PULP FICTION
A film review by Jeffrey Graebner
Copyright 1994 Jeffrey Graebner
An odd trend in movies this year is good filmmakers paying loving tribute to bad art. Earlier this month, director Tim Burton's tribute to one of the worst filmmakers of all-time was released. Now with PULP FICTION, another hot young director, Quentin Tarantino, has paid tribute to some of the worst that literature has to offer. The result is an intriguing, unusual film that eventually is hurt by the fact that it emulates the lurid novels that inspired it a bit *too* well.
Tarantino's screenplay intertwines four different stories (credited to Tarantino and Roger Avery) only occasionally allowing those stories to intersect. The film occasionally shifts, sometimes awkwardly, to follow different stories. One story involves a couple of robbers/lovers (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) who decide to try and simplify their lives with a switch to robbing restaurants instead of liquor stores. Another story follows a hitman named Vincent (John Travolta) as he is required to take his boss' wife Mia (Uma Thurman) out to dinner while the boss (Ving Rhames) is out of town. A third story is centered around boxer Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) who fails to take a fall as ordered after being paid off by Rhames. Finally, the fourth story involves Vincent and his partner Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) as they try to clean up the messy results of a hit gone wrong.
The film does not attempt to tell these stories in a linear manner. The film is broken up into "chapters" much like a real pulp novel. It even includes cheesy chapter titles that are used to indicate the shift to a different storyline. The movie even doubles back on itself a number of times instead of allowing events to unfold in a chronological order. Like the novels that inspired the film, PULP FICTION largely abandons all the standard rules of structure and orders the scenes for maximum impact.
The cast works largely as an ensemble and the performances are without exception very good. Of course, pulp novels are not known for strong characterizations, but the actors manage to create some very distinctive and performances even with relatively little to work with. Many critics have discussed this film as being a "comeback" for John Travolta and it certainly is his strongest performance in a long time. His character is written as kind of a dim bulb, but Travolta manages to give him some distinctive personality. During one of the film's best sequences, Travolta and Thurman participate in a dance contest. It really comes through to the audience that he is having an absolutely terrific time sending up his earlier career.
Besides Travolta, Bruce Willis is probably the actor with the most screen time in this movie. Willis is another actor who often does not receive the respect that he deserves. He has occasionally made some poor choices when selecting movies, but his performances are frequently very strong. Without strong direction he does sometimes mug a bit too much, but Tarantino does a good job keeping him under control here.
Samuel L. Jackson is the actor who may end up benefiting the most from this film. He is given the most serious and most well-developed character here and gives a career making performance. Jackson has been solid in a number of high profile films (including JURASSIC PARK), but this is the meatiest, most interesting performance he has given to date.
Two of the film's most enjoyable performances are essentially cameos. Like in his earlier screenplay for TRUE ROMANCE, Tarantino wrote one wonderful, brief scene for Christopher Walken. I won't ruin anything by trying to describe his monologue, but it provides the film's biggest laugh. Harvey Keitel is also allowed to shine in a small, but pivotal role as a "problem solver". The role is basically a variation on Keitel's earlier role in POINT OF NO RETURN, but he plays it to the hilt. Other entertaining cameo performances are given by Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, and even Tarantino himself.
Tarantino's biggest strength as a writer tends to be dialog. This movie is packed with clever conversation. A number of cliched situations are livened up by the unusually sharp and memorable dialog. Tarantino perfectly captures the vulgar, profanity-laced dialog that is standard in pulp novels. Tarantino is also very good at capturing on film the lurid and vulgar tone of the individual scenes from a pulp novel. The scenes all *feel* like they came from an old-fashioned dime novel.
Despite the film's many strengths, it eventually is hurt by its very subject matter. The movie is full of interesting parts and pieces, but none of it ever really adds up to much of anything. This is generally true of the novels that inspired the film as well, but this leaves the viewer with kind of an empty feeling.
Another problem is that pulp novels tend to be best in small doses. The constant vulgarity and graphic violence tends to wear thin after a while and to become kind of tedious. At over two and a half hours in length, PULP FICTION goes on a bit too long. It is helped somewhat by the shifts from story to story, but it still becomes a bit headache inducing after a while.
One of the best ways to judge a film is to look at how well the movie accomplishes what it sets out to do and PULP FICTION really does succeed very well by this test. It is a *very* accurate recreation of the pulp novels that inspired it with all of their strengths and weaknesses. The movie goes on a bit long and it consists of a lot of interesting parts that never really come together all that well, but it is still a very interesting and worthwhile effort.
-- Jeffrey P. Graebner Columbus, Ohio
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews