#Pulp fiction Review

[esonetwork]

'The Titanic Murders' Book Review By Ron Fortier

New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/the-titanic-murders-book-review-by-ron-fortier/

'The Titanic Murders' Book Review By Ron Fortier

THE TITANIC MURDERS By Max Allan Collins Thomas & Mercer Books 251 pgs

Born in 1875, Jacques Futrelle was a journalist turned mystery writer. He is best known for writing short detective stories featuring Professor Augustus S.F.X . Van Dusen known at The Thinking Machine for his use of logic. While on a European tour with his wife, May, in 1912, Futrelle became melancholy missing their two teenage children. Shortly after his 37th birthday on April 9, he opted to cut the trip short and return to America. He booked passage for both of them on the newly christened cruise ship R.M.S. Titanic. Six days later, after assuring May’s safety in one of the few lifeboats, Futrelle become of hundred of victims to drown as the unsinkable ship sank into the frigid waters of the North Atlantic; one of the most notorious tragedies in world history.

A fan of the late writer’s works, Max Allan Collins makes him the hero “The Titanic Murders.” Once again employing meticulously researched data, Collins takes us back in time to a different age when people thought anything was possible. He details not only the magnificent ship, a true marvel of engineering but introduces us to a small group of some of the most famous and powerful people in America at that time. Among them is a pair of unscrupulous blackmailers who have hatched an audacious scheme to extort money from these rich celebrities.

Meanwhile Jack, as he preferred to be called, and his beautiful May, are seduced but the opulent luxury that surrounds them and lovingly envision the trip as a second honeymoon. We’ve been fans of Collins work for many years and have always been impressed by his ability to bring his characters to life. Whereas he has never been more sensitive and astute than in his portrayal of these two people. Their love for each other is endearing.

When one of the blackmailers is found murdered, ship owner J. Bruce Ismay and Captain Smith ask Futrelle to investigate considering his background as a journalist and mystery writer. With each passing day of the voyage, he, with May’s assistance, begins to interview his list of elite suspects. Much like his fictional character, Futrelle collects the evidence and soon closes in on the killer by staging a phony séance. All in all, the mystery is expertly laid out and its solution is satisfying. 

Yet it is not what elevates the story. Rather it is the somber reality of all those lost lives. By the finale, we found ourselves moved especially at the end of Collin’s epilogue wherein he chronicles the actual last minutes of each of the characters. He ends appropriately with May and Jack’s final farewell. Crying, we put down the book.

[shhhsoftnwet]

No worries everyone! They’re just having a bloody good time and spilling ketchup everywhere 😀🥫

[the-sappho-of-lesbos]

[wetblanket7]

hi *with the intention to be mutuals on letterboxd*

[pricelessreviews]

[jaysterg5]

Cadillacs and Dinosaurs: Blood and Bones

Writer - Roy Thomas

Art - Dick Giordano with Steve Stiles and Esteban Maroto

Covers - William Stout

While not exactly a sequel to Mark Schultz's Xenozoic Tales, this miniseries actually takes place with his blessings. In fact, it occurs during issue #10 of Xenozoic Tales and sequelizes the very first Xenozoic story from Death Rattle #8. Schultz had already thought about furthering that story and provided Roy Thomas with his ideas and some sketches - which are reproduced in issue #3 of this series.

But this run also tries to capitalize on the short-lived cartoon series of the same name and kind of becomes a bridge between the source material and the TV show. While most of the sensibilities are of the comic book, many of the characters' appearances are derived from the look of the show. This series also features the multitudes of Terhunes that were expanded in the show including adding a mother to the poacher family.

Roy Thomas and Dick Giordano have been doing pulpy stories for a large majority of their careers by the time this was published in 1994, so it was a slam dunk that they could handle this project. Thomas's story features a return to Fessenden Station and another encounter with the mysterious 'Brainies.' Add in a dollop of politics and some poachers and it makes for a typical Xenozoic story!

