Reply to Topic
Originally Posted by KittyJunkie
Wasn't that bad was it?? What did you think of Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellweger's singing in Chicago?*Keep in mind that they are actresses first*
A Movie Everyone Likes That You Think Is Crap?
Wasn't that bad was it?? What did you think of Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellweger's singing in Chicago?*Keep in mind that they are actresses first*
Anchorman
Garfield
remake of Godzilla
Garfield
remake of Godzilla
__________________
Do you think that some people are robots? And we dont know it?
Do you think that some people are robots? And we dont know it?
Hulk
Showgirls
Thinner
Showgirls
Thinner
__________________
It's not a problem of motivation, it's that I don't care.
You are not your job.
Please, call me Jacks
It's not a problem of motivation, it's that I don't care.
You are not your job.
Please, call me Jacks
The Hours : believe me, it felt like it took more than hours, more like days out of my life to see!
Dodgeball : I walked into it thinking 'hey, this is the #! movie in america, and I barely laughed during it!!!!!! And I thought the girl on girl kiss at the end was just sick and twisted!
Catwoman : not much to say about this, even though I usually love superhero movies, but there was no depth (story) to it!
I have more, I just can't think of any right now!
Dodgeball : I walked into it thinking 'hey, this is the #! movie in america, and I barely laughed during it!!!!!! And I thought the girl on girl kiss at the end was just sick and twisted!
Catwoman : not much to say about this, even though I usually love superhero movies, but there was no depth (story) to it!
I have more, I just can't think of any right now!
Two words - Pulp Fiction. It had the occasional moment but as a whole the movie was plain junk. I've only seen Reservoir Dogs and Fiction and Reservoir Dogs is hella better!
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
I can't understand how people never liked Pulp Fiction, it was a masterstroke and extremely funny. I don't like Lord of The Rings, but everyone else seems to love it, just not y cup of tea.
__________________
"It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf." - Walter Lippman
"It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf." - Walter Lippman
Pulp Fiction did not match up to what I expected. That's my opinion. You have yours as well.
X
Favorite Movies
Originally Posted by Godsend
Pulp Fiction-What the hell? I didn't see any point exerted into this movie...just drugs.
__________________
Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.
X
User Lists
Originally Posted by Equilibrium
I concur.
No matter how you feel about Pulp-Fiction as a movie, you can't debate that it's just another movie. The way Pulp-fiction was written is much different than practically every-movie, save some unpopular ones he copied the idea from.
Now, A lot of people didn't understand of didn't get why the movie's chronology was rearranged and overlapped. Tarantino did this because if he wrote it chronologically, you wouldn't understand the point of the movie. It opens with the most important scene and ends with most impotant scene to the plot of the movie. The first scene set the plot for the movie and the last one summed up the movie's point (brilliantly, I might add). In every story, someone dies and someone gets saved. I'm not gonna write who from every story because it's irrelevant but what's great about that fact, written into the script is that in the last story, Samuel L. Jackson gets saved but not in the same way the rest of them were. Jules was saved spiritually. His soul was saved. That was one of the points of the movie and how people are tempted by evil which is what's in the case, that or Marsellus Wallace's soul (which is supposed to represent evil anyway).
Also, besides the different structure of the story, the way the script carries the plot is also uniquely different from most movies. The movie moves the plot mostly through its diologue. And it's diologue was cleverly written so for once in a movie, we find ourselves actually entertained just by what the character's are saying. It's a breath-of-fresh-air from most movies where the diologue is emphasized in many parts for carrying the plot and is pretty clean-cut. The Diologue in most movies is written for a purpose in the plot where Pulp-Fiction's diologue is written mostly for entertainment (but is still used for character development ofcourse just like in normal movies) and is written at a pace like regular people are talking unlike slower-than-reality movies.
As for the low-lives in the movie. The character's are low-lifes for mainly three reasons. The first is because it fits the plot, the second because its supposed to comment on the pop-culture of the United States (A commentary) and also just to stick it to the rest of writers in hollywood that he can make a movie with such low-life character's and make it a hit because of the amount of entertainment they deliver, regardless of who they are. And also to an extant, to show that no matter what field oa peson works in, they're pretty much still people which helps the strenth of the moral of the story (the plot) itself.
I think it's great. When I first saw it, I couldn't take the large amount of violence seriously because of the diologue and of how much violence there was. They really weren't painted to be such bad-guys. It was a sort-of criticism of Hollywood movies. I loved Pulp-Fiction a lot. But don't get me wrong. I HATED KILLBILL. I also didn't like Troy that much, Independence Day, and T3, That's all I can name, right now. My thoughts.
__________________
"You need people like me..."
"You need people like me..."
The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy. blah
__________________
<--junger-->
"Chances are, if your parents didn't have any kids, then you won't either."
<--junger-->
"Chances are, if your parents didn't have any kids, then you won't either."
Originally Posted by Krackalackin
This is a very controversial movie. I personally love it and think it's one of the greatest movies in the last decade so I just wanted to fill you in about some things so you might be able to appreciate it more.
