Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

Pulp Fiction review

Posted : 7 months ago on 27 August 2023 09:36

3 tane hikaye anlatıyo 3 hikaye birbirine bağlanıyo falan süper film adamı si*tikleri sahnede iyi güldüm


0 comments, Reply to this entry

One of the best films of the 90s

Posted : 1 year, 7 months ago on 16 August 2022 08:45

What can I say? This film is amazing, and I would go further and say it is my favourite Quentin Tarantino film, and one of my favourites of the 90s. The cinematography and scenery are spellbinding, and the soundtrack is brilliant, one of the best soundtracks in a Tarantino film actually. The plot is every bit as compelling as that for Reservoir Dogs, while the dialogue is endlessly quotable and quite hard-boiled. The direction is superb, as are the performances. As excellent as Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken are, the film's best actors are John Travolta and Samuel L.Jackson who are unforgettable. Pulp Fiction also has a wealth of characters and crossplots that is really quite astonishing. All in all, brilliant. 10/10 Bethany Cox


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pulp Fiction review

Posted : 3 years, 1 month ago on 20 February 2021 06:44

Ya habiendo hablado de Kill Bill, no sería una mala idea hablar de la obra más popular del director. Si bien fue Reservoir Dogs el primero que estableció el estilo narrativo de Tarantino, Pulp Fiction metió la vibra cool nihilista de “no importa lo que haga no hay consecuencias”. La ventaja frente a las demás es no ser un mero espectáculo de gore y sexo ¿De dónde creen que este sentido del humor edgy viene? Todos los personajes son criminales psicópatas que no les interesa ni la vida de sus madres. Eso va a chocar a la inmensa mayoría del público si no está dentro de ese estilo Rickimartin. Yo por mi parte no me sentí choqueado por lo que mencioné que la vida como la presenta no tiene sentido y la gente prefiere freírse el cerebro con cocaína, cosa que los mismos personajes están conscientes, pero por otra parte no me estaba riendo ya que su sentido del humor es hasta inexistente, casi ni pareciera que te quiere hacer reír sino reforzar que la vida es irreverente y en extensión los que se horrorizan son los espectadores y no los personajes. Esto por extensión se puede quedar en un punto medio por mi parte, no sé ustedes si es que poseen un sentido moral más rígido. 


Hay gore y sexo por supuesto, pero no es tanto el foco central sino sus personajes divertidos y cool. El cast es amplio y con personalidades, químicas y tratos carismáticos. Si nos ponemos a analizar a cada uno no son genuinamente interesantes, su destaque reside en sus experiencias, la adrenalina y las situaciones absurdas. Así que es una mezcla de ingenio con estilo. No es sólo ser edgy por ser edgy, es sobre ver cómo se las apañan los personajes para sobrevivir en sus delirantes vidas, y dentro de lo posible encontrar confort. Por lo menos la mitad de la película se va en dichos momentos, así que no es difícil no entender porque muchos se mantienen enganchados.


La otra mitad por el otro lado aburrirá a la mayoría a menos que tomes en cuenta la química. Como típico film del director, hay mucho dialogo que no es más que aire caliente. No significa nada por sí mismo fuera de ser fancy. Pero por lo menos sirve para la interacción de los personajes y no como relleno. Y claro, tendrás que tragar mucha información innecesaria, pero como bonus podrás divertirte con los personajes.


El gran truco que en verdad mantiene a la audiencia es que usa su desorden cronológico como gancho para saber el orden de eventos. En sí la trama podría basarse en ver como un evento está conectado con otro. Con ello eventos que en primera no parecen importantes o son completamente irrelevantes cobran un nuevo sentido en retrospectiva. Es en otras palabras un gran manejo de la estructura para confundirte en un inicio y posteriormente entretenerte con las acciones posteriores. Para el caso, no añade complejidad real. Si te lo pones a pensar es una estrategia sin uso argumental, por otra parte, no es usado como método de manipulación argumental y cada cosa tiene su debida conclusión. No hay cabos sueltos, la trama es enteramente conclusiva y holística, y los personajes concluyen sus arcos al final del cuento.


