cinemadome

Here’s why.

1. The story/ies

“ Watching PF means watching three movies. Watching PF also means watching dozens of sketches. Intricately connected into one big whole. Each one of these three tales, actually part of one bigger chronological story line, is a masterpiece feature film in itself. Or at least has the huge potential of being one. Its episodic character works on different levels. So here you have this movie consisting of 3 tales, which are actually part of one larger single story-line. Those three tales are then told in a style which is itself incredibly episodic. Watching Pulp Fiction is not watching these stories being unfold, it is watching dozens of set-pieces. Think of what drives the action in these stories, besides a lot of small talk. A drug overdose, a watch, a gun going off on accident, a briefcase with unknown content, etc. No politics, no emotional conflict, just a bunch of McGuffins. McGuffins that lead to the next marvelous set-piece. But dig a little closer and marvel at the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ theme running through ‘The Gold Watch’, at flavors of Homer in ‘The Bonnie Situation’. Or the Chaplin-like stumbling of ‘Mr Wallace’s Wife’. If Homer’s work is universally accepted as great art, why should we dismiss PF on the basis that it lacks ‘serious’ themes? And then there is of course the ‘scrambled’ structure. A structure which is not gimmicky at all, for it is not hard at all to imagine this movie working just fine if told in its chronological order. The success of the movie does not depend on its structure, but it helps to give it more of a bite. A great example is the opening scene. By removing that scene from its chronological place and opening up the film with it, QT brilliantly rounds up the tales, without having to show us Pumpkin’s ideas on robbers business model and J & V’s theological discussion at the same time. This is some of the greatest writing ever. ”

2. The dialogue

“ PF is the most quotable movie ever. Jules and Vincent talk about culinary habits in Europe, about foot massages, the nature of miracles, they argue about the effectiveness of soap, they even argue for the sake of it (‘I’m not your friend, palooka’). Watching these two characters talk is a blast and it is what makes ‘The Bonnie Situation’ the best part of the movie. ”

3. The directing

“ Tarantino, helped by cinematographer Andrzej Sekula, does a brilliant work at adapting his writing to the screen. Filmed in a conservative fashion, this wild material actually screams for a much more energetic directing style. Think of Stone’s work on Natural Born Killers, or Tony Scott’s on True Romance. But Tarantino went an entirely different route here, putting on a low key performance, one that is on-point and flawless. Not one shot is mishandled, not one scene rushed. This is really flawless directing. Not at all flashy, except for the ‘heroine shoot-up’ scene and the Jack Rabit Slimm’s tracking shot. I have to believe that this has something to do with QT’s relative inexperience back then and that he simply chose for the safe route, which was really the best route to take. It is the writing that stands at center stage here and it doesn’t need a director to try to upstage it. ”

4. The acting

“ One word. Flawless. From the smallest parts to the leads. Ironically, the single one low-par acting performance in the film is by the big man himself. But can we really blame him? ”

5. Originality

“ A lot has been said about the many cinematic influences in PF. Tarantino homages everything from 50’s noir movies, blaxploitation, even martial arts movies. For many people who want to lessen the movie’s power, those influences become reasons to dismiss PF. In those people’s minds, Tarantino stole the movie’s ideas from other movies. A ridiculous point to make, really. Sometimes ‘homaging’ and ‘incorporating ideas’ have a fine line between them, but Tarantino never crosses that line into the second grouping. Sure, the ‘suitcase with unknown, shining content’ was featured before in Kiss Me Deadly. And the threat Marcellus directs at Zed is straight out of a 70’s movie. Pumpkin’s new-found method of robbing shows similarities with a certain silent short. Etc. As you can see from these examples, these are not ideas central to the film. These are not even ideas necessary to making the film work as it did. The suitcase could have contained diamonds (which it did in the original script) and the film would have worked fine. Let’s get this straight, Pulp Fiction is some of the most original film-making to ever hit the screen. There has never been anything onscreen like its structure and its dialogue. Ever. ”

