Pulp Fiction SUCKS
Zack T. Smith
The characters are shallow. The violence is arbitrary and pointless.
The dialog is interesting, but not worth the 2+ hours and $3.75 I invested.
The trailer was a fuck of a lot more interesting than the moovie.
Pulp Fiction is just that -- pulp, junk. I left feeling like I had just
walked into a video arcade. All bangs and booms -- no content -- and
a juvenile audience.
Compared to Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fuction sucks. Reason: Because Tarantino
stole Dogs from a Hong Kong flick.
Zack Smith
za...@netcom.com
Sunil P. Doshi
: I have seen it and I must say it SUCKS. It has *numerous* boring moments.
: Zack Smith
: za...@netcom.com
I'm glad you liked it. For someone who uses the phrase, "The trailer was
a FUCK of a lot more interesting than the mOOvie," I'm happy you at least
understood it.
S.P.D.
Steve Lycosky
: The characters are shallow. The violence is arbitrary and pointless.
: The dialog is interesting, but not worth the 2+ hours and $3.75 I invested.
: The trailer was a fuck of a lot more interesting than the moovie.
: Pulp Fiction is just that -- pulp, junk. I left feeling like I had just
: walked into a video arcade. All bangs and booms -- no content -- and
: a juvenile audience.
Ah, I love the smell of ASSHOLE in the morning.
First of all, if you watched the movie at all, you should have
gotten a lot more out of it than you seem to have. Pulp Fiction is all
about character development. That is why there are like a thousand
people in the film that all have nothing to do with one another, but have
everything to do with each other and the film...even it is for a few
minutes... The violence is mild compared to RD, and actually has
something to do with the film and the message.
I would love to hear what you think these boring parts are.
Maybe when the dialog is interesting and meaningful? What would have you
liked to see? I bet you are one of these idiots who thinks that QT
"steals" from other movies, rather than paying his respects.
Looking forward to hearing from you...
--
Now, where did I put that .sig file..??? Ah, here it is...
******************************************************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
. . .
. Steve Lycosky . "Did you notice a sign on the .
. len...@cutter.ship.edu . front of my house that says .
. sl3...@ark.ship.edu . 'Dead Nigger Storage'?" .
. . .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
******************************************************************************
Erik Hiroshi Andoyeap
>
>Compared to Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fuction sucks. Reason: Because Tarantino
>stole Dogs from a Hong Kong flick.
>
>Zack Smith
>za...@netcom.com
Hey man, have you even seen this "Hong Kong flick"? Or did you only hear
about the film in Film "merely a fraction of Chris Gore's magazine monoploy"
Threat... or even worse, another article about Film Threat's accusation?
Second or third hand information is for shit, man!
Besides, only the ending of Ringo Lam's 'City on Fire' shares plot
similarities with Dogs. Sure, you can say that the two films have similar
"honorable criminals," but those are >archetypes< of crime fiction.
In both Dogs and Fiction, Tarantino deconstructs the familiar elements of the
gnre and jumbles them together into a revolutionary new construct. Isn't it
even slightly remarkable that Tarantino made a film that dwells on such
violent and horrific criminal acts so absolutely hilarious? Well, if you
didn't even chuckle once through the whole thing, it's your loss-- I would
believe that the feel-goof meanderings of Mighty Ducks 2 or that REAL action
movie- Timecop would better suit your taste.
"MotherFUCKER!" - Dolemite
Erik
[SCi-Fi.UCR]
: Zack Smith
: za...@netcom.com
First off, the film was absolutely incredible. Second, if you missed the
content you probably should invest another 3.75 and see it again.
--
____________________________________________________sci...@netcom.com
NETCOM, the West Coast's Leading Internet Service Provider. (408) 554-8649
Steve Blair
You know what I think sucks? People who use the word SUCK to
criticize a movie...or anything for that matter.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ STEVE BLAIR -You'll have to excuse me, I'm not at my ^
^ Rm 335 Lennox best. I've been gone for a week, I've ^
^ U of G been drunk since I left. ^
^ (519) 824-4120 X78784 - Spirit of the West ^
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEE, KONG WAI
>I have seen it and I must say it SUCKS. It has *numerous* boring moments.
>The characters are shallow. The violence is arbitrary and pointless.
>The dialog is interesting, but not worth the 2+ hours and $3.75 I invested.
Finally, someone who agrees with me that it is boring and slow.
Personally, I found the dialogue irritating and pointless. The whole
Harvey Keital episode was so stupid, I couldn't believe it. Anybody
with an ounce of sense would had grab a bucket of water and starting
cleaning instead of wondering what to do.
>
>The trailer was a fuck of a lot more interesting than the moovie.
>Pulp Fiction is just that -- pulp, junk. I left feeling like I had just
>walked into a video arcade. All bangs and booms -- no content -- and
>a juvenile audience.
>
>Compared to Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fuction sucks. Reason: Because Tarantino
>stole Dogs from a Hong Kong flick.
Reservoir Dogs had more suspense, better characters and a excellent
storyline. Nothing like this interwine garbage I just saw.
>
>Zack Smith
>za...@netcom.com
Wai Kong Lee
kw_...@pavo.concordia.ca
Dept. of Computer Science
Concordia University
SHERLOCK JASON ARCHER
Richard Chaput <rch...@nucleus.com> wrote:
>
>Ben Parrish (pin...@access4.digex.net) wrote:
>: : Compared to Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fuction sucks. Reason: Because Tarantino
>
>
>by John Woo, where they're pointing the guns at each other. But, if you've
>seen both movies, you'll know that they're totally different stories. So,
>what movie are you accusing QT of ripping off? Put up or shut up.
>
> By the way, I saw Pulp Fiction on the weekend and I loved it. Compared
>to Reservoir Dogs, I'd say RD is still a bit better, but not by much.
>
>
> Rich
I had heard that a major source of inspiration for the movie was
John Carpenter's The Thing. Not so much for content, but QT wanted to
recreate the claustrophobic atmosphere in The Thing.
--
'If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the
hardest time living in it.'
sher...@spot.colorado.edu
(Cannibal)
Richard Chaput
Ben Parrish (pin...@access4.digex.net) wrote:
: : Compared to Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fuction sucks. Reason: Because Tarantino
Steven Sullivan
: In article <CxuJM...@nucleus.com>,
: Richard Chaput <rch...@nucleus.com> wrote:
: >
: >Ben Parrish (pin...@access4.digex.net) wrote:
: >: : Compared to Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fuction sucks. Reason: Because Tarantino
: >: : stole Dogs from a Hong Kong flick.
: >
: >
: > What Hong Kong flick??? I heard he was inspired by a scene in The Killer
: >by John Woo, where they're pointing the guns at each other. But, if you've
: >seen both movies, you'll know that they're totally different stories. So,
: >what movie are you accusing QT of ripping off? Put up or shut up.
: >
: > By the way, I saw Pulp Fiction on the weekend and I loved it. Compared
: >to Reservoir Dogs, I'd say RD is still a bit better, but not by much.
: >
: >
: > Rich
: I had heard that a major source of inspiration for the movie was
: John Carpenter's The Thing. Not so much for content, but QT wanted to
: recreate the claustrophobic atmosphere in The Thing.
Jeez, that's a new one on me. I though REservoir Dogs was descended
from THE ASPHALT JUNGLE crossed with THE KILLING with some John
WOo tossed in as well.
Btw, the original poster (mr. SUCKS) is an idiot. But most of you
seem to ahve figured that out right off.
janet
right on...i agree 100%...
if the movie entertains at least one purpose, it's done it's duty...
therefore, it can't s-u-c-k...
(and this goes for music, visual arts, food, life in general...)
a person's allowed to say whether or not they like/dislike/hate
something, but to say that something sucks implies that you are
educated and knowledgable enough to have the final FINAL word (ie,
god)...maybe in your own mind you are...
read daniel
On 17 Oct 1994, Erik Hiroshi Andoyeap wrote:
>
> Hey man, have you even seen this "Hong Kong flick"? Or did you only hear
> about the film in Film "merely a fraction of Chris Gore's magazine monoploy"
> Threat... or even worse, another article about Film Threat's accusation?
> Second or third hand information is for shit, man!
>
> Besides, only the ending of Ringo Lam's 'City on Fire' shares plot
> similarities with Dogs. Sure, you can say that the two films have similar
> "honorable criminals," but those are >archetypes< of crime fiction.
> In both Dogs and Fiction, Tarantino deconstructs the familiar elements of the
> gnre and jumbles them together into a revolutionary new construct. Isn't it
> even slightly remarkable that Tarantino made a film that dwells on such
> violent and horrific criminal acts so absolutely hilarious? Well, if you
> didn't even chuckle once through the whole thing, it's your loss-- I would
> believe that the feel-goof meanderings of Mighty Ducks 2 or that REAL action
> movie- Timecop would better suit your taste.
>
Why do people keep saying this about "City On Fire." I really don't
understand the point of denying the similarities between the two films.
That similarity won't go away just because you avert your eyes.
I had seen City on Fire and Reservoir Dogs separately before someone
mentioned the connection to me. This, incidentally, before the Film
Threat article was out (and I have never read the article nor really know
what it says). However, I didn't catch any similarity -- I guess because
they have pretty generic plots and, while the plots are the same they
don't differ so much in that regard from other HK films. Skeptically, I
watched them both again, this time on video and back-to-back. The
experience was pretty startling. It is not just the main plot that is
the same, but all the little details that make up the plot. Chow Yun Fat
plays Tim Roth, Danny Lee plays Harvey Keitel (or is it the other way
around). No one in their right mind would compare the films and not
think that one (the later one, I forget which one was made second) was
not a remake of the first.
Reservoir Dogs is a really good film, and I'm not particularly bothered
by this. I expect that Tarantino doesn't talk about it only because he
knows that he could lose money if he "fessed up." Thats what happened to
Sergio Leone (the director who I think is most comparable to Tarantino) who
did the same thing with Yojimbo. The cases are similar in other ways.
