Pulp Fiction

[Oriadin]

Thought id start up a thread to see if someone could explain this movie to me. Ive watched it twice and I just dont get it. The dialogue is brilliant and the acting is top class but what the hell is going on? I cant understand why people love this movie so much, as far as I can see, there is no point to it. There is no story!

Perhaps someone could explain? I know there are going to be people here to looooooove that movie.

[jjwr]

Your not alone Oriadin, I've seen it and it has its amusing points but for the most part I don't get it.

Course I'm not really a Tarantino(sp?) fan either, most of movies I don't care for.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Its a sum of independent storylines, randomly intersecting here and there. One of the more interesting points is the case that Jules carries around. You never see what's in it, and its up to conjecture. I've heard a lot of theories behind it, but I've got my own opinions.

[darth_mcbain]

Yeah, it is basically a bunch of different, but related stories. As for the case, what have you all heard is in it? The two theories I've heard are that it is Marsallus' soul or it is one of Elvis' suits, but who the heck knows.

[Oriadin]

I dont think they had anything in mind for what was in it. So what are the stories in the film? All the characters just seem to be wondering about and doing??? what???

[Diego Van Derveld]

Its like one of the SW "Tales" books, except each of the stories, while independent in their own way, intersect with each other. Everything is connected, though not necessarily through a theme.

As for the case, I've always believed that it's Jules' soul...just because of his intense want to change his ways.

[JMK]

People love it for the dialogue and the style. No one cares about the 'story' of the movie. It's a unique film that has alot to offer even if it wasn't the greatest story ever told...

[Sanis Prent]

I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't have the greatest story ever. But, it breaks the mold, and can stand alone in its own style, without being a detriment to itself. I think thats what makes the movie so good.

[ReaperFett]

I'll be the first to disagree with you ;)


I loved the way how the stories merged into oneanother.

[Oriadin]

Snatch. Now, that film had several stories running at the same time and all ended with the same conclusion. That film fits. It works and it tells you a story, which is what films are about (for me anyway). If a film is not there to tell you a story, what is it there for?

[JMK]

Ok, granted there are intertwining stories, but what is the relevance of these stories? :p

[ReaperFett]

What relevence did Leia being Luke's brother have? Or vader being Lukes father? Jeez man, dont over-critique! ;)

[Sanis Prent]

I'm still not sure why you insist there even needs to be interrelevence.

[Oriadin]

Because I thought film was story telling.

[Sanis Prent]

It is. Its telling several stories in irreverence to chronology. Why does there have to be a relation between them, other than incidental occurrence? They're all played to their individual conclusions, so there really isn't much need.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Your definantly not alone Oriadin. PUlp Fiction is one of the most over hyped movies in history. I just can not work out what the attraction - or point of it was. I simply didnt even think that it was well made. Been a while since I've seen it tho.

[ReaperFett]

Because I thought film was story telling.
It's the story of Mia and Vincent. It's the story of Butch, a washed up boxer. It's a story about Jules' "redemption". I see three stories ;)

[Admiral Lebron]

I loved it... poor marvin tho.. :(

[ReaperFett]

He was a dirty rat anyway. His fault flock of seaguls got it in the chest :)

[Dae Jinn]

Ori, I didn't get it when I saw it for the first time either (I caught it about half-way through) After watching it like, 4 or 5 times, you get which parts would go where; if that makes sense. It was interesting because it wasn't one story that just ran straight thru the film, it was more like little bits at a time, and not in "a b c" order. I really liked it, myself. :)

[ReaperFett]

I like when films do that. Daredevil does it too. Start at a good place to start, not at the first scene.

[Loki Ahmrah]

I tried watching it a few years ago and quickly got bored and turned over. I tried but I just couldn't grasp what the hell was going on right from the word "Go". So I gave up. I may try again sometime.


If a film is not there to tell you a story, what is it there for?

And that was exactly my problem with The "<smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont>" Ring.

