Conference bookie::movies

..oopps... sorry about the "no write" - it should be fixed now.

Moderator: this is a reply to 677, which was set to nowrite.   Please
move to that note when it's fixed up.

I know this film is a big hit with the critics and at the box office.  But I
have to dissent.  First, what's it about?  It's a gangster film, with 
off-the-shelf plots about power, vengeance, liberation and redemption.  
What's distinctive is the way the writer-director, Quentin Tarantino, 
interweaves irony and T.V. sitcom banality throughout the story.  Example - 
two gangsters, buddies, on their way to some business, get into a lively 
discussion about the romantic overtones of foot massage.  They're like Jerry 
and Kramer bickering about what it means to give Elaine a backrub.  

The whole film, all 2 1/2 hours, is like this.  One minute you're on the 
street
watching a drive-by shooting, the next minute you're back in the living room 
with Lucy reruns.  Unfortunately, Tarantino's ironic juxtapositions are more
chaotic than clever.  And the violence and racism simply got on my nerves.

Brian

    
"ironic juxtapositions" get on *my* nerves :-)
    

Brian - I'm just curious... why would you go to a movie where "violence gets 
on my nerves" when you must have known ahead of time how violent this movie 
was likely to be?  Everything I've ever read or heard about this film 
included indications of the violent nature.  I didn't feel the timeshifts 
were confusing at all... I felt they were a very clever way of explaining 
parts of the story that Tarantino didn't want to give away at the time the 
earlier scenes were shown (ex. why Travolta and Jackson were wearing the 
clothes they had on in the bar)

    I have to agree whole-heartedly with Brian (.2).  
    
    But - First of all, I really had fun watching this movie.  Everyone 
    (including B Willis) were in rare form and there was some really
    wonderful relationships and dialouge throughout.  (I don't agree about
    the violence 'cause it don't botha me. *8^)  )  
    
    HOWEVER!!!!!  Gee, where do I begin...The movie was about 30 minutes 
    too long.  We could have done without several l-o-n-g moments that 
    Tarentino was obviously fond of and couldn't bear to see on the cutting 
    room floor.  Snip-snip I say!  Also, Tarentino has Pi**ed me of before 
    with his wrinkles in time (R Dogs had the same problem).  When you jump 
    around in time like that you cheat the audience out of thier natural 
    reaction to what just happened (i.e. the poptarts moment).  It doesn't 
    matter why Travolta/Jackson wore the shorts and T-shirts in the bar. 
    Had that sequence been shown in order, it would not have made one whit
    of difference (except for the cameo coming at the end of the movie, which
    is just EGO!)  And, come to think of it, it actually made me angrier 
    later, when the wardrobe change was revealed, when I realized that I had 
    spent a good hour of the film trying to figure out the importance of the 
    U.C. Santa Cruz Tee when there wasn't any!  I mean, who cares!!!!!
    
    But, (yes another but), even though this movie has no plot, no heros, no 
    reason to care, I still found myself standing on the side lines cheering 
    several times.  There are some great suspenseful moments and
    wonderful bit parts and lots of what-the-he**-was-that scenes, so it
    does keep you on your toes.  I was never bored (just fidgeted a bit
    towards the end).
    
    It's hard to rate.  I give it an A+ and an F, if that makes any sense
    at all.
    
    MJ
    

    rep.  .2 and .last few.  Gets on my nerves to.
    
    Some violent films, the violence is entertaining sometimes its badly
    done.  True lies, total recall, why are these people dieing?  As for
    Terminator, without the violence, including the "big kill" in the
    police station the movie just wouldn't hang together.  In the case of
    Hard boiled, well the soppy husband/wife caring about the babies bits
    got in the way of the gun fights.  I still think that the tea shop
    shoot out was the best "unrealistic" gun fight in cinema.  "Realistic"
    killing is another matter, that usually means without cinamamanic
    clique and with a real study of death and dieing is another matter and
    just a single death really affects everybody that watches it.  I think
    Millers crossing is one example, the cartoon tommy gun fight was just
    that but towards the end the Cowens (sp!?) really wanted the victims to
    "die" not just fall over and close their eyes.
    