I love Yojimbo, but I also love Fistful of Dollars. It doesn't bother me
that one is a remake of the other, but I sure wouldn't deny it either. Like
Tarantino, Leone went on to make other films that weren't obvious remakes and were even better than
Fistful. Pulp Fiction, it seems to me, is Tarantino's The Good The Bad
and the Ugly. I exaggerate, of course, but only slightly -- maybe its
really his For a Few Dollars More.
daniel
Steven E. Lester
: First of all, I'm going to start my own thread just to talk about how
: super-cool Pulp Fiction was, but I do want to say that everyone is
: entitled to their own opinion, HOWEVER, I really think it was shallow of
: you to post a derogatory message on a newsgroup which has been dedicated
: to FANS of Mr. Tarantino's work. Save your flames for a newsgroup with
: people who actually care.
: And that is all I have to say on this matter.
: -Brad
: "Ketch-Up."
Well, if you wrote that to get flamed... here you are:
YOU SUCK!!!!
gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
No you suck!!!!:-)
Time to start a cascade!
Dan
--
Daniel Jude Bredy
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt3655a
Internet: gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
Ben Parrish
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
You will know my name is the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
--
[ pinback/Ben Parrish - If you don't care where you are, you're not lost. ]
Brad Plevyak
EDWARD S PESCHKO
Whatever.
Ed
Henrik Jonsson
[SCi-Fi.UCR] <sci...@netcom.com> wrote:
>First off, the film was absolutely incredible. Second, if you missed the
>content you probably should invest another 3.75 and see it again.
For $3.75 a ticket I'd be LIVING in the theatre...Heck, tickets are up to
$9 in a proper cinema over here in Sweden, ($8 for a showing in a small room
with a small, boring screen) and I will buy tickets for two showings in a row
when NBK resp. PF hit the theatres over here.
/Henrik
--
To post or not to post, that is the question...Whether 'tis nobler on the 'net
to suffer, the flames from outrageous loonies or to press 'F' against a sea of
slander and by opposing end them? To send KILL signal; to sleep(1); No more...
---*** d1...@dtek.chalmers.se ***===---===*** h...@cd.chalmers.se ***---
Simon Dawson
>Henrik Jonsson (d1...@dtek.chalmers.se) wrote:
> > In article <sciphiCx...@netcom.com>,
> > [SCi-Fi.UCR] <sci...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > For $3.75 a ticket I'd be LIVING in the theatre...Heck, tickets are up to
> > $9 in a proper cinema over here in Sweden, ($8 for a showing in a small room
> > with a small, boring screen) and I will buy tickets for two showings in a row
> > when NBK resp. PF hit the theatres over here.
>Japan. 20$ to see a film. 5$ to rent one.
>You really have to *want* to see it.
New Zealand. $9 to see a film. $2-$6 to rent one.
Now quite -really-, but close..
Funny how diff places around the world have diff costs..
SImon
--
Sim...@PERCEPTION.Manawatu.Gen.NZ (Simon Dawson)
_________________________________________________________________
Analysing the past. Creating the future. Controlling the present.
Ram...@intmed-po.int-med.uiowa.edu
>I have seen it and I must say it SUCKS. It has *numerous* boring moments.
>The characters are shallow. The violence is arbitrary and pointless.
Some of the violence was abitrary and pointless (that's part of the "pulp",
Zack), but much of it was not. To say that the characters were shallow . . .
uh, are you *positive* that you saw "Pulp Fiction"? Maybe you walked into the
wrong theater in your multiplex and saw "New Nightmare" or something.
>The dialog is interesting, but not worth the 2+ hours and $3.75 I invested.
Too bad, Zack. Quentin Tarantino has your money now! BWAAAH HA HA!
Stephen M. Grafton
> In article <sciphiCx...@netcom.com>,
> [SCi-Fi.UCR] <sci...@netcom.com> wrote:
> For $3.75 a ticket I'd be LIVING in the theatre...Heck, tickets are up to
> $9 in a proper cinema over here in Sweden, ($8 for a showing in a small room
> with a small, boring screen) and I will buy tickets for two showings in a row
> when NBK resp. PF hit the theatres over here.
Japan. 20$ to see a film. 5$ to rent one.
You really have to *want* to see it.
Steve G.
--
***************************************************************
* Stephen Grafton, Fujitsu Ltd. *
* Somewhere in Kawasaki. *
* E-mail: s...@rp.open.cs.fujitsu.co.jp *
***************************************************************
Peter A Goodrich
: : Compared to Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fuction sucks. Reason: Because Tarantino
I smell flamebait...
pete.
Robt Martin
: Why do people keep saying this about "City On Fire." I really don't
: understand the point of denying the similarities between the two films.
: That similarity won't go away just because you avert your eyes.
Everyone admits similarities, but I'd agree with the first poster. CoF is
about a police operation and secondarily, a jewel theft. RD is about a
jewel heist and secondarily a police operation. That little shift in pov
makes all the difference in the world - except in the final reel,
the dialogue, and story structure are entirely different; and despite the
similarities in that final reel, the ending plays very differently.
Sure, there are similarities between cops and thieves - that's part of
the subtext of both films, really. You might say that QT is riffing off
of CoF, but the difference in pov is too radical to call RD a remake.
Fistful of Dollars took the Man With No Name's pov, just as Yojimbo was
from the vantage point of its freelance samurai.
Nevertheless, Yojimbo/Fistful (like Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven)
is a good answer to those who claim that good films don't "steal." I've
never argued against the similarities as much as I have against the thesis
that originality eschews the use of existing plot devices.
--
"The climate of our culture is changing. Under these new rains, new suns,
small things grow great, and what was great grows small; whole species
disappear and are replaced." -- Randall Jarrell
Brad Plevyak
: : -Brad
: : "Ketch-Up."
: YOU SUCK!!!!
Thank you for once again sharing your colorful vocabulary with me.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| { { } } | "DAMN Good Coffee!" |
| _____________ | -Agent Cooper, "Twin Peaks" |
| (_____________) | |
| | | | "Mmmm!" |
| | S P A W N |== | -Harvey Keitel, "Pulp Fiction" |
| | S P A W N | )) | |
| | S P A W N |== |--------------------------------------------|
| | | | |
| (_____________) | sp...@cutter.ship.edu |
| | |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
fugitive - using tin
: Zack Smith
: za...@netcom.com
I guess that explains the Palme D'Or at Cannes, eh? And the rave
reviews from every critic on earth.
If Pulp Fiction is an example of a movie that "sucks", then I wish more
films would suck.
Quentin should be a god or something, shouldn't he?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: ComputerLink Online Inc. Realms of Despair! :
: (416)233-5410 telnet mud.compulink.com 4000 :
: 106 lines, 300-28,800 bps endless medieval enjoyment! :
: :
: Join our International Teleconference --> chat.compulink.com 9000 :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cerebus The Aardvark
>In <37vg13$h...@ts.ts.fujitsu.co.jp> s...@rp.open.cs.fujitsu.co.jp (Stephen M. Grafton) writes:
>>Henrik Jonsson (d1...@dtek.chalmers.se) wrote:
>> > In article <sciphiCx...@netcom.com>,
>> > [SCi-Fi.UCR] <sci...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> > For $3.75 a ticket I'd be LIVING in the theatre...Heck, tickets are up to
>> > $9 in a proper cinema over here in Sweden, ($8 for a showing in a small room
>> > with a small, boring screen) and I will buy tickets for two showings in a row
>> > when NBK resp. PF hit the theatres over here.
$3.75 for Floyd tickets? Wow! :-)
ACtually, ticket prices inthe US vary widely. I believe the national
average is up to $7.25 for "full fare" and around $4.00-4.50 for matinees.
(No, I don't have sources).
Here in Denver, the going rate is $6.00/$3.75 with a $2.75 "Twilight" show
at one chain (movies starting after 1600 and before 1800)
>Funny how diff places around the world have diff costs..
Most rental prices are $3 (as mandated by the schlockbuster monopoly) but
you can find cheap rentals all over if you're willing to sacrafice variety.
Grocery stores run $1-2.50.
Before Schlockbuster bought out SOund Warehouse, all their older movies
were 99cents every day.
--
| kr...@netcom.com \ 1015 South Gaylord, Denver, CO 80209 #100 |
| PGP Fingerprint \ 1D 5E F7 C8 7E C2 F9 87 0F 86 C9 B0 D2 63 9C B2 |
| [303/722-2009] Vox \ Michelle, "If you can have any amount of money, |
| [303/777-2911] Data \ how much would you want?" Cerebus, "All of it" |
Dan Homolka
: In article <zackCxs...@netcom.com>, za...@netcom.com (Zack T. Smith) writes...
: >I have seen it and I must say it SUCKS. It has *numerous* boring moments.
: >The characters are shallow. The violence is arbitrary and pointless.
: >The dialog is interesting, but not worth the 2+ hours and $3.75 I invested.
: Finally, someone who agrees with me that it is boring and slow.
: Personally, I found the dialogue irritating and pointless. The whole
: Harvey Keital episode was so stupid, I couldn't believe it. Anybody
: with an ounce of sense would had grab a bucket of water and starting
: cleaning instead of wondering what to do.
Well having finally seen PF (it was only on general release in England
yesterday), I can make a comment on this thread...
I'm not what I would describe a hardened Tarantino fan, but I think his movies
(well the ones I have seen: RD, True Romance & PF) are good - not brilliant,
but pretty damn good - I've enjoyed all of them to varying degrees, but I
especially liked PF.
I think the point of the Harvey Keital episode wasn't that he had to tell them
to get a bucket of water and clean the car, etc. but to illustrate the point
that he was a 'fixer'. I think that scene was intentionally a little sarcastic,
the way it was played out and the motivation for it... kinda trashy... a little
bit like a PULP novel (perhaps - re: the Modesty Blaise novel that John
Travolta is seen reading in the toilet (bathroom) twice.) Also, the scene where
Butch blows Travolta away - yeah, a hitman would really leave his gun lying
around like that - I don't think.
