Review: Pulp Fiction

Several interwoven stories, some of which are told out of sequence: Bible-quoting Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and pudgy Vincent (John Travolta) are a couple of hitmen for mobster Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames). We see them on their latest job, sent to the apartment of nervy Frank Whaley and Phil LaMar. A second story sees Vincent charged with looking in on Marsellus Wallace’s coke addict wife Mia (Uma Thurman), as dinner and dancing turn very, very unpleasant soon enough. In another story, Bruce Willis plays a boxer paid by Marsellus Wallace to take a dive. He refuses, and finds himself a marked man by Wallace. However, a shootout between the two results in them enduring a very, very humiliating and nasty encounter with a couple of hillbilly rapists (one played by Peter Greene), and something/someone called ‘The Gimp’. Eric Stoltz and Rosanna Arquette play a drug dealer and strung-out girlfriend, Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer bookend the film as a couple of romantic robbers, Maria de Madeiros is Willis’ girlfriend, Christopher Walken is seen in flashback as a war buddy of Willis’ father, Harvey Keitel plays a specialised ‘cleaner’, Steve Buscemi cameos as a faux Buddy Holly, and Quentin Tarantino himself turns up as a guy named Jimmy.

And here’s where you’re all about to hate me. Well, those of you who aren’t already picketing outside my house. Yes, I see you. Bit unimpressed with those signs, though. Really think you could’ve done better. Hell, some of you can’t even spell for crap. You should really reflect on that. Invest in a dictionary, maybe? Hell, at least take a look on Google for crying out loud…

Anyway, I’ve never been a fan of this 1994 flick from Quentin Tarantino (“Reservoir Dogs”, “Jackie Brown”, “Inglourious Basterds”, “Django Unchained”). Parts of it I like, some of the performances are great, but a lot of it I find really unappealing. I’ve seen it several times now, and my view hasn’t changed one bit, even though I’ve really enjoyed most of QT’s subsequent films (“Django Unchained” especially), and have a healthy respect for his first feature directing gig, “Reservoir Dogs”. But this? Meh.

The Dick Dale opening credits surf rock music is undoubtedly awesome, but honestly, the opening section loses me and is indicative of my main problem with the whole damn film: The film may not be all talk, but talk is all QT is truly interested in here, and the talk isn’t always interesting to me. Some of it is, a lot isn’t. A lot of it is pretentious crap, and unlike say the “Kill Bill” films, there’s not a lot of other stuff in between the monologues to keep one awake. This time around, even the hip conversations between John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson shat me, because unlike the “Kill Bill” films and “Inglourious Basterds”, the majority of these monologues have nothing to do with anything other than QT showing us how cool he thinks we should think he is. The ‘Royale wit’ cheese’ thing is just wannabe hip bullshit banter for the sake of it. It has not aged well, that one. Not all of the dialogue is annoying, but much of it is. I will say, however, that the section of the film featuring the characters of Jules and Vincent does contain what should’ve been 1994’s Best Supporting Actor performance from Samuel L. Jackson. I liked “Ed Wood” and I believe the Academy got it right in awarding “Forrest Gump” with all the awards it won, but Samuel L. Jackson is undeniably brilliant and galvanising here. His righteous sermons are really powerful, and not just coolness for the sake of it, they fit the scenes in which they are delivered. When Samuel L. Jackson is on screen, as would often be the case before and after this film, everyone else is freaking invisible. Amazing actor.

