In the bad review they summed up how the whole film itself is pointless and was a big mistake by Tarantino. It mentions it was overly popular and people must have felt forced to like it in-case they get hate for it. They state how the film all amounts to nothing and it is completely pointless however it does tell a small story. On the other hand i disagree with this because i believe the point is to tell the crossover story of all the characters as a way to entertain and fill an audiences need for action and exhilaration. The review also states how Tarantino was ‘hiding nastiness with perverse laughter’ with racist jokes and the consistence of using racist language such as ‘nigga’. Personally I don’t think any audience took this to offense as this word\phrase is used in many other films and no one really takes it to offense as it is non direct and isn’t used to abuse the audience itself. In my personal opinion Tarantino did an excellent job and i am not swayed by the fact that it is popular, I just think he was a man with a plan and he pushed to get his ideas published so he is forever immortalized through film. The good review is mainly based on Tarantino’s dialogue for the film and explaining how it makes the film a piece of art. This contrasts with the bad review as it talks about how Tarantino’s small details make the film greater and the bad review does not pick up on this at all and just talks bad about whatever flaws it can pick up in the film and over exaggerates it out of its own personal hatred for the film itself.
Moore, S. (2014) Twenty years on, it’s time to admit that pulp fiction is a bad film. Available at: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/twenty-years-it-s-time-admit-pulp-fiction-bad-film (Accessed: 14 November 2016).
Pulp fiction movie review & film summary (1994) (2001) Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Roger Ebert .