BTW I loved the Keitel episode - but then I think Harvey is the man! (Mr White)
(Yeah and I am a Bruce Willis fan too. At least he knows he can play the
hard bitten cop/private-eye/ex-armed forces type/whatever and does it well...
Butch was a character made for him.)
All of these scenes kept reminding me of a comic strip/pulp novel story line...
maybe not 'real cinema' but it was damn entertaining.
In fact a lot of PF brought back memories of all of those Starsky and Hutch
epsiodes I used to watch when 'I was a lad'. Not heavy-weight meaningful
content - but enjoyable.
This reminds me of the time I was leaving a cinema having just seen
The Princess Bride for the second time (and killed myself laughing again), and
someone commented:
" God! What a crap film - it was SOOOOO full of cliches..."
Considering that TPB was a send-up of fairy tales - I feel that guy had missed
the point - ever so slightly. Much the same is true of PF - in the sense that
it is a little bit of a send-up of the trashy novel genre.
: >The trailer was a fuck of a lot more interesting than the moovie.
: >Pulp Fiction is just that -- pulp, junk. I left feeling like I had just
: >walked into a video arcade. All bangs and booms -- no content -- and
: >a juvenile audience.
: >
: >Compared to Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fuction sucks. Reason: Because Tarantino
: >stole Dogs from a Hong Kong flick.
: Reservoir Dogs had more suspense, better characters and a excellent
: storyline. Nothing like this interwine garbage I just saw.
Granted the characterization in RD is a lot better - but that is more of a
character film - whereas PF is tending towards being a location/interaction
film. Not concerned with the characters themselves so much, but in the way
they interact. Witness Butch and Mr Wallace attempting to kill each other
and then helping each other out.
One other thing I did notice, QT really makes use of the whole screen... it's
been a long time since I've seen a film that has seemed to fill the entire
screen. Ususally it is full but the action is concentrated at the centre...
maybe film-makers are keeping TV & video releases in mind when they make films
nowadays :-)
Well I don't care what anyone else thinks I liked the film!
Dan.
PS Best line in the film... (IMHO of course)
"Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead."
(And boy did he ever deserve it!)
--
| Wanted: *JOB* .......Anywhere that has Snow & Sun...... |
| CV/Resume at my homepage http://rmd-www.mr.ic.ac.uk/~dan/homepage.html |
| Dan Homolka, Imperial College, London. |
|Voice: +44 71 594 7343 Fax: +44 71 594 7444 E-mail: d.ho...@ic.ac.uk |
br...@merle.acns.nwu.edu
(fugitive - using tin) wrote:
> I guess that explains the Palme D'Or at Cannes, eh? And the rave
> reviews from every critic on earth.
> If Pulp Fiction is an example of a movie that "sucks", then I wish more
> films would suck.
> Quentin should be a god or something, shouldn't he?
>
Here's the problem when every critic on earth starts jerking off on a
movie: critics are so jaded with themes of violence and sex that once
something comes along that actually makes them feel something, they
automatically assume it's a piece of art.
Once a movie makes jokey in-references which critics think only they
get, it is similarly revered. Take the dance sequence. You could almost
hear critics thinking, "Yes! John Travolta on the dance floor again!"
But if you thought _Saturday Night Fever_ was a joke, then this scene
didn't do anything for you. I personally thought John Travolta was a
pretty wooden dancer during this part.
QT is not a god. He pretty much recycles the same plot elements from
movie to movie. Think about it: _Resevoir Dogs_, _True Romance_ and _Pulp
Fiction_ all had torture scenes (the cop with his ear cut off, Alabama in
the bathroom, the hicks). All three movies ended with triangular gun
formation (at least three people pointing guns at each other and
talking). None of the three movies has a relatively intelligent female
character.
In fact, the women in PF were particularly atrocious. Not one had
anything interesting about them. Instead, they served to screw up the
male characters. Especially the waif-like love interest of Bruce Willis.
Having said that, I can say that I liked the movie for one reason: the
last ten minutes. Samuel Jackson turns in a performance that is
stunning. John Travolta is probably going to get the Best Actor
Nomination from this film, and that's too bad because it belongs to
Jackson. To me, the main character in any work of art is the one that
undergoes the most profound change. Samuel Jackson actually had to
convince the audience that he had changed from being irredeemable to
redeemable.
But the Academy is just as political as any race. Travolta is white.
Jackson is black. Travolta has been around the block. Jackson hasn't.
That's a shame. But that's life.
Geoffrey Stowell
: In article <3878js$5...@news.compulink.com>, fugi...@cl.compulink.com
: (fugitive - using tin) wrote:
: > I guess that explains the Palme D'Or at Cannes, eh? And the rave
: > reviews from every critic on earth.
: > If Pulp Fiction is an example of a movie that "sucks", then I wish more
: > films would suck.
: > Quentin should be a god or something, shouldn't he?
: >
: Here's the problem when every critic on earth starts jerking off on a
: movie: critics are so jaded with themes of violence and sex that once
: something comes along that actually makes them feel something, they
: automatically assume it's a piece of art.
If this were true, the critics would have liked NBK a lot more than they
did. It seems to me that critics seem to try avoid endorsing a movie
that even hints at unnecessary or gratiutous violence or sex.
: Once a movie makes jokey in-references which critics think only they
: get, it is similarly revered. Take the dance sequence. You could almost
: hear critics thinking, "Yes! John Travolta on the dance floor again!"
: But if you thought _Saturday Night Fever_ was a joke, then this scene
: didn't do anything for you. I personally thought John Travolta was a
: pretty wooden dancer during this part.
What are you talking about? Everyone on the planet has seen/heard about
Saturday Night Fever. How is this a "jokey in-reference" that only
a critic would get?
: QT is not a god. He pretty much recycles the same plot elements from
: movie to movie. Think about it: _Resevoir Dogs_, _True Romance_ and _Pulp
: Fiction_ all had torture scenes (the cop with his ear cut off, Alabama in
: the bathroom, the hicks). All three movies ended with triangular gun
Those scenes aren't the least bit similar, except for that fact that they
all include someone getting fucked up.
: formation (at least three people pointing guns at each other and
: talking). None of the three movies has a relatively intelligent female
: character.
Umm, did you even see True Romance? You don't seem to know what you are
talking about...
So QT is a fan of the Mexican standoff, so what? I think they're pretty
fucking cool.
: In fact, the women in PF were particularly atrocious. Not one had
: anything interesting about them. Instead, they served to screw up the
: male characters. Especially the waif-like love interest of Bruce Willis.
I found Mia very interesting. I thought there were a lot of subtle
nuances in the relationship between her and Vincent. On the other hand,
it does seem like QT went out of his way to make Fabienne look like a
complete bimbo.
: Having said that, I can say that I liked the movie for one reason: the
: last ten minutes. Samuel Jackson turns in a performance that is
: stunning. John Travolta is probably going to get the Best Actor
: Nomination from this film, and that's too bad because it belongs to
: Jackson. To me, the main character in any work of art is the one that
: undergoes the most profound change. Samuel Jackson actually had to
: convince the audience that he had changed from being irredeemable to
: redeemable.
: But the Academy is just as political as any race. Travolta is white.
: Jackson is black. Travolta has been around the block. Jackson hasn't.
: That's a shame. But that's life.
Yawn. Save it. Travolta may have been around for longer, but Jackson
has certainly been "around the block". Check out his filmography in
one of the other threads, including a critically acclaimed performance
of his in "Jungle Fever". I do agree that his performance was very
impressive in PF.
-Flagg
Ron Maimon
|>
|> QT is not a god. He pretty much recycles the same plot elements from
|> movie to movie. Think about it: _Resevoir Dogs_, _True Romance_ and _Pulp
|> Fiction_ all had torture scenes (the cop with his ear cut off, Alabama in
|> the bathroom, the hicks). All three movies ended with triangular gun
|> formation (at least three people pointing guns at each other and
|> talking). None of the three movies has a relatively intelligent female
|> character.
|>
(turn on Beevis and Butthead mode)
heh heh heh
You're stupid
(turn off Beevis and Butthead)
--
Ron Maimon
! You're a star bellied sneetch, you suck like a leech
Jello ! you want everyone to act like you
Biafra ! kiss ass while you bitch so you can get rich
! but your boss gets richer off you
lockhart david w jr
>talking). None of the three movies has a relatively intelligent female
>character.
> In fact, the women in PF were particularly atrocious. Not one had
>anything interesting about them. Instead, they served to screw up the
>male characters. Especially the waif-like love interest of Bruce Willis.
Actually, I found both Mia and Esmerelda (the cabbie) to be intelligent,
interesting and positively-portrayed characters. I agree that Fabienne
was so vapid it was excruciating. But I could swear I know that character.
Not coincidentally, the real world version of her with which I am acquainted
has about the same relationship with her boyfriend that Fabienne and Butch
seem to. There really are people like that in the world, and I don't think
that including *one* of them in the film can really be called excessive.
Sojic Sacha
> (...)
>But if you thought _Saturday Night Fever_ was a joke, then this scene
>didn't do anything for you. I personally thought John Travolta was a
>pretty wooden dancer during this part.
Travolta plays a rather clumsy, overweight hit man. It would
have been odd to see him tear through the dance floor like he did
in Saturday Night Fever.
> (...)
> But the Academy is just as political as any race. Travolta is white.
>Jackson is black. Travolta has been around the block. Jackson hasn't.
>That's a shame. But that's life.
>
>br...@merle.acns.nwu.edu
What? Watch it buddy, you're gettin' delirious.
--
You have just read ___ ___
a piece by Sacha Sojic... /-- /__/ Elvis Presley once said:
/___ / "OK, the drinks are on me..."
soj...@ere.umontreal.ca
Bill Hyman
>
>Notice how important it is to Tim Roth that the triangular gun standoff
>remain triangular.
Poor Tim Roth, he always ends up at the end of a gun standoff, without
a gun! Except this time, he wasn't trying to keep his intestines inside
his belly WHILE not trying to get shot. Maybe next time, QT will give
him a gun too.
Bill Hyman
bill....@bsis.com
Bill Hyman
> Also, the scene where
>Butch blows Travolta away - yeah, a hitman would really leave his gun lying
>around like that - I don't think.
