The first movie I ever walked out on was A Clockwork Orange. I should have walked out on Eyes Wide Shut, but I managed to stay awake for the duration.
For me (and as many have said, it’s all subjective), Pulp Fiction is a pretty unexceptional movie.
My main objection to it is that it “smells of sweat”, as the Hungarians like to say. It’s just trying soo hard to be achingly cool and iconic, with the funky dancing and the hip dialogue, that it just seems like an overlong commercial or something where’s the heart???. I have the same objection to all of Q.T’s films, but it annoys me the most with P.F because it’s the most admired, I guess.
Plus, not wanting to sound like a big prude but, anyone that portrays terrible violence as A) funny (kid getting head blown off unexpectedly) or B) super cool (ear cutting scene from R.D) is gonna get a thumbs down from me- and should at the very least have a good long look at himself in the mirror and a good think about why, and for whom, he makes movies.
Other admired films I hated- and this may be the first " NO! surely not! mention of the post- Taxi Driver". I freely admit I should maybe give it another try, having only seen it once, but I just cannot for the life of me figure out where the greatness lies in this movie- I’m willing to learn, though.
Finally, Magnolia. Movies like this just make me mad. How anyone can justify making a movie so depressing, and yet so without point, is beyong me. Yeah, yeah, I know not all movies should be forced to show the world as a suger coated fairy land, but to me this film is guilty of the oppossite crime- showing the world as MORE depressing than it really is.
I really disliked Citizen Kane. I thought it was slow and tedious. I understand the story, I just think that it’s not very compelling. I really didn’t give a damn what happened to Kane or his family. It was technically well done, but I didn’t like the story. But hey, who cares? The film critics will continue to fellate Orson Welles.
I actually liked Trainspotting okay (I’d give it 3 stars), but I think it is vastly overrated.
Good list, I salute your recall ability of genre movies.
Pulp Fiction was the only movie I paid to see in a theater twice. It was phenomenal. But I must admit that of all the DVDs I own, it has the least appeal to me when I’m bored and looking for something to watch. Perhaps the incessant borrowing has dampened my love for it.
I could swear I saw 2 Days in the Valley before Pulp Fiction. Are you sure it came out after? (Too lazy to go to IMDB…)
My “White Stripe” movie awards go to:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Magnolia (Only saw it once…need to give it another shot.)
Also, I think most movies are better experiences at home. When I shell out approaching $20 for a movie experience, I’m just setting myself up for disappointment. As an example, I saw Frailty in the theater, and thought it was truly the worst movie ever made. I now realize I was just bitter at wasting my money. After several viewings on cable, I half-way like it. I’d give it a 3 out of 5.
To add to Tangent’s list of movies influenced by Pulp Fiction:
Fight Club
Killing Zoe
Wasabi
The Replacement Killers
The Big Hit
Training Day
The Limey
Out Of Sight
Sexy Beast
Suicide Kings
Things To Do In Denver When Your Dead
Gangster No. 1
The Transporter
Not to mention countless straight-to-video and cheapo action movies that have featured pop culture spouting hitmen or criminal lowlifes. Plus no telling how many pale imitations have been attempted by independent and student film makers. The few I’ve seen are better left unmentioned just because of how pathetic most were in addition to how bold in their borrowing of style and methods they were.
This is kind of circular since QT borrows from (is influenced by) HK films, but a couple that have come down the pike since PF remind me of it, off the top of my head I’d offer Time And Tide and Fulltime Killer.
FYI, Slick Tarantino didn’t make Desperado or From Dusk Till Dawn. He produced and acted, but Robert Rodriquez directed.
I agree on Resevoir Dogs. So fun.
It’s hard to say Killing Zoe was influenced by Pulp Fiction when Roger Avary wrote one and co-wrote (at least contributed to) the other. Otherwise, a great list.
Didn’t QT write From Dusk Til Dawn?
Except when it’s coming from the mouths of Chief Wiggum, Eddie and Lou.
“Do they have Krusty partially gelatinated non-dairy gum-based beverages?”
"Mm-hm. They call 'em, “shakes.”