No matter how you feel about Pulp-Fiction as a movie, you can't debate that it's just another movie. The way Pulp-fiction was written is much different than practically every-movie, save some unpopular ones he copied the idea from.
Now, A lot of people didn't understand of didn't get why the movie's chronology was rearranged and overlapped. Tarantino did this because if he wrote it chronologically, you wouldn't understand the point of the movie. It opens with the most important scene and ends with most impotant scene to the plot of the movie. The first scene set the plot for the movie and the last one summed up the movie's point (brilliantly, I might add). In every story, someone dies and someone gets saved. I'm not gonna write who from every story because it's irrelevant but what's great about that fact, written into the script is that in the last story, Samuel L. Jackson gets saved but not in the same way the rest of them were. Jules was saved spiritually. His soul was saved. That was one of the points of the movie and how people are tempted by evil which is what's in the case, that or Marsellus Wallace's soul (which is supposed to represent evil anyway).
Also, besides the different structure of the story, the way the script carries the plot is also uniquely different from most movies. The movie moves the plot mostly through its diologue. And it's diologue was cleverly written so for once in a movie, we find ourselves actually entertained just by what the character's are saying. It's a breath-of-fresh-air from most movies where the diologue is emphasized in many parts for carrying the plot and is pretty clean-cut. The Diologue in most movies is written for a purpose in the plot where Pulp-Fiction's diologue is written mostly for entertainment (but is still used for character development ofcourse just like in normal movies) and is written at a pace like regular people are talking unlike slower-than-reality movies.
As for the low-lives in the movie. The character's are low-lifes for mainly three reasons. The first is because it fits the plot, the second because its supposed to comment on the pop-culture of the United States (A commentary) and also just to stick it to the rest of writers in hollywood that he can make a movie with such low-life character's and make it a hit because of the amount of entertainment they deliver, regardless of who they are. And also to an extant, to show that no matter what field oa peson works in, they're pretty much still people which helps the strenth of the moral of the story (the plot) itself.
I think it's great. When I first saw it, I couldn't take the large amount of violence seriously because of the diologue and of how much violence there was. They really weren't painted to be such bad-guys. It was a sort-of criticism of Hollywood movies. I loved Pulp-Fiction a lot. But don't get me wrong. I HATED KILLBILL. I also didn't like Troy that much, Independence Day, and T3, That's all I can name, right now. My thoughts.
No matter how you feel about Pulp-Fiction as a movie, you can't debate that it's just another movie. The way Pulp-fiction was written is much different than practically every-movie, save some unpopular ones he copied the idea from.
Now, A lot of people didn't understand of didn't get why the movie's chronology was rearranged and overlapped. Tarantino did this because if he wrote it chronologically, you wouldn't understand the point of the movie. It opens with the most important scene and ends with most impotant scene to the plot of the movie. The first scene set the plot for the movie and the last one summed up the movie's point (brilliantly, I might add). In every story, someone dies and someone gets saved. I'm not gonna write who from every story because it's irrelevant but what's great about that fact, written into the script is that in the last story, Samuel L. Jackson gets saved but not in the same way the rest of them were. Jules was saved spiritually. His soul was saved. That was one of the points of the movie and how people are tempted by evil which is what's in the case, that or Marsellus Wallace's soul (which is supposed to represent evil anyway).
Also, besides the different structure of the story, the way the script carries the plot is also uniquely different from most movies. The movie moves the plot mostly through its diologue. And it's diologue was cleverly written so for once in a movie, we find ourselves actually entertained just by what the character's are saying. It's a breath-of-fresh-air from most movies where the diologue is emphasized in many parts for carrying the plot and is pretty clean-cut. The Diologue in most movies is written for a purpose in the plot where Pulp-Fiction's diologue is written mostly for entertainment (but is still used for character development ofcourse just like in normal movies) and is written at a pace like regular people are talking unlike slower-than-reality movies.
As for the low-lives in the movie. The character's are low-lifes for mainly three reasons. The first is because it fits the plot, the second because its supposed to comment on the pop-culture of the United States (A commentary) and also just to stick it to the rest of writers in hollywood that he can make a movie with such low-life character's and make it a hit because of the amount of entertainment they deliver, regardless of who they are. And also to an extant, to show that no matter what field oa peson works in, they're pretty much still people which helps the strenth of the moral of the story (the plot) itself.
I think it's great. When I first saw it, I couldn't take the large amount of violence seriously because of the diologue and of how much violence there was. They really weren't painted to be such bad-guys. It was a sort-of criticism of Hollywood movies. I loved Pulp-Fiction a lot. But don't get me wrong. I HATED KILLBILL. I also didn't like Troy that much, Independence Day, and T3, That's all I can name, right now. My thoughts.
