"Pulp Fiction" Is it worth the watch?

Who's ready for the first Tarantino review? I know I am! We’re talking “Pulp Fiction.” In full transparency, I have seen the dance scene, the robbery scene, and the scene when Uma Thurman is revived with that giant needle. Going into this movie, I was pretty pumped. I’ve seen “Kill Bill”, and I thought it was great. Long story short: I was excited to watch it. Let’s cover the basics. “Pulp Fiction” dropped in 1994. This was Tarantino’s second film, and it only further secured his status as a household name in the film community. I didn’t realize Harvey Weinstein was a producer on this movie. Strike one. When I saw his name pop up on the opening credits, I almost turned the movie off. However, I decided to try and give it a real shot. 

Let’s talk plot. This movie is a multi-POV experience. Plot one: A couple is robbing a local diner. Plot two: Mia Wallace and Vincent Vega’s non-date-date. Plot three: Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield’s work for Marcellus Wallace. Plot four: The boxer, his girlfriend, and Marcellus Wallace. All four of these plots weave in and out of each other like a wild patchwork quilt. I did like that. It is nothing short of impressive that all four of the plots are out of order, and the movie makes perfect sense. The movie wouldn’t work if it were in direct order… that is hard to make work. Well done. I HATED most of the plot though. This movie pushed my personal boundaries for what should be in a film. At points, the graphic violence did not seem to have any purpose other than shock factor, which I find lazy. If you are going to use graphic anything, it better have a purpose. If it doesn’t have a purpose, why bring it to the public square? Just because you can? I don’t find that impressive or cool. I find it boring, lazy, and sometimes offensive. This movie is rated R. I can not emphasize enough to check into why something is rated the way it is before watching it! Not to jump the gun, but from the plot alone, I would not watch this film. 

On to the look of the film, the costumes are fabulous. First off: Mia Wallace’s white button-down and black slacks partnered with Vincent Vega’s classic suit and tie on their non-date-date. Vincent wears the suit because it’s his work uniform. Why is Mia Wallace dressed in an almost casual version of Vega’s work fit? It seems to insinuate both of their positions in Marsellus Wallace’s life. Both Mia and Vincent are around as long as Marcellus wants both of them around. Mia and Vincent fill a job-like role in Marcellus’ life. They both have a job to do, and their life depends on them fulfilling that role. COOL RIGHT! Physically, they are distorted mirrors of each other. SICK! The 90s grunge aesthetic naturally pours into the movie mostly through the robbers and drug dealers' clothing choices. The costume department UNDERSTOOD the characters. Each character in each scene looked like they were supposed to be there. Honestly, the costume department helped me understand part of the reason why the movie was so famous. It drew me in visually, and I wanted to see what the characters would possibly wear in their next scene. Big fan of the costume choices throughout the film. It may be the most redemptive part of the film. Also, the costumes were complemented by the color saturation chosen. Epic choice. 

I think the most interesting character throughout the movie was Jules Winnfield. This shouldn’t be entirely shocking since he is played by Samuel L. Jackson. Every single scene that Jackson was in, everyone else was secondary. It didn’t matter if someone else was meant to be the main focus; Jackson was a wonder to watch. He captivated every scene effortlessly. No one else could compete with him. I can’t believe he didn’t win the Oscar for best supporting actor that year. Watching him quote scripture to the people he was about to execute was WILD. His philosophical conversation with John Travolta’s character in the car near the end of the film was perfectly executed. No pun intended. The other triumph for me was Uma Thurman. When she went through the almost drug overdose… INSANE. The needle scene. I mean, it could have been cheesy or overdone, but Thurman's choice to act in the way she did only further grounded the film. Again. I can’t believe she didn’t win the Oscar that year for best supporting actress in a leading role. There were so many characters in this film, but there was one specifically I hated. It was the character Tarantino himself played. I found his character unbelievable, unnecessary, and almost silly. Even his characters' dialogue felt unnecessary and just a way for Tarantino to be overly involved in the film. It was over the top. Not a fan. 

The characters, costumes, and plot for this movie are unique. The actors are great in their roles. BUT! There are other movies that have the conversations these characters have, and the content is so unnecessarily graphic. Graphic violence and language should have a purpose, and both should be used sparingly. I KNOW. Graphic violence is a big thing Tarantino is known for. I know! I just don’t think that is something to applaud. I think using graphic violence and language to show pain and suffering is sometimes the easy way out. This movie is a no-go watch for me solely because of the unnecessary graphic use of language and violence. I would say sorry to the Tarantino defenders, but I couldn’t be less sorry. 

Photo from Microsoft