The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
To contemporary audiences Pulp Fiction is their Star Wars, the film which they remember first seeing, however as I have already said, the experience of rewatching the opening scenes in my English class was a genuinely uninspiring experience. I have watched “Pulp Fiction” in it entirety three times. This may seem like a reasonable amount, but for one of the groundbreaking films of the nineties it is very few. In comparison I have seen “Star Wars” and its two sequels probably twenty times each and I consider them to be classic cinema. I’ve seen Arnie’s “Commando” more times. Maybe I am in the minority, I probably am, but this just doesn’t seem right.
Tarantino is a talented director who reinvented the crime drama genre to appeal to a new audience. However, on reading about Tarantino's work and his influences it has become clear that many of his "innovative" ideas he stole (if a fan read: re-imagined-al la Tim Burton). From Ringo Lam's narrative from "City on Fire" in QT's breakout hit "Reservoir Dogs" to the non-chronological distortion of time in "Pulp Fiction", clearly borrowing from Kubrick's "The Killing" Tarantino has "re-imagined" an awful lot of classics. However, this may constitute his widespread appeal, by taking aspects of classic films which few people have seen he is able to include enough witty dialogue and one liners to sell his films. In conclusion, I feel that Tarantino is attempting to become the next Kubrick and often tries too hard in his films to be hip. Perhaps with his latest offering in production "Kill Bill" this will change.
While watching "Pulp Fiction" recently in my English class I observed the impact it has had on a wide diversity of people. It is my English teacher’s favourite film and many of my peers see it as one of the best films ever made with Tarantino as a maverick director. There were those who had never before experienced the fast paced obscenely choreographed dialogue of the “I’m Sorry did I break your concentration” opening sequence between Samuel L and John Travolta. Maybe it is just me who thinks that a discussion about the quality of hamburgers in France is although comical, perhaps just Tarantino creating a quotable line carefully considered and written, yes that’s right written. Many people claim that Tarantino’s dialogue is improvised and spontaneity is of importance. It does not seem to cross the minds of people that this is just a very clever and intelligent film buff using every trick in the book to grab the audience’s attention.
The same can be said for the disrupted narrative structure which dominates the entire film. This does not just act as a flashback as in many mainstream films but attempts to create a paradoxical enigmatic plot which requires repeated viewing to fully understand its complexities. This is clever, but is it truly breathtaking cinema- probably not. If Tarantino’s profane dialogue was removed and the story was told in a linear fashion what sort of film would this have made? I know this is taking liberties with reality and these two elements do make the film what it is but in my view it would be a sub standard crime pic with little going for it except for bad language and violence. As can be seen from this piece of writing distorting the stereotypical beginning, middle and end structure is hard to pull off (as is self referential trumpet blowing such as this) but Tarantino pulls it off in Pulp Fiction with panache.
Tarantino is a talented director who reinvented the crime drama genre to appeal to a new audience. However, on reading about Tarantino's work and his influences it has become clear that many of his "innovative" ideas he stole (if a fan read: re-imagined-al la Tim Burton). From Ringo Lam's narrative from "City on Fire" in QT's breakout hit "Reservoir Dogs" to the non-chronological distortion of time in "Pulp Fiction", clearly borrowing from Kubrick's "The Killing" Tarantino has "re-imagined" an awful lot of classics. However, this may constitute his widespread appeal, by taking aspects of classic films which few people have seen he is able to include enough witty dialogue and one liners to sell his films. In conclusion, I feel that Tarantino is attempting to become the next Kubrick and often tries too hard in his films to be hip. Perhaps with his latest offering in production "Kill Bill" this will change.
While watching "Pulp Fiction" recently in my English class I observed the impact it has had on a wide diversity of people. It is my English teacher’s favourite film and many of my peers see it as one of the best films ever made with Tarantino as a maverick director. There were those who had never before experienced the fast paced obscenely choreographed dialogue of the “I’m Sorry did I break your concentration” opening sequence between Samuel L and John Travolta. Maybe it is just me who thinks that a discussion about the quality of hamburgers in France is although comical, perhaps just Tarantino creating a quotable line carefully considered and written, yes that’s right written. Many people claim that Tarantino’s dialogue is improvised and spontaneity is of importance. It does not seem to cross the minds of people that this is just a very clever and intelligent film buff using every trick in the book to grab the audience’s attention.
The same can be said for the disrupted narrative structure which dominates the entire film. This does not just act as a flashback as in many mainstream films but attempts to create a paradoxical enigmatic plot which requires repeated viewing to fully understand its complexities. This is clever, but is it truly breathtaking cinema- probably not. If Tarantino’s profane dialogue was removed and the story was told in a linear fashion what sort of film would this have made? I know this is taking liberties with reality and these two elements do make the film what it is but in my view it would be a sub standard crime pic with little going for it except for bad language and violence. As can be seen from this piece of writing distorting the stereotypical beginning, middle and end structure is hard to pull off (as is self referential trumpet blowing such as this) but Tarantino pulls it off in Pulp Fiction with panache.
I totally agree I think that Scorsese is a fantastic director and filmmaker. His films have an unprecendented realism not often found in modern Hollywood, and although it is his classic films which are often known I think what are often considered his lesser films, ie Bringing Out The Dead, After Hours, Mean Streets etc are far more groundbreaking and exciting cinema than anything that Tarantino has produced so far.
I find that Tarantino is not so much an exciting director as an exciting story teller. Most tricks are of the narrative variety rather than through cinematic techniques. Yet he is regarded as the paragon of cinematic flair against which all other directors are judged.