    
    
    regards, Michael.  Off to see Pulp fiction soon. 
                                                  

re .4

>Brian - I'm just curious... why would you go to a movie where "violence gets 
>on my nerves" when you must have known ahead of time how violent this movie 
>was likely to be?  Everything I've ever read or heard about this film 
>included indications of the violent nature. 

I don't avoid violent films. "Schindler's List" and "Goodfellas" for
example, are as violent as this one. But they are better films.  I think I
went because the Phoenix and the Globe both spoke highly of this film.  
Tarantino was praised for innovation and one compared him to early Kubrick 
and Scorcese.  I like film innovation, and was curious.

>I didn't feel the timeshifts 
>were confusing at all... I felt they were a very clever way of explaining 
>parts of the story that Tarantino didn't want to give away at the time the 
>earlier scenes were shown (ex. why Travolta and Jackson were wearing the 
>clothes they had on in the bar)

I wasn't critizing any particular use of timeshifts, but rather I was 
generalizing about the use of stylistic contrasts in the film.  But now that 
you mention it, I thought at one point during the film that the projectionist 
had the reels out of order.  I'll admit, though, I was slow to catch on.

Brian

     DYNOmite........one of the best/better all 'round entertainment movies
     I have seen in quite a while.....much better than Resv. Dogs, and a 
     peg above True Romance.
    
     I love his style......today's Peckinpaw with a humane interest twist.
    
     Best thing J. Travolta has done !
    
     Certainly appeared to be an actors fun time out........
    
    FWIW, I'd rate it ****
    
    Jp

    Sat in Fellini's on Melrose last night and listened to the entire
    soundtrack.  It's great!  I think I'll pick it up this weekend.
    
    MJ

    Fascinating movie! A must-see. It took me a few scenes to get into it,
    but suddenly it clicked and I was enthralled.
    
    <possible spoiler>
    
    One thing about my reaction to the violence I noticed that I thought
    was odd. Seeing people shot dead seemed relatively easy to take
    compared to seeing someone saved from certain death by sticking a huge
    needle in her heart. I was cringing in my seat.

    A very good film.  I'm not entirely sure whether I prefer this over 
    "Reservoir Dogs", but Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta did an
    excellent job heading a strong cast.  I even thought Bruce Willis was
    very good and I usually have a low Willis tolerance.  Rosanna Arquette
    and Christopher Walken did odd-ball cameos.
    
    I thought the time-shifting worked extremely well dramatically in this
    film.  The film would not have worked nearly so well in a strict
    chronological telling - many pieces would have been drained of their
    drama or given false prominence in a chronological telling.
    
    Nevertheless, from a purely chronological standpoint I have some
    questions on several points in the time sequence of the film.
    
    - Dave
    <possible spoiler>
    
    
    Was there any internal evidence in the film as to when the Butch
    Coolidge fight took place, especially as to what time it was when
    Vincent came to the locker room and met Mia and Marcellus?  (Anyone
    spot a clock on the wall during this scene or hear time mentioned?)
    
    I've seen reviews that indicate that this film takes place over a 27
    hour period, but internal evidence points to it taking place over a
    longer period of time.
    
    Day 1, ~7:30 AM.  
      Vincent/Jules visit the students.  Discussion shows Vincent has never
      met Mia.  I believe it is mentioned here that he will be taking Mia
      out "tomorrow night" while Marcellus is out of town..
    Day 1, ~8:00-9:30 AM.
      "The Bonnie Situation"
    Day 1, later that morning
      Jules/Vincent meet HoneyBunny and Pumpkin in the diner
    Day 1, still later that morning or early afternoon
      Jules/Vincent meet Marcellus (and Butch) in the bar.  Their clothes
      are not changed from the previous scene.  It is
      established that Butch should throw the fight, but I don't recall any
      mention of "tonight", "tomorrow", or any other date.  The bartender
      says to Vincent, "I hear you're taking Marcellus's wife out tomorrow
      night." (Which if accurate means that nothing in the film occurs
      until the following evening.)
    Day 2 evening (or Day 1 evening if internal evidence is wrong)
      Vincent scores the "Madman" (in a change of clothes) and takes Mia out 
      for dinner.
    Day 3 approx midnight to approx 2 AM (or Day 2, but same night as dinner)
      Vincent deals with Mia at Lance's house.  Vincent drops Mia off at
      home.
    Day 3 either after 3AM or the following night (depending on when 
      fight occurred)
      Vincent meets Mia and Marcellus in the locker room (after a change of
      clothes) late on the night of the fight.  Definitely occurs some point 
      after Vincent/Mia dinner ("I forgot to thank you for dinner" and 
      Marcellus is back in town, possibly unexpectedly due to fight results.)
    (Day 3 or Day 4) the morning after the fight, ~9 AM and after
      "The Gold Watch"
    
