Is Pulp Fiction shit?

[Noodle Lizard]

I'm watching Pulp Fiction again for the first time in what must be 5 years, and I have to say ... not loving it.  It was my favourite movie as a young teen, probably one of my first inspirations to give the ol' screenwriting/filmmaking thing some serious thought, so it always holds a special place in my heart even though I've liked maybe only two things Tarantino's done since. 

That being said, I'm at the scene with Travolta and Thurman at Jack Rabbit Slim's and I'm just cringing at some of this fucking dialogue.  They're both speaking as if they're two slightly dim atheists trying to win an argument on Reddit.  Mia Wallace just said "that's an impossibility, trying to forget anything as intriguing as this would be an exercise in futility".  That's dreadful writing.  I know he's going for that kind of schlocky His Girl Friday kind of thing, but this is just shit.  I recognised it straight away in Death Proof and (especially) Kill Bill Vol. 2, but I'd always given Pulp Fiction a free pass.

It's still an amazingly inventive and entertaining film, but I'm finding it hard to reconcile its "best film eva" reputation when faced with some of the acting and meandering dialogue given a bit of distance.  What do you think?  Has it aged badly?  Is it just because this kind of thing has been ripped off (badly) by so many films since, including Quenty himself?

Over to you.

[Dr Rock]

Both Mia and Vince are trying to impress each other. neither are very smart though. It's like a date. Then it all goes to shit.

[Noodle Lizard]

Can someone tell me it's not shit?  This is honestly making me seriously rethink me life's ambitions.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Mia's dialogue is ropey, but I always thought that was the point of her character. She's actually quite dim but tries to overcompensate by saying things she thinks are really profound, and Travolta goes along with it because he fancies her. This all gets turned over when she OD's and is left looking like a nincompoop in front of him. I've met people like her before, they talk nonsense but are cool/good looking enough to sail through life thinking everyone loves what they say.

It could just be bad writing though, to be fair.

[Noodle Lizard]

Mia's dialogue is ropey, but I always thought that was the point of her character. She's actually quite dim but tries to overcompensate by saying things she thinks are really profound, and Travolta goes along with it because he fancies her. This all gets turned over when she OD's and is left looking like a nincompoop in front of him. I've met people like her before, they talk nonsense but are cool/good looking enough to sail through life thinking everyone loves what they say.

It could just be bad writing though, to be fair.

That's the thing, it sort of doesn't come across like that, especially because pretty much every character (heroin dealer, robbers, hitmen and pawn shop rapists) all talk the same way.  Then when you look at Kill Bill Vol 2 ... I'm thinking ever more that this is what Tarantino wants people to sound like rather than saying anything about their character.

Oh God.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I dunno, I never had a problem with the dialogue, it was never meant to be hyper-realistic but is quite memorable and amusing. I haven't watched it in a few years though.

There were a load of deleted scenes from it too, much of it stuff with Mia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHG8MW7IAo4

[mobias]

Its fairly over rated and after reading the book Rebels on the Backlot I definitely came away thinking more of its success is owed to Roger Avery than Quentin Tarantino would like people to believe. Also, I've heard Mark Kermode say that for a film with so many characters in it it actually doesn't have many characters in it because too many of them speak with the same arch, self knowingly clever dialogue that most of them are basically interchangeable. I think thats a valid criticism.

That all being said I've always enjoyed it and it does have some fantastic and highly memorable scenes in it. It is a totally vacuous film though.   

[Noodle Lizard]

Its fairly over rated and after reading the book Rebels on the Backlot I definitely came away thinking more of its success is owed to Roger Avery than Quentin Tarantino would like people to believe.

I always thought so too, if only by process of elimination.  Tarantino really needs someone to reign him in every now and then.  I'd also say that Avary's film Rules Of Attraction pulls off similar feats to Pulp Fiction perfectly well (mostly in terms of interconnecting stories).

Also, I've heard Mark Kermode say that for a film with so many characters in it it actually doesn't have many characters in it because too many of them speak with the same arch, self knowingly clever dialogue that most of them are basically interchangeable. I think thats a valid criticism.