Directorial flair is the realm of Scorcese I think. Everything in Scorsese's films has meaning; the long takes and fluid camera movement, the wide-angle lenses and the diegetic music (ie part of what is being filmed, not dubbed over the top). Scorcese does more for me than Tarantino does.
Directorial flair is the realm of Scorcese I think. Everything in Scorsese's films has meaning; the long takes and fluid camera movement, the wide-angle lenses and the diegetic music (ie part of what is being filmed, not dubbed over the top). Scorcese does more for me than Tarantino does.
To contemporary audiences Pulp Fiction is their Star Wars, the film which they remember first seeing, however as I have already said, the experience of rewatching the opening scenes in my English class was a genuinely uninspiring experience. I have watched “Pulp Fiction” in it entirety three times. This may seem like a reasonable amount, but for one of the groundbreaking films of the nineties it is very few. In comparison I have seen “Star Wars” and its two sequels probably twenty times each and I consider them to be classic cinema. I’ve seen Arnie’s “Commando” more times. Maybe I am in the minority, I probably am, but this just doesn’t seem right.
Tarantino is a talented director who reinvented the crime drama genre to appeal to a new audience. However, on reading about Tarantino's work and his influences it has become clear that many of his "innovative" ideas he stole (if a fan read: re-imagined-al la Tim Burton). From Ringo Lam's narrative from "City on Fire" in QT's breakout hit "Reservoir Dogs" to the non-chronological distortion of time in "Pulp Fiction", clearly borrowing from Kubrick's "The Killing" Tarantino has "re-imagined" an awful lot of classics. However, this may constitute his widespread appeal, by taking aspects of classic films which few people have seen he is able to include enough witty dialogue and one liners to sell his films. In conclusion, I feel that Tarantino is attempting to become the next Kubrick and often tries too hard in his films to be hip. Perhaps with his latest offering in production "Kill Bill" this will change.
While watching "Pulp Fiction" recently in my English class I observed the impact it has had on a wide diversity of people. It is my English teacher’s favourite film and many of my peers see it as one of the best films ever made with Tarantino as a maverick director. There were those who had never before experienced the fast paced obscenely choreographed dialogue of the “I’m Sorry did I break your concentration” opening sequence between Samuel L and John Travolta. Maybe it is just me who thinks that a discussion about the quality of hamburgers in France is although comical, perhaps just Tarantino creating a quotable line carefully considered and written, yes that’s right written. Many people claim that Tarantino’s dialogue is improvised and spontaneity is of importance. It does not seem to cross the minds of people that this is just a very clever and intelligent film buff using every trick in the book to grab the audience’s attention.
The same can be said for the disrupted narrative structure which dominates the entire film. This does not just act as a flashback as in many mainstream films but attempts to create a paradoxical enigmatic plot which requires repeated viewing to fully understand its complexities. This is clever, but is it truly breathtaking cinema- probably not. If Tarantino’s profane dialogue was removed and the story was told in a linear fashion what sort of film would this have made? I know this is taking liberties with reality and these two elements do make the film what it is but in my view it would be a sub standard crime pic with little going for it except for bad language and violence. As can be seen from this piece of writing distorting the stereotypical beginning, middle and end structure is hard to pull off (as is self referential trumpet blowing such as this) but Tarantino pulls it off in Pulp Fiction with panache.
Tarantino is a talented director who reinvented the crime drama genre to appeal to a new audience. However, on reading about Tarantino's work and his influences it has become clear that many of his "innovative" ideas he stole (if a fan read: re-imagined-al la Tim Burton). From Ringo Lam's narrative from "City on Fire" in QT's breakout hit "Reservoir Dogs" to the non-chronological distortion of time in "Pulp Fiction", clearly borrowing from Kubrick's "The Killing" Tarantino has "re-imagined" an awful lot of classics. However, this may constitute his widespread appeal, by taking aspects of classic films which few people have seen he is able to include enough witty dialogue and one liners to sell his films. In conclusion, I feel that Tarantino is attempting to become the next Kubrick and often tries too hard in his films to be hip. Perhaps with his latest offering in production "Kill Bill" this will change.
While watching "Pulp Fiction" recently in my English class I observed the impact it has had on a wide diversity of people. It is my English teacher’s favourite film and many of my peers see it as one of the best films ever made with Tarantino as a maverick director. There were those who had never before experienced the fast paced obscenely choreographed dialogue of the “I’m Sorry did I break your concentration” opening sequence between Samuel L and John Travolta. Maybe it is just me who thinks that a discussion about the quality of hamburgers in France is although comical, perhaps just Tarantino creating a quotable line carefully considered and written, yes that’s right written. Many people claim that Tarantino’s dialogue is improvised and spontaneity is of importance. It does not seem to cross the minds of people that this is just a very clever and intelligent film buff using every trick in the book to grab the audience’s attention.
The same can be said for the disrupted narrative structure which dominates the entire film. This does not just act as a flashback as in many mainstream films but attempts to create a paradoxical enigmatic plot which requires repeated viewing to fully understand its complexities. This is clever, but is it truly breathtaking cinema- probably not. If Tarantino’s profane dialogue was removed and the story was told in a linear fashion what sort of film would this have made? I know this is taking liberties with reality and these two elements do make the film what it is but in my view it would be a sub standard crime pic with little going for it except for bad language and violence. As can be seen from this piece of writing distorting the stereotypical beginning, middle and end structure is hard to pull off (as is self referential trumpet blowing such as this) but Tarantino pulls it off in Pulp Fiction with panache.