While Giordano's art isn't as sharp or detailed as Schultz's originals, he does still have a flair for expression and action. The classic comic book art is still fun and energetic, and has it's own charm. Giordano even manages to "paraphrase" some of Schultz's original panels throughout the series. Fun stuff!

And in typical Xenozoic form, each issue features a backup story. The first just catches readers up on the world and the characters for new readers who may not have read Schultz's original comics. Issue #2 sequelizes a short from Xenozoic #6, so we get to see exactly how Jack and Hannah rescued their friend Remfro and his glider from the deep blue sea! The third issue is a completely original story of a Dino fight club that Jack puts and end to. Nothing amazing, but still entertaining little additions to the world.

While not the most earth-shattering stuff, it does a nice job keeping the spirit of the original alive. I don't think these were ever collected (at least I couldn't find anything showing that), so if you see them in yard sales or second-hand book stores, they're worth a read.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael After Midnight: The Films of Quentin Tarantino

There are few directors out there as ridiculously praised and extremely controversial as Quentin Tarantino. He’s done nothing his whole career but release films that garner critical acclaim and massive fanbases due to the stellar acting and writing within his films, but at the same time he’s been relentlessly criticized for his excessive use of racial slurs, his excessive homages to the point of plagiarism, and his habit of inserting his fetishes into every single one of his movies. What fetishes do I mean? Let’s just say his films have a lot of sole, and it would be no easy feet to go toe-to-toe with how in your face he is about what he likes.

While the man does have his problems (don’t get me started, I’m here to review movies, not gossip) and his style certainly isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, I’ve found myself enjoying his work a lot ever since I was a teenager, and his films are what pushed me into checking out a lot of more obscure films in the exploitation genre; in particular, I’m a pretty big fan of blaxploitation thanks to Tarantino’s work, and I doubt I would’ve ever checked it out if not for his constant homages. I can’t really hate a guy who helped make me aware of Pam Grier, can I?

What’s most impressive is that out of his ten films there’s not one I would say is genuinely “bad.” Sure, there’s at least one I think is a boring, middling affair, and there are a couple of heavily flawed but still solid films, but there isn’t a single awful movie in his filmography. That’s honestly pretty impressive, especially considering the sort of weird throwback films he makes. After finally sitting down and watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood recently, I decided it was finally time to bite the bullet and do what was a long time coming on this blog: Review Tarantino’s movies. And then I just decided, hey, why not review them all at once, as an homage to Schafrillas Productions and his director rankings? Oho, see, I can homage things too!

To be clear here, I’m only reviewing the films Quentined and Tarantined by the man himself; the “Tarantinoverse” is a bit more expansive than his own filmography, as True Romance (which he wrote) is canon and Machete, Machete Kills, From Dusk Til Dawn, Hobo with a Shotgun, Planet Terror, Thanksgiving, and the Spy Kids movies are all part of the “show within a show” side of his world, but those are all topics for another time. Right now, it’s all Tarantino baby! Now let’s get on to the actual ranking, and pray that I don’t put a foot in my mouth with these opinions.

10. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood

I feel pretty safe in calling this Tarantino’s worst film. It’s not necessarily awful or anything, it has good qualities to it, but it takes every problem Tarantino’s style has and cranks it up to 11.

The film is long and dialogue-heavy, with lots of that classic Tarantino writing, but while individual scenes are good such as when Leonardo DiCaprio’s character is filming a scene with a little girl or Brad Pitt’s character goes to the ranch the Manson Family are holed up at they never really feel like they congeal into a cohesive narrative, instead feeling more like a long string of vignettes. This is especially bad in regards to Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate, whose numerous scenes really add nothing to the movie but constant looming reminders that Helter Skelter is going to happen and lots of shots of Robbie’s feet. The excessively padded runtime is so bad that when you finally get to the part where the tables are turned on the Manson Family, a historical twist that should feel fun and cathartic, it comes off as too little, too late instead.