[ReaperFett]

And that is why you fail!

[Mu Satach]

I love Pulp Fiction. :)

I think the reason I got so much attention was that the timeline for the stories isn't in an A leads to B leads to C. It forces you to look at each character, each setting on it's own. It can't rely on what came before it or what is coming after it, even though each story, each character has an impact on the other characters.

I personally believe that that is a comment by Tarintino that every scene/segment of a film should be handled carefully. Which is something that I've heard from more than one director that I admire. Because film is such a compacted form of story telling you really should not waste one second of your film on unnessesary items. Every shot, every angle, every piece of dialogue should move the story forward and keep the audience engaged in what is happening on the screen at that moment.

You could take Pulp Fiction, re-edit it in a chronological order and it would still be a good film. But you might then focus in on just Jules & Vincent and tend to forget about Mia, Butch, the Gimp, Honeybunny & Pumpkin.

As to what it means, or the overall story of the film there are two ways to look at it.

One it's easy to say there is no overall meaning or message in the film because it deals with Pulp Fiction, which is basically sensational, low brow type entertainment. The dinner scene at the begining before the opening credits is shocking, funny, and a cheap thrill. As so on with the rest of the show.

However, I'm sure if you sat down and really thought about it you could start to pull out themes of choices, consequences and redemption. Vincent & Jules are both recieving warnings about their choices and one chooses to stop while the other doesn't. Butch has a choice to make, he can escape and save his own life or he can go back and help the man who is going to kill him for another choice he made. Even Honeybunny & Pumpkin have a choice to make as well in the dinner. The wrong choice could create a bloodbath...

Some of the characters make choices that lead to life. Others make choices that lead to death.

And that is probably much more information than any of you wanted. ;)

[Admiral Lebron]

You're right. Well written.

[JonathanLB]

I wish this thread came along in about, oh, say one week.

I finished my review a week ago but have not edited the thing and haven't done my DVD review, so I won't post it until I am totally finished. It is 9 pages so far.

Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite films, probably top 35 or 40 anyway. It's tough making it into that group, but for me, Pulp Fiction definitely does.

I love all of Tarantino's work. Reservoir Dogs is an excellent movie, amazingly well done especially for such a small budget. His films are all about these crazy situations with some of the most natural, awesome dialogue around.

The stories are all very much connected, although I wouldn't argue the story is really the strength of the film. It's the way in which it is told, the style used, an uncomparably awesome soundtrack, perhaps one of the 10 best screenplays ever written (there is, I believe, a book just focusing on the screenplay for Pulp Fiction and analyzing it; there are many screenwriting classes, one of which I was briefly in, and books that pay great attention to the dialogue as well), and the acting is also great. The cinematography and editing are of note, as usual, some really interesting scenes in the way Tarantino chooses to frame the shots. Like when Wallace is talking to Butch and you see just the back of Wallace's head for a while, but before that you see just Butch's face, even though Wallace is talking. A lot of directors just wouldn't think of using that type of shot. They'd rather show who was talking, but the effectiveness of showing Butch's reactions is just more interesting, IMO.

Pulp Fiction is not for everyone. It is like a number of great movies that will have its die-hard supporters, like me perhaps, but that understandably has a number of people who just will not like it. There are some films where I might say, "Dude, how could you NOT like (so and so)," but with Pulp Fiction, much like American Psycho, I cannot ask anyone else to like it. You either do or you don't. If you don't, I don't think it's because you are "missing it" or "not getting it," I think it just isn't your type of movie. There's nothing wrong with that. It's unconventional. Not everyone is supposed to like it. It cannot have the universal appeal of something more simple like perhaps, umm, oh just say Casablanca, which has little about it that is objectionable really. Appreciating that movie simply means you have taste in film. Calling it trash, well, don't quit your day job.