Si eres por otra parte superficial, la música y la actuación serán suficientes para que le des un 10/10. Pese a ser un film de bajo presupuesto y relativamente independiente tiene varias de las escenas más memorables y épicas de la historia del cine. Es imposible no encontrar un segmento o situación que no se haya quedado impregnada en la mente del público. La intro con su música y todos esos efectos baratos de power point fueron suficientes para ser referentes, etc, etc.  


Así que ahí lo tienen, está bien como schlock con ciertos rasgos de inteligencia como para poder ser considerada una buena película. Los personajes son lo suficientemente divertidos, la trama es lo suficientemente enganchante y entretenida, los stakes son altos, la acción es constante, los momentos inolvidables y la producción competente. 


Apartado visual: 9/10

Dirección general 2/2 (Tarantino)

Actuación 2/2 (profesional)

Escenografía 2/2 (mundana pero acorde)

Cinemáticas 2/2 (Tarantino)

Efectos especiales 1/2 (ok)

Apartado acústico: 9/10

Actuación de voz 3/3 (great)

Banda sonora 4/4 (todo el soundtrack)

Mezcla de sonido 2/3 (ok)

Trama: 7/10 

Base 2/2 (cool)

Ritmo 2/2 (ameno)

Complejidad 1/2 (fuera de las subtramas, no hay)

plausibilidad 1/2 (no mucha)

Conclusión 1/2 (cerrada)

Personajes: 7/10

Presencia: 2/2 (fuerte)

Personalidad 2/2 (divertida)

Profundización 1/2 (algo)

Desarrollo 1/2 (algo)

Catarsis 1/2 (al menos concluyen)

Importancia: 10/10

Valor histórico 3/3 (Todos la conocen)

revisita 3/3 (sí)

Memorabilidad 4/4 (sí)

Disfrute: 8/10

De mis favoritas del director

Calificación: 7/10 



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pulp Fiction review

Posted : 6 years, 2 months ago on 12 January 2018 10:56

Tarantino is fortunate to be one of the most overrated movie directors. This, like all his films, is more a good production, full of good performances and a high quality photograph, yes, it is incredible that in his films it seems that even the extras do very well, but, as usual, the plot is a jerk with a sense of morality that seems to be from some sect, or whatever ... Reasonable movie. This is the father of Kill Bill.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pulp Fiction review

Posted : 9 years, 8 months ago on 11 July 2014 04:30

One of the most entertaining movie. Tarantino rocks. I like the music used here. Liked the parts overlapping. In fact the movies last event was screened in the 3rd part's last scene in "The golden Watch". "The Boney Situation" is not just a flashback , maybe defined as s flashback from Future. 4 parts were good. Uma Thurman was nice. any awards?


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pulp Fiction review

Posted : 9 years, 11 months ago on 19 April 2014 09:38

What can I say, a cult classic that stands the test of time. So cool it hurts ,everyone in the film is a perfect casting, music score is superb and the one liners are still used today


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pulp Fiction review

Posted : 10 years, 8 months ago on 17 July 2013 04:38

Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is a film both monumental and immediately accessible, a 2 1/2-hour picture whose energy never flags. It's the movie equivalent of that rare sort of novel where you find yourself checking to see how many pages are left and hoping there are more, not fewer. The tone is darkly comic in the face of almost operatic violence, though only the most squeamish of viewers will be put off. With Tarantino we get violence as part of an impish vision of life in which anything can happen -- and does... Pulp Fiction is a picture that will stand up to repeat viewings.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pulp Fiction review

Posted : 10 years, 10 months ago on 3 June 2013 02:41

Review from [Link removed - login to see]

Pulp Fiction is a true celebration of cinema. It is the outcome of a mind who saw The Wild Bunch as a child, and one who worked as an usher at a porno theatre when he was sixteen. Quentin Tarantino has never lived for anything but film, and his second feature is well and truly the work of an ex-video rental clerk who spent his time going through the shelves. He can’t help but fill-out his films with reminders of pictures past and present. If cinema pastiche can be qualified as a genre, then Pulp Fiction is the number one entry. It also firmly added the term “Tarantino-esque” to the critical lexicon; though it is a very cine-literature work with allusions as far-reaching as Dashiell Hammett and the French New Wave, it is very much the logical progression of 1992′s Reservoir Dogs.