It’s really a shame the film is so meandering, because in almost every other aspect it really shines. Every actor is giving it their all; Pitt and DiCaprio are absolutely fantastic, Robbie brings charm even to her filler role, and every single bit part actor is fully committed and leaves a mark. Standouts include Dakota Fanning as the de facto head honcho of the Family when Manson is out and Mike Moh as Bruce Lee in a scene that is at once deeply disrespectful to one of history’s greatest action stars and also very funny. This is a film you can tell everyone involved gave a shit about.

But for me, it’s not enough for me to really love the film. I like a lot about the movie for sure, but I just hate how nothing ever really comes together in a satisfying way. Maybe if a bit of the fat was trimmed I would have a higher opinion of the movie, but as it is three hours of vignettes (even well-acted ones) is truly excessive. It’s mid at worst, but for Tarantino that’s still pretty shocking when everything else he’s done is above average at worst.

9. Death Proof

This is a truly underrated film, but frankly, it’s easy to see why it is that way. This half of the double feature that was Grindhouse is a throwback to films that were actually two movies spliced together, and it has all the issues that entails. The first half of the film is a more grounded, dialogue-heavy buildup to a terrifying conclusion, while the second half is a wild and crazy action and stunt showcase, and the two halves feel at odds with each other…which is by design, but still.

This might be a hot take, but I find the slow burning first half to be the superior part of the film. As much as I love Tarantino’s insane action films, Kurt Russell’s portrayal of the sinister Stuntman Mike is just just utterly gripping; he is easily one of the best villains in Tarantino’s filmography. The whole first half establishes him really well, building up the anxiety until he finally gets to show the girl he leaves with just how well he death proofed his car. He’s just so damn cool.

And then comes the second half where he’s reduced to a bit of a chump. And this probably wouldn’t be nearly as bad if the protagonists up against him were compelling, but they’re not. They’re a bunch of girls who are boring at best and relentlessly unpleasant at worst; the fact they leave behind one of their friends to an uncertain (but likely unpleasant) fate at the hands of a creepy redneck is especially appalling. Beatrix Kiddo they ain’t.

This is a wildly uneven film, so I can see why it didn’t find its audience right away, but I think these days it had garnered a minor cult following. If you can handle the flawed second half, this is still a really good movie with a captivating villain performance that more than makes up for its shortcomings, but I definitely can’t justify putting it any higher on this list.

8. Inglourious Basterds

Oh, this might be a controversial one. This movie is the same sort of beast as OUATIH, which is why I have it so low, but with one crucial difference: It does everything better. Yes, this movie is long and a bit meandering, but it always feels like it’s moving towards a final goal. Yes, it ends with a history-altering plot twist, but this one might be the most cathartic one of all time. And yes, there’s gratuitous feet shots, but at least they’re in plot-relevant scenes.

Of course, the best thing about the movie is the villain, Hans Landa. Christoph Waltz’s big American breakout is one of the most compelling villains of the 2010s, a charismatic, cunning, self-serving Nazi bastard who you really want to see get what’s coming to him. I might be inclined to call him the best Tarantino villain of all time.

I think what weirdly brings the film down is the titular Basterds themselves, and not because they ultimately feel superfluous to the plot; it’s the same sort of thing as Raiders of the Lost Ark, them being absent wouldn’t have changed much but we also wouldn’t have much of an exciting adventure. My issue is that Brad Pitt aside they are just not interesting or compelling at all. You really need to work hard to sell attempted filmmaker Eli Roth as the ultimate Jewish badass, and the film doesn’t really deliver. If only Adam Sandler took the role as was the original vision; we really were robbed. It’s all the worse because it cuts away from the actual compelling plot with Shosanna for these schmucks.

To be clear, I don’t think this is a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but I find it falls short of the hype around it. I’ve seen it described as movie with a lot of great scenes that never really comes together to be a great movie, and I mostly agree with that assessment; there’s so much to love here, but also so much I don’t care about. It’s definitely worth watching but it’s also where you can see the seeds for the problems with OUATIH planted.

