I simply could never see Blowout as John Travolta's
BEST role??? How? Why? He has had so many better roles;
no to mention Pulp Fiction - eve Grease was better than
Blowout. I mean Blowout WAS interesting, mildly, but
it wasn't all that.
I never even heard of Battlefield Earth...was I out of town
out of this world?
Face Off IS terrific, & a great action film - and John T
was so very very very nasty of a guy but somehow
you couldn't help but love him anyway. I thought he
and Nicholas Cage worked well together, but then Samuel
Jackson also worked miracles with Kevin Spacey in that
movie where Samuel Jackson as a cop, against all his crooked
fellow officers in The Negotiator.
"Grease?" He was reprising the role from "Welcome Back, Kotter" -- hardly a stretch for acting. Much more refined version of the same character in "Saturday Night Live" and then he torpedoes that and his career with the sequel (you're only as good as your last film). "Blow Out" might have been mildly interesting to you but it is likely Brian De Palma's best film and highly respected by other directors and critics. Travolta turns in a powerhouse performance in the movie. His performance is excellent in "Pulp Fiction" specifically in three scenes but for the rest of the film, Jackson upstages him (in a very subtle way, although he is given more of the great lines). It's really close between the two performances and "Pulp Fiction" is by far the better film so it's a subjective decision that I liked his performance in "Blow Out" better by a very slight edge. "Face Off" was too typically an action film with too much dialogue that was simply stilted for my ear. There were little bursts of bravura acting but it was difficult to distinquish what performance was which with the trick of the voices. Enjoyable film with a gimmick that I became weary of half-way through the film and just sat back and went with the action. "The Negotiator" was one of those films that got good reviews but somehow didn't do well at the box office. Jackson is just simply a more consistant actor who can buoy even an average film -- Travolta will never be able to do that.
Gotta squeeze Michael in there somewhere as well LW, he pulled that one off, IMO
Proved himself as a good comedian once again and carried the whole film with despite an uneven script. Not meaning to make a double entendre but the story would take off and then skid along the ground.
Been a while since I've seen Pulp Fiction.
Loved most of it, but actually couldn't watch the middle section - the attack in the cellar. Churned my stomache. Had to close my eyes & not see ..
That was a can't look but can't look away scene but pivotal to the story -- it vindicated Bruce Willis but what a way to get vindicated!
I agree with Craven--PULP FICTION is a poor movie. It uses violence as a cheap thrill for the audience. As such, it is pornographic. It is saying nothing, despite the pseudo-profundity of Samuel Jackson's religious speech in the diner at the end. The allegedly brilliant dialogue is really just smart-alecky, it doesn't illuminate character or create drama. Finally, it is impossible to give a damn about ANY of these characters. Tarantino is a grossly overrated director. If you look at the scene where Thurman and Travolta dance, you will see that he doesn't even know where to put the camera or how to cut the scene effectively. Tarantino is a barbarian posing as an artist.
You gotta' stop holding back there Larry.
larry r
I thought the violence was "pornographic", too.
Thanks msolga. I was starting to feel outnumbered!
This film is an exploration of the banality of violence and perhaps one could say of pornography if you consider the rape scene in the back room of the store. I don't know how one can characterize all the violence in the film as meaning something sexual. The film is not the least exploitive for me -- it's intent is to show how desensitized the characters are to the horror of violence. "Reservoir Dogs" was even more difficult to watch than "Pulp Fiction" and had less irony.
Calling the violence pornographic, sounds kinda' "poisenal" to me.
When I say that the violence in PF is pornographic I don't mean that it is sexual--although the rape scene is both. What I mean is that it is thrown in to tittilate the audience thesame way sex is used in pornographic films. Lightwizard claims the film is showing how desensitized the characters are to violence. Nonsense. The film is densitizing the AUDIENCE to violence by showing it in a nihilistic, comedic spirit--look, the guy got wasted! Isn't that cool/funny/weird? I repeat, Tarantino is a barbarian. Calling PF a great movie is n insult to the truly great movies that have been made in the past 100 years which have a moral vision behind them. PF is amoral and disgusting.
