Totally agree. I can’t believe that unwatchable trash won Best Picture.
Any movie which includes these lines:
“I’m a mushroom-cloud-layin’ motherfr, motherfr.”
and
“Well, let’s not start suckin’ each others dicks quite yet.”
is OK in my book.
I second Meet The Parents. This movie annoyed me to no end. It wasn’t funny or touching. I guess I’m just not a fan of “victim humor.”
I thought you were going to quote them in the scene where she comes into the saturated room to rescue him from the pole he’s handcuffed to (or whatever it was):
Jack!
Rose!
Rose!
Jack!
Jack!
Rose!
Rose!
I fast-forwarded most of that movie. It sure was short. 
I love the movies, but I have no taste at all. Not only did I like and enjoy and admire Titanic, but I felt the same way about Pearl Harbor. So what do I know?
I enjoyed and admired Pulp Fiction immensely, but I was and still am left cold by Reservoir Dogs. I have tried, but I just can’t see why this is highly regarded. It does have a strong cast, but I don’t think the movie itself is anything notable at all. It left me with the distinct impression that Tarantino’s main creative muse consists of ‘One guy is holding a gun at another guy and they’re angry’. Of course, that isn’t true at all and QT has much more to offer, but that’s just the impression RD made on me at the time.
I like most other movies that are deemed to have some sort of enduring appeal, and many more besides. I guess the one chief exception for me is Blazing Saddles. A comedy classic? Not in my book. Crude, juvenile, cheap, insulting, dumb, simplistic and vulgar, and not in a good way.
I think Blazing Saddles falls into the “out of time, out of place” category. Although some of the gags still make me laugh uproariously, both race relations and film comedy have evolved so much in the intervening years that the shock-based humor no longer has the same power it once did.
I thought Pulp Fiction was great.
But then, I liked Battlefield Earth so what the hell do I know?
I am not sure in what aspect you mean to say Pulp Fiction influenced these movies. Now admittedly I’ve only seen Usual Suspects and Boondock Saints from that list (I actually saw Get Shorty on a plane once a long time ago, but don’t really remember any of it), but I suppose there are two possible aspects you are talking about: either non-linear storytelling, or the concept of “cool criminals”. Now US and BS are both told in flashback, but not in the same non-linear way that PF and Go are. The latter two both jump around to different time frames and different perspectives on the same story, whereas the former are basically flipping back between “now” and “then”. Certainly there were plenty of movies told in flashback before Pulp Fiction. The other possibility is that you mean the “cool criminal” genre, which I suppose PF brought back in popularity, but I don’t think was entirely original. Can you explain in what way you came up with that list?
First of all, Pulp Fiction is a very good movie. It’s shot out of sequence I think for a change of pace. It’s certainly different than the run of the mill movies. Whoever said it was a chick flick with ocassional bursts of violence has no taste.
And in agreement with others I thought My big fat Stupid Greek wedding was bordering on retarded. (no offense to anyone).
And anything with Jim Carrey is just a good way of lowering your I.Q.
you just named off alot of good movies. The Usual Suspects blew my mind the first time I saw it. I admire your good tasteThere endeth the lesson. That is exactly the point, I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s not Hamlet. It’s pulf fiction, and a reasonable understanding of what pulp fiction was/is is kind of seminal to the discussion.
You want highbrow art films? Lots of threads around these parts that discuss such. Pulp Fiction appeals to the viewer in a way that pulp fiction appeals to a reader.
Whatever you may think about Tarantino, he never said he set out to make The 7th Samurai.
The 7th Smaurai? Isn’t that the subtitle of Kill Bill Vol. 2? 
Did you mean The Seventh Seal or The Seven Samurai? Mostly just picking at you, your point was still conveyed.
OMG… :eek: I sit corrected.
Maybe I was referring to that 950’s fluffy romantic comedy, ** Seven Seals for Seven Samurai **.
( I was referring to The Seven Samurai ).
I think we must have been separated at birth.
I loathed Chicago, actually felt my butt go to sleep during that movie. As for Eyes Wide Shut, I feel sad that Stanley Kubrick had to go out on that note. The director of A Clockwork Orange deserved so much better. Forrest Gump? Sickeningly saccharine waste of time.
However, I enjoyed both Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, and mostly everything with the Tarentino touch. Still, he doesn’t walk on water, and his movies are not without flaws.
Skott, all your points are fine and true, but thats not why we are here. We are here to tell other people how cool we are because we don’t like specific blockbusters. Now please bitch about Titanic with us.
Now its my turn. Remember the Titans. Can you please shove it down my throat a little bit more. I didn’t quite get it.
For those who didn’t ‘get’ Pulp Fiction, I recommend this Great Movies review by Roger Ebert.
<SPOILERS AHEAD>
A measure of the greatness of this film is that Ebert writes about nothing but the dialog in the movie, and that alone was enough to make it a great film. He doesn’t even talk much about the plot or the sweeping themes through the movie. On the surface it’s just ‘pulp fiction’, but there are great depths to this movie.
For example, there is a theme that carries through the movie - redemption. The movie introduces us to a cast of unlikable people, but as the movie progresses, they seek and achieve redemption, or they die. The focal point of this story arc is Samuel L. Jackson’s character, who goes around spouting scripture. One by one, the characters are tested and either pass, as Bruce Willis did when he saved Marcellus, Marcellus did when he spared Bruce Willis, and at the end Samuel L. Jackson delivers the payoff speech which makes it all explicit. John Travolta has no redeeming qualities and does not grow as a person, and he is machine-gunned on a toilet.
That theme alone would have been enough to sustain many other good movies, but Pulp Fiction was so rich with ideas that it’s just one of many things going on.
And as Ebert said, Pulp Fiction would work just fine as an audio book. The dialog is so strong that you could just publish the script and it would be damned near literature. And yet, all of this is hung on a ‘pulp fiction’ action-packed gorefest. An amazing work.
I liked the film quite a bit. I really loved how it played with stereotypes and expectations. Marcellus, the crime lord, walking down the street carrying a styrofoam carryout lunch was really really funny to me.
I actually liked Forrest Gump, but more for the technical aspects than the story.
Couldn’t stand Moulon Rouge or About Schmidt.
The script has been published in book form and is readily available in most chain stores that have a reasonably decent Film/T.V. section.
I own the script, and am inclined to agreet with Sam Stone. It’s a hell of a read.
I have to agree with the posters who disliked Citizen Kane–Mr. Armadillo was out of town for a night, so I went and rented it. He never wants to see anything made before, say, 1985, so I figured I’d take the opportunity and watch a movie that’s supposedly the greatest film of all time.
I fell asleep. Twice.
What the fuck is all the acclaim about? I really wanted to appreciate this movie, but it was all I could do to watch the thing in its entirety. As it was, I had to re-start the DVD twice.