7. The Hateful Eight

This isn’t a Tarantino film held in a particularly high regard; it’s not exactly hated, but it’s not what anyone would call their favorite either. Its contentious nature boils down to something apparent right in the title: Every character in this movie is a fucking asshole. It can be genuinely hard to get invested in these people when they’re a big collection of liars, killers, sadists, criminals, racists, and rapists.

Now, if you can stomach these nasty characters, what you’re left with is “John Carpenter’s The Thing… but a Western!” And I have to admit as a huge fan of The Thing, this is a very solid reimagining of the concept in a grounded setting. I do wish there was any character to root for here, but watching a group of people slowly tearing each other apart in a claustrophobic, isolated setting is still fun to watch. I don’t think it’s nearly as good or insightful as Carpenter’s movie, but very few movies are.

This is definitely a movie I can see people hating more than the previous two films, but I feel like this movie is more consistent than Basterds or Death Proof. Those movies have higher highs, but this movie never hits the lows they do, and even if his character is a massive asshole Samuel L. Jackson is always great to see in a Tarantino flick. Plus that brief appearance from Channing Tatum is great, especially with how it ends. This is a very solid film, but “very solid” is about as high as the praise I’ll give it will get.

6. Reservoir Dogs

Tarantino’s directorial debut, and boy is that readily apparent. It does a good job at establishing hallmarks of his style, like the sorts of conversations his characters have, their love of racial slurs, non-linear storytelling, and his trend of casting himself as a douchey minor character. It does everything fairly well, and I’d go as far as to call it one of the best directorial debuts ever… and that’s about it, really.

Like this is a very good film with strong performances—Michael Madsen and Steve Buscemi being the standouts—but it definitely feels less refined than his later works with the same style. His sophomore film just completely blows this one out of the water, to the point it’s hard to muster up the interest to revisit this as opposed to watching Pulp Fiction for the hundredth time. It’s not that this film is bad; it’s just that Tarantino’s later films do what this one does better.

It’s definitely a good film, maybe even great, but there’s clear room to improve. Hell, there wasn’t a single shot of a woman’s feet in the whole movie! Tarantino was slacking.

5. Kill Bill: Vol. 2

Now we’re in to the really great movies. And yes, while it doesn’t keep up the energy of the first film, I would definitely call this a great movie.

Where the first volume was driven by action, this one is more driven by talking, and thankfully the characters are saying a lot of interesting things here (the standout being Bill’s media illiteracy in regards to Superman, which reveals a lot about his character). There’s also the reveal of Beatrix Kiddo’s name as well as her backstory, and there are some standout moments like Beatrix escaping from being buried alive and the tense final conversation with Bill. Overall, the film does a fantastic job at fleshing the story out and expanding our understanding of the characters.

Like I said, though, it just doesn’t keep up the energy of the first film. Budd is great and serves as a more psychological opponent, burying Beatrix alive as a way to test if she has the resolve to finish her quest for revenge, but both Elle and Bill himself are dealt with in a rather anti-climactic manner. It says a lot that O-Ren, one of Bill’s former lackeys, put up a grander and more impressive fight than her boss did. While I do appreciate the more philosophical approach, it’s hard not to be miffed when a duology called “Kill Bill” doesn’t kill Bill in a more grandiose way befitting the character.

Obviously, I don’t think it brings the film down much, and this is still a good conclusion to the story. I just can’t help but feel it could’ve amped things up just a bit, y’know?

4. Jackie Brown

This is probably the weirdest film in Tarantino’s filmography, being an adaptation of a book that lacks a lot of his usual style and features a lot of people he didn’t work with afterwards (like Robert De Niro and Pam Grier). This has led to a lot of people praising it as one of Tarantino’s best works for being unique among his oeuvre… and also a lot of people deriding it for how different it is from his usual style.