Tarantino is not the type of director who can appeal to everyone. I even think he might say that he doesn't want to appeal to everyone, but rather that he wants to go against the grain, challenge the way people see movies, and hopefully revolutionize film to some degree. He has definitely succeeded at all of those. Pulp Fiction is one of the most controversial films of the '90s, right there with a movie to which he wrote the story, Natural Born Killers, and one could even argue Reservoir Dogs was a very controversial film, though its smaller success kind of takes it out of the running...

[Dutchy]

Jonathan, well said. Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece. No matter when it's on and whever I drop in, I always end up watching the entire rest of it. There's just so many movies that have that.

One thing, your point about Casablanca. Who are you to judge someone's taste in movies? You have trashed many acclaimed movies yourself, which doesn't make you any less a movie fan, does it?

[JonathanLB]

I am a wannabe film critic, that's who I am to say that.

If someone doesn't appreciate Casablanca, it means they don't understand what quality filmmaking is. The same isn't true of any film in the last 15 years. A movie needs to stand the test of time first, then you might be able to say that.

It's just the same as my film teacher says -- if you don't like Out of the Past, you must not like American film because it doesn't get any better than that.

I have never trashed a classic movie entirely. Never. The worst rating I have ever given is 2 stars to A Streetcar Named Desire and I gave 2 stars to The Rules of the Game, a French film, but in both cases I appreciate the craft of the movie. In other words, I DO think that the filmmaking craft in each film in some way deserves praise. In the case of Streetcar, it's the acting. Brando is great. I think Vivian Leigh is obnoxious and whinny in the film, but Brando is excellent. That's the main part of that film that people seem to appreciate anyway. The story is dull and boring, though. Hardly anything happens. The sets are uninspired and the locations are limited. It's a pretty weak effort in that sense.

As for Rules, the film is actually somewhat brilliant if you think about what Renoir was saying with it, the message he was conveying at the time, but I reviewed the film as it stands today in 2003, which is to say that it has simply lost its message and appeal. What remains is an average film with a silly love triangle, or tetrahedron I guess, and some nice deep focus shots, but that's about it. The acting is, eh, ok. It's in French so I cannot tell completely but I wasn't blown away. I literally laughed at the movie in a few cases. I still appreciate what Renoir was trying to do with it, though, and have just tried to rent his movie, The Grand Illusion, as I hear it is very good (even someone who really didn't like Rules of the Game said Grand Illusion is great).

If someone trashes Casablanca, like literally think it is a "bad" movie, they have NO taste in film. ZERO. I would defend that statement as would any film historian, critic, or scholar. You'd have to be a retard not to appreciate the filmmaking in Casablanca.

If you think such a statement cannot be made, you must be a total relativist. You are acting like there "is no such thing as good filmmaking, just different tastes." This is not true. There is such thing as great filmmaking and that is not decided by a majority or an opinion, but rather by simple analysis and rational thinking. Citizen Kane is one of the most well shot, well made movies in history. You aren't required to find the story interesting, you don't even have to "like it," but if you want to say you have any taste in filmmaking, you better at least appreciate Toland's cinematography, Welles' acting, and the various innovations that arose through that movie. It's just plain great filmmaking.

Now there are certainly a lot of movies where it remains a matter of opinion or debate, like if you want to talk about even a great film like Gladiator. History hasn't proven beyond doubt that it is great filmmaking, but most people would say so. In the case of Casablanca, if you don't like the dialogue, you just don't have a good ear for dialogue. It just means you have no idea what a good script is, didn't pay attention to the lines, or otherwise have no clue about filmmaking.

This whole idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid about movies has its limits. A film scholar is simply going to know more and be more educated about film than a normal moviegoer. I'm not going to ask a bum on the streets to perform surgery on my knee, and I'm surely not going to ask your average Joe what he thinks about Citizen Kane because to be honest I don't give a damn. The opinions of people outside of film criticism and outside of the film industry only matter commercially, and since that doesn't matter to a movie already released more than six decades ago, their opinions do not matter whatsoever. Using "matter" as in making some sort of actual difference. Filmmakers continue to cite Citizen Kane as one of the most important films to them -- so who cares what the public thinks of it? Same goes with any classic.

