Critic's Grade: D-

The following is an excerpt from the Internet Movie Database's collection of public reviews for "Pulp Fiction:"

"This is the film that got me into violence big time. I do crimes for a living and this film is the best film ever made. If you don't believe me then watch it or I will do crimes on you. It's not as good as real violence but it helped me get through a difficult patch in my life when I killed someone (accidentally it was later proved) and for a while I thought I was Pulp Fiction. However, when I watched it again I realized that I am not because I was made before it. This is the best film ever made but it's not as good as the Tarantino contribution to Four Rooms which is the best film ever made."

You know, I've never been much for people who cry out against violence in movies, or those who want to push that crudeness and amoral behavior in the media is a conduit for what happens in reality. I'm also one of those people who missed out on "Pulp Fiction" in theaters (come on, I was only 11 at that time); and now, having seen it for the first time, I'm totally speechless. I'm at a loss for words over what I've just read in the statement above (in regards to the stupidity of its writer in terms of grammar, I'm equally shocked); I'm disgusted by what I've just seen on my television screen; I'm appalled that such wonderful talent could go to waste on such an inane, incompetent, filthy, derivative piece of junk screenplay.

And I know what you're about to say: how can I condone a movie like "Reservoir Dogs" in terms of its stylized violence, and be abhored by that which permeates this latest Tarantino venture? The truth is, I'm not condoning violence, period, but if it has a place in the screenplay, or serves a purpose for the material, then it's not as bad as if it were just violence for the sake of violence. In "Dogs," Tarantino meant to shock his audience, which he did; he seems to have attempted the same type of technique here, but in the face of his horrible script, even worse editing, and squandering of a good cast, I just feel dirty and cheated out of time and rental money.

Within the material there are several distinct stories that spawn various subplots. The beginning introduces us to a couple played by Amanda Plummer and Tim Roth who get their kicks from robbing various establishments; this time, they're about to knock over a restaurant. In a later scene, we see among their hostages two hitmen played by John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson, who are first seen in the film retrieving a briefcase with unknown contents for a dominant mob boss played by Ving Rhames. Rhames has also asked Travolta to escort his wife, played by Uma Thurman, to dinner, after which she overdoses and Travolta freaks out before stabbing her in the heart with a syringe full of adrenaline.

Rhames also has a deal going with a champion boxer played by Bruce Willis, whom Rhames tells to lose his next fight in return for a hefty sum of money. When Willis wins the fight, Rhames is all over him, hunting him down, until they come to a confrontation with one another after an ugly incident in a city street, which is followed by a reconciliation after they become the next sexual appetizer for a pair of rednecks in a basement. Willis also happens to be the one who murders Travolta in an earlier scene, but this is of little interest, seeing as how the movie reverts back to its primary story after its secondary one is concluded.

Tarantino takes us from one story to another without so much as a connection to be seen or heard. Sure, it's kind of interesting seeing the way in which things play out (I like how the restaurant scene coincides with the Travolta/Jackson storyline), but when you're still attempting to figure out one storyline, what good is it to be cast into another, or perhaps two at once? I was still wondering where the instance of Travolta being killed was coming into play, and here Tarantino has no intention of expanding on that, but instead reverts back to earlier scenes?

The thing I hate worst about movies like this is that you cannot make sense of them, period. There is nothing in this material that merits the acclaim it has so unjustly deserved, save for the acting, which is always fun to watch despite the material. The dialogue does nothing to advance the plot as it did in "Reservoir Dogs," nor does it enhance our opinions or views on the characters. The overall experience is sloppy and without much interest: Tarantino keeps our attention by making us think something grand is in the works, and then he pulls the plug.

And then there's the violence, which just seems flashy and overworked and without purpose. Perhaps this is his vision of the street life of Los Angeles, but the fact that this could be an authentic representation of this just makes the material all the more chilling. And if someone can write something like the aforementioned statement, even if he is lying through his teeth, then that alone says something about the film.

And I wouldn't be so against this if it had some purpose. "Pulp Fiction" is that great meandering mess of a movie that walks around with a note of self-importance on its lips for its entire length, and is nothing but degraded violence and disturbing images that has no sense of being or place. I'm probably the only one who thinks so, but Tarantino is not a personal favorite, and his second film stands out as one of the worst in the history of films.

Copyright @ Hauntnut.com

All Reviews by David Litton [Home page]
If you are the author of this review, you may edit it by signing in.