    So, although all internal evidence points to the Vincent/Mia date on
    the day after "The Bonnie Situation", it could have occurred on the
    same day.  
    
    It is also unclear as to when the fight occurred.  I don't recall any
    internal evidence indicated when it occurred in relation to Marcellus
    paying off Butch, but it must have occurred on the same night or night
    after the Vincent/Mia dinner.  If it occurred the same night, the
    locker room meeting must have been in the wee small hours of the
    morning.
    
    - Dave

    Quirky, a little bizarre, but fun. 
    
    
    I liked it, although some scenes were a little too drawn out.  On the
    other hand, the funny parts made up for the drawn out parts, so it
    balanced out.  Not as violent as I expected.   A few surprises here and
    there (spoiler material, so I'll leave it out).  I didn't like it as
    well as I liked "Resevior Dogs" and certainly not as well as I liked
    "True Romance", but it's one of the few movies this year that I can
    say I thought were very good.  I liked the Bruce Willis segments the
    best, although his dizty European girlfriend got on my nerves.  And
    who didn't think that Uma Thurman looked a whole lot like Winona Ryder
    especially after the, uh, aftermath of her evening?  :)
    
    Cheers,
    
    kim
    
    

    re.11
    
    Love the "low Willis tolerance" 8*)
    
    MJ

    
    
    	Just a little nit :-
    
    
    	Hunnybuns and Pupkin were English , therefore they would never
    	say "lets rip the register off " . 
    	In England we would say " lets rip the till off "
    
    	and
    
    
    
    	which part did Quintin Tarantino play 
    
    	Bill

    Wasn't Quentin the guy at whose home they had to clean up the car :-)
    --section titled (something like) "The Brenda Question" (whatever his
    wife's name was)?
    
    Leslie_who_HAS_to_see_it_again

    RE: Honey Bunny and Pumpkin
    
    The Tim Roth character was definitely English, but I didn't get the
    impression that the Amanda Plummer part was supposed to be.
    
    RE: Quentin Tarantino
    
    He played Jimmy, husband of Bonnie and server of gourmet coffee, in
    "The Bonnie Situation".
    
    - Dave

    Oops, it was "The Bonnie Situation"--well, I was close %-}
    
    Leslie

    
    Yes, Pumpkin (Tim Roth), is supposed to be English. And he does use
    the term "register". 
    
    But hey... as they say, When in France...
    
    Honey Bunny is, according to the script: "...impossible to tell where 
    the Young Woman is from or how old she is; everything she does 
    contradicts something she did." 
    
    And as said, Quinton's role was Jimmy, friend with sheets, hose, etc.
    
    
    Re;        
    James

    
    
    ok heres a few more Q's
    
    	1. Why is the "Wolf" wearing a Tux at 8:00 a.m. ?
    
    	and 
    
    	2. What was in the briefcase ?
    
    	p.s. I would put this film in my all time top 5 .
    
    

    RE:  Wolf tux
    
    Wolf is attending an all-night affair in what looks like someone's home,
    and may be some sort of big-bucks "private casino".  As you know,
    casinos never sleep.
    
    RE:  the briefcase
    
    A mystery.  It doesn't matter.  Tarantino just wanted a mysterious,
    valuable "something".
    
    - Dave

    
    
    ok ok ...
    
    one last Q . for the Brits. 
    
    	What are "cooties(sp)" ?
    