You either have taste in film and know what you're talking about or you don't.

Just like music. I have no idea what I'm talking about in music, don't pay attention to the industry, can't tell you who is who, and have no appreciation for its history. I know what I like, but sometimes what I like is just catchy pop crap, haha, and I enjoy listening to it for a while, forget about it, and move on. I do think my taste in music is somewhat more refined than some people because at least I recognize the beauty of classical music and the masters like Mozart and Beethoven, but nonetheless, I know little about the music industry and wouldn't expect anyone to take my opinions on it seriously. I don't make serious statements about music anyway. I just know what I like and that's good enough for me. Can't be a master of all trades :)

[Oriadin]

To go as far as saying you have no taste in film if you dont like Casablanca though is going a bit too far though, I think. Ive never seen it, although I want to so cant really comment on the film but if your not one for appreciating how the movie was made, your not gonna give a damn. If they didnt enjoy the movie then they didnt enjoy it. Doesnt mean they have no taste in films.

I find it pretty anoying when there is a film I love and someone critasises the film because they dont get it. My girlfriend doesnt like Rocky for example because she says she doesnt care for boxing. Ok, fair enough, but the film isnt about boxing. Its the story of an underdog, a film about hope, a film about love as well as many other things. If someone doesnt UNDERSTAND the film, then sure, try to convince them otherwise but if they do get it, and they still dont like it, I dont think that means they lack taste in flms.

"If someone doesn't appreciate Casablanca, it means they don't understand what quality filmmaking is. The same isn't true of any film in the last 15 years"

Not entirely sure what you meant here but I think its something along the lines of a film hasnt been made of this type of quality filmmaking for 15 years. I would have to disagree with this if thats what you meant. Shawshank is definitely a classic that will feature in at least 99/100 top one hundred movie lists of all time, if not top ten.

[Dutchy]

Jonathan, you seem to make no difference between judging a movie objectively and emotionally. I'm much more interested in the latter. I can see Casablanca is a well crafted movie, but there's little for me to care about in that movie. Same for Citizen Kane. An excellent movie in sense of technique, but I wasn't much involved in the main character's story.

When I read movie reviews I want to read about the reviewer's feelings during the movie. How it did or didn't hit him on an emotional level.

You seem to shift towards judging a movie on its historical status rather than your personal experience. That way you're basically recycling what many others have already said instead of adding your own experience.

For instance, the other day you wrote a very interesting piece about your frustrations with relationships with people. If that would be the theme of a movie, I'd probably get involved in it, because I'm interested in the theme and care for the people. I guess this would be a movie that'd call about the ordinairy. This is just an example, but this is what, besides entertainment and thought provoking themes, for me what movies are all about.

So feel free to trash a classic movie. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Besides not liking it you can still acknowledge other more objective qualities.

[JonathanLB]

My EMOTIONS about a movie have NOTHING to do with its quality and any critic who starts putting that crap into reviews is lousy.

A critic's job is to ascertain, as objectively as possible, whether a film is good or whether it is bad, or somewhere in between. Good, bad, or ugly.

You don't say, "During this scene I was all choked up and had to grab a kleenex," jesus who cares about Joe Blow Online Critic and his problems with keeping emotionally distant in a film. That's the mark of a bad critic. My film professor says he never usually feels anything during a film because it's a film, we see films all of the time. Leave it to audiences to let a movie affect them that way, but for critics this is just routine. I see horror movies all of the time. They don't scare me. They won't make me jump. I'm used to their conventions and formulas and I cannot be manipulated easily.