I definitely think it’s up there with his best works, but I don’t think it’s the absolute best. It’s sort of like how I see Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies; they’re great films (well, the first two anyway) but I can’t in good conscience hold them up as the best Batman media because they ultimately lack a lot of what makes me love Batman as a character. And this film lacks a lot of what makes me love a Tarantino movie; it’s a fantastic, realistic crime drama, but that’s not really what I’m watching Tarantino for, you know?

Still, its placement on this list should tell you I still see this as a must-watch. Starring Grier alone makes it worth checking out, and it definitely showcases Tarantino has far more range as a filmmaker than you’d expect.

3. Django Unchained

Right from the opening song, you can tell this is going to be an epic movie. Tarantino truly nailed the Western on his first go around, adding his own spin to the genre and making a truly stellar film. However, it’s not without a few issues.

The main cast is fantastic. We have Christoph Waltz as a noble and heroic abolitionist, an atypical role he pulls off flawlessly; Samuel L. Jackson as a sinister house slave who is all about licking the boot that treads on him; and of course Leonardo DiCaprio as a hammy, egotistical slave owner, a stellar villain role that should have nabbed him an Oscar. Even minor roles are great, with Don Johnson appearing as a plantation owner early on and Jonah Hill of all people popping up as a proto-Klansman.

You might notice I didn’t mention Jamie Foxx as the titular Django. That’s because, unfortunately, he’s a bit of an issue with the film. It’s not Foxx’s performance; he makes Django cool and likable, and his awesome trademark Tarantino roaring rampage of revenge in the third act sells him as a truly badass character. No, the issue is the narrative seems to seriously sideline him in favor of Waltz’s character, to the point for large swaths of the film he feels a bit like a side character in his own story. I don’t find it to be a huge issue, but it can be frustrating, especially since this is a very long movie and a few scenes drag on a bit longer than necessary. You really couldn’t give the title character a bit more to do until the last half hour, Quentin?

Still, I don’t think its issues hold it back all that much. This is an incredibly fantastic film whose highs easily overshadow its frustrating lows. Frankly, if any Tarantino movie deserves a sequel, it would be this one; I think Django has a lot of interesting stories in him, and a film where he actually gets to be the central character the whole time would be great.

2. Kill Bill: Vol. 1

This right here is pretty damn close to being my absolute favorite Tarantino film. Where something like OUATIH is all of Tarantino’s flaws compounded into one film, this is all of his strengths together in one film. Fantastically violent action, stellar casting with not a single weak performance, an awesome soundtrack, tons of great homages to the works that inspired it, non-linear storytelling used effectively, and more style in a single frame than some movies have in their entire runtime.

Frankly, I don’t have a lot of issues with the movie, though I kind of don’t like how all the action is front loaded while all the character insight and dialogue gets shoved into the second part. It’s nothing that makes me think less of either film, but I think maybe sprinkling more insight into who the Bride is in this movie and putting some more action in the second part would keep the sequel from feeling a bit anti-climactic. I also wish we got more of Vernita Green, the first assassin we see dispatched onscreen and the one who gets the least characterization; with a third film increasingly unlikely at this point, meaning we won’t ever see her daughter seek her vengeance, it’s a shame we don’t get at least a little more of a look into who she is as a person like we did with Budd and especially O-Ren.

Aside from that, though? This is Tarantino at his best, and Uma Thurman’s crowning achievement as an actress, one that cements her as action royalty alongside the greats like Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and Weaver. There’s just one film Tarantino did that, objectively, is a much better film, and I’m sure as soon as you saw this ranking you knew exactly what it’d be...

1. Pulp Fiction

Of course this takes the top spot. Was there ever any doubt? This movie is everything Tarantino is about rolled into one supremely satisfying package.

The cast is nothing short of phenomenal. We have Bruce Willis in his prime, we’ve got John Travolta pulling out of a career slump, we’ve got Uma Thurman and Ving Rhames in roles that put them on the map, and we have a veritable buffet of talent in minor roles, the most memorable of which is Christopher Walken telling a child the delightful story of a pocket watch’s journey home from war. There’s not a bad performance here. But of course the real superstar is Samuel L. Jackson, who gave a career-defining performance as Jules, the baddest motherfucker around (it says so on his wallet).

