I asked you to look, so I looked. But then again, the situation is that I don’t understand why most of this film is “tricky”.
What is the genius of Tarantino? In unremarkable dialogue? Crime in bright colors? Outright rudeness? So, sorry for the expression, shit in the world and so full.
Yes, there is also genius in famous actors, where without it.
Frankly, I do not understand this thirst of the human race for "matyuks, murders and naked boobs" (to the latter, of course, I understand, there are no questions). But in the film, there is little special: actors, a couple of interesting thoughts in the whirlpool of dialogue, staging, and everything. The rest is not interesting to me personally.
I understand that I do not understand and do not understand the people to whom this comes, I do not understand them, everything is mutual. But if you put your preferences aside and look at everything in the film frankly: is it cool? Murder, abuse, drugs, crimes are such and in itself a rampant lifestyle is very not cool.
Therefore, in my opinion, the significance of this film is small and overestimated, respectively. Yes, there are some interesting things about Samuel Leroy Jackson’s character: you need to see the signs, because there is always a chance of settling down. For, as I wrote earlier in one of the reviews, the path along such a slippery path will sooner or later lead to a rough end of existence.
So, yes, if you, a person who is alien to rudeness and dirty forensics, then I do not recommend watching. If this happens to you (which I do not understand), you can see where to go.
5 out of 10
The cult film of one of the best directors of our time. The film has been distributed to quotes and memes around the world. However, so that after watching you do not regret the time spent, you need to listen very carefully to each dialogue in order to capture the full meaning of what is happening on the screen.
First of all, it is worth noting that Tarantino very talented mixes comedy with crime, doing it through live conversations of the main characters. For me, that’s the genius of the director. He ridicules the component of the criminal world, laughs at the banal stereotypical type of communication, whether it is formal situations or everyday. In the main characters, we observe typical behavior in various environments, which they turn into black humor.
A huge plus of the movie is that this is not another bombing at each other, but a very good gangster tape with its philosophy, which is embedded in literally every phrase. That is why the film is one of the best in its genre. To some, it may seem too boring and long, and with high probability it will be due to the fact that the tape does not look like a typical crime movie. Here there is something to think about, the themes of morality, loyalty, search for oneself and life meaning are raised.
Pulp Fiction is certainly a picture that is the solid directorial handwriting of Quentin Tarantino. Especially if you are not familiar with the work of this director, then this masterpiece is quite suitable for acquaintance with the works of the great master of criminal dramas. In the film, he uses his favorite techniques, such as the lower angle or the Mexican dead end.
Summarizing all of the above, we can come to the conclusion that this picture is not a template film, which is very much aestheticized violence and blood. It's a very interesting mix of humor and irony with a bloody postmodern action movie.
Criminal fiction is a picture that has undoubtedly become a legend of world proportions. This film, truly awarded the title of “Immortal film”, it is a picture that shocked the whole cinema to such an extent that it is subject to heated discussion to this day. Quentin Tarantino created a masterpiece for all time. But why did I love this painting so much?
First of all, the cast. The cast in Pulp Fiction is selected perfectly, harmoniously, in the best way. Tarantino has assembled such a lineup, thanks to which the film deserves special praise. The coherence of the actors, their beautiful interactions, harmony raised the film to the level of “cult”. At the same time, the acting itself is worthy of great admiration. Tarantino is a brilliant director and screenwriter.
Of course, the musical accompaniment is beyond praise. Music in the film plays an important role, it creates the right atmosphere, accurately conveys the spirit of the time and makes you review the film hundreds of times. Tarantino designed the picture with music so that for the sake of this music I want to watch the film.
Well, the script of “Pulp Fiction” is something beyond the real, unimaginable. The development of events, the selection of dialogues, the composition amaze with its genius. With each new frame, admiration and stunnedness grows exponentially, Tarantino’s idea evokes unrealistic emotions. There is no time in the film when it is not interesting to watch it. The film is truly unique and unique, especially due to the unusual construction of frames.
In conclusion, I want to say that every time you watch a film, you discover something that you have not seen before. That fact is astounding. Quentin Tarantino is a master who creates cinematic diamonds.
To forget something so intriguing is a futile undertaking.
Local Bonnie and Clyde are about to rob a restaurant. Two fellow bandits go on a case, discussing European fast food and gossip about the boss's wife, and Bruce Willis insulted the same boss at a boxing match and flees the city with his girlfriend.
Yeah, there's a story. Interesting? Nope. Does that ruin the movie? Not really.
All the beauty of Pulp Fiction is not in the tension of escaping from the city of Bruce Willis, not in unexpected moments from gang violence. Yes, there are surprises, but they are not made to complicate the plot, but for comedy. Interesting story - not about this movie. He had no intention of doing so.
“Pulp Fiction” was a very light work, which is just right for a cozy autumn evening Friday. Relax on the couch, chill with the cat, listen to talk about life from the script of Tarantino - this is how to watch Pulp Fiction if you do not smoke grass and live alone.
Every scene from Pulp Fiction is a moviegoer's paradise. It is difficult for a person without the appropriate education to emphasize all the directorial techniques of Tarantino, which refer to the classic works of his favorite genres, especially given the fact that my tastes in cinema differ from Tarantinovsky, which I will not say about musical taste. However, the way Quentin shoots is divine. Every shot is a masterpiece. Each scene looks beautiful. And the soundtrack with 20th century American hits, which I love, is not even discussed. Amazing. However, to talk, except for the joy of the eyes and ears, discussing this film, especially and nothing.
An improved version of Pulp Fiction is Tarantino's latest film, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Yes, there is no atmospheric criminal entourage, but the film is more beautiful, the plot is more interesting, the characters are more interesting. There are fewer cult scenes, perhaps. But to call mediocrely related cutting of stunning scenes a masterpiece of cinema I would not. Only the genre of comedy is suitable, but this is not the case.
The characters aren't particularly surprising either. They turned out to be colorful and charismatic, but, as individuals, they did not particularly open up, and if they opened up, then I did not see anything mega-interesting in them. However, the prestigious cast and interesting dialogues helped create iconic images of cinema. This is a great achievement, by the way.
One of the most beautiful films in the history of cinema, which without a wrapper is simply the cutting of interesting dialogues of charismatic characters.
One of the most important achievements of nineties cinema was also one of the most influential. It spawned a huge number of shameless film robberies, revived John Travolta's dormant career, ushered in Samuel L Jackson as a powerful actor, gave Bruce Willis one of his best roles, and provided the internet with memes for years to come. The dialogue is sharp, the execution is flawless, and the plot twists are constantly surprising. A fundamental example of filmmaking perfectly reflects its era and the spirit of the times, as well as strangely timeless, in terms of a non-criminal, postmodern and dark-comic approach. All this Pulp Fiction is the work of Quentin Tarantino’s New Style punk virtuoso.
Through a series of seemingly random events, a group of disparate characters discover that their lives are deeply and deeply connected. And each person turns from what he was once into something else. The lucky ones are chosen alive. For example, a young couple talks about their employment opportunities, until suddenly viewers realize that up to that point their careers were all about shop robbery. Or think of two well-dressed gentlemen driving as they chat about the differences between Europe and America. Their conversation becomes devilishly sarcastic when they suddenly stop and open the trunk to get a weapon. Tarantino wants us to value words, naturalism. As soon as viewers get lost in conversation, the characters do something that shocks that very viewer.
It is surprising that the director with such a visual flair is very interested in the literary component of the picture. Tarantino offers actors dialogue and monologues, which are usually only found in the theater. He directs with such enthusiasm and adds so many eccentric characters that his film just flies by in the blink of an eye. Watching Pulp Fiction, you don’t just immerse yourself in what’s happening on the screen – you get drunk from it, rediscover how enjoyable cinema can be.
The 1995 Oscars became a distinguishing feature in cinema. Either you were a Pulp Fiction fan or a Forrest Gump supporter (the third option was less prevalent). Another mistake of the Oscar committee was to award Robert Zemeckis as the best film of the year. But “Forrest Gump” is an ordinary middle film, a fairy tale about Ivanushka, a fool who manages everything in the world without much effort. In contrast, he was presented with an innovative, unlike anything else masterpiece Tarantino. 'Forrest Gump' secondary - 'Pulp Fiction' is unique.
This work is such a dizzying life force that not only will you not notice its shortcomings, you will be forced to accept them. It's the cinematic equivalent of that rare novel where you catch yourself checking how many pages are left and hoping there are more, not fewer. Pulp Fiction is a vast, irritating crime compilation that many have emulated, that will never be surpassed, and that remains the pinnacle of pop culture perfection.
Quentin Tarantino's film career began in the early nineties, and before the release of his magnum opus made the film "Reservoir Dogs", while being a video rental worker. And by virtue of the same circumstance, he had great intelligence, so his debut is still highly rated and analyzed as carefully as the main film of his career. But the most amazing thing is that he flies into the pantheon of cinematic celestials with the following picture. Every subsequent film is seen as an event. Tarantino is currently working on a final film, titled The Critic, because he has something to say about it. After this weighty word, he will finally go into writing and script work. And it would be good, because films that are strong from this point of view now and with fire can not be found. A new viewing of the tape is carried out immediately, and therefore I am ready to share my impressions of what I saw and some thoughts on this matter. Prepare drinks, we begin the review.
A narrative criterion or narrative. Three story lines, three stories, united by a couple of main characters. Vincent Vega and Dougles Winfield work as killers for Marcellus Wallace, a local crime boss. The first story about Wallace’s wife, Mia. Which interests Vincent to his heart and helps her in the most critical moment. On the other hand, the boxer Butch, who refused to merge the fight and rowed because of this problem, and the third story is a failed robbery. But when you reduce Tarantino’s script to such simple definitions, it seems to be losing its value. A complex or simple script in a film is like complex or simple music. Three chords against four tracks with orchestra and several octaves. It’s like a linear narrative versus a nonlinear narrative that doesn’t add up to a schema from one acquaintance. And when such a scheme as a result does not develop, it is difficult for a person to perceive what he saw. The same goes for jumping from one story to another. For the ease of perception of these transitions, connecting heroes are used. They are the main ones and the viewer sees the space with their eyes. That allows him to join the game and collect the overall story piece by piece. Plus great dialogue, the beauty of which is that they are about everything. In the course of the story, the characters live their lives and talk about different topics. Find out the name of the burger with French cheese, a favorite quote from the Jules Bible and the difficulty of coping with the anger of the righteous. All this fits perfectly into the style of the story and decorates it. Making meaningful value.
Visual criterion or technical support of the tape. Every shot of this tape is priceless. They have a life not artificially created, the heroes do not break away from reality. Each of us could be in a cafe for a morning breakfast, the characters of the tape live an artistic life, while not breaking away from the general realist context. Discuss movies, read books and frame built accordingly. The operator sets the angle in such a way that it is interesting to observe what is happening. Landscapes are few, but the foreground and background alternate as the significance of the events taking place. I will also mention the shooting and all the dynamic scenes. More specifically, the level of blood. Fountains of blood, bullets and two men in black with guns, which adorn almost every gif about modern analysis of criminal fiction. Plus, each such frame in itself deserves to become a decoration of your desktop. The soundtrack here fits coolly into the atmosphere, but it has one feature. It is compiled from existing songs, not written by a composer.
The acting is great. Everyone is in his place, everyone can feel well. But Travolta and Jackson made up a great screen tandem together. Their whole branch could pull on a cool badie-movie. Artemy Veselov and Sergey Kozik perfectly fit into the different characters of their characters. The talkative Jules and the more restrained Vincent are good at cannon. Bruce Willis as a boxer. The world does not save, but it does not climb above its role, at moments shows a good comedy and can in emotions. Wing Rhames is complicated for a crime boss. Wulf was played by Harvey Keitel and this is one of his best roles. Good manners, pedantic and does not like empty words. Evgeny Ganelin gave him his voice, in my hearing the union happened.
Cinema has not just become a cult. Tarantino showed that the mass viewer is ready to perceive a complex form with great content. This film has its own style, its own charm, its own atmosphere. It was from this film that the scripts were taken more seriously and a whole wave of creators appeared who tried to adopt the Tarantino method, but not all of them succeeded. I recommend the film to acquaintance connoisseurs of the director’s creativity and nonlinear narratives. All health, peace and good cinema.
The scene with Uma Thurman’s milkshake is amazing, only because of this scene stopped and watched the whole movie. or the last scene in the cafe of two killers tragicomedy, wouldn’t be so fun if it wasn’t so sad.
For some time now, Quentin Tarantino has been devoting his creative genius to writing, which is not surprising given the place he put on the script when creating his films. As the practice of recent years shows, there is not a single person in Russia and the CIS who has not heard anything about Tarantino or seen any of his films. To Tarantino, as a director, I have a positive attitude, because all his films, despite the presence of black omens, have always been distinguished by a visual style and a well-developed script, which, having at its core even the most battered entanglement, twists into those matters that you will never think about if you are not directly pointed out to them. And therefore, as a bright representative of the postmodern approach in cinema, he again turned to perhaps Tarantino’s best film – Pulp Fiction. Acquaintance with the tape is carried out, then I will share with you impressions of what I saw and some thoughts on this matter.
A narrative criterion or narrative. I will not even try to characterize the plot in general terms, since this is not necessary. Here are three stories, united by the same characters, wandering from one story to another. All these three small stories together make up one big story. The novelty of the tape is that up to this point the script was built on a linear principle. Go from point A to point B, find the treasure and save the princess. Or the narrative of comedies, when a lazy person who smokes weed and plays console, becomes older, fights for the heart of a beauty and becomes a better person. These are few of the varieties of character development arcs. In this film, Tarantino made the viewer not just observe, but participate in the story, collect disparate fragments into a single narrative space. There are also many references to popular culture, not necessarily modern. And with all its innovation, the script works as a purely genre, since the criminal part of the tape also turned out to be worthy. And not the last role in the creation of the same color was played by replicas, which Tarantino has always been distinguished by luxuriance and sharpness. The paradox is that the tape with a huge number of quotes itself went to quotes.
Visual criterion or technical support of the tape. With the style in the narrative plan dealt with. Now look at the visual solutions that support this style. It is worth saying that the operator managed to correctly build the frame in such a way as to saturate the frame with the content and details of the environment, because the finding of any object in the frame should not be accidental. With a movie picture with light gloss notes in the frame, a sense of vitality is still caught, just because shooting on nature does not have to be overloaded with computer graphics. I also consider the credits of this film one of the brightest in all cinema. Someone just likes to design beacons in a beautiful font, and here even the usual background exudes blood, although it is more aesthetic than slasher. I can’t help but mention the shooting scenes. Each scene is accompanied by some element of presentation. One of the highlights here is Dujles' monologue about religiosity with a burger in hand. It would seem ridiculous in life. But in these particular circumstances, that seems to be the intention. Tarantino is no less of a genius than any Nolan, if not more. But here's the point. It is also impossible not to mention the magnificent musical accompaniment, where each melody perfectly fits into the atmosphere, and many musical themes at different times were guests of your playlist. If I remember correctly, this is the very first film in which there is no specific composer. Which also distinguishes the tape from many others.
Acting work also fits perfectly into the narrative space of the script. Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta were able to create a surprisingly strong chemistry between their characters, since their philosophical disputes are no less fascinating to look at than the bloody muzzle. And they perfectly embodied the element of "Badi Movi". Evidence: They are friends, they have different views on the same phenomena and generate high quality humor. This is not the whole film, but only part of it. But this is one of the best pieces of the mosaic. In our dubbing, they speak with the voices of Artem Veselov and Sergey Kozik, both of whom fell well into the characters. Harvey Keitel played the same cleaner who does his not-so-clean job with the peace of an aristocrat. And in this way the actor is good.
As a verdict. The tape became a cult, and for good reason. After all, here the plot is fascinating, the characters are bright and juicy, a lot of dirt and black. But here is the case when it is a stylistic tool, and not an end in itself. I recommend acquaintance to connoisseurs of the creative handwriting of the director and catchy stories. All health, good and good movie!
Criminal Fiction is a cult film that glorified Quentin Tarantino and cemented his unique directorial style. Watching this movie is a pleasure, because it causes a lot of emotions and makes the viewer think. The plot tells us three stories: about Vincent Vega and Jules, about Butch and Marcelas Wallace, about Vincent and Mia. And each of them has its own narrative, its own humor and cult scenes that are very firmly rooted in the mass consciousness. Personally, I can’t single out a single storyline because I like everything. I can mention my favorite scenes. In the story of Vega and Mia, the best scene is the dance (Turman and Travolta did it at a height), in the story of Vega and Jules, I was most interested in the episode in the cafe, but in the third story I was most interested in the finale. If we talk about the philosophical subtext of the film, it makes us think about God and fate. The most interesting thing is that the film itself answers these questions. Speaking about the scenery, I want to thank the authors, because they very meticulously reflected the era, clothes, cars and fashion trends of that time. However, there is a huge tribute to the classics, because there are many references to the golden '60s in cinema. For example, the "Skinny Rabbit" cafe. There’s some really cool music in the movie that’s nice to hear if you’re a retro fan. Humor and dialogue in the film are very peculiar, but funny (do you speak English, dialogue about foot massage). All this creates the corporate style of Tarantino. I was also very interested in the acting of Travolta, Thurman, Willis and L. Jackson, because right from the frame you can see that they play with soul. Tarantino has a very cool role, I don’t know why he considers himself a bad actor. In short, I recommend watching the movie.
Tarantino gave us a masterpiece that can last 2.5 hours and fly in 5 minutes at the same time. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Pulp Fiction constantly keeps the viewer in tone. Only dialogue can be listened to at the repit. And the film after more than 10 years and did not answer the question of what was in the suitcase.
In my opinion, the success of the film was determined by a very strong cast. Samuel L. Jackson, Travolta, Thurman, Willis. In due time, each of these actors will be the headliner of world cinema. And here they all play in the same movie.
The film does not have a specific plot, rather it tells a few short stories. About boxer Butch and bandits named Jules and Vincent Vega. The second is one of the funniest characters in all cinema. Vega doesn't joke, but Tarantino was able to make it funny. What are the only scenes of interaction between Vega and the boss's wife? An awkward moment at an awkward moment.
The cinematography and scenery in the film is also on top. We see 90s Los Angeles in all its glory. However, Tarantino pays a huge tribute to the 60th. You can see it in the places where the heroes are. What it has to do with it is not very clear, but it is. The apogee of tribute to the retro style is the song "Never Can Tell", which plays in the most famous scene of Pulp Fiction.
Dialogue in Pulp Reading is the highest kind of humor. Heroes can talk about awkward silence, hamburgers, God, etc. Every conversation is as fun as possible. After all, Tarantino has a uniquely brilliant sense of humor. At the end of the day, I will say that this film is worth watching for the sake of a scene with the dance of Travolta and Uma Thurman.
How many years have passed, and the movie looks good. Tarantino is a sick bastard, romanticized in murder and violence. About the insight of the main character and his transformation at the end - well, that. On the screen, OK, but in real life, you never saw it. Maybe thank God.
I've never seen any of this director's "cult" films before. I’ve heard a lot about Quentin Tarantino, the perfect director. Genius, deeply influenced the culture of cinema, aki Cameron 2.0.
For these statements, by the way, I had never seen his paintings before, except I saw the second half of Kill Bill when I was a kid. The movie was cool. Having found the scene of the sortie from the grave, I assumed that many people liked the film, and the acting and directing was great. That's what it was. I don’t know the plot of Kill Bill, I don’t know what the prerequisites are, and I haven’t even read the reviews of this film, but I liked it, even though I didn’t understand anything.
I see the same paradox in this picture. "Top 250 on KinoPoisk", "Golden Palm Branch" and all that.
But what's the paradox? When a thing begins to be “cult,” most people begin to perceive it differently. If I lay down the stick, you will be ready to kick it, but if I say that the stick is straight from antiquity or even primordial, then you will not start guarding it as your property, but even be afraid to touch it.
That's the paradox. In my opinion, the film is slightly overrated for its status. A loose narrative in Tarantino’s style might startle someone at first. But this only helps to focus on the picture and go into detail as much as possible. Moreover, many moments for my stupidity I would curse, if not for the plot twists.
“Philosophical dialogues” and “priesthood” themes are bullshit. Unfortunately, that has to be admitted. The work “Death Parade” – and it carries more philosophical themes than this picture.
In principle, this review is neutral, because the idea itself is sluggish and tedious.
If the theme of the film was a question, saying, “I’m a creature trembling or have the right” – then no, fire me! It was possible to wrap up a great dialogue and a great plot with such and such actors and with such a picture, but alas and ah, and other than two and a half hours of heroin, powder, cigarettes and everything else I did not get. In addition, I was waiting for “God’s Moral” that I was so much waiting in a film about crime.
I recommend watching this work, because it is in no way addictive, and to get acquainted with Quentin Tarantino and the culture of cinema, it is quite suitable!
"If you play with matches, remember that you can get burned."
In his film, Tarantino very clearly demonstrates the formula action-result - certain actions lead to their corresponding consequences. But here we talk about both bad things, from the point of view of society, and good things.
Drug addicts grow old, killers die, and saviors will be saved.
The valuelessness of human life, its inversion, and fatality are the most important thoughts of the film. Life is so multifaceted and unpredictable that everything can change literally in one moment: today you are on horseback, everyone fears and respects you, and tomorrow you become a victim of rapists, accidentally getting in the way; today you are a drug addict, leading a loose lifestyle, and tomorrow you have an accidental unintentional overdose; today you take lives with your usual indifference, and tomorrow, with the same indifference, due to bad luck for you, you lose it.
And only Good deeds in "Pulp Fiction" Characters Consciously, : saving the enemy, whom you were recently ready to kill, for which he forgives and gives you life in return; to cope with yourself in a moment of anger and not to harm a loved one; conscious choice to start life with a pure life, by giving oneself a true example, by another.
And the point here is absolutely not in religion, what it would seem at first glance. More like altruism. After all, the same Jules's conduct is a common idea.
Good in response to evil = good. It turns out very romantic, despite all the blood and blackness in the films of Quentin Tarantino.
Thus, the idea arises that murderous fatality only overtakes the bad guys, but then the logical question arises: Who decides who is bad and who is good? What's good and what's evil? When we save a hare from a wolf, we kill the cubs, leaving them without food. Is that good or evil? It depends on which side you look. It's all dual.
So here the character Travolta can not be called negative, and do not accept his act of saving life, after interacting with the character Uma Thurman, but what about the outcome? Does this mean that there was simply no life-for-life action, as Bruce and Samuel did, or is it really an accident and there is no subtext?
The visual and musical parts of the film are amazing. It's all right. It's amazing the details. Even the loud music that hits the ears after quiet conversations, like when Jack Rabbit Slims visited, and the car conversation that preceded it. A real dive.
The story of a little boy watching cartoons and a soldier who came to load him with stories about the death of the first father in a concentration camp, set out in all colors and details, about the death of the father's father, and about the death of the father's father's father, and about the watches kept during captivity in the only possible place, deserves special praise. I can imagine what happened to the head of the child.
So much has been filmed, re-shooted, written and told about Pulp Fiction, and we all come back and go back to Quentin Tarantino’s landmark creation. This is the nature of the great paintings that are the flesh and blood of cinema. To witness that your child has acquired immortality and has become a fundamental part of art is the highest reward for any creator.
I have a special relationship with this painting. She is my guide to the world of unique stories that animate the screen with the boundless imagination and skill of thousands of authors in love with cinema. As I now remember that late evening, in which, as Anton Dolin quoted Henry James, there was a "turn of the screw", in particular mine. Turning on the film, having no idea about the director and the world of cameras and scripts in general, I, as they say, lighted up. As lightning cuts a tree in half with its power, Pulp Fiction burst into my teenage mind and divided life into before and after. Never before have I seen such content and could not think that such a thing can be written.
Killers talk about burgers and divine intervention, violence and profanity only complement the picture with quality, nonlinear structure and “template” novels tear the usual manner of narration, all kinds of manifestations of pop culture saturate the tape with interesting details and references back and forth, the soundtrack, collected from different compositions, leads the eardrums into ecstasy, John Travolta dances (!), dies and resurrects - how to resist this charming and unique combination of form and content? The funniest thing is that I liked the taste of the film so much that after watching the picture for two nights, I insanely wanted to add it and, completely without looking at the clock, took and swallowed a volley of “Reservoir Dogs”, and in the morning I again began reading. The purest magic of cinema came to me that evening.
Is it worth mentioning, for the millionth time, Tarantino’s unprecedented talent for writing dialogue and immersing himself in a world invented by his Cinephile brain? Almost every phrase in the film is a quote that is known from some French village of Nadine to the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk. The miracle of this film is, like, an action genre, in the complete absence of action and replacing it with dialogue. But you should be able to write such dialogues, of course.
The heart of the film are live characters discussing pop culture, who became part of it after the premiere. Each of them is individual, has his own view of things and is absolutely terrible as a person, but not hopeless. Jules Winnfield, at the beginning completely blasphemously quoting the Bible, believed in a miracle and decided to quit with crime in order to find God. Vincent Vega, with a slight touch of cockiness and frivolity, wrote off the situation on luck and eventually paid for his grandeur with his life. Butch Coolidge and Marcellus Wallace, blinded by the desire to kill each other for profit, fall into an unpleasant combination of circumstances in which each receives a fair share of karma and thanks to which they forget past offenses, hit their hands and get out alive, Mia Wallace, Ringo and Yolanda almost paid their heads for their vices. Mia had an overdose due to addiction to drugs, and she was literally dragged out of the world, Pumpkin and Bunny did not want to work, got used to easy money, robbing various establishments, and miraculously got away with it because of Jules’ desire to stop killing. In a sense, Pulp Fiction is a movie about reckoning, hope and second chances.
The uniqueness of the tape is in its impeccable balance between all the storytelling tools used. Volumeful dialogues on various topics, but directly affecting the world of the film and expressing the opinion of a particular hero, along the way characterizing him as a person. The soundtrack is not only cool-sounding, but complementing and amplifying the scene. Cinematography using zonal lenses, detailed plans and a focus-focused take highlighting the ironic tone of Reading, whether it's the moment with the clock and Christopher Walken or Marcellas' monologue in front of Butch. The signature editing of Sally Menke with the famous zooms and stop frames, which like no other felt the mood of the picture and understood the vision of Quentin Tarantino. Everything works like notes and is lined up in a brilliant melody that you want to spin endlessly.
Pulp Fiction is a great director’s magnum opus and my favorite movie. I love this movie with all my heart, with all my soul and with every cell in my body, if she can do that.
What do they call a Big Mac?
Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it le Big Mac.
Writing some kind of review of this film, not that the hand does not rise, is the same as trying to describe a fork or an electric kettle. They can’t do without them and it’s good that they exist. After watching this film, everyone will decide for themselves that the masterpiece is definitely. The film has long been disassembled by quotes and memes. Not only on the Internet, but also in cinema. So watch everyone!
Just because you show character doesn’t mean you have that character.
A cult film, from a cult director. It lasts 2.5 hours, but they fly like five minutes.
First of all, this is a cool cast: John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Tim Roth, Bruce Willis and many other cool actors who cause love and respect for me. It's all right!
The work of Quentin has always set him apart from others, it is hardly possible to confuse him with anyone. For me, this is the director’s favorite movie. And it is easy to enjoy it, because the necessary balance is observed for this. Stunning actors, director, humor, dynamics, style, atmosphere and of course incredible music.
I’ve seen this movie many times, and I can quote from it. The plot keeps in tone until the very end. The dialogues are hurried. The movements and dances of Uma and John I can repeat with my husband. We've danced them a hundred times at different parties. Music is a separate masterpiece. Each track is exactly in the bull’s eye and reflects the mood in the episode.
Tarantino, by the way, with his unusual sense of humor for America, created a masterpiece on almost one dialogue. What are the philosophical conversations of two bandits worth? These conversations have long been stretched to quotes.
Tarantino's film did not fit into the Hollywood framework, but became loved by many moviegoers. If you haven’t watched Pulp Fiction yet, it’s time to fix this situation.
- Do you hate that, too?
- I hate what?
- An awkward silence. Why do people need to freeze some nonsense, just to not feel at home?
- Don't know. Good question.
- Only then do you realize that you have found a truly special person when you can just shut up for a minute and enjoy sharing the silence with him. . .
These are the words I remember when I first saw this movie. But most of all, I remember my favorite character Vincent Vega. The character doesn’t seem to have anything to openly sympathize with. Unlike the characters of Andrew Beckett, Forrest Gump, Marty McFly, Dr. Emmett Brown, this character in any case can not be considered good. But is it a bad one? Is that a question for the viewer?
From my point of view, Vincent Vega is not just a cool killer. He is a character who personifies an ordinary person who bribes with his simplicity, stupidity and sincerity at the same time. A lot of people will say it's a mistake. But I don't think so. Every dialogue and every appearance is a masterpiece.
The other characters didn't blow up either. But let me tell you, there wouldn't be Vincent Vega, there wouldn't be Pulp Fiction. Namely, the dialogue, the generator of which is this character. It feels like Tarantino wrote all the dialogue to him.
Mia – well played the wife of a criminal authority. She has more chemistry in dance and dialogue with Travolta than she does with Marcel Wallace. Uma Thurman finally played a heroine who is both interesting and tragic at the same time. Like Vincent himself.
Samuel L. Jackson, who played Jules, is a good example of a hero who has long been disillusioned with himself and his profession. He has long wanted to change himself as a person. In a duet with Travolta, he does it well.
Bruce Willis, aka Butch: a typical boxer who has to leave the arena. However, he decided he would do what he wanted to do. As a result, he got a girlfriend, money and came out victorious in everything. I confess that this is an unusual role for old Bruce.
Harvey Keitel, aka Wolf: a good example of someone who cleans and covers tracks. It's the first time I've seen a movie where a man actually destroys all the evidence. Both he and the heroes can get away with it.
Ving Reims, aka Marcellas Wallace: a real mobster who values his own and does not abandon them in difficult moments. He can even forgive his enemies. Where will you see such a brilliant character?
And finally, Quentin Tarantino, who played the role of an ordinary guy in this film. His name is Jimmy: who, not being involved in anything, conveys to us a good sense of panic and fear of the inevitable.
And of course, Tim Rott and his girlfriend, who are gangsters.
In general, the movie is very lively, soulful and funny. The film simultaneously gives us the inner structure of the mafia. And at the same time, she shows us people who are forced to live and work for her. But as they say, search "Called cargoem - get in the body."
The film “Pulp Fiction”, was shot in 1994 by American film director, Quentin Tarantino. The plot of the film, like many plots of Tarantino's films, is nonlinear, and it is exciting. Several stories tell us about the lives of two killers, a boxer, Mia Wallace: Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield, the actors were John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson; Butch – Bruce Willis; Mia Wallace – Uma Thurman.
In this film, the plot, as mentioned above, is nonlinear, first we are shown a story called “The Robbery”, then “Vincent and Jules”, then “Vincent Vega and the wife of Marcellas Wallace”, “Vincent Vega and the wife of Marcellas Wallace”, “The situation with Bonnie”, “The Robbery”. From this we can conclude that the story is presented to us, as if from the middle, which creates an unusual atmosphere of the film.
What did Tarantino want to convey with his painting Pulp Fiction? Anyone who watches this film will understand it in their own way, and this is what the director intended. One of the colorful details of the film is the suitcase of Marcellus Wallace, more precisely, what is in it. Of course, the suitcase in this film is a metaphor and for everyone it means its own. Tarantino created the effect of being in the film, due to this suitcase - everyone feels like a hero of the film, thinking, "What is in this suitcase?"
The amazing work of actors, director and cameraman Andrzej Sekula, helps to plunge into the atmosphere of the second half of the 1990s, in the style of which this film was shot.
The film is recommended for viewing, for people with a strong psyche, and it is true - many scenes of violence, obscene language, and drug propaganda. After watching, it will be better to sit in silence and think about some moments - the film is quite difficult in perception.
In this picture there are a lot of hidden meanings, which everyone understands in his own way and makes the choice himself, like the heroes of the film. Watching this film can change the attitude not only to cinema, but also to some aspects of life.
REMARKA
A very strong film turned out, still young and ambitious tried as best they could, so to speak, and one of the best masterpieces of the master came out.
About once from the tenth I finally learned to watch Pulp Fiction as if the film were a good comedy, though not the kindest and not quite comedy. Mostly it’s about the beginning with Tim Roth, a couple of Travolt – Samuel L. Jackson, very rarely I watch until the moment when Uma Thurman comes on the dance floor. Then I twist and watch the end of the car laundering and philosophical conversations in the restaurant. Still, these themes with a clock in the ass (by the way, the name of this actor I never remember. he forever became the one who kept the watch in the ass for Bru Willes), diseases of Uma Thurman, perverts-policemen – all this is safely missed.
What can be said about “Pulp Fiction”? This skillful incendiary conceptual kitsch invigorates something that you never even admit to yourself. The obvious idea that the bandit is also a man, like his own son, dangerous, but native, in the American realm with a hundred-year tradition of gangsterism, does not seem to be something unhealthy, on the contrary, the human dignity of Travolta or Jackson seems normal, without any questions about any law there, only some other values.
The film, in fact, about the fact that everyone sets rules for themselves, corresponding to their capabilities and imagination. Soundtracks have become classics, phrases from the film – universal heritage, and Tarantino – a cult figure. I can’t wait to see his next movie. And Amanda Plummer's cries should only be heard in the original in the beginning.
Exemplary black comedy: in the long intervals between several ugliness inherent in gangsters, and even in the process of their commission, the characters of the film talk in detail, parrying arguments with counterarguments and trying to express their thoughts impeccably clearly, because it is important for them to accurately convey them to the interlocutor in order to reveal the essence of the topics discussed - sometimes others. Travolta is like an assistant professor, Jackson is like a professor, Tim Roth is like a graduate student, Uma Thurman is like a promising graduate student, Tarantino is like an ambitious junior researcher, but then Harvey Keitel appears, and it becomes clear which of them is an academic. Much depends on translation: in comparison with the Goblin, “television” options in expressive means, alas, are limited. The film is multifaceted, among other things, in the film powerfully and subtly - and very differently - conveyed sensuality and eroticism in several hetero-couples formed by its characters. Even in the film, one feels the value of the director of the local sound background of musical culture - the wonderful composition of Dusty Springfield is indicative - characteristic, apparently, for those years when it was formed. Unlike other Tarantino films, this one is remembered in detail. It's all the magic of cinema, it's all done.
I have to admit, I went to the crowd. That’s why I watched this supposedly iconic movie. Now Tarantino is on the ears and almost everyone is running around with this name, which is supposedly a genius. But in fact, Tarantino is the genius of thrash. That is, the garbage movie is essentially thrown to an incredible height. It's probably similar to the fact that while the garbage is lying, it can just stink. But Tarantino, with the excitement of the child, begins to throw this garbage, throw garbage bags and enjoy watching it fly around. The crowd, apparently, picked up this excitement and also begins to tumble through this pile of garbage.
This harsh criticism of Tarantino’s films is due to the fact that I cannot give an example of any usefulness from watching. I can’t even tell you what’s good about this movie. There are a few moments of extreme surprise. Perhaps that’s why the film was started just to turn standard clichés inside out. But what's the point? Here people talk about something bazaar, someone throws pathetic phrases about pride stuck in his head. It's a pretty good idea, and only Jules and Butch are actually reborn here.
I could honestly be a fan of this movie. But! It’s like the Terminator, where a great beginning is crossed out by the love scene of Kyle and Sarah. Why?? Just for the sake of shock inserted episode with Zed. And here, given the content of the episode, the word "Inserted" even sounds ironic. Why was that necessary here? I can accept that there are rather monstrous bipeds among people. But why should I look at it from the big screen? At the same time lower the same Marsellas to the level of the plinth. I don't understand how Reims could agree to this stage. Without it, the movie would have been better.
I am also frankly strained by some dialogues from the genius of dialogue. What's so brilliant? It's just banal talk and talk about nothing. I can spend hours talking about things. Just what's the point? To show that a couple of killers are people, not killer machines. No one thought so, especially the victims of these killers. Many people probably didn’t have time to think like that.
I also don’t like the so-called ‘McGuffin’ moments, which is an element of the movie that seems to be a plot, but it’s not shown anywhere. This McGuffin here is the contents of the suitcase, because of which at the very beginning they arrange an execution in a hotel room.
I don’t want to watch the whole movie. Even when you watch this movie, you just have an empty head. I wouldn't have seen this movie without Tarantinomania. It’s clearly not my movie and I’m just shocked by the overwhelming number of thrash fans who make dubious movies cult. But on my shelf of favorite films, I would not put this thrash.
If I look at a hodgepodge of various cultural phenomena, I prefer to choose the Matrix.
I'm the one who keeps silent about the screaming gaffes from the movie, where you're really sitting bewildered. Either Tarantino was lazy to polish the film, or just rushed to master the budget issued after the really shocking "Reservoir Dogs".
It’s not a movie I’ll ever want to watch in its entirety. Some fragments may still be worth something, but most are already outdated. The film keeps afloat only the thoughtless fanaticism of nostalgic for the 90th.
3 out of 10
The success of Pulp Fiction, in my opinion, lies in the fact that this tape absorbed all the colors and shades of real classical American cinema. Indeed, until 1994, no one was able to do something like this – mix all the genres, images and attributes of Hollywood cinema in one elegant glass, and even teach this cocktail in such an unobtrusive form.
After Pulp Fiction, even the creator of this picture failed to parody himself, let alone other directors who tried to do something like that. And to date, no one has been able to surpass this film mix or at least approach it.
Actors are like picking everything... And this is another positive side of the tape. You can admire many people here... Calmly prudent Samuel L. Jackson, sly John Travolta, the savior of innocent people Bruce Willis, restrainedly surprised Eric Stolz, multifaceted and soft Harvey Keitel, crafty Tim Roth, unreliable Amanda Plummer, specifically cute Uma Thurman, the ever-massive Ving Rames, mystical Christopher Walken, outwardly dissolute Roseanne Arquette and others... All are so different and colorful that you just wonder how it was possible to organically connect them together.
The film is shot in a novelistic form with very warm tones, artistic elegance and some, at first glance, illogical plot rearrangement, which slightly complicates the disclosure of certain details. But this feature is designed not to confuse the viewer, but to show him a monolithic film space with bringing to the fore not the main, but secondary moments. Why this was done is known to Quentin Tarantino. But this alignment of forces still played a more positive role than a negative one, and allowed a different look at the interpretation of the scenario.
After another viewing of this film comes a long cinematic satiety, and other tapes on the background of “Pulp Fiction” look somehow dull. There are not so many really good films in the world. And what we see on TV in the evening, in general, does not climb into any gate.
"Pulp Fiction" for a long time will not come down from an unattainable height, and this is clearly evidenced by the current state of foreign and domestic cinema.
How much I do not like to review “Pulp Fiction”, and can not clearly indicate what this film catches me. Probably, mainly because the tape is built on the principle of “all genius is simple”. Initially, it is difficult to notice all the charm, trying to wade through the plot with a nonlinear narrative and a huge amount of dialogue almost from scratch. Nevertheless, 25 years have passed since the premiere of the film, and since this picture is on the list of every self-respecting moviegoer, and almost half of all scenes are recognized as cult, we can safely consider Pulp Fiction a very unusual project.
The tape has three storylines, which can be called novels or even chapters. Moreover, according to the original project, each of them had to be shot by a separate director. And then Tarantino thought and decided in the style of his characters "FUCK IT" and did everything himself. And we were able to see how this guy, who never studied at film school, but only worked in the movie rental salon, was able to put in his work a huge number of references to the cinema of the 60s - 70s.
And in all this storytelling, the role of the connecting character is assigned to gangster Vincent Vega. In one line, he goes on a business trip with his partner Jules, while discussing quarter-pound cheeseburgers and foot massages. In the next novel, he entertains the wife of a mafia boss whose leisure program includes a milkshake, dancing and regular sniffing of drugs. The third chapter tells about the boxer who dumped the same mafia boss, and the situations in which the characters fall, can not be called favorable.
All this farce of the plot makes a proper impression on the viewer thanks to the well-chosen cast. Of the $8 million budget, five went to caste alone. John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Harvey Keitel, Bruce Willis showed exactly the characters that Tarantino himself imagined. In pursuit of the result, Quentin almost begged Uma Thurman to accept the role of Mia Wallace, and such famous actors as Sylvester Stallone and Danny Day-Lewis were even turned down. And the caste of the chosen actors gave themselves to work as best they could, as a result of which watching the narrative is doubly pleasant.
Not only are the characters’ dialogues on simple topics quite interestingly staged, but in combination with black humor you do not notice how imperceptibly the timekeeping flies. The scene where Jules and Vincent discuss the guy the mafia boss threw out the window involves a one-take camera pass. Add to a good script and work with the camera entourage, soundtrack, original locations – and it turned out the film, which in the 90s had the effect of “atomic bomb”. With a budget of eight million, the picture collected around the world 215 million, and a pleasant application was the Golden Palm Branch, the Golden Globe, the Oscar for the script, and gained the status of “cinema for centuries.”
Crime fiction is a film that created a new genre in cinema.
Pulp Fiction is the second film by the greatest director Quentin Tarantino, who is known for such films as Reservoir Dogs, Inglourious Basterds, Django Freed, Kill Bill 1.2, but it is worth noting that Pulp Fiction is his most famous work.
The film consists of 5 novels, each of them tells stories of different content. Unlike other killer or mafia films, it’s not how serial killers kill and execute orders, but how they spend time between murders. It's a pleasure to watch. Meaningless dialogues that do not affect the plot look great. Also in the film there is a lot of irony and violent scenes in the case of Tarantino, these scenes play only into the hands of the cinema.
I think it is worth summing up, the pluses include non-linear narrative, division into chapters, great humor, acting, dialogue and very non-standard stories. The disadvantages would like to include a rather weak novel character Bruce Willis, it is very standard, but the ending of this novella still makes the viewer shocked by what is happening.
As a result, cult and non-standard cinema, from the same non-standard director. You have to watch it.
The film makes it clear what Tarantin’s approach to cinema is. Spectacular characters, non-standard dialogues, stampless and absolutely unpredictable plot, as well as... weak coherence of the narrative and the absence of some common message. The picture is more like a sketch of various life situations than a complete work of art. We are spoiled with creativity, shouting black and near-black humor, forced to observe the most fascinating absurdity, but the thoughtful and mature person after watching the question arises: so what? and why did I show all this? The viewer looked into the depths of Tarantinov’s mind, swam there for two and a half hours and went out without the slightest desire to take anything from what he saw.
Here is what pleases – are caricatures of typical problems of the American (and not only society):
1. Manager as a demanded profession. Mr. Woolf is portrayed as an incredibly valuable and respected man, although he did not touch a finger to wash the wheelbarrow. All his credit was that he hung a “magic pendel” to a couple of killers, motivating them.
2. Skeletons in the closet of the average American.
3. Religion and the problem of combining faith with questionable work. The mental torment of a believing hitman well reflects the problem that the adherents of numerous churches in America sometimes face - how to combine their piety with the work of a killer, bouncer, racketeer, aggressive sales manager, annoying consultant, bile-spitting journalist and other professions, whose representatives sometimes have to go beyond the norms of morality and even the law.
Total
+++
Strong characters, interesting dialogues, unpredictable plots, good humor, a lot of funny situations that are interesting to watch, even if they do not carry any semantic load.
-
The final scene and religious rants of the killer is a liquid finale after a good heat of passions. In 2019, some of the jokes are very cliche. It is unclear the role of the guy in a black suit, taken out of the box.
7 out of 10
“And I will do great vengeance against them with fierce punishments; and they will know that I am the Lord when I have done my vengeance against them” (Ezekiel 25:17).