    	As in when they were sharing the 3 pound 's and 33 pence shake !
    
    
    	Bill

    Cooties (n) = unknown horrific (really gross!) disease or organisms, 
    usually more worried about than contracted.  Chiefly an irrational fear 
    of pre-pubescent boys, and believed to be contracted from kissing or 
    otherwise associating with girls of approximately the same age. 
    Usage:  "Eeeeewwww! You *kissed* her?!? Yuck! You'll get cooties. Keep
    away from me! - I don't want to get them too."
    
    - Dave

From Merriam-Webster's 7th New Collegiate Dictionary:

cootie - n [ perhaps modification of Malay kutu] : a body louse

    Inoculation involves a person of the same sex drawing with his or her
    finger an imaginary circle on the infected's upper arm then sharply 
    punching with a fist in the center of the circle. Either arm works.

    Lisa

    
    	Why was Samual (?) afraid of Jimmy?  
    
    	Couldn't figure it out.
    
    	Liked NBK better but this was really good!
    
    	Tom
    

    
    "Cooties" became a common term during World War 1, when protracted
    trench warfare made body lice a familiar nuisance.

    Finally just saw it. What a great flick! I didn't find the 2.5 hours
    even remotely long. As per several previous replies, Travolta was
    excellent - I always thought this guy had talent but had some pretty
    poor roles in the past.
    
    I was reading a review a few weeks back where they mentioned that
    Travolta was only paid something like $200,000 for his role. Since the
    notoriety he's received from Pulp Fiction, the offers have been
    streaming in, with reported amounts of up to $5,000,000 a role. The pay sure
    improves if you have the right entry on the resume eh?
    
    Rob

    Fortunately, Travolta's not hurting for money; he invested his previous
    windfalls wisely.

    
    Does anyone know what the song was the Uma was dancing to when she and
    John Travolta returned from their night out?  She puts the stereo on
    when they get back and JT disappears to the bathroom and talks to
    himself while she dances.  I thought it was an excellent track!
    
    Enjoyed the film, but agree it was a little too long and dragged in
    places.  Excellent turn from Jackson, and JT wasn't bad either.
    
    Emma

    The song is "You'll Be a Woman Soon," covered by some new band,
    originally a sixties tune.

    The band signing is Urge Overkill and the song is an old one from
    Neil Diamond if I recall correctly. I bought the tape, lots of fun
    to listen too, especially the little extracts from the movie like 
    Le Big Mac and I love you honey bunny.
    
    Richard

    Thanks, it's a great version, I may have to dig out the PF soundtrack,
    it sounds good!
    
    Emma

    Curious, I remember reading that Travolta, his wife and
    child live somewhere in Maine and have servants.  The house
    was huge and he described the child's bedroom (adventure land).
    How did he invest his money?   He seemed to drop from sight for
    quite some time (5+ years?).

    
    	He's married to Kelly Preston, the younger sister from "Twins"
    	and one of the co-stars in "The Experts".
    

    re .34
    
    From all that I can tell, he was just money-smart in his stardom days
    ("Welcome Back, Kotter" to oh, I dunno, "Urban Cowboy") and invested
    rather than spent it all.  Pretty savvy, considering how stardom is
    fleeting for most who make it there.
    
    
    Cheers,
    
    
    kim

    Ok, about this Film I have two points to make. Please note the text
    hidden behind this Form Feed contains un-censored swear words due to
    the fact that it may spoil the point otherwise. Please hit next unseen
    if easily offended.
    
    
    
    The opening scene in the cafe with pumpkin (ringo) and Honey Bunny
    (Yvonda), when they decide to rob the place,
    
    Honey Bunny's line goes thus:-
    
    "Any of you Fucking Pigs move and I'll execute every mother fucking last
    one of you".
    
    ok fair enough, BUT at the end of the film back in the cafe when we see
    the robbery again Honey Bunny this time says:
    
    "Any of you fucking pigs move and I'll execute every last Mother fucking
    one of you"
    
    Why do these two lines differ when in fact it is the same scene. I
    cannot beleive that this is a mistake on Tarentino's part therefore
    there must have been a point behind it. Anyone know what it is.
    