That's pretty much been my main criticism of Tarantino's writing for ages, but I always overlooked it in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.  Looking back now though, it's present there just as much as in any of his other films, and it's a bit embarrassing.  It must be because, having seen everything from Kill Bill Vol. 2 onwards, I know that's just the only way he knows how to write rather than being appropriate for those particular characters in those particular settings.  Oh dear.

Christopher Walken's talking now.  I do still like this scene because it's so absurd.  Even though it's a long monologue delivered by a classic soul, it doesn't feel all that Tarantino-y.

[Noodle Lizard]

I do still think it's beautifully-composed.  The lighting/colour is wonderful, feels kind of 70s filmy but not in a knowingly "retro" sort of way, and I like its use of quite languorous, unbroken shots.  It's mostly the dialogue that I'm having trouble with, and Travolta's a lot derpier than I remember.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I don't think there was any of the self knowingly clever dialogue in Reservoir Dogs. The characters are pretty much all presented as uneducated thugs, aside from maybe Mr. Pink who thinks he's a bit above everyone else. Definitely my favourite of his.

[checkoutgirl]

I still like it. Maybe not as much as when I was in my early twenties and it was recorded onto a blank VHS tape off BBC2 but it's still very watchable. Full of lovely sets (Jack Rabbit Slims), camera work (Butch sneaks back into his apartment), music (Flowers On The Wall) and dialogue (My name's Paul and this shit's between y'all). I particularly like the Jack Rabbit Slims scenes. The film isn't really about anything, it says nothing about the human condition but it's always been a dialogue film for me (Walken's gold watch). I practically wore that tape out because I loved the dialogue and the performances.

If you start seeing through the dialogue then I don't envy you. It's like you're growing up and putting away childish things. I prefer to live in ignorant nostalgia. As long as I'm happy I prefer that.

The dialogue in Death Proof I found unbearable and I absolutely despised it. I see no real comparison with Pulp Fiction.

[Eis Nein]

You are right, and shouldn't feel foolish for the late realisation. He's been getting away with fucking murder for decades.

Like that time he, the Worst Of All Actors, cast himself opposite Clooney and spent 5 mins sucking a woman's foot. Countless crimes. The voluminous charge sheet is, ironically, under-written.

Like n**ger.

Like the spectacular twofer of failing to make a spaghetti western properly (there is a little more to it than bunging in half a dozen crash zooms willy-nilly) and making light of slavery with his prancing minstrel winning the day in the final scene.

Roger Avary is less of a wrong 'un, and he killed someone.

The exact moment Tarantino revealed his utter lack of worth can be pinpointed. It's the word 'retort'. You can picture his crescent moon face smacking his lips as he hunches over the keyboard, thinking how clever that word makes someone sound.

He's making another fucking western, because why say nothing badly for 3 hours when you can do it in 6.

THIS CUNT MAKES ADAM SANDLER SEEM LIKE BERGMAN.

[colacentral]

The dialogue may not be to everyone's taste but I'd say the writing overall is very strong - the narrative, the structure, the dramatic irony at certain points. It's a really good looking film, well paced, well acted, has a good soundtrack. It's not the best film ever but it's up there.

[Eis Nein]

I haven't seen Four Rooms, though. That may tilt me into thinking Quentin is a Good Egg.

[checkoutgirl]

THIS CUNT MAKES ADAM SANDLER SEEM LIKE BERGMAN.

Please say no more things from your brain.

[WesterlyWinds]

That all being said I've always enjoyed it and it does have some fantastic and highly memorable scenes in it. It is a totally vacuous film though.   

Isn't that every Tarantino film ever though? This is not a criticism, I've enjoyed many of them for what they are: ridiculous yet enjoyable films with a bit of cinematic flair. Anyone looking for deeper meaning in any of them is going to either be left wanting or deluded.

[Noodle Lizard]

It's not a lack of depth that concerns me, it's just certain bits I remember loving seeming embarrassingly try-hard to me now.  It's fucking miserable when this happens, makes me terrified or revisiting my old favourites.