Well, remember that Vince (John Travolta) did have a particularly
stressful evening. A little heroin, a surreal experience in a restaurant,
erotic flirtation with the boss' wife, nearly killing the boss' wife
afterward, and then having to stab her in the heart with a six inch
hypodermic of adrenaline. I think I might be a bit slow the following
day. :)
>One other thing I did notice, QT really makes use of the whole screen... it's
>been a long time since I've seen a film that has seemed to fill the entire
>screen. Ususally it is full but the action is concentrated at the centre...
>maybe film-makers are keeping TV & video releases in mind when they make films
>nowadays :-)
>
Yes, yes, yes, YES! I agree wholeheartedly. QT may not be a flawless
director, but his sense for cinematography is outstanding in Pulp Fiction.
Don't laugh, but I was reminded of the visual acuity of Orson Wells, and
of his masterpiece Citizen Kane. I really adored the way the dinner at
JackRabbit's(?) was filmed. The camera pans the entire room, slowly
following Vince's path to the table. Wonderful filmmaking!
Bill Hyman
bill....@bsis.com
Robt Martin
: How could someone realize that Tarantino loves to make references to other
: movies and not realize that the triangular gun standoff in Pulp Fiction was
: an in-joke for anyone who had seen Reservoir Dogs?
I don't think so - not any more than the stand-offs in John Woo movies
are "references" to Woo's other films. Both filmmakers use these
situations to make audiences squirm, not for the thrill of the small
minority of film geeks.
: Notice how important it is to Tim Roth that the triangular gun standoff
: remain triangular. He doesn't want the gun from the woman pointed at John
: Travolta, he wants it pointed at himself. He is obsessed that the guns
: stay pointed in the same direction. He does this not from a safety point of
: view, but because QT is making fun of his own scene from Reservoir Dogs.
Even QT is not going to blow off narrative value just to make an
in-joke. Roth's characters is interested in keeping the situation
stable, because, with Marcellus' gun at his head, he is the only
character who will certainly die if things go wrong.
--
The American present is so different from the American past
that our awareness of the changes has been repressed; we regard
as ordinary what is extraordinary--ominous perhaps--both for
us and the rest of the world. --Randall Jarrell
Jeffrey Davis
[about the use of a Mexican Standoff plot device as an
"in joke" in Pulp Fiction]
+
+Umm...that was possibly the single most idiotic justification for the use
+of the Mexican Standoff I have ever heard. I couldn't have come up with a
+worse one if I tried. Get real.
+
+So...the end of PF was an "in-joke" from Dogs, and I guess the end of
+True Romance is also an in-joke from Dogs. A joke so good it had to be
+told twice. I don't think so. I think QT is a very talented filmmaker
+who also happens to be very young and is in danger of slamming himself into
+quite a rut. I hope he revives this genre, but I also hope he doesn't become
+enslaved to it.
There's a joke from The Far Side that this resembles: from a vet book on
the treatment of horses:
Problem Treatment
Broken Leg Shoot the horse
Shortness of Breath Shoot the horse
etc.
From what I can tell, QT's chief problem isn't recycling plot
devices. His chief problem is giving interviews. When the Big Book of
Sins is revised, Giving Interviews will be in there.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Dusty Goes to Memphis, the AC Cobra, The Jonathan Winters Show, The Coasters,
Tippy Walker, "Gonna Tear Your Playhouse Down"
Robt Martin
: Also, the scene where
: Butch blows Travolta away - yeah, a hitman would really leave his gun lying
: around like that - I don't think.
Um - didn't you notice that the guy was a habitual fuck-up?
The Radlinski Fam...
>In article <zackCxs...@netcom.com>, za...@netcom.com (Zack T. Smith) writes...
>>I have seen it and I must say it SUCKS. It has *numerous* boring moments.
>>The characters are shallow. The violence is arbitrary and pointless.
>>The dialog is interesting, but not worth the 2+ hours and $3.75 I invested.
> Finally, someone who agrees with me that it is boring and slow.
>Personally, I found the dialogue irritating and pointless. The whole
>Harvey Keital episode was so stupid, I couldn't believe it. Anybody
>with an ounce of sense would had grab a bucket of water and starting
>cleaning instead of wondering what to do.
I found that entire scene hilarious, and you must of completely missed
the point. It was the absurdity of the idea that you would have to bring
someone in to complete this task that made it comedy. I fail to see how
this movie can be taken seriously in a dramatic sense. It was a comedy,
plain and simple. Pulp Fiction long and boring? Dogs was the most
stagnant film I've ever seen. Don't get me wrong, it was a great film,
but to say that Pulp Fiction was slow compared to it, ?????
The definition in the beginning of the movie should be taken very
seriously. It was supposed to be "Pulp", and it was, and in my opinion
it was a great film.
Kudos to Tarintino for fucking with our minds, and making us think we
were watching a drama. I guess it worked for some of us.
Ben Rad
Stephen Leslie Legge
: Having said that, I can say that I liked the movie for one reason: the
: last ten minutes. Samuel Jackson turns in a performance that is
: stunning. John Travolta is probably going to get the Best Actor
: Nomination from this film, and that's too bad because it belongs to
: Jackson. To me, the main character in any work of art is the one that
: undergoes the most profound change. Samuel Jackson actually had to
: convince the audience that he had changed from being irredeemable to
: redeemable.
: But the Academy is just as political as any race. Travolta is white.
: Jackson is black. Travolta has been around the block. Jackson hasn't.
: That's a shame. But that's life.
Call me naive, but I don't think Jackson's blackness will affect his
chances at an oscar. I don't think he'll be able to pull off BEST ACTOR,
however, if he manages a BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR nomination he may be a
shoe-in.
--
Stephen LEAFS Legge _/\_
SLE...@ganymede.cs.mun.ca __\ /__
SPECTAC GM - FHL3 \ /
St. John's, NF CANADA ~~/__\~~
Regina Alexandra Robbins
>
>adam shah (as...@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>
>: How could someone realize that Tarantino loves to make references to other
>: movies and not realize that the triangular gun standoff in Pulp Fiction was
>: an in-joke for anyone who had seen Reservoir Dogs?
>
>I don't think so - not any more than the stand-offs in John Woo movies
>are "references" to Woo's other films. Both filmmakers use these
>situations to make audiences squirm, not for the thrill of the small
>minority of film geeks.
Uh, sorry, but Quentin Tarantino _is_ a film geek. This doesn't preclude
his also being an excellent filmmaker, and probably (dare we say it?) is
part of the reason for that. The more you know about your discipline,
the more tools you have at your disposal--or, the more ideas and "stuff"
you can steal from those who came before you. It's no crime, if you use
them creatively rather than just making carbon copies of the same damn
film (Joe Eszterhas (sp?), are you listening?). Anyway, I don't think
Tarantino is above doing homages so that those audience members informed
enough to know what he's referring to will see the resonance, as long as
it doesn't interfere with the action. It can only enhance the levels of
the film.
Regina Alexandra Robbins
New Haven, CT
Jerad Formby
>on one side of the camera; he stick with directing and give up acting.
First:
Tarantino is NOT a God? :)
Second: Nobody is as hip as Tarantino. Nobody else out there can make
you feel cool when you watch his stuff. His stuff just "feels" cool.
And when he puts himself in front of the camera (I'll admit I liked
Brown's character more than Jimmie), he brings that coolness over with
him.
Nothing like Brown talking about LIKE A VIRGIN. The hand gestures, the
easy (positive tone). His confidence comes across with such complete
coolness that I actually remember him wearing shades during the scene...
that's pretty goddammed fucking cool. :)
Also: Tarantino was primarily interested in acting when he was a
dropout. He even took classes. I don't wanna call it the SPIKE LEE
syndrome... why shouldn't he be allowed to have fun in his own movie. I
enjoyed the hell out of him (probably because it was /him/).
Although, I sort of wanted to see Tim Roth in that part (just how I
pictured the thing reading the script). Hmm. Well, he's cool to watch
anyway you toss the dice.
Jerad.
Regina Alexandra Robbins
--No one has bothered to write it before now, but here I go:
SPOILER WARNING!!! (For RESERVOIR DOGS, TRUE ROMANCE, PULP FICTION)
In article <breen-22109...@libsta203.acns.nwu.edu>, br...@merle.acns.nwu.edu says:
> Once a movie makes jokey in-references which critics think only they
>get, it is similarly revered. Take the dance sequence. You could almost
>hear critics thinking, "Yes! John Travolta on the dance floor again!"
If a critic thought that only a critic would get a reference to SATURDAY
NIGHT FEVER, that would be a pretty stupid critic. SNF is one of the
most popular films made in the '70's. Even those who have never seen it
(yet), like myself, know the music and the image that goes with it.
That said, why shouldn't films refer to other films? Literature has been
doing it since its inception. The film's title outright _tells_ you it's
an homage to a specific genre. Though the specific reference is to a
print, genre, pulp novels and comics, popular films are also fair game.
Besides, Tarantino worships John Travolta--how he could he resist having
him evoke his former self? And it's his film, damn it.
> QT is not a god. He pretty much recycles the same plot elements from
>movie to movie. Think about it: _Resevoir Dogs_, _True Romance_ and _Pulp
>Fiction_ all had torture scenes (the cop with his ear cut off, Alabama in
>the bathroom, the hicks). All three movies ended with triangular gun
>formation (at least three people pointing guns at each other and
>talking). None of the three movies has a relatively intelligent female
>character.
If I had to pick a person to stick with in TRUE ROMANCE (what a treat,
but say I had to) I'd pick Alabama, no joke. Reckless and wigged out as
she and Clarence may have been, they were certainly less brain-dead than
almost everyone else. Besides, Alabama saved her own life against that
goon. That took some quick thinking, not to mention guts.
> In fact, the women in PF were particularly atrocious. Not one had
>anything interesting about them. Instead, they served to screw up the
>male characters. Especially the waif-like love interest of Bruce Willis.