The great performances wouldn’t matter much if not for the great script, though. The dialogue in this film is unreal with how good it is, with characters having very odd yet also very realistic and natural conversations. Jules and Vince discussing burgers, for instance, is one of the most memorable sequences in the film… and it’s just them driving! Some of the writing is a little contentious (did you really need to have your character say the N-word fifty times, Quentin?), but none of it is really bad.

I will say Tarantino as Jimmy is one of my few issues with the film, but also an issue I kind of like anyway. His acting is a wonky and there is genuinely no reason why he should be spouting off all these racial slurs (even in-universe, since his buddy Jules and his wife are black), but the sheer audacity of the whole thing saves it. Still, I can’t help but feel the scene hasn’t aged as gracefully as a lot of the film, and the amateur performance from Tarantino sticks out all the more because he is standing right next to two of the most talented actors ever.

Another aspect of the film I think has aged pretty poorly is the gay hillbilly rapists, but I don’t think this aspect is as cut and dry as “hey maybe the white director who has little acting training shouldn’t play the guy who says the N-word.” On the one hand, having the only queer characters in your movie being depraved rapists is not a good look, though this was par for the course for the 90s. On the other hand, the movie treats Marsellus getting raped with the same level of deadly seriousness that a woman in that position would receive in a film. That’s a pretty bold, progressive plot point, especially since men getting raped (especially male-on-male) was and still is used as a joke. And watching the movie in a day and age with tons of queer characters in media does soften the blow a bit, because these aren’t the only gay characters you’ll see in fiction anymore. I think it’s important to have discussions about these sorts of archaic portrayals of queers in film, but I don’t think this breaks the movie.

In modern times the film has gotten a reputation as a “red flag” film loved by toxic guys, and I think that’s unfair; is it the movie’s fault dudebros fail to see the movie is a refutation of crime and violence? Think about it: The only person in the film who gets an unambiguously happy ending is the one who has a spiritual awakening and abandons his criminal ways to walk the Earth. Every other major character pays in some way for their continued violent ways: Butch goes through Hell and ends up in exile, Marsellus Wallace gets raped, Mia overdoses and nearly dies, and Vince does die. Hell, there’s an entire segment where Jules and Vince are repeatedly chastised for careless violence causing a huge mess; as you may recall, Jules’ pal Jimmy was not too keen to find Phil LaMarr dead in his garage, and had some choice words to say about it. Stupid people see the blood and slurs and take it at face value, but the narrative itself tells these sorts they’re well and truly fucked because when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Of course, my favorite interpretation of the film is that it is espousing the belief that Beatles fans are superior to Elvis ones, as an extension of Mia’s comment in a deleted scene that you’re either an Elvis person or a Beatles person. Vince is clearly an Elvis guy, and he is presented as an unprofessional, careless buffoon who causes numerous issues and ends up dying due to his own inattentiveness; meanwhile, Jules is vaguely implied to be the proverbial “Beatles guy” (he calls the robber in the diner “Ringo”) and escapes the film unscathed. This is even funnier when you consider that one of Tarantino’s first onscreen roles was as an Elvis impersonator in Golden Girls, something that implies he might be an Elvis guy himself, which would make the film the most epic act of self-deprecation ever.

This is one of the greatest sophomore releases from a director ever, and one of the greatest films of the 90s. This film frequently finds its way to the top of “best films of all time” lists, and with good reason; it is, to this day, just that good. I think there’s a temptation to call any of his other films his magnum opus due to just how acclaimed and pervasive in pop culture this film is, but it got that way for a reason. It is a damn good crime story with all sorts of twists and turns and plenty of stuff for viewers to ruminate on and interpret as they please. Hell, I thought I liked Kill Bill more than it until I rewatched it, but boy does this just blow even that masterpiece out of the water.