That being said, I'm liking the Butch storyline a lot more this time round, when previously it had always been my least favourite.  Haven't got to the full-redneck bumming sequence yet, mind.  Thinking about it now, that's actually a really fucking weird scene to have in this film.  I know Tarantino said it was an homage to Deliverance but ... like, why?

[Eis Nein]

He can compile a soundtrack that works very well, and holds up so well it props up the film.

[marquis_de_sad]

Isn't that every Tarantino film ever though? This is not a criticism, I've enjoyed many of them for what they are: ridiculous yet enjoyable films with a bit of cinematic flair. Anyone looking for deeper meaning in any of them is going to either be left wanting or deluded.

Whether or not you find it deep is subjective, but I think Inglorious Basterds has a pretty clear subtextual thing going on about the power of cinema, propaganda and representations of violence.

[colacentral]

That being said, I'm liking the Butch storyline a lot more this time round, when previously it had always been my least favourite.  Haven't got to the full-redneck bumming sequence yet, mind.  Thinking about it now, that's actually a really fucking weird scene to have in this film.  I know Tarantino said it was an homage to Deliverance but ... like, why?

Why not? Every story culminates in gruesome violence except the final one, in which Samuel L Jackson's character resolves the situation peacefully after his epiphany. The rape is also important to the story because of how it changes the relationship between Ving Rhames and Bruce Willis. If Ving Rhames had just been beaten up it wouldn't have had the same effect.

[Noodle Lizard]

I know its purpose, but I always kind of just accepted it was there.  When you take a step back and think about it, it's quite odd though.  I think I knew it was in there before I watched it for the first time, but I can't imagine what it would have been like for the Cannes audience coming in cold and having that pop up all of a sudden.

Onto Tarantino's dreadful turn as Jimmy.  This has always been a low point, but he's terrible.  If you didn't know he was the writer/director, I don't know what you'd make of that stilted speech.  "Graveyard shift ... at the hospital."  Wasn't there a story about someone else originally being cast as Jimmy?

"You've got to appreciate what an explosive element this Bonnie situation is" - urgh.

[Steven]

I'd always thought Tarantino was a young kid when he wrote that film but it seems he was at least around 30, so yeah some of the dialogue is ropey idealistic genre-aping tosh. That said it's still an achievement he managed to get the whole thing together with his own demands such as getting Travolta etc, I haven't seen Jackie Brown in probably over a decade but remember that being quite a lot more adult, I'd wonder if the dialogue in that was any the wiser? Though after the non-bombast of that he seemed to run back to the Pulp Fiction formula as people prefer schlocky comic-movies. Inglorious Basterds is practically a propagandist love-letter to Jews and Django is a similar love-letter to blacks, some decent bits and pieces but mostly held together by cinematography and the actual character development is wank of the highest order.

[marquis_de_sad]

Inglorious Basterds is practically a propagandist love-letter to Jews

Not really. I know you're being facetious but I don't think this criticism is fair, as Tarantino goes some way to complicate the revenge fantasy aspect of IB by showing

Spoiler alert

Nazis happy as pigs in shit enjoying a propagandistic film depicting the murder of their enemies just before we get treated to the same thing

[close]

and

Spoiler alert

by making the Jewish soldiers who shoot Hitler in the face literal suicide bombers

[close]

.

[monolith]

It's a great film but on a forum this cynical it's no surprise to see it slated.

[Noodle Lizard]

I'm not exactly slating it, more surprised at how many bad parts I was unable to recognise/able to forgive and wondering if it'd be remembered as fondly if it didn't have the reputation (I know that's basically a contradiction, but y'get me blud).  With a lot of my formative favourites, I've always known there are iffy things about them and most of them aren't widely considered to be "greats" in the first place, they're just things I liked a lot when I was a kid, but with Pulp Fiction I'd always had it in my head that it was all-but flawless until I rewatched it just now.  It makes me wonder, though, whether I might watch The Big Lebowski in ten years' time and think it a load of abominable arse.  Perish the thought.