Both films open in sun-drenched LA coffee shops with shady individuals, although rather than a group of sharply dressed hoods, we find a couple. Thieves “Honey Bunny” (Amanda Plummer) and “Pumpkin” (Tim Roth) are in love and clearly bad news. They are an archetypal Tarantino creation; his scripts for True Romance and Natural Born Killers focused on a similar partnership. The dialogue fires and the seeds are sewn for a labyrinthine narrative of interconnected stories. (Listen carefully in the opening scene, and you’ll hear the distinctive tones of Samuel L. Jackson.) It already seems like a riff on his debut. But rather than tip the waitress and saunter out into the car park to a rocking golden oldie, Honey Bunny and Pumpkin proceed to stick up the joint. Tarantino is honing his auteurist notions as well as playing with our expectations. Following a wave of foul language, the titles kick-in to the sound of Dick Dale’s “Misirlou” and his gift as a filmmaker is immortalised.

Though he has attained his fair share of detractors in the last twenty years, there is little doubt in my mind that Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece. It moves like a dream. Pulp is two-and-a-half hours long but no one ever calls it slow. Dialogue and music power the film, not the plot(s). It’s all there in our introduction to hitmen Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Jackson). The oft-quoted “Royale with cheese” conversation still works because it informs us about the characters. We know these people before they unload their pistols on the pitiful Brett (an uncredited Frank Whaley). There’s some plot talk, sure, but mostly they’re just Average Joes doing a job. Hitmen are stock roles we’ve seen many times in Hollywood gangster films, but that knowing dialogue gives them an extra dimension. They’re culturally aware, and while you could argue that Quentin’s “natural” scripting is a little larger-than-life, it sounds right coming from Jackson and Travolta. Has anyone ever delivered his verbal sparring better?

Another thing that makes it a stylistic progression is the non-linear narrative. It was there in Reservoir Dogs but Pulp is his definitive use of the form. Like all of his films, there are vignettes or “chapters.” Q.T. has always been quick to point-out that his work shares a kinship with novels, and you can clearly see the ties to hard-boiled literature throughout. His work isn’t composed of flashbacks, as many wrongly call them; these chapters are a way of telling the story so that it makes the biggest possible impact. There’s a lot about Pulp Fiction that is conventional, and the fractured sequencing of events had been done long before it (see Citizen Kane or Rashomon), but no one uses a non-linear structure as well as Tarantino. It embellishes the shopworn Noir elements, and allows the film to be free in the choices it makes and to get as unpredictable as possible. This is a film where the coke-snorting “femme fatale,” Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman), refers to fellow addict Vincent as a square, only for the shape to magically appear on-screen. A film where the characters go to a 50′s-themed restaurant and dance the batusi to land a trophy. A film that uses old-fashioned rear-projection shots in driving scenes just because it can. Pulp Fiction is a Godardian romp and it’s difficult to imagine why some stuffy critics got so hung-up on the bloodshed.

Importantly, for Daily Mail readers at least, Pulp is a violent film. A promise from any of the director’s movies, it seems. But after almost two decades of upping the ante, this classic seems somewhat restrained. Tarantino’s zeal as a craftsman makes every moment hit hard, although some will be surprised at how much is implied on revisits. Brett’s death on the first go-around is composed only of close-ups of Vincent and Jules as they fire their weapons. Or what about the infamous incident with Marvin (Phil LaMarr)? The perpetually unlucky Vincent accidentally blows the poor bastard’s head clean off, but we don’t get a clear shot of the bullet entering his skull, just the Manga-level spray of blood that splatters the car windshield. It’s too over-the-top to be taken seriously. Imagine that scene playing out in the Kill Bill films and you can see how refined Pulp Fiction is and how much further the director has taken his Gonzo style over the intervening years.

Also look at the scene in which Vincent finds the OD’ing Mia on her living room floor. Due to a crafty bit of exposition early on, she has confused Vincent’s “Bava” heroin for cocaine. She’s his boss’s wife and Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) wouldn’t let Vince off the hook for that (we already know what he did to that Samoan for merely touching his wife’s feet). In a shining example of Tarantino’s ability to mix humour with pathos, the terrified hitman speeds her over to his dealer’s for a shot of adrenaline. Lance (a great Eric Stoltz) can only scream and shout with his wife, Jody (Rosanna Arquette), as they argue over who gets to plunge the needle into Mia’s heart. It’s still hilarious, although Q.T. builds the tension like a seasoned pro. Due to the late Sally Menke’s fantastic editing, we think we see the moment of penetration but we don’t. No matter how many times I see it, it still has the desired effect.