If nothing else, the film is incredible for one simple reason: Tarantino managed to insert his foot fetish into the film without it feeling as needlessly gratuitous as it is in some later films! Bravo, Tarantino!

[mylifeinfiction]

Deadpool: Pulp by Adam Glass & Mike Benson

SHE ALWAYS KNEW HOW TO GET MY ATTENTION.

A Deadpool story set in the espionage days of the Cold War. Sounds like a blast. The problem is, it never really feels like a Deadpool story. His unpredictable insanity is rarely on display, and when it is it's about as vanilla as it can get. And his trademark, fourth-wall breaking, meta approach to each altercation is damn-near nonexistent, making for shockingly underwhelming action sequences. It's a solid Cold War spy comic, but it's rarely even a serviceable Deadpool comic.

Oh well... ::shrugs::

5.5/10

-Timothy Patrick Boyer.

[non-online]

pulp fiction was a structurally bad movie

and here’s why

i started off pulp fiction with a few things in mind - that it had a non-chronological storyline, that it had a great soundtrack, that it had great acting, and that i’d probably like it. one of those things ended up being true.

this review contains spoilers for pulp fiction — it does not include spoilers for the movies i compare it to.

why do people call this storyline a non-chronological storyline?

well i see where the misconception comes from, because the movie uses parallel storylines, however this is different from non-chronological. a different movie that i believe does a non-chronological storyline well is 500 days of summer.

500 days of summer uses its non-chronological storyline to pose questions. why does summer break up with tom? when do summer and tom actually get together? why does the breakup affect him so much? all of which we eventually learn through the story, and i think the non-chronological storyline makes 500 days of summer what it is. so what does this do that pulp fiction doesn’t?

pulp fiction only uses parallel storylines. this is not non-chronological but, in my opinion, a boring us of non-linear storylines. we get 1 past scene, and that’s only the intro. all of the other segments happen at the same time as eachother, but they don’t overlap. this makes me as the logical viewer ask why we needed to see all of these perspectives if they don’t overlap? the characters overlap - but not what we see of them.

what ruins the soundtrack? its length.

many people say that pulp fiction is considered a boring movie by some because of its length and that’s definitely not true. i believe it’s due to how quiet everything is. for this comparison 8’ll be using the film spiderman: across the spider-verse.

spiderman: across the spider-verse is a film which is 2 hours and 20 minutes long - only 9 minutes shorter than pulp fiction. as both are considerably long films, what made pulp fiction feel like such a drag for me? the reason is the length of the soundtrack. to get your viewer immersed in a story, a captivating soundtrack is the key. pulp fiction’s soundtrack is 41 minutes long, which is a fair length - for a short movie. but only approximately 27.5% of the movie had music, subtly or not, which in turn dragged out the movie so long, because it felt so quiet. in comparison, the soundtrack to our comparison is 107 minutes long, making the percentage an extraordinarily larger 76%.

where is the reason for things to happen, and why should we care?

whenever i ask someone the actual plot of pulp fiction, i never receive a straightforward answer. this is because barely anything in this film has a reason for us to see. in comparison, i bring the film fight club.

fight club is a film where i believe we always see things that we actually need to see, and in these films i’m going to compare the scenes of marla singer’s overdose (fight club) and mia wallace’s overdose (pulp fiction). in the scene of marla’s overdose in fight club, it starts with marla singer about to die, where if tyler didn’t intervene, she wouldn’t have made it. but tyler does intervene, and that forms her relationship with tyler. this contrasts with that which is in pulp fiction. with mia’s overdose, it starts with us watching her commit the act of overdosing. this results in vincent going to save her, which ends in her ending up fine. within these two stories, we see that if marla had not overdosed, she wouldn’t have come back into the narrator/tyler’s life, while if mia had or had not overdosed, she would end up fine. so why as the audience should we be bothered wether she overdoses or not? i feel like there are many examples of this in pulp fiction - wether or not something happened, it would have ended the same way - but i won’t delve too deep into it.