I feel special. Nobody has yet to mention a film I didn’t think was wonderful (the 2nd rate Pulp Fiction rip-off aka The Boondock Saints excepted);
Pulp Fiction - Genuinely innovative at the time but since copied to death. You probably had to see it when it came out
Citizen Kane - Slow? Boring? Deservedly the greatest movie of all time imho. Buy or rent the DVD and listen to Ebert’s commentary and you’ll have a better insight into why.
Titanic - OK, not a classic and certainly manipulative, but still exceptionally well put together (and for the record, I hate, hate, hate that song with a passion usually reserved for fundies)
Something About Mary - Again, you probably had to see it at the time it was released. The first of the gross-out comedies (followed by American Pie et. al.) and probably still the best.
The Princess Bride - teemingONE, how could you not like this 
E.T. - What is not to like. Similar to Titanic in that it is manipulative, but still extraordinarily well put together.
I loved a lot of these films that people are touting as overrated.
There are a few exceptions. Like Magnolia. Throughout the whole film, it seemed like the director was wearing an apron that said “Kiss me, I’m artistic.”
Yuwuryurwugurwuyurgh.
Aside from Pulp Fiction’s influence on the crime movie genre, it’s just a great film. It hit me like a tidal wave when I first saw it, even though I first saw it after I’d seen about a dozen films that were cut from the same cloth.
Sidebar: The Princess Bride isn’t bad, but it isn’t great either. It’s just a feel-good movie in a fantasy setting. Parts that tried to be funny simply annoyed me - the movie didn’t get a single laugh out of me.
There are plenty of reasons not to like a film that is GRAG (generally regarded as good). The first one that comes to mind is backlash. Take Titanic: The fact that it make $6 trillion dollars has to mean that there’s something good about it. But there are people that by nature do not want to be part of something popular, simply because it’s popular. Or as my friend put it at the time: “I don’t need to see the film since I already know the plot: The ship sinks.” Pretty much any movie that makes of $100M is going to suffer the same fate.
Then there’s the build-up factor: If enough people say a movie’s worth watching, it builds up your expectations and when you go to see it, you’re expecations fail. Films like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Bend It Like Beckham, or The Princess Bride.
Classic films suffer a simliar problem. They’ve been critically acclaimed for decades, supposedly loved by all who watch them, and then you watch it and see… well, nothing special. Nope, Scarlette, I really don’t give a damn about your whinney, spoiled life. No, I really don’t care about your filibuster, Mr. Smith.
Similar to that is the out-of-time, out-of-place problem: When watching a movie that was filmed in the 19x0’s, it’s almost painful. Kind of like trying to watch an 80’s sitcom now: It may have been good at the time, but some much has come out that’s better that it’s impossible to see it in the same light that those who saw it then did (I think of some of the Abbott and Costello movies, oddly enough).
Some films are good to watch once and after that, they just don’t have the same effect. They just don’t have the same effect as the first time, or even the same impact on your tiny TV as opposed to the big screen. The Sixth Sense, Forrest Gump, and The Blair Witch Project fall under this category for me
Films with secrets always have a dark side. Once the secret gets out, even if it’s a good film and/or a good secret, then the quality of the film goes down, especially if you know the secret before watching the film. Citizen Kane, Chinatown, or even Empire Strikes Back fit this category.
Then there are the cult films. Films that are so aimed at one thought process, or are so high-brow and/or low-brow that there’s no way that they can appeal to everyone. You’ll find tons of them out there. And these films must have hit their mark, otherwise why would the people who like them like them so much? But you’re not part of that “cult”, so what good does the film do you? Brazil. This is Spinal Tap. Pink Floyd: The Wall.
So far, all the movies that are GRAG, but here listed as “bad” fall into one or more of these categories. Like others have said, doesn’t make it a bad film, it’s just that you didn’t like it. Unless you’re egomaniacal enough to think that your opinion outweighs everyone else’s 
Just wanted to add “Moulin Rouge.” Why the hell was that movie so popular? A cliched story with mostly good (or at least decent) music done badly, and overwhelming, nausea-inducing visuals.
I have to call this an invalid criticism; the movie is called Pulp Fiction, and if the characters and situations were believable, the movie wouldn’t be fulfilling its own title. It’s supposed to be over-the-top. It’s like complaining that The Cowboys was full of guys on horseback herding cattle.