A critic should write instead (of the quote above), "so and so film is an emotionally gripping tale about the adventures of (blah blah blah)." You don't use personal pronouns in reviews unless you don't know any better, which is the case with Ebert. He writes like he talks, which is fine except that I am a professional writer and pride myself in my command of the written word, not just the conveying of ideas in any way possible. His style works for him, obviously, and it works when you are listening to him because he is well spoken. In writing, it works less well, though I read most of his reviews because he knows so much that he often illuminates parts of a film that I had not noticed. There are surely other times he fails to point out aspects that I would have mentioned, or do mention, but he's an incredibly smart film critic.

"Ok, fair enough, but the film isnt about boxing. Its the story of an underdog, a film about hope, a film about love as well as many other things."

I agree. Rocky is really about the triumph of the human spirit over diversity and the power of motivation and dedication to a goal. One man's fight to become better. It's a great film. You don't have to like boxing to like a great film...

As for my "15 years" comment, no no no, I did not mean that there are no great classics in the last 15 years. If you look over my top 20 films list, you'll see quite a few fairly new movies on it, i.e. Gladiator #1 (behind the 5 SW films), The Game #2, The Truman Show #3 or #4, The Matrix #3 or #4, so most of my top films are recent actually. Even as I watch these great classics, I can't say I am compelled to remove my top choices or take them down really.

I just think you have to wait at least 15 years before you ultimately judge a movie because there are plenty of great films that have not received positive reviews or audience approval in their first decade. Blade Runner was often not seen as a good film at all before probably 8 years ago or something. At most maybe 10 years ago, or 11 years after its release.

Dutchy, how you could not care about Kane is rather remarkable to me as he is such a well developed, interesting character, but that's your loss. In Casablanca, it seems nearly impossible to me that anyone who claims to have any interest in movie characters could not love the characters in that film. It's just absurd, actually, but if you can't appreciate two of the greatest films of all time (#1 and #2 on the AFI list, actually), that's your loss. I really couldn't care less. I'm glad I don't have that attitude, though. I love those films.

[Oriadin]

Ah yeah. I see what you meant about the whole 15 years thing now. With ya :)

Honestly though? You dont get emotional or choked up or scared when you go to see a movie? I find that, well, sad. Thinking back, I was always the one at school who couldnt really care why poets wrote the way they did, or why certain methods are used in writting books and now I dont really care why certain camera angles are used in films.

Sometimes, people read too much into whats there that they fail to see the simplicity of something. They forget WHY they are reading/watching it in the first place. If your constantly judging a film can you truly enjoy it for what it is? An escape for two hours. A story the writter wanted to tell you. An adventure you could never take in real life, a friendship that could never be broken, a love that would last forever.

At the end of the day, films are there to tell a story. The actors, camera angles, special effects and whatever else are simply tools to get that story across. To make it as fun or interesting to watch as possible.

Pulp Fiction to me, had no real story. I came away from that film thinking there was something cool about it, but I had no feeling for the characters, my life hasnt changed any from watching that film, it didnt make me think of something in a different way it was just a nothing film for me. The dialogue was brilliant and it was a new way of filming but there seemed to be no conclusion. No ending and no real substance.

Ok, now I think im waffling. Its 1.20am. Im off to bed. G'night all :)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I've never met anyone who likes all the same movies as I do. You cannot tell someone they have no taste in movies, as "taste in movies" has everything to do with personal opinion and nothing to do with the objective reality of what an actual good movie is, which in and of itself may not even exist.

[Keerrourri Feessaarro]

So you're using an objective viewpoint, and you consider TPM as "THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE"?

You = outlier = ignore.

Whatever credibility a "film critic" has in such regard, you have lost all hope of attaining. It would be one thing to see the SW movies through rose tinted shades of emotional preference. Another entirely to play it "objectively".

k thx bye.

[Master Yoghurt]

As a matter of coincidence, I saw this movie a couple of days ago for what must have been the 3'rd or 4'th time. I find it increasingly entertaining for every viewing.

