Throw Your Pulp Fiction Criticisms At Me!

Tools    





I'm writing an article on the common criticisms of Pulp Fiction, one of my favorite films, and I can only think of two: the structure and the random conversation. Can you help me think of others? Please make them more personal than a small movie-making goof.



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



I'm writing an article on the criticisms of Pulp Fiction and I can only think of two: the structure and the random conversation. Can you help me think of others?

Well the scene with the bullet holes that show up




You can also get into the moral corruption of the individuals involved(Travolta, Weinstein, Avary)



I'm not looking for morale differences between a moviemaker and a role. Besides, the bullet hole is so minor for a mistake.



Welcome to the human race...
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say it's got something to do with how you're crowdsourcing material for this article from the rest of us instead of just coming up with your own.
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, I’m thinking about you.



All good people are asleep and dreaming
You're gonna have to explain that.
We've got a whole massive thread about the larger topic of homage/theft in movies, right HERE. Of course Tarantino comes up a lot and is a prime example.

My problem with Quentin's heavy borrowing isn't in the borrowing itself but that so many of his younger fans are so undereducated in film appreciation that they don't realize how much of it is going on, thus he gets credit for a level of originality he simply doesn't posses. Quentin is always quick and happy to acknowledge all of his influences and the specific films, but since he often chooses more obscure cinematic reference points, even those who have a fairly good amount of movie knowledge may miss them and won't even know to ask the questions.



The example I always use is the scene where Uma Thurman's Mia Wallace ODs in Pulp Fiction and the adrenaline needle to resuscitate her. The idea of it and the action of the scene, almost exactly beat for beat right down to the use of a magic marker, are taken from an obscure rarely-seen (still not on DVD) documentary Martin Scorsese made called American Boy: A Profile of Steven Prince (1978). To be sure Quentin added his visual flair and his own dialogue and characters, but the scene and the idea are lifted entirely from Scorsese. There's nothing wrong with that, but since even most Scorsese fans haven't heard of much less seen American Boy, the scene in Pulp Fiction seems more original and creative than it is.

.

I haven't seen American Boy: A Profile of: Steven Prince and give all the credit to Holden Pike.



Also answers to Jabba
I'm writing an article on the criticisms of Pulp Fiction and I can only think of two: the structure and the random conversation. Can you help me think of others?
If by random conversation you mean the dialogue that seems to levitate around trivial and unconnected topics, I would argue that this is what makes the film and Tarantino in general great.


The structure is not a flaw in my opinion either. It is consistent with the theme and title of the film and is also quite refreshing and different from the highly structured films that we are used to.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Funny how every "criticism" pointed in the thread are not really flaws of the movie. In fact, most of them are what makes it great.

In what intends to be Pulp Fiction is nearly a perfect film. It's not if you look at it the same you would look at a Tarkovsky's film.



A system of cells interlinked
I'm writing an article on the criticisms of Pulp Fiction and I can only think of two: the structure and the random conversation. Can you help me think of others?
But the structure and random conversation are two of the more entertaining aspects of the film. Why would you criticize those specifically? I would second Holden's point about leaning too heavily on other source material. Tarantino skates the line between homage and plagiarism quite a bit, and sometimes it;s hard to see the difference between a respectful homage and a heavy-handed attempt to ride the coat tails of greater directors.
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



I think people are getting confused. I love the movie a lot, but I#m talking about CRITICISMS, not FLAWS. I want them to be more personal than just "bullet hole is already there." And I need multiple opinions on it to write the article. I think Pulp Fiction is perfect, so I have no criticisms about it. I can't ask myself.



I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say it's got something to do with how you're crowdsourcing material for this article from the rest of us instead of just coming up with your own.

What about that scene with the CGI dinosaurs? totally unneeded if you ask me and did we need to see Travolta surfing in the post credits scene?



I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say it's got something to do with how you're crowdsourcing material for this article from the rest of us instead of just coming up with your own.

What about that scene with the CGI dinosaurs? totally unneeded if you ask me and did we need to see Travolta surfing in the post credits scene?
Ok, I'm very confused.



I'm not looking for morale differences between a moviemaker and a role. Besides, the bullet hole is so minor for a mistake.
QuentinTarantino’s acting! Very jarring! Someone please edit him out.
Yup, that's exactly what I was going to say.

On a moral note as the OP asked for: we have a director that allowed his personal vanity to override the integrity of film making, when he decided to include himself in the world of Pulp Fiction, and that's one flaw in an otherwise brilliant film. Tarantino can't act and is not an actor, his segment in the film brings the professionalism level down a couple notches and as a film maker his dedication should have been completely to the film, and not to his own personal whims to 'play movie star'.



movies can be okay...
The Bruce Willis segment isn't nearly as engaging as the rest of the film, and this is coming from a guy who'd give Pulp Fiction a 10/10 if it weren't for it. I haven't seen the film in quite some time, so I can't really delve into specifics about my lack of engagement throughout that specific episode, but I do remember being annoyed by the characters, and especially the girlfriend. It was overall just a downgrade from everything else.
__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."
- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke



BearSkinBathRobe's Avatar
"That may be, but I've got the Falcon."
I only got one question..........



Seriously, though. It always bugged me that they never showed the contents.
__________________
"They knew and they let it happen! To kids!"-Spotlight
https://tinyurl.com/ruffalospotlight



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
I think my criticism is not just this movie but Tarantino movies in general. He uses entertainment and music as a leverage for weak plot structure. Everything is so damn convenient in his movies. He skips the hard part of film making and jumps straight into the meaty scenes only. The trick is to make boring things entertaining.

For example in the big kahuna burger scene Samuel L Jackson shoots at the guy on the couch and by the reaction of the guy in the chair that was meant to be a kill shot. But we hear no screaming from the guy who has been shot close to his groin area. Because he didn't want to break the tension in the scene. That's a cheap directorial choice. he wants Samuel L Jackson to keep his cool.