where is the visual interest?

i am personally a massive fan of art design and cinematography in film, and watching pulp fiction, nothing really caught my eye at all. this is because of their underwhelming use of camera angles.

watching pulp fiction, it felt like a lot of the film was filmed at what’s known as a cowboy shot, or also known as an american shot. this is a head-on angle on an often unmoving camera, and often at a between a medium and full shot. now don’t get me wrong - there’s nothing wrong with a cowboy shot, not at all. i think it’s definitely useful when multiple angles are used, but in pulp fiction i found it overwhelmingly occurring, with a clip from early in the film as one of the first google search results for cowboy shot. from the opening scene to the dance scene to the scene where butch shoots vincent (from my memory) all are at a face-on angle.

then what separates this from other films which use similar angles throughout the entirety of the film? well a movie that i think used reoccurring angles quite well was american psycho.

a lot of american psycho is shot at a closeup state. the difference i find between this and pulp fiction is that american psycho is a psychological thriller. a well acted character’s facial expressions can tell the viewer so much of what’s going through their head, which for a psychological thriller makes the most sense. meanwhile, as a crime and action film, pulp fiction does little to show me what the characters feel and think via body language, as you can’t see the entirety of the character, while you also can’t intricately see the facial language either, which doesn’t help with them already feeling two-dimensional, which i can’t be bothered to get into.

so this makes me wonder,

what do people see in pulp fiction?

because i really can’t see how albeit very talented acting can make up for something with no structure - it’s like saying that muscles can work without bones.

[annaoisk]

[gtetrahedron]

Other Worlds, Other Gods

finished "other worlds, other gods" a '71 short story collection focusing on religion in science fiction. lots of it is real pulpy, with only the slightest hints of new wave shining through (mostly via john brunner), but its some good pulp. not a long or heavy read, only a day or two.

most of the stories were from the late 50s and early 60s, with a few from the 40s and late 60s. highlights include lee suttons soul mate, john brunners the vitanuls, anthony bouchers the quest for saint aquin, and damon knights shall the dust praise thee. 

i would recommend it with the caveat that theres nothing super weird, unfortunately (which would be my main criticism). it mostly stuck to christianity (primarily catholicism!) and pastiches of such, with a few jewish cameos and one of hinduism and buddhism each. no alien religions, really. weirdest one was definitely soul mate. nothing ubik-level, lol.

side-note if any of my followers is more learned in hinduism: id be curious about your reading of the vitanuls; im not sure how accurate of a representation it is, being written by a brit, but it seems decent enough? i have very little knowledge of the religion, though, and am supremely unconfident saying that.

[thatgeekwiththeclipons]

Happy 61st Birthday to Academy Award Winning writer, multi award winning filmmaker Quentin Tarantino! ^__^

[toomuchhorrorfiction]

[thecoastofspaceblog]

Django Decades Later

We may all clown and criticize Quinten Tarantino now. But Django Unchained is a perfect modernization of the classic western. It pulls absolutely no punches with its world or its characters. Its cruelty is shocking and necessary to understand the true horror of its setting. Its heroes are larger than life but remain relatively grounded. It earns every one of its gunfights and kills. It creates a perfect depiction of the southern strategy to make men into property. It feels like a movie that would have been made in the past three years versus all the way in 2012. Tarantino has matched his direction with his vices of intense action. Each reigning each other in and making this a tight and entertaining action film with realistic, often forgotten brutality.

[bob-williams]

"Pulp Fiction" is a timeless classic that never fails to entertain. Upon rewatching, I was reminded of just how brilliantly written and expertly directed this film is. The non-linear narrative keeps you engaged from start to finish, and the characters are some of the most memorable in cinematic history. The performances from the all-star cast are top-notch, particularly Samuel L. Jackson, who delivers some of the most iconic lines in movie history. "Pulp Fiction" is a must-see for any film enthusiast, and even on a rewatch, it still manages to impress with its clever storytelling and unforgettable style.

[pricelessreviews]