Actors - Samuel L Jackson, John Travolta, Bruce Wills & Others
Awards - Won Oscar & Others
One of the greatest crime movies with a comic soul. It’s the intertwined story of a gangster named Marcellus Wallace, two of his hit man and a boxer. The whole movie is based around Marcellus Wallace and his business. He is present only for a short moment of time but looms over the movie through other characters like two hit men and a boxer.
The movie is laced with supreme multiple characters and all equally strong as the other. The performances are top notch. Samuel L Jackson as Jules Winnfield being the bad ass hit man who is getting tired of his killing business. He is the strongest and the coolest character in the movie (also ever on the screen). John Travolta as Vincent Vega, ever anxious as child who doesn’t care much but respects everybody. Bruce Wills as Butch the boxer with a great devotion for the watch which has been passed anally from generations and finally gifted to Butch his dying father. Uma Thurman as Mia Wallace adds the required amount of bitchiness to her role which is appealing to the audience.
Pulp Fiction can be considered all together as a new genre of crime cinema where the story is told in a non-linear way. The entire movie is shot in 10-12 lengthy scenes. The long conversations and dialogues appear to be normal chit chat but are witty and entertaining. The long conversations provide the audiences more space to analyze the characters. The movie is full of digressions. Every dialogue and scenes are referred indirectly with reference to Pop culture. The subject matter is very coarse with blood, gun, drugs, homosexual and all sort of abusive, violent and graphic content present and perhaps this is the strong reason which makes Pulp Fiction an instant hit especially among the youth and the real Cine Buffs.
The movie is intricately layered with so many details. Straightness is never the art of Tarantino and this makes it impossible to gulp every detail of the movie in the first attempt. The conversation between the characters takes at a rapid pace so it takes multiple attempts to get into subtle details of the movie like the face of Samuel Jackson while drinking the beverage or be it the choice of the weapons by Butch from the junk shop or the funny dance sequence between MIA and Vincent. Still, in the end many questions remain unanswered like the contents inside the Suitcase, the appearance of GIMP, the intention of the Mexican driver and a shit load of other weird questions.
It is a very unconventional movie with no moment of boredom in its fast pace. When the movie ends the audiences are left yearning for more from the characters esp the COOL factor. The movie came as a great shot for the dwindling careers of Bruce Wills, Samuel Jackson and John Travolta. Samuel Jackson as Jules was voted as the second best coolest character to bless on screen ever.
Technically, the movie is superb with once in a life time screenplay (esp the Redemption quote from Jules), great acting, humor quotient, the music and esp the successful depiction of the COOLNESS factor through its gangster characters.
It’s a milestone in the history of Cinema which gave way to a whole new breed of cinema. The movie got nominated for so many Oscars yet it is astonishing that it lost out in every league except screenplay. Tarantio the genius is responsible for the movie which is co-written by Roger Avary. The duo also won the Academy award for best screenplay. Pulp Fiction will always be considered as Tarantino’s masterpiece and a work of a lifetime.
Go ahead and watch it to feel all together a new cinematic experience (A strict NO NO for people who hate violence, drugs, loud and graphic moments).
To get it straight this isn't a milestone nor did it deserved the Oscar. Technicality cannot be the leader as this one here majorly lacks the content. If using thousand times a day words like f***k and m**********r can make a movie a cult classic then there are thousands of Jason Statham movies loaded with both action and vulgarity, the best of it being Crank. I agree that it has best of it's moments with actors like John Travolta, Bruce Willis and Uma Thurman delivering powerful performances but where is the content??? Only chilling deadlock blood thirty conclusions cannot make a movie a milestone. Tarentino has his own world and he loves to portray it, but audience don't have that amount of patience to get to the conclusion and this is clearly displayed in his latest flick Inglorious Basterds... a cheap imitation of Pulp Fiction or may be Pulp Fiction - 2. And mostly there is nothing called COOLEST for Samuel L.Jackson, any good actor can make out what he has done in this one, nothing more than yelling the same words again and again. You can give it a try but don't expect big guns blazing...
+0
@ Barun written by Administrator,
November 07, 2009
I specifically mentioned this movie ain't for the people who hate violence, loud and graphic moments and may be its the cause you didn't liked the movie.
I am still wondering how can anybody compare Pulp fiction with Crank? Just uttering the word fu*k 100 times doesn't makes a movie eligible to be compared with Pulp Fiction at all. How do the gangsters/psychopaths behave and talk? In plain words or like characters of Ramanand Sagar's mythological serials?
I agree that there is very less content and is very clear from the name of the movie itself but again doesn't it glorifies the brilliancy & sheer bravado of the director to dare a movie without any content at all? As far as your point about content is concerned, does all movie needs to be preachy and intend to teach some lessons to its audiences? If its the case then again Pulp fiction doesn't qualifies.
As far as the cool character, I have quoted the results of a major cine survey, not my personal opinion. Had it been my personal choice Jules is always Numero Uno.
As far as tarantino type of movies are concerned, I agree that his genres of movies have never found mass appeal may be due to its long scenes and witty dialogues or no solid conclusion in the movies. I have never dared to concentrate my mind outta his movie for even a single second and that too for no solid content in his movies. This is the reason I just term this as the work of a pure GENIUS nothing else.
+0
... written by Mitrabhanu Mahapatraa,
November 08, 2009
Let me answer some of the questions raised in the article and the comments that follow 1. Is PF a milestone? Answer:- Not at all! The word milestone is a pretty weak word to define such a masterpiece. PF is a genre in itself. What Scarface started and what reservoir dogs developed, reached its zenith with PF, due to the sheer brilliance of QT and the actors.
2. Did it deserve Oscar? Answer:- I can't comment on it. I won't compare with other Oscar winners.
3. Does PF lack content? Answer:- Definitely not. It is not a movie that you have been watching; like some old pensioned off athlete inspiring somebody or some ship sinking into the fathom or some weird super hero saving a weirdly named city. PF is a poetry that leaves many things to the imagination of the viewers just like the poetry that leaves many things to the imagination of the reader. That's why it is named as fiction and it is pulp. For example, how are you going to interpret the content inside the bag that Travolta and Samuel looking for? Is it gold, diamond, cocaine, some magic stuff, a 1000 watt bulb or something spiritual stuff? How are you going to interpret the characters of Travolta or Samuel or Bruce Wills? For me the first represents a person enmeshed in the fight between "me" and "I" (the freudian syndrome), the second was a victim of disarticulated spirituality with the overtone of violence and racial discrimination (a complex personality with many syndromes), the third one is the epitome of present, live for the present, die for the present and kill for the present. Uma thurman?--> a fight between love, passion, drug and feel of non-existentialism. I interpret in this way. Very less movies show so much of character in them. Rightly, the less you speak the more you convey.
4. Was the F words necessary? Answer:- They are said not for nothing. They are the key to enter the character that QT wants to show. But like always he is no direct player. Each Mo**** F****r has different meanings but sadly enough we think all are the same
5.Why audience does not have patience to go to conclusion? Answer: I don't know. But I can name quite a few who love to see PF 1000 times to make out 1000 different meanings. Any way not everybody likes poetry either.
6.Is inglorous basterd a sequel/imitation to PF? Answer: I have not got a chance to see it. I can't comment. But as far as I know PF can't have a sequel, as poetries don't have one.
7.Was Samuel jackson coolest? Answer: For me YES HE IS. My other three favorites are Brad Pitt in Fight Club, Brad Pitt in Snatch and Johny Depp in Pirates (1st part, despite his over acting)
P.s. PF means Pulp Fiction QT means Quantine Tarantino
Movie Blogs 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