I don't think we were supposed to blame the girlfriend for the watch
insanity. Rather, I blamed the mindless tradition of having an
heirloom is which is invested the idea of manhood and family lineage.
Hiding a watch _up your butt crack?_ No way.
Guyanne Monique Geraldine Chaddock
>: last ten minutes. Samuel Jackson turns in a performance that is
>: stunning. John Travolta is probably going to get the Best Actor
>: Nomination from this film, and that's too bad because it belongs to
>: Jackson. To me, the main character in any work of art is the one that
>: undergoes the most profound change. Samuel Jackson actually had to
>: convince the audience that he had changed from being irredeemable to
>: redeemable.
>
>: But the Academy is just as political as any race. Travolta is white.
>: Jackson is black. Travolta has been around the block. Jackson hasn't.
>: That's a shame. But that's life.
>
>Call me naive, but I don't think Jackson's blackness will affect his
>chances at an oscar. I don't think he'll be able to pull off BEST ACTOR,
>however, if he manages a BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR nomination he may be a
>shoe-in.
>
I agree that the colour of Jackson's skin won't hurt him at the Oscars.
Maybe I'm being naive as well, but I dunno.
Travolta was pretty good, but Jackson was better. I figger he should get
an Oscar of some sort, but that doesn't mean he will. Academy politics
does fit into it, but not because he's black.
Simply put, Landau is gonna take Best Supporting Actor for playing Bela
Lugosi in Ed Wood. Now, I haven't even seen the film. But he's gotten rave
reviews from several critics, he's never won an oscar, and he's old. It's
the Jack Palance thing.... he's pretty well guaranteed the oscar.
I'm not sure how the nominations work, so I don't know what constitutes a
Starring role or a "Supporting" role. So I dunno what category Jackson
will be in. But if he in supporting, he'll lose. Bet on it.
-Captain Morgan
Hoping I'm wrong, but I doubt it...
Stephen Leslie Legge
: >: But the Academy is just as political as any race. Travolta is white.
: >: Jackson is black. Travolta has been around the block. Jackson hasn't.
: >: That's a shame. But that's life.
: >
: >Call me naive, but I don't think Jackson's blackness will affect his
: >chances at an oscar. I don't think he'll be able to pull off BEST ACTOR,
: >however, if he manages a BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR nomination he may be a
: >shoe-in.
: >
: I agree that the colour of Jackson's skin won't hurt him at the Oscars.
: Maybe I'm being naive as well, but I dunno.
: Simply put, Landau is gonna take Best Supporting Actor for playing Bela
: Lugosi in Ed Wood. Now, I haven't even seen the film. But he's gotten rave
: reviews from several critics, he's never won an oscar, and he's old. It's
: the Jack Palance thing.... he's pretty well guaranteed the oscar.
You've got a point. In recent years, the Best Sup. Actor award has been
given to a body of work (the same logic that says James Woods will eventually
get an oscar) and Best Sup. Actress has been given to an up-and-comer.
(such as, Geena Davis, the girl from _My Cousin Vinnie_)
If Landau is as good as the critics say (and he's never received an
oscar) he'll probably get it.
The thing is, was Jackson (in the mind of the academy) a lead or
supporting actor?
Peter Reiher
for you, if you haven't already seen it, so be warned.
In article <Cy7w...@dorsai.org> fli...@dorsai.org (Robt Martin) writes:
>Dan Homolka (d.ho...@ic.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: Also, the scene where
>: Butch blows Travolta away - yeah, a hitman would really leave his gun lying
>: around like that - I don't think.
>
>Um - didn't you notice that the guy was a habitual fuck-up?
More than that, in each of the three stories, at a critical moment
Travolta's character is off in the bathroom. In each of the three
stories it causes a certain amount of trouble.
In the first story, while Uma Thurman is mistakenly snorting his
heroin, he's talking to himself about how he isn't going to try to
seduce her.
In the second story, he's taking a dump when Willis returns home.
In the third story (chronologically, the first occurrence, though),
he's in the restaurant toilet when the holdup occurs. (Note also
that he's reading the same book in the toilet in both the second
and third stories - he takes the book to the bathroom in the second
story instead of his gun.) Arguably, his dawdling in the toilet on
this occasion isn't a mistake, but it certainly would have been
easier on Jules if they were both out front when the robbery started.
Travolta's character, unlike Jules, doesn't believe in the "miracle," and
isn't converted. In one sense, this miracle is a warning to reform
himself. He doesn't take it, and is quickly killed. The fact that
he's killed after repeating a mistake he's made twice before in the
last few days merely underlines that he fails to learn, and pays the price.
Another connection is that the guy who shot at them and missed was hiding in
the bathroom, and that Travolta's death is a result of being in the
bathroom.
It's actually a pretty neat little setup, and very much the sort
of thing Tarantino likes to put in his scripts. I suspect that closer
examination would reveal even more stuff connecting to this idea.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Ben Parrish
: I smell flamebait...
: pete.
Goddammit! This thread has turned me into the bad guy without me even
knowing it. NOW HEAR THIS: I did NOT write the above caustic remark. I
LOVE QT's movies, and I don't care who he steals from.
I really wish people would learn how to quote properly.
--
[ pinback/Ben Parrish - If you don't care where you are, you're not lost. ]
Robt Martin
: stable, because, with Marcellus' gun at his head, he is the only
^^^^^^^
hahaha! What a moron!
Ron Drake
(Regina Alexandra Robbins) wrote:
Name a Tarantino film (written or directed) WITHOUT a gun standoff...
--
************************************************************
"There's nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot."
--Scott Adams
************************************************************
mill...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
: In fact a lot of PF brought back memories of all of those Starsky and Hutch
: epsiodes I used to watch when 'I was a lad'. Not heavy-weight meaningful
: content - but enjoyable.
I just wanted to add that the thought has occurred to me: Paul
Michael Glaser and David Soul in PF as a pair of undercover detectives
would have made me go see the movie >another< four times, as well as
probably making Pulp Fiction even more popular.
That would have been great.
Maybe Huggy Bear and Captain Dobey, too. Too cool, Brewster.
Steven Chung
Guyanne Monique Geraldine Chaddock <umch...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
#
# Simply put, Landau is gonna take Best Supporting Actor for playing Bela
# Lugosi in Ed Wood. Now, I haven't even seen the film.
I have. He deserves it. His performance gives _Ed Wood_ far more
emotional weight than _Pulp Fiction_ (or almost any other American
movie this year).
# But he's gotten rave
# reviews from several critics, he's never won an oscar, and he's old. It's
# the Jack Palance thing.... he's pretty well guaranteed the oscar.
No, it's the Tommy Lee Jones thing--not only is it 'his year,' he was
also excellent.
Daniel M. Kanemoto
Peter Reiher (rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu) wrote:
: Serious spoilers follow. These *will* ruin some surprises of the film
Jason Forrest
: Robt Martin (fli...@dorsai.org) wrote:
: : stable, because, with Marcellus' gun at his head, he is the only
: ^^^^^^^
: hahaha! What a moron!
Hey Now! Show some respect! It's people like you...etc.etc. (HA HA)
Jay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail:aa...@cfn.cs.dal.ca "You don't make up for your sins in
Halifax, Nova Scotia church - you do it in the streets."
Canada Charlie - _Mean Streets_
______________________________________________________________________________
Charisse Wilburn
in response to that... why would vince take a huge gun like that to the
bathroom with him. he wasn't expecting butch; b/c who would be that
stupid to come back to the place where people are looking for you. yes,
we all know that butch was that stupid or maybe not stupid but that
sentimental.
charisse
Bill Hyman
line when the overwhelming majority of responses is favorable. If too
many people lurk out there without reading the articles, they might
believe that the movie did suck.
Happy posting!
Bill Hyman
bill....@bsis.com
J. R. Harvey
: Serious spoilers follow. These *will* ruin some surprises of the film
: for you, if you haven't already seen it, so be warned.
: In article <Cy7w...@dorsai.org> fli...@dorsai.org (Robt Martin) writes:
: >Dan Homolka (d.ho...@ic.ac.uk) wrote:
: >
: >: Also, the scene where
: >: Butch blows Travolta away - yeah, a hitman would really leave his gun lying
: >: around like that - I don't think.
: >
: >Um - didn't you notice that the guy was a habitual fuck-up?
: More than that, in each of the three stories, at a critical moment
: Travolta's character is off in the bathroom. In each of the three
: stories it causes a certain amount of trouble.
...deletia...
: In the third story (chronologically, the first occurrence, though),
: he's in the restaurant toilet when the holdup occurs. (Note also
: that he's reading the same book in the toilet in both the second
: and third stories - he takes the book to the bathroom in the second
: story instead of his gun.) Arguably, his dawdling in the toilet on
: this occasion isn't a mistake, but it certainly would have been
: easier on Jules if they were both out front when the robbery started.
I thought about this and I couldn't make such a comfortable connection
between all of Vince's bathroom visits. In the diner, it seems to me,
that his being in the bathroom actually allowed Jules to execute the
first act of his reformation. I think if Vince hadn't been taking his
shit, he would have shot Pumpkin and Honey Bunny (on general principle if
for no other reason). That Jules was alone allowed him to take control
of the situation and give P & HB a break (ie not kill them). I don't
think Jules could have convinced Vince to just let him handle it; Vince
would have whipped out his gun and opened fire, forcing Jules to shoot
too, or risk death. Jules had a hard enough time keeping Vince from
shooting even when he had the situation *somewhat* under control when
Vince walked into a relatively stable mexican standoff.
Although it is tempting, I don't think we can draw such direct parallels
for each visit to the toilet. There certainly is something, maybe it's
that each time he was in the bathroom, a bad situation develops, and he
stumbles into it, but his going to the bathroom didn't cause all of them.
But the bathroom is definitely an important place.
: Travolta's character, unlike Jules, doesn't believe in the "miracle," and
: isn't converted. In one sense, this miracle is a warning to reform
: himself. He doesn't take it, and is quickly killed. The fact that
: he's killed after repeating a mistake he's made twice before in the
: last few days merely underlines that he fails to learn, and pays the price.