This is one of those movies where there is no need for story or moral message. If you are trying to analyse it, searching for some kind of hidden meaning etc, you are probably not getting the humor. The characters, the dialogue and the absurd situations are what makes this one of the most fascinating cult movies ever made, IMO :)

[Ryla Relvinian]

Jon, you're saying that the only people who will read critical analysis are... critics. Why write a review for only critics to read? The audience is the group that is making the money and being affected by the movie... That's the whole point of a movie, to be enjoyed or to disturb or to draw out an emotion or memory. The purpose of a movie is not to be analyzed stoicly with no humanity. The best critics I've read tell why they liked the movie, disregarding the actual execution or camera styles. People will care about a review if it is evident that the reviewer was awake/moved/influenced by the film. I won't go see something that is praised for its camera angles. If the camera angles were better or more emotional than the acting then your movie has problems.

I guess I'm looking at this from a theater perspective. Lighting / Set / Costume designers don't do their jobs for independent recognition. We do these things for the support of the Actors and the story... That is what is central, not the technical aspects. If you go away from a show and rave about the costumes (and you yourself are not a costume junkie) then the plot must have not been clear enough. I think movies are much the same.

Oh, and I didn't like Pulp Fiction. :)

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Ryla Relvinian
That's the whole point of a movie, to be enjoyed or to disturb or to draw out an emotion or memory. The purpose of a movie is not to be analyzed stoicly with no humanity.

Exactly! Couldn't have said it any better. :)

[JonathanLB]

I finished my review of the film finally along with the great two-disc DVD set. I had put off the DVD review for some time. It is now my longest review at 17+ pages, just ahead of Citizen Kane (16), a record that stood for almost five months.

"So you're using an objective viewpoint, and you consider TPM as "THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE"?"

I think the Star Wars films are collectively the greatest films ever made, meaning I look at them as a singular vision and work of one director, who I believe is worthy of being called one of the top 25 greatest directors at the least. Lucas has not done enough work for me to name him the greatest director. I haven't seen enough films to name anyone, really, but my suspicion is that it would be a close battle between Kurosawa, Hitchcock, and Spielberg. There are many other great ones, but IMO, nobody who isn't a total fanboy wannabe intellectual can name Welles as even close to the greatest filmmaker with only a literal handful of great films. Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane are great. That's about it. He didn't do much else. The Magnificent Amberson's was hacked to hell by the studio and he never restored it himself, so that's not really a good film to mention as an example of his genius. Two great movies does not make the greatest director ever or even a top 10 great. Citizen Kane is likely the most influential American film in some senses (because Star Wars isn't that old yet relatively speaking), and it is even one of the best, I think, but Welles is not one of the few greatest directors. He's more like a solid top 50 candidate. I'd have trouble putting Welles above Howard Hawks, Frank Capra, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, or even Quentin Tarantino (given that Tarantino has a lot more chances and years to make great films).

I absolutely think TPM is one of the greatest films ever made. I don't see why that would be a surprising thought, either. There has never been a more visually stunning film except perhaps AOTC, so it comes down to story and dialogue. Both of which are even better than the visual appeal. The story for TPM is frickin' incredible, along with the other SW movies, and whether or not some people can see that is not my concern. It will, just as ROTJ has, go down in history as one of the greatest films of all time despite initial resentment from critics. That has never mattered to a film's long-term success.

As for the way movies are graded, no they should not be graded on an emotional level, but that doesn't mean you watch a movie as a boring experience or something. I love movies. Duh. Nobody watches as many movies as I do without loving them. It's my single passion, so I enjoy them in every sense, but if you sit there and watch a movie purely for the story and characters, you are not looking at it critically. You have to be able to appreciate the craft of the film too. If you find that impossible to do with one viewing, which it may be (Citizen Kane), then you just need to give it a few viewings. Some critics like watching a movie once for story and as a "normal moviegoer" and then again a few times for style and craft. That is totally understandable and a great way to go about it, if one has the time. I don't have the time to see every important movie twice or I'd never get through the films I want to see badly.