    Also when Butch is in the taxi with Ezmarelda. If you look out of the back
    window, the outside does not look in anyway real, it looks like a black
    and white movie playing on the back window.
    
    That's all
    
    Andy.
    
    P.s I liked the film I just cannot work out mainly why the two lines
    differ. 

    I suspect it was a continuity mistake, really.
    
    
    I can't read that much into one sentance having the word "last" and the
    other not.  Of course, that might just be me. :)
    
    
    
    kim

    Both sentences have the word last in it is just that the phrase "Mother
    Fucking" is moved from one side of it to the other.
    
    I don't believe that it is just a continuity mistake, I think Tarentino
    did this on purpose - Maybe just to see if people would notice,
    
    of course I could be wrong..
    
    Andy

    
    	You're not alone ... I haven't seen it either.
    
    	[What are you doing tomorrow night?  8^)]
    

re .37
    
>>    Also when Butch is in the taxi with Ezmarelda. If you look out of the back
>>    window, the outside does not look in anyway real, it looks like a black
>>    and white movie playing on the back window.

When I saw that seem, it reminded me of the types of effects seen so often 
in Alfred Hitchcock movies and looked so blatantly unreal that I took it 
to be a nod to Hitchcock.

Walker

    
    >> When I saw that scene, it reminded me of the types of effects
    >> seen so often in Alfred Hitchcock movies and looked so blatantly
    >> unreal that I took it to be a nod to Hitchcock.
    
    Yeah that's what I thought, like out of an old B & W movie such as
    Hitchcock, there is no way that was real. That is what makes me think
    that Tarentino put in that other speech bit, because once you know
    about it then it becomes extremly noticable only I cannot think of a
    reason for it.
    
    I wonder if there are other such bits in the film.
    
    Andy

BY FAR WAS THE WORSE MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.I THINK JOHN T.WAS
    REALLY SNORTING SOMETHING!!!!!WERE WAS THE TRADITIONAL PLOT
    IT REMINDED ME OF SEX,LIES,AND VIDEOTAPE I DONT KNOW WHICH
    WAS WORSE......OHHHH YEA BILL MURRAY'S GROUND HOG DAY,THE
    ONLY MOVIE I EVER FELL ASLLEP IN...DID ANYONE LIKE THESE
    MOVIES??????????????/
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

	Hey, come on, please be easy on our eyes (ie. don't shout).
	In any case ....

> DID ANYONE LIKE THESE MOVIES??????????????/

	.... I enjoyed SL&V, however I *loved* GHD and by chance saw
	it three (3) times when it first came out.

	However I've never seen "Pulp Addiction", and in fact have
	never even heard of it.  Was it a direct-to-video release?

    re .0 ... Could it be we're talking about Pulp Fiction here?
    
    Yep. I loved all three of these, for (at least in part) the same reason
    you hated them - i.e. they didn't have too much of a "traditional
    plot". They were original ideas.
    
    There's nothing worse (for me) than re-hashed, done-to-death, formula
    plot. Granted, Ground Hog Day had *some* of that formula, but it still
    had an original underlying idea.
    
    As with all movies, your mileage may vary of course (and obviously did
    this time).

    
    	Actually, "12:01", a made-for-TV movie, was along the same idea
    	as "Groundhog Day" and pre-dated it by at least 6 months [as far
    	as I know, anyways].
    
    	But the former was an action-adventure, compared to the latter's
    	comedy.
    

    I've seen Pulp Fiction twice - this movie is definitely not for
    the squeamish in my opinion - but definitely worth seeing.
    
    As for Groundhog day & SL&V - both great movies that I would see again.
    
    Mo
    

      yes.i meant pulp fiction with all the drug taking,swearing and
    sex acts....It was A perpetually vogure movie...with absolutly
    no plot tarentino can do better..pulp addiction should have
    been the title everyone was addicted to something. 
    
    
    
    
    
    

    The last 6 notes were moved here from another (redundant) topic.
    Please excuse any non sequiturs that result from the move.
    