Sorry, but there was no point. The movie included sub-points, which lead to a bigger point...NOTHING! Comprehend? If not, think about it this way. You have the trunk of the stree, right? This is the TRUE point to the movie. Course this is a true tree, not cut down, so it has branches. The branches are sub-points. Sorry, but if theres a sub point...it should lead right to the point, which leads to the roots. It didn't.
I was no WHERE NEAR ENTERTAINED by what they said. The dialogue and conversations they had were mere things. These are the conversations I have with friends and family. I don't look for life similarities in movies...I look for something in a different catergory...still including life, but with much more difference.
As for this being potraying the pop-culture of America? HOLY ****! Good idea Tarantino. Let this movie released out to the whole world. Let it be watched in third world countries. It's all ready great most of the world thinks of us as crap...it's even better that a movie, so recognized, can explain the problems and filth around here.
Sorry, but this gives Western civilization a bad look. It gave me a bad vibe, and I'll stick to it.
No where near is Tarantino a great, legendary actor. I don't know what got him so high, but there must be a glitch in the matrix
rocky horror picture show, dirty dancing -older but damn they still haunt, crap
as for newer films..
the village- complete ass...
kill bill set wasnt bad but was highly over rated.
as for newer films..
the village- complete ass...
kill bill set wasnt bad but was highly over rated.
Hachi
I was lulled into a false sense of enjoyment at the start of this movie about a bond between a music professor and a handsome ginger - brown Akita puppy, then a grown dog. I should have been forewarned by listening closer to the prescient and morose piano score, which plays achingly throughout the movie to its excruciatingly long, drawn out heartbreaking end.
SPOILER ahead.
Of course the dog dies. After devoted
owner ( inappropriately cast jmho) Richard Gere dies. And dog spends ten years (!) waiting for him to come home, at the commuter train station, becoming a homeless animal as dependent as poor Blanch on 'the kindness of strangers.' And I felt like it was ten years until the director ( named Lassie , no less) would put that poor decrepit dog and this tearjerker movie out of their respective miseries. Based on a supposed true story, this is just so absolutely depressing a film. I cannot imagine why anyone who loves animals - as I do- would want to waste their time on it. In the end, it's not really about celebrating and rightfully mourning the beauty of a bond between human and animal- it's just about dragging out this depressing denouement and tearing your heart out. And that it's considered a family film boggles the mind- I wouldn't expose any child to this film unless they were a pre pubescent Ted Bundy. Come to think of it, he probably would have loved this movie.
Jmho but if you love animals - don't see this movie !!! Hug your cat or dog instead. Don't have one? Then visit your friend who has a lovable lap sitting tabby. Or go to the park and watch the parade of Goldens and poodles. Akitas even. One of them will surely come up to you to be petted ( you can pretty much count on the Goldens). Or watch videos of squirrels eating pizza or cockatoos fetching car keys. Do yourself a favor -and don't watch this movie.
And yes, I know it seems to have garnered nothing but glowing reviews from everyone but me. But as me, if I ever want to have an experience similar to watching this painfully glum movie, I'd go to the dentist to have a tooth pulled. Wouldn' t hurt as much and wouldn't last as llllloooonnnnnngggggg.
I was lulled into a false sense of enjoyment at the start of this movie about a bond between a music professor and a handsome ginger - brown Akita puppy, then a grown dog. I should have been forewarned by listening closer to the prescient and morose piano score, which plays achingly throughout the movie to its excruciatingly long, drawn out heartbreaking end.
SPOILER ahead.
Of course the dog dies. After devoted
owner ( inappropriately cast jmho) Richard Gere dies. And dog spends ten years (!) waiting for him to come home, at the commuter train station, becoming a homeless animal as dependent as poor Blanch on 'the kindness of strangers.' And I felt like it was ten years until the director ( named Lassie , no less) would put that poor decrepit dog and this tearjerker movie out of their respective miseries. Based on a supposed true story, this is just so absolutely depressing a film. I cannot imagine why anyone who loves animals - as I do- would want to waste their time on it. In the end, it's not really about celebrating and rightfully mourning the beauty of a bond between human and animal- it's just about dragging out this depressing denouement and tearing your heart out. And that it's considered a family film boggles the mind- I wouldn't expose any child to this film unless they were a pre pubescent Ted Bundy. Come to think of it, he probably would have loved this movie.
Jmho but if you love animals - don't see this movie !!! Hug your cat or dog instead. Don't have one? Then visit your friend who has a lovable lap sitting tabby. Or go to the park and watch the parade of Goldens and poodles. Akitas even. One of them will surely come up to you to be petted ( you can pretty much count on the Goldens). Or watch videos of squirrels eating pizza or cockatoos fetching car keys. Do yourself a favor -and don't watch this movie.
And yes, I know it seems to have garnered nothing but glowing reviews from everyone but me. But as me, if I ever want to have an experience similar to watching this painfully glum movie, I'd go to the dentist to have a tooth pulled. Wouldn' t hurt as much and wouldn't last as llllloooonnnnnngggggg.
Last edited by lenslady; 02-03-19 at 09:54 PM.