things thrown in just to be thrown in like gay rape, drug use, and a near overdoes of violence. In fact, if you took all this out of the movie, it would be a blank tape. I would prefer the blank tape. I strongly urge anyone who hasn't seen this tape, especially people easily offended to not watch this video.
  
  
• But What's It About?
  By on 1999-05-25
  If you enjoy affectless violence; if you enjoy barroom wit; if you enjoy homophobia, racism, misogyny; then you will enjoy this movie. And since most film critics are straight white men, they loved this movie. It's also a movie for STRAIGHT WHITE MALE GEEKS. Tarantino's great achievement was that he brought geek misanthropic perception real angry, tough visibility. The same GEEKS who flip over STAR WARS flip over PULP FICTION -- it makes them feel special, as though a movie has been made for them.

  There's nothing original here, and those who think there is are ignorant of film culture -- have no canonical memory. Rent DAVID MAMET'S GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS to see where this kind of existential maledom comes from; and rent it to see how a master handles the intricacies and the pain. Tarantino parodies it; as he parodies Scorcese and DePalma.

  The ultimate postmodernist, Tarantino has nothing original or interesting to say -- he can only ape or approximate the geniuses who came before him. As a female friend of mine said upon seeing PULP FICTION: "You watch this movie and you realize, this man has never been loved. He has never known love in his life."

  I will add just one thing: he loves the movies. Parents, let this be a warning: raise your kids with love, not the TV.
  
  

• Tarantino's Best
  By A1GN8UJIZLCA59 on 2001-12-04
  Pulp Fiction was a groundbreaking film in a couple of different ways. It was an independent release and its success opened the door up for all kinds of maverick filmmakers and companies to release films that otherwise would have never been made. It also had a profound stylistic influence. It was a hip movie with sharp dialogue, graphic violence, cool soundtrack and intricate plotlines. In the wake of its success, many movies try to copy this style, but most failed as they lacked Quentin Tarantino's unique vision. Mr. Tarantino was able to pull John Travolta out of a decade long funk and directed him to the finest performance of his career and one that garnered his second Academy Award nomination. He also pushed Bruce Willis to a stellar performance that showed he was more than just an action hero. The cast is first rate including a beguiling Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Harvey Keitel, Eric Stolz, Rosanna Arquette and Christopher Walken. The best performance of all is given by Samuel L. Jackson who is absolutely amazing. It was a crime that he did not win the Academy Award for the role. Pulp Fiction is broken up into three parts and includes flashbacks, flash-forwards and twists and turns and some mysteries that are never revealed. It is a rare film that is both stylish and full of substance.
  
  
• Cult indie
  By A2ZVERVFM25MJT on 2002-01-30
  In less than a decade, 'Pulp Fiction' has become a cult classic, making many people's top ten films of all time. Not only was it a highly impressive second feature but it made Quentin Tarantino a real big Hollywood player (especially after the fantastic 'Reservoir Dogs') and it didn't just ressurect John Travolta's career but it made him cool again. There's countless moments in it to treasure, many of which have even become famous, especially Travolta and Jackson's conversation about the Royale with cheese. Cult movie fans should also be acquainted with the debate over what really was in that suitcase: diamonds, a human soul or even a Royale with cheese!

  The story has three basic threads - revolving around two hitmen (Travolt and Jackson), a boxer (Willis) and a couple robbing a store (Roth and Plummer). The cast itself is formidable, with Thurman and Travolta being especially good. Yes it's violent, and has set off various arguments over the validity of such thrillers as valid cinema. The truth is, this grips you from start to finish, and proves beyond doubt that Quentin Tarantino is a force to be reckoned with.
  
  

• Reservoir Dogs
• Kill Bill - Volume One
• Kill Bill - Volume Two
• Fight Club (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)
• GoodFellas