Was Pulp Fiction a good movie?

Was Pulp Fiction a good movie?

  • It was great!

    Votes: 65 70.7%
  • It was ok.

    Votes: 19 20.7%
  • I didn't like it.

    Votes: 6 6.5%
  • It was terrible.

    Votes: 2 2.2%

  • Total voters
    92

Narz

keeping it real
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
31,514
Location
Haverhill, UK
If you think it was great, say why.

If you think it was mediocre or plain bad, say why.

Or not. There's a poll.

I personally think Tarantino is the most overrated director of all time (that I've seen). Curious as to other people's opinions. :)
 
What do yo mean by 'was'? It is a very good movie, The dialogs are perfect and Maria de Medeiros is so pretty...

I even like the poster of the movie, Uma Truman's pose is also very artistic.
 
Pulp fiction was one of the best movies if for no other reason than samuel jacksons character talking down to those guys that tried to steal the briefcase.

"Say 'What' AGAIN! I dare you- I Double Dare you M-fer! Say 'what' one more god damn time!" :lol:
 
I realy cant vote on this topic since I never seen the movie.
 
CivGeneral said:
I realy cant vote on this topic since I never seen the movie.
Doh!! My fault. I knew I was missing an option!!

Mods, if you don't mind, could you add a "Haven't seen it" option.

:blush:
 
I didnt like it & i agree that Tarantino is overrated, but as i have said before about this film & director: he just shows that art has a place for everyone, since there is an audience for it.
We can go on all day about how the movie has this and that bad point, but if so many people like it then it has a position in the world of art.

The reason why i dont like it is that, like his other movies, it is very shallow; the characters do not have any depth, they are like comic book characters. Violence exists only as something of the surface, there is no deeper understanding of it. The movie just seems rough because it presents violence as what it would be seen in the eyes of someone who views it as pretty much incomprehensible, to the point that it becomes a style, whereas in reality violent people have psychological traits which make them violent.

All of his movies, and this one too, relies only in plot twists. The people exist just so that they can push the plot along, or so that they will reach iconic proportions due to their image (eg SLJ or Uma Thurman). I also do not see any artistic value in being vulgar.

So i wouldnt buy any of his movies, but im sure that for others they are fun to watch, and so had they not been around it would have been a loss to them.
 
Narz said:
Doh!! My fault. I knew I was missing an option!!

Mods, if you don't mind, could you add a "Haven't seen it" option.

:blush:


Why? If you haven't seen it, don't vote. It is not that important, and nothing happens if you don't vote
varwnos said:
The reason why i dont like it is that, like his other movies, it is very shallow; the characters do not have any depth, they are like comic book characters. V.

Damn, What kind of comic books do you read? There are very good comic books in the market, you know... Good comic books characters have deep personalities, not everything is Transformers and Hello Kitty. :gripe:
 
varwnos said:
The reason why i dont like it is that, like his other movies, it is very shallow; the characters do not have any depth, they are like comic book characters. Violence exists only as something of the surface, there is no deeper understanding of it.
..... [It] relies only in plot twists. The people exist just so that they can push the plot along, or so that they will reach iconic proportions due to their image (eg SLJ or Uma Thurman). I also do not see any artistic value in being vulgar.

What are you talking about. One of the selling points of this movie is the dialogue. If anything, tarantino goes out of his way to give the characters depth and personality. While the language may be vulgar; there is really very little violence.

Sean Connery maybe the "iconic" actor for the james bond role. That doesn't mean the role was talor made for him. He was chosen after the character had already been written. He was just a perfect choice for the role.
 
One of the most quotable and darkly funny films ever. Different in it's day to the other films.
 
Urederra said:
Damn, What kind of comic books do you read? There are very good comic books in the market, you know... Good comic books characters have deep personalities, not everything is Transformers and Hello Kitty. :gripe:

Ok, i am not familiar with comic books, its true :) I only read the popular stuff (disney) :blush:

And what is wrong with Transformers? I used to watch the program :) Infact i wanted to be in the Transformer planet so as to help the Decepticon drone there, since it was always undefended and pretty much useless battle-wise :)
 
Urederra said:
Good comic books characters have deep personalities, not everything is Transformers and Hello Kitty. :gripe:
That's fighting talk :mad: :spank: [pissed] :gripe:
 
Pulp Fiction, along with his other "works" are GREAT movies.
BUT...
he hasnt put in ONE DROP of original stuff.
all of his scenes (and i believe i have seen most quite a few times) are basically ripoffs from east asian movies.

BUTTTTTT...
he still does GRAET CINEMA!!!
i love his texts, and his visual skills are really fun to watch.

i even like Jackie Brown :eek:
 
Narz said:
If you think it was great, say why.

If you think it was mediocre or plain bad, say why.

Or not. There's a poll.

I personally think Tarantino is the most overrated director of all time (that I've seen). Curious as to other people's opinions. :)

He most certainly is NOT the most overrated. That distinction goes to Tim Burton, with no one else even coming close.
 
I thought it was great, the reason being that I find it entertaining to watch and can watch it again and again!
 
It is a great movie. Mostly because of the smooth dialogue..

The most overrated filmmaker is Steven Speilberg, btw.
 
I thought it was alright, but way overrated. People are too easily amused by the use of the words "n*****" and "mother******"
 
sysyphus said:
I thought it was alright, but way overrated. People are too easily amused by the use of the words "n*****" and "mother******"

Come on! :)

This movie is great not because of the use of those words.
This "father's watch" story of Butch is just brilliant :)
 
soul_warrior said:
Pulp Fiction, along with his other "works" are GREAT movies.
BUT...
he hasnt put in ONE DROP of original stuff.
all of his scenes (and i believe i have seen most quite a few times) are basically ripoffs from east asian movies.

BUTTTTTT...
he still does GRAET CINEMA!!!
i love his texts, and his visual skills are really fun to watch.

i even like Jackie Brown :eek:
This is why we, in our day and age, found it so great and cool. It was unashamedly postmodern and presented us with a glorious pastiche from all over the world of cinema, be that with its dialogue, music, costumes and / or situations. In this day and age we are such suckers for a bit of nostaligia and retro chic. Moreover, it did it with style and grace, giving each 'rip-off' a retro cool factor and a well imbedded meaning within the plot. Furthermore, he was one of the first directors (at least in a while) to present us with a non-linear plot structure. We were all grabbing our heads at the end and trying to piece it together (just like people who saw say "Kind Hearts and Coronets" would have done) and we hadn't done that with any regularity up until Pulp Fiction.

However, Taratino doesn't do all this, all that well, all the time. He messed up the same approach with Kill Bill 1 & 2 imo.

Now, if you had shown Pulp Fiction to a movie audience in the 50s or 60s, they would not have been as impressed because all the frames of reference just wouldn't have been there.
 
Rambuchan said:
This is why we, in our day and age, found it so great and cool. It was unashamedly postmodern and presented us with a glorious pastiche from all over the world of cinema, be that with its dialogue, music, costumes and / or situations. In this day and age we are such suckers for a bit of nostaligia and retro chic. Moreover, it did it with style and grace, giving each 'rip-off' a retro cool factor and a well imbedded meaning within the plot. Furthermore, he was one of the first directors (at least in a while) to present us with a non-linear plot structure. We were all grabbing our heads at the end and trying to piece it together (just like people who saw say "Kind Hearts and Coronets" would have done) and we hadn't done that with any regularity up until Pulp Fiction.

:agree:

Ummm... yeah, what he said. Except he actually knows what he's talking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom