Pulp Fiction (1994)

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer(s): Tarantino, from a story by Tarantino and Roger Avery
Starring: John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis, Uma Thurman

What can you say about Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction that hasn’t been already said by thousands of critics and moviegoers?  It launched the career of Tarantino, rejuvenated John Travolta’s, and raised the stock of Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, and Bruce Willis tenfold.  It’s a crime caper, featuring an anthology of loosely-connected stories that was considered ingenious and daring during its release.  But now that the dust has settled, and we have had 21 years to acclimate ourselves with this talky action classic, does it still hold up as well as it used to?

Before we get to that, let’s just run through the plot.  This will be a mere formality, as dozens of other articles will go into it more in depth, and analyze it down to the most minute of details, if that’s what you’re looking for; likewise, if you’re actually planning on watching it, and have never seen it before, the less you know about it, the better.  Pulp Fiction begins with two petty criminals (Amanda Plummer and Tim Roth) in a restaurant; together, on a whim, they come up with an idea to rob the restaurant, figuring no one would be expecting that.

After this, we meet Vincent Vega (Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Jackson), two hitmen who are discussing the differences between European and American fast food establishments, on their way to a hit.  Afterwards, Vincent is tasked with taking out a young lady, Mia Wallace, who happens to be the boss’ wife.  Then, we meet Butch (Bruce Willis), an aging boxer who makes an agreement with Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames, and the aforementioned boss) to take a dive in the first round of his next boxing match—but things go awry when Butch reneges on his agreement, instead winning by KO...and killing his opponent.  These stories go much farther and deeper into detail, but the movie contains so many surprises and twists that I wouldn’t want to ruin it by accidentally giving something away—this should nevertheless get you through the first hour, or so, and then things get really interesting.

Pulp Fiction gained most of its fame from the way it was shot—these stories are told in fragmented bits and parts, with the chronology jumping all over the place.  So, for example, after one character is killed, he still may reappear in a later segment alive, because the story has jumped backwards in time.  It sounds confusing, and though the unconventional approach might be a little disorienting at first, most people will get accustomed to the constant jumping around within a few scenes.  Some of the stories are loosely intertwined, with characters appearing in the story arcs of another, and the whole restaurant intro comes back at the end to bring everything full circle…it’s a genius narrative gimmick that was mind-blowing in its day, and still holds up fairly well today, even though a spate of copycats over the years have somewhat diminished its potency.

Aside from Quentin Tarantino’s questionable (and completely unnecessary) decision to put himself in the role of Jimmie, where he looks terribly out of place, the acting is almost flawless across the board.  This is definitely a good thing, because if the acting wasn’t up to snuff, then the film’s long-winded ramblings would have come across as pompous and egotistical.  Somehow, the actors take them and make them not only believable, but entertaining, which couldn’t have been an easy feat.

I could probably ramble on about the cinematography, or the special effects, or the interesting story behind its production, or how Tarantino was said to have modeled the multi-tiered “anthology” premise of his story off of none other than legendary Italian horror director Mario Bava’s Black Sabbath (my favorite horror film of all time), but all of these things have been examined in greater detail, by writers far more talented than I.  All I know is, this is a movie worthy of its praise, and while the years have slightly diminished the strength and originality of its fragmented storytelling, there is no denying the influence that Tarantino’s movie continues to exert on modern films.  While I’m not sure I would consider it one of my favorite movies of all time, it’s required viewing simply for the rags-to-riches story—how one man, armed with a camera, endless determination, and with a little luck—could go on to make the highest-grossing independent film of its time, and change the face of cinema in the process.

RECAP: Pulp Fiction is one of the rare movies that deserves just about all of the praise that it gets.  Despite its 152-minute run time, it remains fascinating throughout, mainly due to the narrative structuring, as well as its willingness to wallow in unpredictability.  Aside from Tarantino’s terrible performance, the rest of the actors bring their “A” game, which help to give character to most of the constant monologues and quirky dialogue.  Say what you want about it, or Tarantino in general (his modern interviews are so egotistical that they come off as cringe-worthy), there’s no denying that his independent feature helped to change the face of mainstream cinema.

RATING: 9/10

TRAILER