Such moments have branded the film as sadistic viewing, but Pulp Fiction is a very redemptive picture that offers hope to these despicable characters. The story following Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) is proof that Tarantino wanted to do more than line the film with shock content. On orders from Mr. Wallace, Butch was meant to go down during a fight but actually killed his opponent. When the big man finally catches up with Coolidge, the pair are inadvertently held captive by a crooked cop and a gimp, in what can safely be called a tribute to Deliverance. Butch gains the upper-hand and a chance to escape, but instead of leaving Marsellus to a grim demise, he does the right thing and saves his life. This shot at redemption is also shared by Jules, who, after a bout of “divine intervention,” decides to quit his life as a crime enforcer. Vincent dismisses his conclusion and ultimately pays the price. Who said Tarantino isn’t a moral filmmaker?

What’s left but to comment on the absolutely stellar acting, the peerless scripting, the perfect soundtrack selections, and the sheer cinematic joy in every shot? If you’re like me, you know Pulp Fiction like the back of your gold watch. Simply timeless.



Please check us out:
[Link removed - login to see]
[Link removed - login to see]
[Link removed - login to see]


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pulp Fiction review

Posted : 11 years, 2 months ago on 19 January 2013 04:05

Pulp Fiction

//Arriving in the midst of formulaic Hollywood offerings, Pulp Fiction was the perfectly cultish, quirky antidote to such mind-numbing fluff dominating the cinema; refreshing, bold and striking, it spawned many imitators. Despite its heavy prevalence upon dialogue and disjointed web of events sewn together in a non-linear narrative, audiences flocked and remain enthralled by it to this very day. Peppered with great moments eaten up by actors working at the top of their game (Travolta, Willis and Thurman have never been better, and the film created the aura of greatness that currently surrounds Jackson) Pulp Fiction is primarily successful because of its witty writing, pop culture-surfing, gleeful amorality, cult tuneology and hyperkinetic energy, redefining the crime genre for the foreseeable future. Its compendium format draws upon Black Sabbath and twisty-turny crime literature, but also European movies, Amsterdam and Hollywood history. Indeed, Pulp Fiction operates in the hinterland between reality and movie reality. Into a cadre of movie archetypes — the assassin, the mob boss, the gangster's moll, the boxer who throws a fight — Tarantino injects a reality check that is as funny as it is refreshing. Whereas most crime flicks would breeze over the rendezvous between Vincent and Mia, here we actually get to go on the date— polite chit-chat, awkward silences, bad dancing — before it spirals off into a drugged-up disaster. Just as Resevoir Dogs is a heist film where you don't see the heist, Pulp Fiction never shows its main plot points or their resolution, opting instead to present the audience with detailed conversations about food and Deliverance-style rape. Moreover, after Vincent and Jules take back Marsellus' briefcase, rather than cutting to a cop on their trail, we stay with them and revel in their banal banter as they dispose of a corpse (the genius of Keitel's Wolf in this effort is a moot point — how much intelligence does it take to clean a car, then throw a rug over the back seat?)Although it is termed a crime film, its audacious story dynamics and daring array of characters would prove otherwise generally speaking, since the criminal aspect of the film is never drummed into the mind of the viewer; they're too busy being entertained. What makes the film so great is that it wouldn't work in a linearity, in criss-crossing the exposition, Tarantino forges hooks of expectation and curiosity that pay off one by one in satisfying ways with continuous scenes that interconnect a whole nexus of underworld activity. Its killer dialogue is where its cult worship began, but Pulp Fiction is an equally stimulating visual experience; from the eyeful of Jackrabbit Slims to the magical square Mia draws to underline Vincent's geekiness to Andrzej Sekula's glossy, wide angled image-crafting, the look of it is equally as imaginative without ever calling attention to itself, pop art as film. Unfathomably cool and protean, Pulp Fiction is a wondrous masterpiece of post-modern cinema.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pulp Fiction review

Posted : 12 years, 4 months ago on 20 November 2011 06:01

Una película clásica de colección en la cual los personajes son todo lo que era menos pensado que fueran


0 comments, Reply to this entry


« Prev12 Next »