I think the popularity backlash phenomenon is over-reported. The reason that huge hits always have legions of detractors is a simple matter of scale. Let’s say, arbitrarily, that any movie, no matter how well made, is going to be violently disliked by 10% of the people who see it. No matter what: art is too subjective; nothing can appeal to everyone at once. If only 500,000 people see the picture, there will only be 50,000 people out there who really, really hated it. As a percentage of the population as a whole, that’s pretty small. Your chances of meeting one of these detractors is pretty small. Now, let’s say another movie comes along and 100 million people see it. At least 10 million of them are going to hate it. That’s a lot of people. That’s a big enough sample that quite a few of them will be critics, or pundits, or just general loud-mouths. You’re going to hear a lot about how that massively popular movie sucked, and you’re going to hear it from people who would have hated the movie if they were the only person on the planet who ever saw it.
Certainly, if a movie is a huge success, the people who hate it will also be more vocal in their dislike. If I’m the only person in the world who saw Titanic, I’m not going to waste much time bitching about how bad it was, because no one is going to know what I’m talking about. But if there are 90 million other people out there saying how great it was, I’m going to get a lot of practice in presenting and defending my opinion, and my opinion is going to get stronger and more negative as time goes by and I become more assured of them, and as debate of the merits of the movie brings additional flaws I had originally overlooked to the surface.
I saw Pulp Fiction on video several years after its release, and after seeing Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs. The first time I thought it was pretty decent, and could see where all the hype came from. As a few others have mentioned, the camerawork is phenomenal, especially in the Willis bits. I definitely “got it,” but after seeing it a few more times, it started to seem labored.
As has been said before, PF was an incredibly influential film, and some of the “ho-hum” comes from having seen its influence so many times that the whole thing seems tired. To be fair, however, Tarantino has borrowed so much, conceptually and directly, from other films that any criticism of that sort has to be a two-way street. I have two examples of this:
-
This is what really burst the PF bubble for me… I was channel surfing one afternoon and caught the last 45 minutes, quite hilariously edited for language on broadcast TV. I really only watched the restaurant bit which includes this shot of the male robber rushing through the kitchen (for no apparant reason, really), shouting at cooks, etc. Two days later, the SO and I rented Detroit-9000. There is a scene in that movie, when a political fundraiser is robbed, from which that very kitchen shot was lifted. I mean it was EXACTLY the same! Don’t get me wrong, Tarantino doesn’t hide his influences, and it was a very artsy, postmodern thing to do, but what got my goat is that the shot had no real bearing on the movie at all, he just tossed it in.
-
This one I really don’t know what to think of. Reservoir Dogs was based on a movie called City on Fire, starring Chow Yun-Fat as a young cop who goes deep under cover, and developes close ties to the gang he has to betray. I hate to bandy about the term post-modern so much, but that is what Tarantino’s work suggests to me. Reservoir Dogs takes the same story, but starts at the end. What makes me conflicted is that it seems like enjoying one film denys the validity of the other. I think RD is one of the greatest films of all time, and the only one of Tarantino’s which holds up for me after repeated watching and critical scrutiny. On the other hand, I loved City on Fire on its own merits, and I thought that the straightforward structure allowed for more convincing characters and tension in the plot, and that the story could stand alone, without being bolstered by the unique and effective narrative of RD. I know that there is no reason not to appreciate both, but there you are.
All in all, Tarantino’s influence on crime movies, or film at all has to be weighed against his reliance on the influence of others. I don’t mean his work is not valid because of this, but I’d have a lot more respect for the guy if he’d actually produce more out of his voluminous source material-- Fer Og’s sake! the man’s last film came out in 1997, and this “Kill Bill” looks like not something I’d dig (being charitable here.)
I saw Pulp Fiction on video several years after its release, and after seeing Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs. The first time I thought it was pretty decent, and could see where all the hype came from. As a few others have mentioned, the camerawork is phenomenal, especially in the Willis bits. I definitely “got it,” but after seeing it a few more times, it started to seem labored.