: Another connection is that the guy who shot at them and missed was hiding in
: the bathroom, and that Travolta's death is a result of being in the
: bathroom.
My contentions don't really undermine the above conclusions, just add a
dimension for further (or closer) consideration. I'll have to think
about this more
-jr
: It's actually a pretty neat little setup, and very much the sort
: of thing Tarantino likes to put in his scripts. I suspect that closer
: examination would reveal even more stuff connecting to this idea.
: --
: Peter Reiher
: rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
--
John W Tchoe
Charisse Wilburn <cdwi...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>in response to that... why would vince take a huge gun like that to the
>bathroom with him. he wasn't expecting butch; b/c who would be that
>stupid to come back to the place where people are looking for you. yes,
>we all know that butch was that stupid or maybe not stupid but that
>sentimental.
>
>
Then _why_ was Vince there? I don't think it was because he couldn't
find a bathroom anywhere else.
--
--"El Sexfiendo Magnifico"
(aka El Bandito del Amor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John's completely staid and boring generic .signature file. (c. 1994)
J. R. Harvey
: > >Butch blows Travolta away - yeah, a hitman would really leave his gun lying
Butch was that stupid.
I like the idea that it was Marcellus' gun and he left it when he went
out to get food.
-jr
--
Aman Verjee
sle...@cs.mun.ca writes:
>In recent years, the Best Sup. Actor award has been
>given to a body of work (the same logic that says James Woods will
eventually
>get an oscar) and Best Sup. Actress has been given to an up-and-comer.
>(such as, Geena Davis, the girl from _My Cousin Vinnie_)
>
>If Landau is as good as the critics say (and he's never received an
>oscar) he'll probably get it.
>
>The thing is, was Jackson (in the mind of the academy) a lead or
>supporting actor?
Jackson was absolutely brilliant, and should win an Oscar for his work
before Travolta - he simply stole the show. I've seen teh movie once,
and would estimate that he spent about 25 minutes on the screen. In a
2-and-a-half hour movie, that makes him a supporting actor in an ensemble
cast. Can anyone confirm the screentime?
If indeed Jackson is a supporting actor, he'll have a difficult time
beating Martin Landau, who was excellent also. Perhaps Jackson will go
into the best Actor category, as Hopkins did for 25 minutes of screentime
in _The Silence of the Lambs_, but Tom Hanks is lokking even bigger than
Landau.
Aman
J. Surwilo
s -
>Ben Rad
I agree totally! Most of the film was ludicrous absurd. The bad haircuts
The chubby faced travolta screwing up all the time. Thurmans Mia coming
back to life with the needle in her chest like a cartoon. Quentin's cameo
as a geek with the bible spoutin hitman friend. Willis having trouble
choosing the tool for the execution of the rednecks (people were laughing
in the theatre). Walkens deadpan storytelling of hiding a gold watch up
his ass for 7 years. It goes on and on. I think Tarantino choice of actors
and their portrayal make us see them as regular sorts of people --
well minus the extreme weirdness. Trying to find God and something to
live for. Going out on a date with an average looking gal and having a
great time. Calling friends for help when you've got blood on your car :-).
J. Surwilo
>charisse
If they weren't expecting Butch to possibly comeback to the apartment
then why would Vince be there in the first place.
PHY-1020
: If they weren't expecting Butch to possibly comeback to the apartment
: then why would Vince be there in the first place.
Vince probably didn't think Butch was stupid enough to show up.
On the other hand Vince was most likely sent there by Marcellus (who
thought Butch WAS stupid enough), so Vince's own feelings wouldn't have
made any difference. I imagine he thought it was going to be a pretty easy
assignment and as a result slacked off.
On the other hand, why did Butch, who knew he was in danger, stop
and make himself a POP TART??
And a friend of mine said the red stuff on the door to the
bathroom (in the same scene after Vince was shot) was too pink to be
blood. He claims it was the Pop Tart. Any thoughts on this?
Klaus
Adam Neil Villani
In article <38gthu$s...@jake.esu.edu>,
Steve Lycosky <len...@cutter.ship.edu> wrote:
>Frank M. Carrano (fra...@panix.com) wrote:
> I don't think so. I think QT is a very talented filmmaker
>: who also happens to be very young and is in danger of slamming himself into
>: quite a rut. I hope he revives this genre, but I also hope he doesn't become
>: enslaved to it.
>
> QT has stated that after this movie he is going to get away from
>this genre for a while and direct his efforts towards something else.
I've heard this too. I took the fact that the Mexican Standoff (where on earth
did that phrase come from?) ended without anybody getting shot as sort of
symbolic that Tarantino is going to move away from Crime movies. In other
words, he takes his own cliche and turns it around.
--
Adam Villani
ad...@cco.caltech.edu
Bacon Number: 4
J. Surwilo
> On the other hand, why did Butch, who knew he was in danger, stop
>and make himself a POP TART??
Butch might have made himself a POP TART because he probably had nothing
to eat since the night of the fight (I thinks his girlfriend was going
to have pancakes for breakfast without him). He cased his apartment and
felt that since nobody was around he could make himself the tarts.
And a friend of mine said the red stuff on the door to the
>bathroom (in the same scene after Vince was shot) was too pink to be
>blood. He claims it was the Pop Tart. Any thoughts on this?
Not unless they jumped in the path of the bullets :-)
Paul Callahan
>In <38ufvd$d...@mailer.fsu.edu> f190...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (PHY-1020) writes:
>> On the other hand, why did Butch, who knew he was in danger, stop
>>and make himself a POP TART??
Minor pedantic point: it seems to me that these were not Pop Tarts (TM) but
generic "toaster pastries." I bring this up out of a vague sense that QT
was consciously avoiding product placement (note "Red Apple" cigarettes,
which don't exist, and "Fruit Brute" cereal, which has not been made in years).
> Butch might have made himself a POP TART because he probably had nothing
> to eat since the night of the fight (I thinks his girlfriend was going
> to have pancakes for breakfast without him). He cased his apartment and
> felt that since nobody was around he could make himself the tarts.
My main point: OK, OK, fair enough. But why the hell does he have to
toast them? Given a choice between death and eating cold generic pop
tarts... well ok, I'd have to think about it, but I'm pretty sure I'd
go with the second option.
On the other hand, the scene didn't really bother me. It seemed as if
Butch was convinced the house was clear, and just got a bit cocky
about it. A lot of events in the movie were a unlikely, but easy to
accept for entertainment purposes. The film wasn't realistic by any
means, but it did seem consistent with its own, internal logic.
What I really want to know is why Butch wasn't mobbed by reporters when he
got home, given that he had killed the other boxer in the fight and
immediately disappeared.
--
Paul Callahan
call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu
Robt Martin
: If they weren't expecting Butch to possibly comeback to the apartment
: then why would Vince be there in the first place.
Presumably, Vince was the sceond shift (someone else was probably posted
there all night). By that time, things could get a bit casual, don't ya
think? And, as I mentioned, Vince was a fuck-up...
Ben Parrish
: >and make himself a POP TART??
Pop Tarts taste guuud.
Robt Martin
: Serious spoilers follow. These *will* ruin some surprises of the film
: for you, if you haven't already seen it, so be warned.
: Travolta's character, unlike Jules, doesn't believe in the "miracle," and
: isn't converted. In one sense, this miracle is a warning to reform
: himself. He doesn't take it, and is quickly killed. The fact that
: he's killed after repeating a mistake he's made twice before in the
: last few days merely underlines that he fails to learn, and pays the price.
: Another connection is that the guy who shot at them and missed was hiding in
: the bathroom, and that Travolta's death is a result of being in the
: bathroom.
: It's actually a pretty neat little setup, and very much the sort
: of thing Tarantino likes to put in his scripts. I suspect that closer
: examination would reveal even more stuff connecting to this idea.
It seems to me that this is the essential theme -
Redemption/Ressurrection, and the elements required for it - it has to be
the right moment (the subtheme of time), and you have to be listening for
the right cue. Butch has a series of accidents that are, in sum,
as miraculous as Jules' experience--the abandoned mac-16, the accidental
meeting with Marcellus, the encounter with the yahoos, all added up to
the redemption of his "manhood" and his self respect. All of these things
were handed to him, but he had to pick up on them, and make his
redemption from these elements.
Jules's "miracle" may or may not have been what he thought, but what's
important is that he made it into a miracle by using it to transform
himself. Vince's view of the events may have been more "realistic" - but
he is a man incapable of recognizing a miracle (even when he raises the
dead, as in the scene with Mia - all he can think to do is extract a
promise from the formerly "dead" that she won't tell the boss; his
concern is not with transcendence, but with "maintaining").
The difference between Butch and Jules is that Jules is consciously aware
of the miraculous nature of redemption; he -understands- miracles. And
because of that understanding, he's able to offer "Pumpkin" a chance at a
miracle, though neither he nor we know whether Pumpkin will put it to
good use.
11265-Graham Wills
>>anything interesting about them. Instead, they served to screw up the
>>male characters. Especially the waif-like love interest of Bruce Willis.
>Actually, I found both Mia and Esmerelda (the cabbie) to be intelligent,
>interesting and positively-portrayed characters. I agree that Fabienne
>was so vapid it was excruciating. But I could swear I know that character.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to many people in this discussion, but there
are many clues that Fabienne is mentally retarded. Her generally childlike
attitude and especially her description of breakfast seem to suggest it, as
does her inability to cope with the boxer's scorn.
Most obviously, Willis's character calls her 'a retard' in the shower scene
and her reaction makes it obvious that she's heard that phrase many times.
-Graham Wills
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization / Software Research (11265)
gwi...@research.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Indian Hill, Naperville IL
SuperFly
> Jules's "miracle" may or may not have been what he thought, but what's
> important is that he made it into a miracle by using it to transform
> himself. Vince's view of the events may have been more "realistic" - but
Ironically, Travolta is a scientologist.