I watch movies for the first time with a mix of objective criticism and moviegoer passion. I'm not sitting there analyzing every shot on the first viewing, but I am watching for general technique, absolutely. I want to see what types of shots are used commonly, I want to know whether the director is tending towards a more theatrical or cinematic cinematography style, and I'm watching to see how the film cuts between scenes. I'm not solely concerned with the story and characters because that's now how a critical viewing of a film works. When I read novels, I don't sit there and enjoy the story and the characters only. If the writing is poor, I'm going to notice. If the writing is flawed in any way, I WILL notice because I'm a very harsh critic of writing and I am aware of the types of grammatical errors and stylistic problems that really disturb me as a reader. Now with a lot of authors that's not a problem. Michael Crichton is a great writer and his writing never bothers me. I get hooked in the story and rarely focus on the craft because I'm not a novelist (yet, hehe). With other popular writers, though, I will get caught up in their writing because it is bothersome. Same goes with filmmaking. I'm watching to see how a movie is crafted as well as just enjoying it. This is more true of classics than new releases, however, where my viewing of new releases is not much different than any normal moviegoer except that I may (or may not) have more perspective on the film. I don't presume to know more about film than 40 and 50 year olds who have simply seen more movies than I have, but if I watch a new Spielberg movie I might know more about the director than some normal moviegoers so I bring that into my analysis of the film.

When you really watch a lot of movies, though, you don't see each film as some diversionary entertainment experience, but rather an opportunity to inspect a work of art and relate it to what you have previously seen. Film isn't a diversion -- it is LIFE (as Godard said -- there is no difference between cinema and life, not to those of us with a passion anyway). When I watch a horror movie I'm not going to be scared. I've seen too many horror movies to be scared. I'm aware of the formulas and styles and techniques that horror directors use, so I'm going to appreciate the craft (or not), but I'm not going to be scared. The same goes with a lot of movies that try to have emotional weight. I usually am more likely to think about what they are trying to do than be affected to a silly extent by it. I mean I'm not going to sit there and cry and be like, "Wow this movie is so moving." Heck no. I am going to think, "This is interesting, Spielberg really does a great job of eliciting emotional response towards this character. I feel a certain connection with him/her and here's why this is working," but I'm actively thinking about the movie as a movie. If you are sitting there watching a movie not knowing it's a movie, I'd say you are still in a very basic and superficial level of understanding. When you watch an action movie, you realize it is supposed to be ridiculous much of the time, which is why it's more about enjoying the film and its craft than trying to immerse yourself in the world of the character. I don't wonder if Arnold is going to live, ok, seriously, I know he's going to live, now I just want to see how this director is going to make these action scenes appealing or how he's going to drive the story for the film.

There are movies that are so good that you're not thinking as much about the film as a film, but more as an experience. Those are relatively rare, for critics at least, but they exist. There are certainly movies where I was wrapped up in the actual story to the extent that I wasn't thinking much of the craft. Nonetheless, generally I'm thinking every few minutes about how the director is doing this. That is part of wanting to be a filmmaker and part of being a critic -- I look at movies differently than I did before. I remember during Changing Lanes thinking how effectively this director was wrapping me up in the stories of these two characters and how the plot kept on delving deeper into the lives of these two guys, who are continually trying to screw each other over. It just keeps getting worse and I had a smile on my face just thinking about how amazingly well the director was executing this plot. I couldn't help but think, "Wow, this guy knows what he is doing! This is just great!" I wasn't thinking, "Wow Jackson is in trouble, oh now Affleck is really screwed, oh yeah these guys are in deep poodoo." That seems to me a relatively simplistic way of seeing a film. I know I'm watching a movie and I enjoy the experience of watching it.

With Insomnia, I'd say much the same thing. I was thinking about the moral dilemma that was presented in the film, trying to unravel its complexities, but also thinking at the same time how well the director had established this controversy and dilemma and set it up through these great characters.