6. Influence

“ From great movies like Get Shorty, Out of Sight, The Usual Suspects and Memento, to a whole lot of crappy films. They all show undeniable influence from Pulp Fiction. Its use of music, its dialogue and of course, its structure, it opened up an entirely fresh kind of film-making to a new generation of filmmakers. ”

7. Pulp Fiction is mainly the product of a single person.

“ This doesn’t belong in this article, but let me start by saying that I have enormous issues with the ‘author theory’ idea. The idea that a director, above everyone else, defines the feature film. Utter nonsense. Movies are made by dozens, sometimes hundreds, of people involved. Some with more pressing responsibilities than others, of course. And some with more creative roles than others. But why would I want to hear from Scorsese about the motives of Travis Bickle, when that character was written by someone else? I’m really not interested in Scorsese’s opinions here, as his role is more of an adapting one. Likewise, should we not give more credit to someone like Woody Allen, who writes, directs, scores as well as acts in his own movies. Quentin Tarantino wrote, directed, scored and casted this incredibly complex film. He created it out of scratch. And that fact ups the awe-factor considerably. ”

I know what you are thinking. What’s this I’m reading about Plato, on a blog titled ‘cinemadome’? Cinema is my number one passion, without doubt. I just love it. I love watching the things, love critiquing them in small-talk conversations, love discovering new gems. But I also love reading and listening to music. So I’ll try to mix it up just a little.. Here goes.

Mein Kampf was terrible, for more reasons than its anti-Semitism. And luckily we all agree. But what about books with reprehensible content that are still read, religiously, across the globe?

1) POLITICS, by Aristotle.

“ Yes, I’m going to say it. Aristotle was a racist. And not Archie Bunker racist, we’re talking more along the line of Hitler. Taught in colleges across the world, this brilliant work of political philosophy is also a racial supremacist work. The Greeks, situated as they were between Europe and the Mid East, were an advanced race of people, according to Aristotle. Greeks were free by nature, while non-Greeks were slaves by nature. If the Europeans were too wild to be subjected, and the culturally refined people of Egypt and Babylon were slave-like in their subjection to their kings, the Greeks were naturally superior to all other people. A sort of Supermen, who possessed the pride of the Europeans and the cultural refineness of the Middle Easterners, but none of their weaknesses. Its racial theories layed the groundwork for the racist ideologies of the colonial-era Western states. ”

2) THE REPUBLIC, by Plato.

“ A giant of Western literature. In it, Plato muses over the ideal society and the laws and institutions that govern them. It has had an enormous influence on Western thought, especially since the Romans modelled their state on its ideas. Less awesome was the fact that the Nazis were fans too.. They too actively tried to incorporate its ideas into their society. Ideas that were at once anti-democratic, classist, socialist and nationalist. ”

3) THE INCOHERENCE OF THE PHILOSOPHERS, by Al-Ghazali.

“ Written in the 11th century, it tries to explain why ancient Greek philosophy is bad and how Islamic thinkers that studied them are ‘incoherent’. In doing so, the writer out-philosophized the philosophers, to the point that Al-Ghazali himself nowadays is regarded a philosopher (karma’s a bitch). It has the reputation of being a masterpiece of anti-intellectualism, thought by some to be responsible for the stifling of Muslim science. ”

4) HAN FEIZI, by Han Fei.

“ At the same time Aristotle emphasized the superiority of the Greek individual, Han Fei saw little room for individualism. The masses were little more then tools, to be controlled by the state. It has deeply influenced Chinese culture, but its influence in Chinese society declined after the third century BC, only to experience a revival with the advent of communism in the 20th century. ”

5) ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand.