Paul Callahan
> It doesn't seem to have occurred to many people in this discussion, but there
> are many clues that Fabienne is mentally retarded. Her generally childlike
> attitude and especially her description of breakfast seem to suggest it, as
> does her inability to cope with the boxer's scorn.
Nah, I wouldn't say retarded. Probably not a genius either, of
course. I thought the point as regards references to her body and to
food was just that she was ten times more sensually aware than
average. A person who can say, as she did, (I'm paraphrasing) "It's
so sad that what the eyes find attractive and what is appealing to the
touch are rarely the same." is probably not retarded. That kind of
distinction shows a higher level of maturity than a lot of people ever
achieve.
Personally, I was assuming that QT was portraying a particular French
stereotype, but I don't really know. It was a little overblown, but I
found it mostly entertaining rather than annoying.
> Most obviously, Willis's character calls her 'a retard' in the shower scene
> and her reaction makes it obvious that she's heard that phrase many times.
Well, her reaction suggests that she's heard it many times from him,
particularly what she calls his "mongoloid voice," that she hates. It
says more about him (i.e., he has a serious asshole streak in him)
than it does about her.
--
Paul Callahan
call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu
Robt Martin
: Minor pedantic point: it seems to me that these were not Pop Tarts (TM) but
: generic "toaster pastries." I bring this up out of a vague sense that QT
: was consciously avoiding product placement (note "Red Apple" cigarettes,
: which don't exist, and "Fruit Brute" cereal, which has not been made in years).
and, on the other hand, he did show a pack of Drum tobacco - which, since
it's made in Amsterdam, tells you where and when Vince started rolling
cigarettes - it reminds him of his own lost paradise (tieing this in
with the theme of redemption) in Holland.
: What I really want to know is why Butch wasn't mobbed by reporters when he
: got home, given that he had killed the other boxer in the fight and
: immediately disappeared.
It's an apartment; unlike Marcellus & gang, they can't break in and wait
in comfort. No reporter can spend all day on stakeout for a party who is
most likely to say "no comment" (which is what most people who avoid the
media wind up saying).
: --
: Paul Callahan
: call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu
Ron Maimon
|>
|> It doesn't seem to have occurred to many people in this discussion, but there
|> are many clues that Fabienne is mentally retarded. Her generally childlike
|> attitude and especially her description of breakfast seem to suggest it, as
|> does her inability to cope with the boxer's scorn.
|>
I think the only retarded one here is one Graham Wills
--
Ron Maimon
! You're a star bellied sneetch, you suck like a leech
Jello ! you want everyone to act like you
Biafra ! kiss ass while you bitch so you can get rich
! but your boss gets richer off you
Eric Richards
I agree that Vince pulls some stupid stunts, but that's not why he was killed.
The huge gun in question belonged to Marcellus. Think about it. At this
point in the story Vince doesn't have a partner anymore. Do you think it was
just coincidence that Marcellus was walking across the street with 2
cups of coffee just a block from Butch's apartment when Butch ran him over?
Marcellus was with Vince, Vince went to the can (where he probably sat for
awhile, reading his book) and then Marcellus went for coffee after a long
night of waiting for Butch. Vince didn't screw up, Marcellus did.
so just shut up with that 'yeah - a hitman would really leave....' Rather
than just sitting through the movie, try watching it.
eric in seattle, washington.
Mike D'Angelo
>>>anything interesting about them. Instead, they served to screw up the
>>>male characters. Especially the waif-like love interest of Bruce Willis.
>
>>Actually, I found both Mia and Esmerelda (the cabbie) to be intelligent,
>>interesting and positively-portrayed characters. I agree that Fabienne
>>was so vapid it was excruciating. But I could swear I know that character.
>
> It doesn't seem to have occurred to many people in this discussion, but there
> are many clues that Fabienne is mentally retarded. Her generally childlike
> attitude and especially her description of breakfast seem to suggest it, as
> does her inability to cope with the boxer's scorn.
>
> Most obviously, Willis's character calls her 'a retard' in the shower scene
> and her reaction makes it obvious that she's heard that phrase many times.
Have you ever actually met a retarded person? Or even seen a depiction of one
on TV or in a film? I can't believe this was even suggested. Butch may call
her a retard on occasion, but that doesn't mean that she actually *is* one, and
her childlike demeanor doesn't indicate that she is, either. For one thing,
English is obviously her second language, and this would contribute to such a
demeanor. For another, her first scene, in which she talks about the pot
belly, clearly shows that she is perfectly normal mentally.
The actress, Maria de Medeiros, also appeared in HENRY & JUNE, and had much the
same demeanor. Watch that film and tell me if Anais Nin is supposed to be
retarded.
Mike D'Angelo
Tisch School of the Arts, NYU
"No, no...you're not that upset." --Johnny Depp as ED WOOD
Jeff Fields
>umsu...@cc.umanitoba.ca (J. Surwilo) writes:
>Minor pedantic point: it seems to me that these were not Pop Tarts (TM) but
>generic "toaster pastries." I bring this up out of a vague sense that QT
>was consciously avoiding product placement (note "Red Apple" cigarettes,
>which don't exist, and "Fruit Brute" cereal, which has not been made in years).
Vince did roll his own cigarettes from a pouch of Drum. This is still a
product. And what about the Acura? I don't think QT went out of his way
to not endorse products.
-Jeff
Eric Wan
Highly overrated.
Please respect my opinion.
Bill Hyman
When someone publishes an opinion as silly as this one, they should be
required to list their favorite movies so that we can get a sense of
their taste in movies. My guess for this poster would be:
5) Under Siege
4) Terminator 2
3) Ernest Saves Christmas
2) Predator
1) Jurassic Park
There is no accounting for taste ;)
Bill Hyman
bill....@bsis.com
Thomas Berge
> In article <396slc$r...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Eric Wan) says:
> >
> >Pulp Fiction SUCKS
> >Highly overrated.
> >Please respect my opinion.
> When someone publishes an opinion as silly as this one, they should be
> required to list their favorite movies so that we can get a sense of
> their taste in movies. My guess for this poster would be:
I quite agree! There's nothing as stupid as posters writing "please respect
my opinion" - I mean, if they know that most people in the newsgroup are
going to object why don't they just keep their opinion to theirselves?
---------------------------------------------------
Thomas Berge (E-mail: Thomas...@studorg.uio.no)
Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway
Finger thom...@ulrik.uio.no for my public PGP-key.
---------------------------------------------------
Paul J Claffey
: are many clues that Fabienne is mentally retarded. Her generally childlike
: attitude and especially her description of breakfast seem to suggest it, as
: does her inability to cope with the boxer's scorn.
: Most obviously, Willis's character calls her 'a retard' in the shower scene
: and her reaction makes it obvious that she's heard that phrase many times.
That is an interesting observation, but I am not sure 'retard' is correct.
Fabienne was child like but I thought she was inteligent. She was emotionally
a child, but she had strength and was manipulative. Remember the scene as
the are leaving, she did not get on the bike until she was ready to. A
real child would have been cowed by Bruce's anger at that point. I was
annoyed with her, but saw strength! Anybody else have an opinion on
Fabienne?
--
claf...@netcom.com
Neschek
Not if you don't back it up, bobo. It's perfectly all right to say it SUCKS,
but we'd like reasons.
Why? So we can refute them brilliantly, of course.
-- adder
Dylan Thomas
(Neschek) wrote:
----------------
Okay, I happen to agree with both of you. Yes, PULP FICTION was
overrated but that does not give this gentleman the right to simply leave
it at that. I will offer some opinions so that they can be "brilliantly
refuted."
1) PF is pulp, plain and simple. There is nothing wrong with this. I
enjoy pulp just as much as the next guy. However, the general concensus
of people posting and some critics is that PF is a media event or a
groundbreaking film in the history of cinema. This simply is not the
case. There is nothing really new to PF. QT's direction is average.
That is not his strength. Writing is his strength. I will give credit
where credit is due. RESERVOIR DOGS is a brilliant script. The dialogue
was witty and totally in character. It enhanced the scenes. This is not
the case with PF. Although the dialogue was good, it wasn't on the same
level as RD. Nothing can top the "I don't tip" speech in RD. There are
many layers to that movie and that speech is only one of them.
2) Since we have already seen the use of nonlinear disjointed narration in
RD and in Robert Altman's film SHORT CUTS, I would argue that the
narration in PF is nothing new. And yes, SHORT CUTS is too long.
3) But PF is also too long. Why make a film about pulp that lasts this
long? I could get the same point in 2 hrs. or even 90 mins.
4) Relax, and don't take this message the wrong way. I don't hate QT and
parts of PF are well done. But as an entire film, it falls short of
greatness. All I'm saying is that anyone, even a genius, can make a
subpar film.
dt
James Davis
>From: call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan)
>Subject: Re: Pulp Fiction SUCKS
>Date: 1 Nov 1994 11:50:31 -0500
>gwi...@graceland.att.com (11265-Graham Wills) writes:
Maybe it was a commentary that supersensuous people are retarded.
Robt Martin
: Pulp Fiction SUCKS
: Highly overrated.
: Please respect my opinion.
It would help if you expressed one, but your post is as empty as your head.
SuperFly
And how much "respect" for your opinion do you think you deserve? (rhetorical).
With such an unqualified statement, I wouldn't expect much at all. Perhaps you
could invest some of your time in establishing your case before racing to its
conclusion.
Then your opinion would be more than just meaningless.
--
"Who told you that you could work with men?!"
Al Pacino is Ricky Roma in _GlenGarry Glen Ross_
rich brack
>
>Vince did roll his own cigarettes from a pouch of Drum. This is still a
>product. And what about the Acura? I don't think QT went out of his way
>to not endorse products.
Speaking of Acura, did anyone see what MR. Wolf's license plate said?
I thought it said something but coulnd't make it out before it disappeared...
Rich...
r...@cblph.att.com
Robert Bryan Lipton
: Pulp Fiction SUCKS
: Highly overrated.
: Please respect my opinion.
How can anyone not be in awe of such a well-reasoned essay? Surely the
hours you obviously spent honing your arguments deserves our respect alone.
