Review of Reviews

A positive review for the film, Pulp Fiction, is told by Michael Wilmington, of the Chicago Tribune. He first talks about the films blend between horror and comedy through a tongue and cheek fashion. The movie adds more violence, tough-guy acting, and also adds homages to Tarantino’s previous movie "Reservoir Dogs". He goes on commenting on the structure and states that, “three interconnected stories, bracketed by several preludes and a few codas, are told deliberately out of sequence, with the same cast-a bloody band of outsiders-popping up everywhere”. The story skips forward and doubles back to show how it all comes together in the end. What really sells this as a classic film is the memorable characters and situations they are faced with. The movie is shockingly violent, provocatively obscene and profane. Tarantino purposely riles people up but the film does not get its charge through its violence and strong language. It gets its charge through its wisecracks and dialogue and its cast of characters making it an original and classic movie.

The author gives great structure towards his summary on the film and starts off with the setting and overall premise of the film. He then talks about the characters and how the story breaks out which then leads to the overall summary of the film. He mainly focuses on Tarantino’s writing as a director and his ability to connect three stories into one. He references Tarantino’s previous film “Reservoir Dogs” due to its story and characters. He states the film “won't just offend some audiences; it will offend the living hell out of them. Tarantino intends to rile people up”. I agree due to the language and the amount of “N” words thrown in a five minute scene.  His films are very dark and not afraid of going too far with some graphic scenes.

For the negative reviews Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles disagrees and argues that Tarantino’s characters don’t touch on philosophical and theological questions. After all, it’s a about criminals and murder with a couple of miracles thrown in. He also states that the characters are heartless when it comes to killing and that the story lacked an engaging story to follow. He believes that moments in dialogue pleased Tarantino himself and not to anyone else. He recognizes the film as being good in a way but lacks realism.

His structure is based on Tarantino’s writing and his characters. He argues that the film is overly hyped and gives reasons for it. He believes and states that “in truth this is a noticeably uneven film, both too inward-looking and self-centered in its concerns and too outward-bound in the way it strains to outrage an audience, to be successful across the board”. I agree with him that since the film is almost all over the place it can spike interest to almost anyone with its different scenes. Some maybe too graphic for some or maybe something people are into.

I would have to choose the negative article due to the fact that he gives reasons why its likable and why it shouldn’t be overhyped. He doesn’t bash the movie like most reviews ive read. He doesn’t complain about its confusing story structure but praises it. His strong points are points that should be included when writing and directing a movie. Therefor I side with him.

If I were to write a review I would want to include a summary of the story as well as talk about some of the characters. I would want to include some comparisons of other movies that can relate or are similar to that film. I would include its theme and setting but leave out major plot points. I would also try to not be biased on the film and make sure I let the readers decide whether its good or not.