    Thanks,
    
    - Dave, yer neighborhood co-mod

    
    re.-2
    
       < ...all the drug taking,swearing and sex acts....>
    
     As said in a previous reply 'Why did you go and see this fu.k.ng
     film if you cant handle a bit of sex,drugs and bad language'
     Everybody knew what to expect with this one , next time go see
     'Sleeping Beauty' or 'Snow White' if you cant handle the pace.
    
                <...tarantino can do better...>
    
     From this statement can i assume you have seen his other work ?
     If you saw True Romance or Reservoir Dogs then didnt the content 
     of these bother you enough to put you off seeing Pulp..
                                                      
      Excellent film, better than 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'Killing Zoe'
      and on par with 'True Romance'                        *
                                                           *
                                                         *
            Executive producer or    * * * * * * * * * * 
            something but shows the 
            same style and massacre type ending.

    	
    Does anyone know when this is due to be released on video?
    
    I want to put it right next to my copy of True Romance and The Dog's.
    
    	-Kevin

    re -.1
    
    It's been out on video in Australia for near on a month
    
    Rob

    	Rented "Pulp" last night with great excitement of watching
    	this in the comfort of my own home. Sad to say that it really
    	lost alot in translation to video.
    
    	Those of you that saw this on the "big screen" will be glad
    	that you did.
    
    	-Kevin

I rented this movie about a week ago and after all the hype and all the "thumbs
up" reviews I heard from friends I really thought I was being set up for a big
dissappoinment. It turned out to be even better than I expected. I give this
movie ***** out of *****. I thought the scene with Christopher Walken was 
absolutley hilarious and Harvey Keitel was brilliant as usual. 

(possible spoiler)

I thought the "time shifting" effects really added a whole new dimension to
the movie. The end of the film has Travolta and (I feel stupid I can't remember
his name right now) leaving the coffee shop in a typical "Hollywood" feel good
type ending, yet Travolta was actually killed in the earlier scene at Willis's
apartment. 

My 2 cents,
Ben 

    Samuel L. Jackson
    
    I saw this a while ago.  Which scene was Christopher Walken in?
    

    
    Christopher Walken was in the story with Bruce Willis.
    
    
    
    							ian

    Christopher Walken gave the famous "Gold Watch" speach to the
    Bruce Willis character as a child. One of the best monologues
    of all time ;-)

    which one was he?

    Oh yeah, I forgot.

    I rented PF over the weekend .. finally figured I should see what 
    all the fuss was about.  It was ok.  Different, yeah, but too bloody
    and violent for my taste, though.  Really good music and neat 
    cinematography.
    
    I liked Travolta, Keitel, Willis.  The french woman got on my nerves,
    and Amanda Plummer - well, I coulda shot her myself.  And Rosanna 
    Arquette ... please!  I think there were just too many screaming 
    women in it for me.
    
    At least now I can say I've seen it.
    
    Sue
    

    Finally got a chance to rent this over the weekend. I enjoyed it, though
    some of "The Gold Watch" seemed a bit improbable. Bruce Willis' French 
    sweetheart really got on my nerves, she must be a good actress. She also 
    played Anais Nin in "Henry & June" and didn't get on my nerves then!
    
    I'd like to see more movies where time is warped as it is here.
    Not just "flashbacks" which are easily written, but where intertwined
    things happen simultaneously and are presented serially. "Short Cuts"
    was another movie in this vein, though PF's "cuts" were much longer.
    
      John

    
    
    	The time sequences was one of the things that really made this
    movie for me. I liked the interaction of Travolta and Jackson. The
    Bruce Willis story line was handled well I thought. 
    
    ed

    Finally got to see this movie over the weekend.  Kind of a mixed review
    for me. 
    
    Loved Samuel Jackson and John Travolta.  THought Uma Thurman was very
    good.  Liked the very beginning and the end.  But the whole Bruce
    Willis part of the movie not only was unnecessary, but made little
    sense.  The guy crossing the street at just the right time was beyond
    improbable, but without him there at that time, the next 20 minutes
    couldn't have taken place.  WHich would have been fine with me, since
    at 2 1/2 hours I thought the movie was at least 30 minutes too long.
    