How much I do not like to review “Pulp Fiction”, and can not clearly indicate what this film catches me. Probably, mainly because the tape is built on the principle of “all genius is simple”. Initially, it is difficult to notice all the charm, trying to wade through the plot with a nonlinear narrative and a huge amount of dialogue almost from scratch. Nevertheless, today marks 25 years since the premiere of the film, and since this picture is on the list of every self-respecting moviegoer, and almost half of all scenes are recognized as cult, we can safely consider Pulp Fiction a very unusual project.
The tape has three storylines, which can be called novels or even chapters. Moreover, according to the original project, each of them had to be shot by a separate director. And then Tarantino thought and decided in the style of his characters "FUCK IT" and did everything himself. And we were able to see how this guy, who never studied at film school, but only worked in the movie rental salon, was able to put in his work a huge number of references to the cinema of the 60s - 70s.
And in all this storytelling, the role of the connecting character is assigned to gangster Vincent Vega. In one line, he goes on a business trip with his partner Jules, while discussing quarter-pound cheeseburgers and foot massages. In the next novel, he entertains the wife of a mafia boss whose leisure program includes a milkshake, dancing and regular sniffing of drugs. The third chapter tells about the boxer who dumped the same mafia boss, and the situations in which the characters fall, can not be called favorable.
All this farce of the plot makes a proper impression on the viewer thanks to the well-chosen cast. Of the $8 million budget, five went to caste alone. John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Harvey Keitel, Bruce Willis showed exactly the characters that Tarantino himself imagined. In pursuit of the result, Quentin almost begged Uma Thurman to accept the role of Mia Wallace, and such famous actors as Sylvester Stallone and Danny Day-Lewis were even turned down. And the caste of the chosen actors gave themselves to work as best they could, as a result of which watching the narrative is doubly pleasant.
Not only are the characters’ dialogues on simple topics quite interestingly staged, but in combination with black humor you do not notice how imperceptibly the timekeeping flies. The scene where Jules and Vincent discuss the guy the mafia boss threw out the window involves a one-take camera pass. Add to a good script and work with the camera entourage, soundtrack, original locations – and it turned out the film, which in the 90s had the effect of “atomic bomb”. With a budget of eight million, the picture collected around the world 215 million, and a pleasant application was the Golden Palm Branch, the Golden Globe, the “golden bob” for the script, and so on.
After reviewing “Pulp Fiction”, I have questions that are worth discussing:
1) My impression of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood wasn’t that positive. I did not understand the structure of the story and the connection of the characters. Looking again at the “best film Tarantino”, I was wondering – was there even a plot in “Pulp Fiction”?
2) The theological background of the film is based not only on “divine intervention” and verse 17 of chapter 25, which is quoted by Jules. The suitcase for which the mafia sends Vincent and Jules, when opened, begins to emit a glow, and everyone who looks into it is in culture shock. What were the two of them that Jules even had an educational conversation with two robbers for?
What is valuable in life besides life itself? You take her away from someone, deliberately causing yourself mental trauma, or maybe you turn a blind eye to it, as if it should be. There will always be one choice. Why did you do it, intentionally or he threatened you and wanted to take your life? After all, anyway, a person goes to crime at the will of life circumstances, he cannot choose what is best for him. He may not want to do it, but he has to live like this.
The couple at the beginning of the film who discusses how to rob a small diner does not think about the further consequences. They want to be content with the revenue they take from here. Maybe they do not want to kill at all, but act on the victim psychologically, appearing cool in their eyes and images. But this coolness, of course, will not lead to anything good.
Two partners, performing the task of their boss, are typical representatives of people who solve problems with violence. It is their source of income under the “manipulation” of their boss. Thinking about what they do right doesn’t bother them at all. In the eyes of others, they are always cool in black suits with a large gun, which they often use to intimidate and eliminate their goals.
A boxer who goes against the system shows his indifference to obey. He lives as he wants and no one orders him. He took up violence to feed himself. He wasn't going to stay there long. He has long thought up a plan where he will spend his time. In the meantime, he eliminates his real problems in order to start life again.
Everything here unites all these people and shows Tarantino that with thoughtless violence you will not come to anything good. There's a lot you can lose and lose your life just because you don't know how to think about how things will go. You just need to weigh everything and start a new life, even in another city. Do philanthropy, find new hobbies or start a family. And you can find a way out of any situation, even if life begins to build new challenges for you.
Today I offer to your attention my view on the cult film Quentin Tarantino, which is his best child according to many critics and film lovers.
Plot. The viewer will be told several stories that complement each other or smoothly intertwine. Each of them is a reference to popular in the middle of the 20th century pulp-magazines. The film consists of 5 such episodes. The main author’s idea is a broken chronology of stories, which introduces a little intrigue and diversity into the narrative. Perhaps some viewers will not find such a presentation too convenient, but I hasten to assure you that this technique very well reveals the characters of the criminal comedy.
Atmosphere. Some chic dialogues create about 50% of a cozy and unique atmosphere. Only at the beginning of the picture, a couple of them tire of protractedness. The rest of the conversations are aerobatics: a rattling mixture of black humor and satirical attitude to difficult situations. In some moments, the ribbons of humor and ridiculous scenes are even bigger than the action. Chapter 'The situation with Bonnie' is generally something that transcends evil and good in cinema, just a stunning attraction of madness. Just don’t think that the other parts of the film do not deserve rave reviews. They are all harmoniously combined with each other, and each viewer will find his favorite. All the actors liked the game 100%. There was no overt overplay and negligence, even Uma Thurman (Mia Wallace) entered the image wonderfully (although for her for some reason most worried). Of the main duo, I liked Samuel L. Jackson better with his cold prudence and firm look. However, John Travolta's character (Vincent Vega) is also very charismatic. It was a pleasure to see an old friend Harvey Keitel as Mr. Wolfe. It is a pity that there are quite serious blunders in the picture, preventing her from getting the highest score from me. For example, the unrealistic moment with Butch’s ride in a taxi, which catches the eye of the fact that the car is actually standing still. In some scenes, there are no bullet marks, and the characters’ injuries are not where they should be, etc.
Music. Stunning musical accompaniment perfectly complements the criminal drama. Quentin has always had good taste. Chuck Berry - You Never Can Tell (to which Vincent and Mia danced) and Urge Overkill - Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon (played at home).
Result. The claim that this is Tarantino's best film is controversial. Undisputed is the fact that 'Pulp Fiction' - a beautiful film, which had a strong influence on the further development of cinema. I advise everyone. Bravo, Quentin!