My greatest admiration, however, is for the elegant beauty of your prose.
I don't mean to criticize, since your command of English is as far
above me as your command of the lexicon of cinema, but mightn't you have
made this a little shorter. Some of the people on the Net don't have an
attention span long enough to get through your piece.
Bob
Charisse Wilburn
thanks for sharing...
until next time...
Charisse
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Aw man, i just shot Marvin in the face."
Vincent-Pulp Fiction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wyllie
Lars Jorgen Aas <la...@edb.tih.no> wrote:
>rich brack (r...@starfleet.cb.att.com) wrote:
>> Speaking of Acura, did anyone see what MR. Wolf's license plate said?
>> I thought it said something but coulnd't make it out before it disappeared...
>
>said something. Who managed to find out what it said?
>
>> Rich...
>
>Lars J
I watched for this the second time around. If I remember correctly
it was:
3ABM589
so, what does it mean? (maybe that's what is in the case :-) )
andrew
--
....................................................................
Andrew Wyllie wyl...@Physics.UToronto.CA PCS University Of Toronto
MICHAEL FOLEY
>From: f190...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (PHY-1020)
>Subject: Re: Pulp Fiction SUCKS
[Stuff deleted]...
> On the other hand, why did Butch, who knew he was in danger, stop
>and make himself a POP TART??
> And a friend of mine said the red stuff on the door to the
>bathroom (in the same scene after Vince was shot) was too pink to be
>blood. He claims it was the Pop Tart. Any thoughts on this?
>Klaus
If I remember correctly, Butch pulled out a box of either chocolate or
cinnamon and sugar pop tarts (or some other type with brown, and not pink,
filling).
Miguelito
Ode
: In article <396slc$r...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu
: >
: >Pulp Fiction SUCKS
: >Highly overrated.
: >Please respect my opinion.
: When someone publishes an opinion as silly as this one, they should be
: required to list their favorite movies so that we can get a sense of
: their taste in movies. My guess for this poster would be:
: 5) Under Siege
: 4) Terminator 2
Hey! I *loved* Pulp Fiction and I liked these two movies too! My tastes
run the gamut, from _Brazil_ (my all-time favorite film) to _Say Amen
Somebody_ (a documentary about gospel music...and I'm agnostic!) to
_Life Of Brian_ (my vote for funniest film) to _Casablanca_ to _Little
Big Man_ to _Return To Oz_ (not a typo) to _Blade Runner_ (director's
cut, please) to _Fitzcarraldo_ to _Local Hero_ to _Goodfellas_ to
_Beetlejuice_ to _Educating Rita_ to _Real Genius_ to _The Stunt Man_
to _Birdy_ to _Romancing The Stone_ to _Die Hard_ to to to....you get
the idea. I can enjoy different movies for different reasons...and
_Under Seige_ and _Terminator 2_ are just pure good fun! It's not a
"character flaw" to like these movies.
Vickie
Ken Kaufman
>>: Highly overrated.
>>: Please respect my opinion.
This is bad haiku. You need to take two syllables from the bottom line,
and add one to each of the others. Something like:
Pulp Fiction SUCKS BAD.
It's highly overrated.
Respect my feelings.
Isn't that nicer?
--Ken
Adam Neil Villani
PHY-1020 <f190...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> wrote:
>J. Surwilo (umsu...@cc.umanitoba.ca) wrote:
>: If they weren't expecting Butch to possibly comeback to the apartment
>: then why would Vince be there in the first place.
>
> Vince probably didn't think Butch was stupid enough to show up.
>On the other hand Vince was most likely sent there by Marcellus (who
>thought Butch WAS stupid enough), so Vince's own feelings wouldn't have
>made any difference. I imagine he thought it was going to be a pretty easy
>assignment and as a result slacked off.
> On the other hand, why did Butch, who knew he was in danger, stop
>and make himself a POP TART??
> And a friend of mine said the red stuff on the door to the
>bathroom (in the same scene after Vince was shot) was too pink to be
>blood. He claims it was the Pop Tart. Any thoughts on this?
Sorry, but this one is definitely a no. Check out the flavor of pop-tart
next time; it's one of those cinnamon flavors. (Boy, aren't details
great?)
--
Adam Villani
ad...@cco.caltech.edu
Bacon Number: 4
Lorne Epp
call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan) writes:
> umsu...@cc.umanitoba.ca (J. Surwilo) writes:
>>In <38ufvd$d...@mailer.fsu.edu> f190...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (PHY-1020) writes:
>
>>> On the other hand, why did Butch, who knew he was in danger, stop
>>>and make himself a POP TART??
>
> generic "toaster pastries."
I'm pretty sure that those "Toaster Pastries" are a real brand of
PopTart (TM) knockoffs that you can actually buy in a real store.
I know I've seen a product with that name, but the box was onscreen
too briefly for me to be sure it was the same brand.
> I bring this up out of a vague sense that QT
> was consciously avoiding product placement (note "Red Apple" cigarettes,
> which don't exist, and "Fruit Brute" cereal, which has not been made in years).
>
I think he was conciously spoofing product placement in the case of the
Fruit Brute - it was very prominently displayed, so it was like blatant,
obvious product placement, but for a product you can't buy anymore. Not
that the Fruit Brute people would be crazy about being the breakfast
cereal of poorly-groomed heroin dealers :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp e...@mala.bc.ca
Charisse Wilburn
> >interesting and positively-portrayed characters. I agree that Fabienne
> >was so vapid it was excruciating. But I could swear I know that character.
i agree with you that mia was way cool, but i totally disgree with you
about ismeralda who was not intelligent, but annoying as hell. all she
did the entire time was ask "how does it feel to kill a man" over and
over again like a broken record. i wish that the whole cabbie scene had been
left out b/c it was a total waste of time.
> It doesn't seem to have occurred to many people in this discussion, but there
> are many clues that Fabienne is mentally retarded. Her generally childlike
> attitude and especially her description of breakfast seem to suggest it, as
> does her inability to cope with the boxer's scorn.
fabienne in no way seems retarded, she just a bit of an airhead. i
really thought her character was cute, especially the part about pot
bellies. that was amusing, but in no way retarded. also, butch was no
brain either. for christ's sake, he's a boxer.
christopher
: I think the only retarded one here is one Graham Wills
Now! Now! There's no reason to be calling Graham retarded! It would
appear in his post that the only thing Graham is guilty of is having
a woman who is of a higher caliber of intelligence than poor Fabienne.
It's obvious that Mr. Wills isn't retarded if the man is residing at..
...hmmm...oh yes, there it is...GRACELAND!!!!
: Ron Maimon
: ! You're a star bellied sneetch, you suck like a leech
: Jello ! you want everyone to act like you
: Biafra ! kiss ass while you bitch so you can get rich
___
___| __ / _______ __ | __ __
/ |_ | \*\___ |/ \| \|_ / \| \
| | ||__/| \|\__/|__/| ||__/|__/
\___ | \|____/| | \___| \__ch...@falcon.lhup.edu
|
Lars Jorgen Aas
> Speaking of Acura, did anyone see what MR. Wolf's license plate said?
> I thought it said something but coulnd't make it out before it disappeared...
I didn't have the time to read it either, but it definitely looked like it
Charisse Wilburn
> Pulp Fiction SUCKS
> Highly overrated.
hey pal
A) get some taste
B)explain why you don't like it instead of writing a puny message like that
C)give it up dude, you're in the minority and if you didn't like thme
movie why don't you start your own group: alt.PF. sucks???
until next time...
Gordo
>>bathroom (in the same scene after Vince was shot) was too pink to be
>>blood. He claims it was the Pop Tart. Any thoughts on this?
>Sorry, but this one is definitely a no. Check out the flavor of pop-tart
>next time; it's one of those cinnamon flavors. (Boy, aren't details
>great?)
I doubt the pop-tart which was behind him, could have splated all over
the wall from being projected out of the toaster, and I don't
recal Vincent eating a pop tart when he was shot.
More stupid worthless details:
The combination to the case was 566. First it was turned to 666, then
Vincent went back and turned the first digit to 5.
In Zed's store, the broken Killians Red neon sign spelled out
"KILL ED" (KILL above the ED)
In the boys' apartment, the kid who ran out firing his gun fired 5 shots,
but there were 6 bullet holes in the wall.
Winston Wolfe's car's license plate number was "3ABM581" and they
specifically zoomed in on it.
Honeybunny's name was Yolanda.
Zed's store is open from 10AM - 6PM Monday thru Saturday
A car alarm goes off while Wolfe is hozing off Vincent and Jules on
Jimmy's back lawn.
tara davis
Hey man, good haiku!!! (almost; I think the 1st line is a syllable short)
As for your content... why is there such a big fuss over this?
If you didn't like the movie, everyone on this group is going to
flame you, except for the people who want to play Devil's Advocate.
That's why it's called "alt. **fan**". I wish all the people who are
regulars (many of whom, I see, rushed to attack you) would realize that
these sort of things just clutter the group up. If you like PF, you're
preaching to the converted; if you hated PF, you're talking to a brick
wall. And an unfriendly brick wall, at that...
Why even bother -- either to make the comment in the 1st place, or to
flame someone who makes a comment like that?
tara
BRANDON VINCENT OROPALLO
on about the hamburger. Listen to Clarence talking to Balki or whatever
his name is about "Am I a beautiful blonde...?" It's so obvious that
Clarence didn't grow up to be Mr. White, as some people have speculated,
but Jules. Remember, they lived on the beach (Tiajuana?) he could've
gotten a great tan... Huh? Whaddya think? Back me up Richard. Oh by
the way, also listen to the music playing and Drexl's right after he
blows away those other guys, one was Samuel L. Jack...(uh-oh) Anyway,
the song has a sample in it -"I gotcha!" Cool stuff, I say.
--
---------------Brandon Oropallo-...@email.unc.edu--------------
"I think I'm getting dizzy and I rather like it!" -Pinky
"I'm livin' in a cuckoo clock!" -Homer Simpson * "Oak's nice" -Jimmy
"What does not kill me makes me funnier" -Dennis Miller