“ She’s been called batshit crazy as well as brilliant. Either way, former US vice-president candidate recently named her as a main influence. Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical novel in defense of egoism. The individual stands tall against a corrupt government and its institutions. In that sense it can be described as a sort of opposite of Han Feizi. Some big ideas out here, but even her biggest fans seem to agree that she isn’t a very good writer. ”

These are not necessarily bad movies, many are very good ones actually. These do not simply include popular movies out there that I believe are too highly rated. It includes only those movies which I believe have no business receiving certain acclaim. For that reason, I do not include a movie like Titanic. A movie which received 11 Oscars (forget that 1998 was one of the worst movie years ever), and acclaim that I don’t believe it deserves. Yet, when watching a movie like Titanic I can see its inherent craftsmanship and I can see why people would like it. The same goes for movies like Jaws, The Lord of the Rings and Fight Club.

The movies below are acclaimed movies that in my opinion are in no way deserving of the level of praise they got.

1. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012)

Rating IMDB: 8.5/10

I say: “ This is very flawed film-making, not a great film at all. ”

2. SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE (1989)

Rating IMDB: 7.2/10

I say: “ Got huge amount of critical acclaim and did exceptionally well at the box-office. Even worse, this is still considered a milestone in independent filmmaking. Which it really isn’t. This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. I don’t mean that in the sense of it lacking action. I mean boring, as in lacking anything of interest. For about an hour and a half the movie crawls at a snail’s pace, with the viewer hoping all this is leading somewhere. But in the final scene everything comes tumbling downs with a tacked on ending that does nothing to explain or justify this borefest. ”

3. THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)

Rating IMDB: 8.9
Rating Metascore: 8.2

I say: “ Definitely not a bad movie, a very good one actually and at times very thrilling! The only reason I put it so high is the universal praise it got, all the Academic accolades and its position in the IMDB top 10. This movie definitely does not deserve all that praise, being a not very remarkable superhero slice of moviemaking. The movie doesn’t have any real problems, it being what it is: a fun rollercoaster ride. If I had to name one, it would have to be the screenplay, which is at times silly and boring. ”

4. BUGSY (1991)

Rating IMDB: 6.8

I say: “ A terrible movie. Not very highly rated on IMDB, but the movie did receive 4 stars from Ebert and it was showered with 10 Oscar nominations, winning 2. This one is absolute garbage. Levinson ain’t no Scorsese, but the man did direct Diner, a great movie which showed he’s very capable. But this one is ruined by Levinson’s crap direction, an embarrassing script and the miscasting of Beatty. The movie’s biggest problem is its script, containing the most idiotic characterizations and dialogue. In this movie, Bugsy is a walking clown. The scene where Bugsy comes up with the idea for a gambling city is retarded, so is the one where he successfully sells the million dollar project to Lansky. ”

5. SHUTTER ISLAND (2010)

Rating IMDB: 8.0
Rating Metascore: 6.4

I say: “ The great master has not made a truly great picture since 1995. This movie here has to be his single worst he has ever mad, with a storyline that is silly as hell. The conclusion makes you feel embarrassed for Scorsese, it made me feel that anyway. DiCaprio is a very good actor, but I don’t understand why they keep working together, being that their output is so disappointing. ”

6. THE THIRD MAN (1949)

I say: “ It does contain two of my favorite actors of all time, Welles and Cotton. But the movie doesn’t work for me. A movie that is considered by many to be one of the best of all time, in reality it contain few to no great moments. The only one I can come up with is Welles’ speech in the ferry ride, which is quite awesome. Other than that, there’s little that is great in this movie. The movie’s use of humor distracts from the suspense, its direction is of a B-level (wtf was up with the angled shots..) and the conclusion was boring. This is not great film making. ”

7. KILL BILL: VOL. 1 (2003)

Rating IMDB: 8.2
Rating Metascore: 6.9

I say: “ I really like Tarantino, as a filmmaker, but I also like the fact that he is so unpretentious. Given the fact that he is one of the most talented filmmakers out there. Actually, I consider his Pulp Fiction to be one of the greatest films ever made. His Kill Bill movies suck, though. The obvious references to other movies don’t work, and Thurman gives a very bad performance in my opinion. It just doesn’t work for me. ”

8. GLADIATOR (2000)

Rating IMDB: 8.4
Rating Metascore: 6.4

I say: “ The action sequences are some of the best you’ll ever see, the rest sucked in my opinion. ”

