Ebert's GREAT MOVIES Part Two: "Pulp Fiction"

When I saw Pulp fiction for the first time - I rotflmao, may part hit close to home, soon in the theater - all were laughing right along with me, like they knew they understood why I had begun laughing.
My Mrs., said I was sick and infected the rest of the audience - go figure....


One of my favorite movies

Hey, Husker, isn't it really strange that we find these characters and their situations funny? I felt a bit embarassed laughing while being horrified at someone getting their face blown away but what other reaction could one expect?

I really didn't like this movie, it's dan-E's favorite movie and we argue about this all the time.

It had great casting and performances and the dialogue was truly great (the soundtrack has some bits of it). But it's also full of cheap movie tricks (starting at the end, pointless "shock-jock" scenes) and get's a 2 ot of 10 on my scale.

I remembered you didn't like this film, Crave. It is a matter of taste and I don't find the shocking scenes being pointless but a part of the plot. You might like it more if you did listen to the dialogue and shut out the graphic imagery. There is an element of "Nightmare on Elm Street" parody in the film -- it is not a film to take too seriously even though it has a lot in it about human nature.
Perhaps more about warped human nature but human nature nevertheless. At least, I hope you never have to clean up a car after a surreptitious killing! Try reading Ebert's essay with an open mind and, if the impulse hits you, see the film again. I know many people who were put off on the first viewing and warmed up to the film on subsequent tries. There is one thing that's lost in not seeing the imagery and that's the choreography of the characters moving through a scene. Some seem like some strange voodoo dance.

Interesting essay but I won't watch it again because I've already seen it 3 times.

I agree with just about everything Ebert said except that I don't think the acting or the dialogue redeemed the parts I didn't like (uninteresting plot and gimmicky chronology). I don't knock the film's quality but it just uses gimmicks that I don't like.

Ebert mentions other films that "toy with chronology" I don't like any of them that I have seen. Usually it does little to enhance the unfolding of the plot and just gets a wooo out of the audience because when it's disjointed.

It might seem deep but it could also just be murky.

I really liked Pulp Fiction, even if I'm not a fan of bloody movies. This one is also bloody funny, has great dialogue and performances, gets into the minds of both professional and amateur criminals, and intertwines the stories with a good measure of editing, in a very intelligent script.

There are several parts I really enjoyed: Jackson preachin' an' killin', Keitel's cool body dispaching personality and Travolta mocking Travolta as he -stupidly but understandably enough- falls for Uma Thurman.

Pulp Fiction
Mr. Wizard, I think I might have seen this movie on PPV. It was revolting but provocative, and I'm afraid that I didn't understand the art form. Interesting idea that Ebert presented about chronology, however, both in dialogue and story line. I should watch it again, I suppose, but I probably won't.

You can always spot people who've just seen this film for the first time - they're the ones who are saying to each other "Now, the scene in the diner - does that happen before or after the car scene? And where does the basement scene fit in?"

So it's a bit of a chore in some ways to try to get the chronology right. I think it'd've worked just fine if it were told in sequence - the odd chronology strikes me as gimmicky.

I was the lone vote (so far, at any rate) for Bruce Willis. Not that he's so much the best person in the film as I think this is one of his best performances (I also liked him in The Sixth Sense, In Country and 12 Monkeys. I thought he was somewhat going through the motions in The Fifth Element, although that's a pretty funky story so that redeems things). Oops, sorry for the tangent.

I haven't seen this movie,yet.
How late am I?

For sheer amazement, I don't see how this one can be beat. i'm not big on violent movies, but this one had so many breathtaking features, and the humor distracted from the violence to such a degree, that I simply had to excuse it. The sequencing of events was the thing that impressed me the most when I first saw the movie. It did not seem gimmicky to me. It seemed creative beyond imagination--that is my poor imagination. Also, I came away from the film with dialogue running through my mind. It was like when I was a kid and could come out of the most banal movie remembering everything that was said and done.

I've seen it twice, and am prompted to see it again. Sad to say, I have not been able to persuade my wife to watch it. Too much violence. It's her loss, poor thing.

Pulp Fiction was on TV again last Saturday night I tried not to watch it but could not resist. Personally I have found the movie completely surprising each time I have seen it. And I am always shocked at all of the juxtapositions I find the movie constantly evolving in my mind and I always pick up new stuff from depending on my mood I guess. In Ebert’s review he mentions the scene with Butch and his girl friend. Last Saturday was the first time I actually caught that dialogue and like the way it caused me to ponder over the difference between what you see and how you touch. I do believe the first few times I saw the film I was distracted by the fact that Butch says he is smelly, an understatement considering he has just been in a prize fight, and she says she like the way he smells. Then there are the miscommunications between the two of them. So now I am thinking that this scene uses language to invoke all five of our natural senses, sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. And I thought may be procreation, I expected her to say she was pregnant.

LW,why didn´t you include Christopher Walken in the poll?His cameo is one of the most memorable scenes in the film.

Part of the flashback chronology for me is that people like this are trapped in a world where time doesn't mean anything. It's a looping of events that gives you the answers before the questions -- "Memento" basically does the same thing but with the clues falling in place like a backward Hitchcock movie.

If you want to vote for Walken, I can add him -- I just didn't think anyone would vote for the minor characters like Tim Roth.

OK.But put Walken in the poll!!
Memento was very good I thought.Gripping stuff and something to really concentrate on.I think it was way to intricate to be compared to a Hitchcock film(who I adore).
Big Al would take you by the hand and just pull you through the film while you sat and ogled.Ok,"Frenzy" was different but I´ve always thought his films were straightforward film making by a master of the medium but I really am a big fan.I´m not poo-pooing his films at all.

Which Memento are y'all talking about? I have not seen this movie and more than one film called Memento came up when I used the movie link to seearch for information on it.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0209144

Thanks LW looks like a good one to rent for the week end.

Lihtwizard: I've been mulling "Pulp Fiction" over in my mind - looking at it from all angles - and saying to myself: "Everybody loved it. What's wrong with you?" Clever dialogue, yes, - dance scene, a gem, - characters, unique, - body cleanup - ugh!, a real stomach flip-flopper, but, I just didn't like the movie, and even though Ebert's and your comments are very enlightening and most persuasive, I'll pass on watching this one for the second time. I have no hesitation in casting my vote , however - Harvey Keitel -his scene impressed so much, my stomach gets squeamish thinking about it.

Keitel's peculiarly authoritarian and likeable but sociopathic, unctuous portrayal is certainly a high point of the film. I guess if one thought they might become desensitized to the portrayal of violence would not wish to watch the film multiple times. If one can say anything about it, it is powerful and provocative in its examination of that segment of our culture we know little about. "Traffic" also got down to the nitty-gritty with the approach of a realistic documentary without the sardonic humor.
The best films of this genre have to approach the confusion of its storyline with idea that much of it will have to remain confusing -- an enigma with characters interacting in chaos. This goes back to Raymond Chandler, doesn't it? The storylines aren't tied up in neat little knots because life doesn't get tied up in neat little knots and least of all in this very dark segment of society. This has been a trend in modern novels (John Irving), movies and TV series ("The Sopranos," "Six Feet Under" and with comedy in "Curb Your Enthusiasm"), and in film was explored many years ago in Italian and French cinema. "Pulp Fiction" tells a story in totally cinematic terms -- even, as suggested, if you were to read the script. Where a novel often makes a less than satisfactory film, "PF" would make a less than satisfactory book. Whether or not they were, the parts seem written especially for the actors in this film. I think it is an extraordinary experience but certainly one for a particular taste.