Fight Club, which I was well into around the same time as Pulp Fiction, also hasn't stood up particularly well, but that's more to do with its sheer ubiquity in pop culture than anything else.  It's an incredibly-made film, just not one that can withstand so many viewings before becoming a bit tedious. 

[newbridge]

I loathe Tarantino, but I like Pulp Fiction (though I don't think it's particularly clever or a "great" movie). It's a very slick expression of a sort of teenage-id-perspective on what a movie should be, which makes it interesting. Unfortunately, all of Tarantino's subsequent output revealed that this was not an artistic choice, but instead just what Tarantino thinks is cool. It has aged poorly due to the director's career, not just the passage of time.

Now I just need to convince people that Martin Scorsese is fairly shit as well, and my life's work will be complete.

[monolith]

I'm not exactly slating it, more surprised at how many bad parts I was unable to recognise/able to forgive and wondering if it'd be remembered as fondly if it didn't have the reputation (I know that's basically a contradiction, but y'get me blud).  With a lot of my formative favourites, I've always known there are iffy things about them and most of them aren't widely considered to be "greats" in the first place, they're just things I liked a lot when I was a kid, but with Pulp Fiction I'd always had it in my head that it was all-but flawless until I rewatched it just now.  It makes me wonder, though, whether I might watch The Big Lebowski in ten years' time and think it a load of abominable arse.  Perish the thought.

I saw it last year having not seen it for nearly a decade after watching it dozens of times as a teenager. Was worried I would have the reaction you seem to have had but I found it even better than I remembered, an incredibly fun 2 and a bit hours.

Each to their own.

[Noodle Lizard]

Unfortunately, all of Tarantino's subsequent output revealed that this was not an artistic choice, but instead just what Tarantino thinks is cool. It has aged poorly due to the director's career, not just the passage of time.

That's what I suspect as well.  I'm fairly sure it was the first Tarantino film I saw (either that or Reservoir Dogs), and I don't think I rewatched it after having seen Death Proof etc.

Now I just need to convince people that Martin Scorsese is fairly shit as well, and my life's work will be complete.

He's certainly not had a perfect career, but some of his films really stand the test of time.  Taxi Driver and Raging Bull especially.  I rewatched The King Of Comedy about a week ago and that's still one of my favourite movies of the 80s, really horribly uncomfortable and probably De Niro's most underrated performance.  I also have a lot of good things to say about The Last Temptation Of Christ, despite its flaws (Harvey Keitel's Judas with a "eyyyy oooohhh" Brooklyn accent).

I do think he's lost his marbles a bit of late, though.  The Aviator and The Departed are the only films of his I've liked from the 2000s onwards, and even The Departed is a bit wobbly.  The Wolf Of Wall Street is basically Leonardo DiCaprio's film, so I'll forgive him that one.

[mobias]

I thoroughly recommend a book called Rebels on the Backlot by Sharon Waxman. Its basically about the rebirth of Hollywood in the 90's with directors such as Tarantino, PT Anderson, David Fincher, Steven Soderberghn and others. Its a similar sort of read as Peter Biskind's Easy Riders Raging Bulls. I think some of the events in it are refuted and the author probably doesn't let facts get in the way of a good story but its all a good read. The stuff in the book about the writing and development of Pulp Fiction is interesting though. Basically the story surrounding John Travolta's Vince Vega character was at one point an entirely separate movie on its own which Tarantino was trying to get made. At the same time Roger Avery had a script about a boxer not taking a fall in a fight and his subsequent escape from a gangster trying to kill him.  In the wake of Reservoir Dogs they decided to then combine the scripts and make the inter woven stories into one movie. According to the book Roger Avery did most of the work connecting them both up. There's been a lot of arguing over the years as to who did what but at one point Tarantino was trying to get Avery's name legally removed from the film because he wanted all the credit. The feeling I took away from the book though was that most of whats good about Pulp Fiction is Roger Avery's work.   

[Default to the negative]

It has aged poorly due to the director's career, not just the passage of time.

Travolta's subsequent career is also a problem for the film. When you watch Pulp Fiction in 2015, it's hard to accept John Travolta as a cool gangster when you know that this is the same thetan-charged simpleton who made Battlefield Earth.