9. MEAN STREETS (1973)

I say: “ This movie is often considered to be among Scorsese’s very best, an opinion I truly find annoying. It belongs to his pre-Taxi Driver output, being burdened with weak writing, flawed acting and even Scorsese direction is flawed here. Its interesting for containing elements which later would become typical Scorsese (the use of red to set mood, etc), yet the movie itself is simply not very good. ”

10. CASABLANCA (1942)

I say: “ This movie’s appeal is a total mystery to me. It has again and again disappointed me. I keep coming back to this one, hoping it will show me wrong, but it never has. The movie is just too bland, and for me doesn’t really work on any level. The romance didn’t, the movie didn’t thrill me at all, and doesn’t really seem to give a realistic view of French Morocco. I can understand why fanboys would go crazy for the dumb and loud Tarantino-isms of The Boondock Saints, what I can’t understand is why so many serious movie commentators point to this movie one of the greatest movies ever made. And this is coming from a huge fan of both 40’s movies and of Bogart: both The Maltese Falcon and Sierra Madre are two of my favorite movies of all time. ”

11. INCEPTION (2010)

Rating IMDB: 8.8
Rating Metascore: 7.4

I say: “ Another Nolan pic. I am very much a fan of his work, Following and Memento were both great movies. ”

12. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984)

Rating IMDB: 8.4

I say: “ I really want to like this movie, it has so much going for it: Leone, DeNiro, Moricone, the decades spanning gangster plot. This one is a let down. The story is a mess, the acting is horrible, the soundtrack stinks. Leone shows his mastery at times, but overall the direction was very dull and unfocused. ”

13. I SAW THE DEVIL (2010)

I say: “ This is another movie I absolutely hate not because its that bad of a movie, but because of its sensational use of violence. The violence is extremely misplaced here, and seems to have as goal to titillate the viewer, turning itself into a gore-porn film. If this film didn’t have those scenes in it, no-one would be talking about it. This is dull filmmaking at its core. ”

14. THE PIANIST (2002)

I say: “ Boring, so boring. Brody never ever should have won over Cage’s brilliant work in Adaptation. ”

15. CRASH (2004)

Rating IMDB: 7.9
Rating Metascore: 6.9

I say: “ Very unrealistic, in this pic every other person’s live is dominated by racial prejudice. The movie made me feel embarrassed for the folk involved in this. Watch Do the Right Thing instead. ”

16. MYSTIC RIVER (2003)

I say: “ Penn and Robbin’s acting alone disqualify this movie from very positive criticism. Loud and obvious, I do not like this pic at all. ”

17. THE KILLING (1956)

I say: “ The greatest movie director of all time made his first true masterpiece with Paths of Glory, not with this one. A fun and exciting movie, not more much than that. The ending is stupid. ”

18. ROCKY II (1979)

I say: “ The original movie was proof that mediocre directing is not necessarily a death blow to a movie, if the writing and acting is great. I love that movie, despite its problems. This one of course has the awesome title character in it, but has none of the brilliantly written scenes of the original. And Stallone’s directing is still worse than Avgilson’s of the original. The final boxing match is Ed Wood-bad. ”

19. OLDBOY (2003)

Rating IMDB: 8.4
Rating Metascore: 7.4

I say: “ It’s quirky and fun yes, but a masterpiece? A great movie? No way. This tale might have worked well in a graphic novel format, but here it just falls flat. The conclusion is far fetched and silly. Stuff of comic books and b-movie trash. Very well-made trash, but still trash. The fight scene is the most random, unrealistic fight ever put on screen. ”

20. THE BOONDOCK SAINTS (1999)

Rating IMDB: 7.8
Rating Metascore: 4.4

I say: “ One of the few movies on this list that I absolutely hate. I have seen it two times and I am 100% sure that this movie is just no good. Not a very good writing, acting and direction. Luckily, the critics all agreed that this movie sucked. ”