T Nation

Movie time

I know that I am going to get flamed for this one, but I don’t care. Got in an argument with my boss over movies a while back. It is my contention that Pulp Fiction is over-rated. I just don’t think that Tarrentino(sp?)is that good of a director. He took a film that was way below average, moved the bits around, and everyone hailed it as a work of genius. Now I will admit that the dialog, especially Jackson’s is pretty good. Patricia? You’re normally the movie resource person out here. Does anyone out there agree with me, or am I just marching to the beat of a drum that no-one at all is playing?

While I personally don’t consider Pulp Fiction to be Taratino’s best, I do enjoy the “backward” way of the storytelling. Think about it. The narrative is not straightforward at all; however, in the end all the individual stories that make up this movie are tied up nicely. That is very difficult to do and not many directors could handle such a task and still make a decent movie.

Pulp Fiction is not overrated. It is above parr. As for the dialogue? Some of the wittiest around. To really test a movie, just sit back and close your eyes and just listen to the dialogue. Does it sound like a real conversation between two people? Or very forced? In some movies, you can just tell after which lines the scriptwriter is sitting back with total self-amusement in his brilliance. You don’t get this feeling with Pulp Fiction. The dialogue and the acting from which the dialogue is spoken from sounds/feels real. That’s the sign of a good screenwriter and director.

Tarantino use to work in a video store and loves to infuse his films with bits from all the movies that he grew to love. I think he’s a horrible actor and should stay behind the camera; but when he’s behind the camera and on, some really good stuff happens.

Patricia, prljam, what would you consider his best work? Just curious.

The mixed up way of storytelling in Pulp Fiction isn’t amazing, and some people hated it, but the dialogue was wonderful, relative to other movies.

Like the Coen Brothers and the Waschowskis, Tarantino’s first, Resevoir Dogs (IMO) is his best.

It’s just fresh stuff. Great homage to some older films; one in particular that isn’t my favorite Steve McQueen flick, but a good one nevertheless. And for freak’s sake, Steve Buscemi is so much fun in this flick.

As the above posters noted, Pulp Fiction had both excellant dialogue and a well tied together plot-- two things missing from far too many movies today. The dialogue was natural yet deep, and the method of story telling, the completeness in the apropriate areas gave the movie that rare aesthetic. In a good movie, nothing should happen without a reason. While you may not notice or understand the meaning at the time the element is introduced, by the end, or especially at the end, all should be tied together and made clear. Movie making is more than just visual metaphors and situational alliteration, there is a total aesthetic that needs to be considered in order for it to all be worth while. The big picture should be more than just the sum of the little picture.

I’m trailing off towards insanity, but one other gripe I have with movies is the pointless addition totally unnecessary and disruptive elements. “Example?” you ask. Why is it that even a minor fendor bender in a movie always seems to result in an explosion? Is this a common thing? It totally detracts from the reality that movies are suposed to be creating. Obviously the brilliant folks writing these scripts are not the most well educated in the sciences, as is shown by just about every action movie I ever see. It is one thing to have action hero doing super-human stunts and what not, but I’m awfully sick of third-grader quality elements added without any point which serve as nothing more than distractions and lessons about what science is not. You might say, “it’s suspended reality, retard. Do you criticise magic in LotR or the tech in Star Wars?” – No. That is supposed to be fantasy and sci-fi. The beauty of fantasy and sci-fi films though is that while they create a drasticly altered reality, they do so while retaining the most important elements in making the characters relatable-- human qualities and dynamics. My complaint is with films which are set in para-reality (for lack of a better term) but which manage to alienate the audience–or at least me-- by taking liberties with reality that don’t serve to convey any additional meaning. A well made film should have characters with relatable qualities and behaviors if generally not situations. The alternate reality which they seek to convey sh

Wow that’s an incoherent mass of drivle-- sorry–
Note to self, don’t post while drunk…

I don’t know about you guys, but I find myself quoting Pulp Fiction all the time…

“Zed’s Dead, baby”

“$5 milkshake? what, does it have bourbon in it?”

“Sewer rat might taste like punkin pie but you don’t see me eatin’ the filthy motherfucker”

I could go on for awhile, but I’ll spare everyone…
I agree with the whole close your eyes and listen theory Patricia had.

Another Movie that is good like that is “Good will hunting”