As has been said before, PF was an incredibly influential film, and some of the “ho-hum” comes from having seen its influence so many times that the whole thing seems tired. To be fair, however, Tarantino has borrowed so much, conceptually and directly, from other films that any criticism of that sort has to be a two-way street. I have two examples of this:
-
This is what really burst the PF bubble for me… I was channel surfing one afternoon and caught the last 45 minutes, quite hilariously edited for language on broadcast TV. I really only watched the restaurant bit which includes this shot of the male robber rushing through the kitchen (for no apparant reason, really), shouting at cooks, etc. Two days later, the SO and I rented Detroit-9000. There is a scene in that movie, when a political fundraiser is robbed, from which that very kitchen shot was lifted. I mean it was EXACTLY the same! Don’t get me wrong, Tarantino doesn’t hide his influences, and it was a very artsy, postmodern thing to do, but what got my goat is that the shot had no real bearing on the movie at all, he just tossed it in.
-
This one I really don’t know what to think of. Reservoir Dogs was based on a movie called City on Fire, starring Chow Yun-Fat as a young cop who goes deep under cover, and developes close ties to the gang he has to betray. I hate to bandy about the term post-modern so much, but that is what Tarantino’s work suggests to me. Reservoir Dogs takes the same story, but starts at the end. What makes me conflicted is that it seems like enjoying one film denys the validity of the other. I think RD is one of the greatest films of all time, and the only one of Tarantino’s which holds up for me after repeated watching and critical scrutiny. On the other hand, I loved City on Fire on its own merits, and I thought that the straightforward structure allowed for more convincing characters and tension in the plot, and that the story could stand alone, without being bolstered by the unique and effective narrative of RD. I know that there is no reason not to appreciate both, but there you are.
All in all, Tarantino’s influence on crime movies, or film at all has to be weighed against his reliance on the influence of others. I don’t mean his work is not valid because of this, but I’d have a lot more respect for the guy if he’d actually produce more out of his voluminous source material-- Fer Og’s sake! the man’s last film came out in 1997, and this “Kill Bill” looks like not something I’d dig (being charitable here.)
I saw Pulp Fiction on video several years after its release, and after seeing Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs. The first time I thought it was pretty decent, and could see where all the hype came from. As a few others have mentioned, the camerawork is phenomenal, especially in the Willis bits. I definitely “got it,” but after seeing it a few more times, it started to seem labored.
As has been said before, PF was an incredibly influential film, and some of the “ho-hum” comes from having seen its influence so many times that the whole thing seems tired. To be fair, however, Tarantino has borrowed so much, conceptually and directly, from other films that any criticism of that sort has to be a two-way street. I have two examples of this:
-
This is what really burst the PF bubble for me… I was channel surfing one afternoon and caught the last 45 minutes, quite hilariously edited for language on broadcast TV. I really only watched the restaurant bit which includes this shot of the male robber rushing through the kitchen (for no apparant reason, really), shouting at cooks, etc. Two days later, the SO and I rented Detroit-9000. There is a scene in that movie, when a political fundraiser is robbed, from which that very kitchen shot was lifted. I mean it was EXACTLY the same! Don’t get me wrong, Tarantino doesn’t hide his influences, and it was a very artsy, postmodern thing to do, but what got my goat is that the shot had no real bearing on the movie at all, he just tossed it in.
-
This one I really don’t know what to think of. Reservoir Dogs was based on a movie called City on Fire, starring Chow Yun-Fat as a young cop who goes deep under cover, and developes close ties to the gang he has to betray. I hate to bandy about the term post-modern so much, but that is what Tarantino’s work suggests to me. Reservoir Dogs takes the same story, but starts at the end. What makes me conflicted is that it seems like enjoying one film denys the validity of the other. I think RD is one of the greatest films of all time, and the only one of Tarantino’s which holds up for me after repeated watching and critical scrutiny. On the other hand, I loved City on Fire on its own merits, and I thought that the straightforward structure allowed for more convincing characters and tension in the plot, and that the story could stand alone, without being bolstered by the unique and effective narrative of RD. I know that there is no reason not to appreciate both, but there you are.
All in all, Tarantino’s influence on crime movies, or film at all has to be weighed against his reliance on the influence of others. I don’t mean his work is not valid because of this, but I’d have a lot more respect for the guy if he’d actually produce more out of his voluminous source material-- Fer Og’s sake! the man’s last film came out in 1997, and this “Kill Bill” looks like not something I’d dig (being charitable here.)
oh my god, triple post…
It kept saying ‘could not find server’…
sorry
I thought the first and the second were quite good, having heard hype.
I saw The Princess Bride on DVD. My friends all told me that it was a mediocre film, so that was what I was expecting. Hey presto, I got a mediocre film.