Change Your Image
lazhuward
Reviews
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Good (maybe great) film, but not a masterpiece.
When Pulp Fiction first came out, I thought it was the greatest movie ever made and was sure that it would become a classic. Earlier today though, I saw it again after not viewing it for several years and my opinion of it is now a bit lower.
It's still a good movie and there are aspects of it that are certainly great. The plot is well constructed and the story lines are compelling. There are a variety of interesting characters and many humorous and dramatic scenes. Several actors (who were at their peak at the time) have juicy roles and give excellent performances: Uma Thurman, Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, and Christopher Walken. Overall, the movie is unbelievably entertaining.
After seeing Pulp Fiction again though, with several more years of movie viewing experience now under my belt, parts of it look amateurish. The shots don't always work; composition is bad, stuff is out of focus, lighting is bad. Although the banal conversations are fantastic, the dialogue doesn't work all the time either, particularly for Samuel L. Jackson's character. When I listened to him, I couldn't help but think that this is how a white dude thinks a black gangster should talk. There are also a ton of obvious continuity and factual errors in the film that are distracting (check the "Goofs for Pulp Fiction" page here at IMDB for an incomplete listing of them). In most movies, I don't notice these kinds of errors because they're so subtle, but in Pulp Fiction they're glaring.
Pulp Fiction is still cool and enjoyable, but it seems like I can look at it in a more critical light now. It's been almost ten years since it was made and the hype is finally starting to die down. It's a good (maybe great) film, but it's not a classic or a masterpiece.
Pups (1999)
Astoundingly Bad Movie
This is probably the worst movie I've seen. You just shake your head in bewildered wonder throughout the thing. It's the only film that I've given a 1 out of 10 rating here.
It's a very poorly written movie. The plot is laugh-out-loud absurd on many different levels and the dialogue is atrocious.
The acting is awful too. Though you hate to criticize kids, they were embarrassing in the main roles. (The director could have helped them, but didn't.) You know you're watching a bad movie when the best actor in it is MTV's Kurt Loder.
Even the camera work and lighting is bad. Those are things that I've only noticed before in movies when they were done really well, but I guess you can also notice them when they're done really poorly.
This film is actually so horrible that it's made me rethink the value of movies in our society. That millions of dollars are spent to make movies like this is such a tragedy. That money could be used in so many better ways.
Unbreakable (2000)
Boring. But it has its good points.
"Unbreakable" is somewhat hard to review. It's not a good movie, but it has qualities that are undeniably appealing.
The premise of the movie, which is apparent within maybe the first fifteen minutes or so, is completely ridiculous. I have to admit though that it "worked", and I stopped snickering before the movie really took off.
Actually, the movie never takes off. There's a long, boring build up to a climax that disappoints. At the end, you realize that "Unbreakable" was just setting the scene for "Unbreakable 2".
Regardless of its faults though, "Unbreakable" does have its moments. It is just awesome visually. Also, it's unpredictable on a very basic level; you genuinely don't know what is going to happen next (or if you do know what's going to happen, you don't know HOW it's going to happen).
So... it's a mixed bag, I guess. There are interesting moments to it, but I can't really recommend the movie.
I'm Losing You (1998)
Good Book. Bad movie.
This is an almost stereotypical example of a good book being turned into a bad movie. However, there are three interesting details that make this case unique: 1. The guy who wrote the book is actually the same guy who made the movie! 2. The book mocks Hollywood culture in many different ways, so making the book into a movie is somewhat ironic. 3. The movie is really, really bad.
Why isn't the movie as good as the book? There are too many reasons to list. Bad casting, the movie lacks the humor of the book, key scenes in the book aren't in the movie, etc. Pretty typical stuff.
If you've read the book, it might be worth it to see the movie though. It's almost unwatchable, but you might want to tough it out just so you can puzzle over it and ask: "What was Bruce Wagner thinking?"