I have seen creative works that went beyond my personal standards of violence, morality, or whatever, but to dismiss the work as not being art, simply because it didn't comply with my personal standards, would be quite silly of me.
You can't judge art by your own standards. Well,you can but that leaves you pretty closedminded, to say the least.
"American Beauty", in my opinion, was even more horrific that PF. The performances were terrific, Annette Bening was scary-good, but I'll never watch it again. Too ugly.
The film is pie-in-the-face violence, a slapstick visualization of the common L.A. drugged out society of thugs. It's extremely stylized and the style can turn some people completely off -- same goes for "American Beauty." There is an element of watching an accident happen and not being able to look away. If one just doesn't get it has nothing to do with intellect -- it's on a more visceral level and has little to do with anyone's personal life (unless one idendifies with one of the characters -- Tarentino's character is the closest to a real person trying to cope with the insanity). That's why it's called "Pulp Fiction" and there is also the element of send-up of the pulp fiction crime novels. That it exposes a very unfortunate aspect of American life is revealing -- it's the antithesis of Shock Jock. It's making fun of the genre and tearing away the facade of the real purpose of things like unabashedly violent video games. What I was saying about Tarentino following up the act is still true. He won't be a one-trick-pony but he'll have to bear the film history brunt of perhaps being a flash-in-the-pan. Alan Ball who wrote "American Beauty" is busy showing he isn't a flash-in-the-pan with "Six Feet Under," one of the most intriging and watchable TV series ever. We'll all have to wait to see how they both fare in film history.
*I just can't understand how anyone could NOT grasp the
whole point of, the theme of - Pulp Fiction. To say that it
is a stylized drugs & violence movie is not true. It IS a
comedy. Granted it is comedy of a very new & fascinating
variety, but has already been imitated quite a few times,
take Magnolia, for example. The use of the format in Pulp
Fiction is a new, interesting way to experience a film. It
simply broke through an old barrier, like artists tend to do,
if they are any good. Something NEW comes out of it. This
way of film making is new. This particular comedy was an
astounding success since if flies in the face of the accepted
"current" way of movie making.
*How could anyone miss that one of the many central themes
of Pulp Fiction was about redemption, a very moving & real
sense of a spiritual experience, just boggles my mind.
How the fact that none of those bullets hit either of those
men actually made one of them THINK! He takes this to be
his moment of spiritual experience, of a miracle. When his
pal & partner ends up dead, not long afterward - his zeal
and his new decision didn't look so stupid after all.
*The sheer absudity of it all - the coffee shop discussion over
giving up "the job" and "walking the earth" all SEEN as being
a virtual "bum," a guy with no money, no job, no home, no
vast collections of material POSSESSIONS (as if what they did
was your typical 9 to 5 job; humor there) yet, once again
we are brought to the very cliff's edge of spirituality and the
prospect of jumping off the ledge to a world of trust, value,
and faith in something, in ANYTHING rather than what WE
TEND TO VALUE NOW!
*Perhaps one of the reasons that the movie makes some
of us squirm, or reject it, may be based more for its taking
us along, through the arena of spirituality, willing or not.
Maybe we recognize - in a not very conscious way, that our
culture and the way that we are living - doesn't work for us,
yet we are too scared to make a change. To make our
own culture, to create our own values.
no retort!!! since 3/8/03!!!
Well Babs,
...When you're that eloquent, and succinct, there's nothing left to say. But we're remiss for not saying that. I TIP MY HAT TO YOU!
You won't find a retort from me -- you've nailed it, Babs. It is a comedy of errors and providence owing a lot to, of all writers, Shakespeare. I understand why some aren't receptive to the film and why it appals their senses and I'm not really all that interested in changing their perspective.