Simone is about the film industry -- it was impossible not to be thinking about film and directing while watching it, lol.

[Oriadin]

As important as how the film is made, it will never be as important as the story. No special camera angles or lighting or whatever will make a film any good if the story is a load of rubbish. A film with a good story however can be good without those things.

The film is not ABOUT how its made, its about the story. Anything else is just tools to enable the director to tell that story. This is exactly why I dont read reviews anymore. Im not interested in if the film was well made. I want to know if its enjoyable, fun, romantic, action packed or whatever. I wish more critics would spend more time on what their customers really want. Thats just my opinion of course.

[JonathanLB]

I think you are right, of course.

"As important as how the film is made, it will never be as important as the story."

That is true. All of the craft is only employed to tell a great story. If you can't do that, then your skills are wasted. I think any director should be focused on storytelling and use his/her talents and abilities to make that possible.

Also, I do agree that critics should focus on whether you, the moviegoer, will like the movie. However, when reviewing classic films my aim is more to give an historical perspective on the movie and analyze it in detail than to convince you of why you might like it. I still talk about why I personally like it (or didn't) and what is great about it, especially the story, dialogue, and characters, because those deserve the most attention. Nonetheless, with classic reviews I suppose I make somewhat of an assumption much of the time. I assume that most people will enjoy the movie I am talking about, thus why it is a classic, and I aim to delve into the film in great depth and detail not just out of a desire to inform other people about the film, but really more out of a selfish desire to capture what it is about this movie that is most worth remembering.

I mean ultimately, as much as I would enjoy people reading my reviews, I am thinking of the future. I want people to know, when I direct my first movies, that I'm not some guy who has just happened upon making films, or paid some money to go to film school and learned a few nifty tricks, but rather they will know I am a well studied, well educated film expert and historian in the same tradition as Tarantino. I don't think all directors, in my personal opinion, know as much about film history as they should, i.e. as Tarantino does. Everyone should have the same appreciation and wide knowledge of film he does, whether or not you like his movies is irrelevant really. The guy knows his stuff. How was he able to innovate and make the most important film of the 1990s (Pulp Fiction)? People often ask that. Well I think the answer is obvious! He knows his film history, therefore he knows what had been done before, what had not been done before, what he wanted to see, and how to combine familiar elements in new ways that impressed moviegoers and critics alike.

It's not surprising that if you're a lousy engineer trying to make a "new" invention, you may just happen to invent something that's already been invented. If you're a filmmaker who doesn't really know enough about the history of film and has only studied it on a basic level seeing only the largest works from, say, the 1930s, then you have no real clue what has or has not been done before. Your ability to innovate is seriously hampered.

Lucas obviously studied his film history in putting together Star Wars. You have Kurosawa influences (Japan), Metropolis (German), The Searchers and Flash Gordon (USA), and how many other classic myths from all over the world? Asian ones represented with the mystic nature of the Force, replacing a more Christian or Western idea of God, but you have plenty of Christian elements in the Star Wars films too, which are not specific to any country really. Lucas made those movies with fine attention to detail and with a knowledge of what came before.

I think the worst directors in current Hollywood, or the ones who are somehow surprised by their lack of success, are people who have not really put in the time or work. They may know the craft, they may have paid for a film school education, but did they study film with the passion that Tarantino did? I doubt it.

[Shawn]

Personally, I thought the story of Pulp Fiction was interesting. No, it doesn't sound terribly great on paper, but hey - how you tell the story is just as important as the story itself.

There's at least as much story in Pulp Fiction as in, say, Ferris Bueller's Day Off; They're about a very zany day in someone's life (or lives, as the case may be).

If story was the only thing important about a movie, then 95% of the actions flicks would be completely unwatchable. :)
Im not interested in if the film was well made. I want to know if its enjoyable, fun, romantic, action packed or whatever.Pulp Fiction was enjoyable (IMO), fun, had a splash of romance and was definitely action packed.