On a smaller note, Frank Whaley plays a great wimp, too. As for Mr. Travolta, this may have been a comeback role for him, but for me I think he gets completely outclassed. Which brings me to the segment of the film that has most bugged me over the years and still does. The whole section with Travolta, Uma Thurman, Eric Stoltz, and Rosanna Arquette does absolutely nothing for me. Travolta’s dull, Uma’s performance is too forced and wannabe hip, and it’s a really repellent section of the film. I have zero interest in films about drugs most often than not, and I find heroin particularly repellent and uninteresting. So needless to say (see what I did there? Yes I am literally patting myself on the back. There’s nothing strange about that!) I found all of this boring as hell. There’s nothing cool about heroin. The only good thing in this section of the film, is Urge Overkill’s excellent cover of Neil Diamond’s ‘Girl You’ll Be a Woman Soon’. Otherwise…a yawner for me. And that’s a real problem with the film, it’s a series of stories, uneven stories. Although it’s essentially one story told out of sequence, it really does feel like a series of stories, and a technique QT would make much more cohesive in later films (not to mention Robert Rodriguez in the terrific “Sin City”). Here it feels like a bunch of vignettes. The section of the film dealing with Bruce Willis’ character is similarly uneven, but it does give us the show-stopping cameo monologue by the inimitable Christopher Walken. It’s a legendary monologue, absolutely hilarious and it’s a shame that the rest of the section isn’t nearly as interesting, though Ving Rhames is all presence and bad arse intimidation as Marsellus Wallace. He’s so good here it makes you wonder why QT hasn’t used him since, and it makes you mad that Rhames has been stuck in direct-to-DVD hell of late (I thought his work in “Con Air” and especially “Rosewood” would bring him to new heights). So much presence, charisma, power, and talent…gone to waste. There’s a particularly amusing scene where Rhames and Willis have a shootout (witnessed by Kathy Griffin, whom I didn’t recall seeing previously in my viewing of this film), and then there’s ‘The Gimp’. Boy does this scene seem to come from outer space. Hell, I’m not even sure it makes sense, really. I mean, was Peter Greene’s character really a cop or did he have some kind of uniform fetish going on? It sure is a memorable scene, however, and I bet QT finds it the most hysterically funny bit in the film. On the downside, Bruce Willis is boring and looks bored. Occasionally he looks confused. As his girlfriend, Maria de Madeiros was a flavour of the month, and annoying beyond belief here. That’s not a casting decision that has held up terribly well, I must say, not something one usually says about QT. She and Willis are a pretty uninteresting pair, unfortunately. Speaking of bad decisions by the director, there’s a particularly stupid decision by QT to feature not only back-projection in a car scene, but B&W back-projection in an otherwise colour film. That’s not a cool cinephile gag, it’s idiotic.

There’s some genuinely amusing moments, especially that splatter moment. The entrails in Jules’ jheri curl is especially funny and disgusting. But for every amusing moment, there’s a lot of pretentious crap, too (especially from Uma Thurman). Also, as good as QT himself was in “From Dusk ‘Til Dawn” playing a sociopath, he is a terrible actor in most everything else (and completely bollocksed an Aussie accent in “Django Unchained”). In this he’s just OK, but probably should’ve given the role to a genuine actor nonetheless (Weirdest thing? He doesn’t deliver his own damn dialogue very well!). Much better is Harvey Keitel (where has he been in the last five years or so? I barely see him in anything now), in a late cameo that is one of his best performances, I think. He’s probably only behind Jackson and Walken here, in terms of performance quality. Very cool extended cameo, albeit essentially a riff on his Victor the Cleaner in “The Assassin”.

Honestly, I just don’t see the masterpiece here, guys. If you do, that’s cool. I wish I could. I feel like this film and “Jackie Brown” are really Tarantino working his way to being a better filmmaker. Sure, “Reservoir Dogs” is a better film than the subsequent two films, but it was also a simpler, lower-budget film if I’m not mistaken. There’s a huge leap in improvement from this film to the “Kill Bill” films, “Inglourious Basterds” is slightly better than that, and “Django Unchained” at the very top, the latter two being quite mature for QT, all things considered. Certainly more ambitious. For me, “Jackie Brown” was a bit of a failed experiment, and this one is just plain uneven. I like some of it, hate some of it, and find myself bored by a lot of it. Overall, I’m unimpressed as I was in 1994. It’s mostly watchable, but very, very spotty I think (offensively overlong at about 2 ½ hours, as well), and occasionally really repellent. QT would probably wear that last one like a badge of honour, though I suppose. Tarantino also scripted, based on stories by him and Roger Avary (“Beowulf”, “The Rules of Attraction”, “Silent Hill”).

Rating: C+