    7.5 out of 10
    
    NAZZ

    
    What was in the briefcase ?
    
    Rick A

>   What was in the briefcase ?
    
    Gold bullion.

    Nahhh...they wouldn't have been able to lift it, surely?!
    
    I think it was supposed to be much more mysterious, symbolic, 
    allegorical ....
    
    I don't think we'll ever know, because I don't think Tarantino
    will ever tell us.
    
    Sue

    Alfred Hitchcock used to have a name for such an object in a movie.
    What was it? A mcguffin?

    Wasn't it a nod in the direction of an old movie I cant remember - a
    suitcase would light up people faces as they opened it, I think it may
    have contained something radioactive...maybe the film ended with it
    blowing up or someone dead, kind of a Pandoras box type story.  Its a
    famous detective black n white film - I just cant remember it (Kiss me
    Deadly...?).
    
    mikef

Isn't a "McGuffin" when a Scotsman experiences a trouser cough ?

    
    
    
    I thought it was drugs in the breifcase since they took it off the
    kids who were trying to cheat the mob boss.
    
    they never did say.
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    In an interview once, Tranatino said something along the lines of "It's
    whatever you want it to be."
    
    I probably have the wording wrond, but that was the general gist of it.

    Maybe it was his Oscar. :)
    
    
    
    
    kim

    The combination for the briefcase was 666!  I assumed it was
    Tarantino's symbolic way of saying that the contents were something
    very evil.

re .69  Yes, it was "Kiss Me Deadly", a film noir from 1955

    re: .68 >  Alfred Hitchcock used to have a name for such an object in a 
               movie.  What was it? A mcguffin?
    
    
    To quote (or paraphrase as best I can remember) the master: "The
    McGuffin is something the spies are after, but the audience doesn't
    care."  Which is one of the things that spoiled this movie (and, for
    that matter, "Kiss Me Deadly") for me: by coyly withholding information
    it invites endless discussions on its meaning and importance to THE
    FILM, which are nil.  
    
    I agree with earlier statements that the scenes of mundane banter between 
    Jackson and Travolta were the highlights.  But I think this is the sort
    of thing which will get old really fast (assuming this is all this
    writer-director has to offer).  
    
    Oh, well, I probably would have liked it better had it not been built
    up to be such a masterpiece.  
    
    Ron D.

    re: .44 - Sometime in May...
    
>>> BY FAR WAS THE WORSE MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.I THINK JOHN T.WAS
>>>     REALLY SNORTING SOMETHING!!!!!WERE WAS THE TRADITIONAL PLOT
>>>     IT REMINDED ME OF SEX,LIES,AND VIDEOTAPE I DONT KNOW WHICH
>>>     WAS WORSE......OHHHH YEA BILL MURRAY'S GROUND HOG DAY,THE
>>>     ONLY MOVIE I EVER FELL ASLLEP IN...DID ANYONE LIKE THESE
>>>     MOVIES??????????????/
    
Obviously, the critics don't agree. I think both the movies you mentioned
    were excellent!  I think the critics *would* agree that you should
    use lowercase :-)
        
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

I just saw this movie on videotape.  Though a lot of things within the story
didn't add up in terms of simple logic, I found the movie very entertaining and
I liked it.  I thought Travolta was excellent and a very believable character.

Potential Spoilers:
















Some things that didn't add up for me:  
	
	The kids who get hit in their apartment
	were awfully naive for a group who had just attempted to screw a known
	killer.  They were home, altogether, with no look-out and they just
	answer the door at 7:20AM.  The only one who was armed, was out
	of sight and didn't appear until all his friends had been killed.

	Vincent - a professional hit man! - leaves a fully-loaded automatic
	assault weapon on the kitchen counter while he goes to the bathroom
	in the home of the man he is supposed to whack.  A sidebar on that: 	
	Vincent comes out of the bathroom and looks directly at his own fully 	
	loaded....without trying to drop or jump out of range.	
	
	The English pair in the diner.  They were a wee bit far fetched
	in mannerisms, and just about everything else. 
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	

    RE: 677.66-677.74 
    
    This was forwarded several times before it got to
    me, but the (most) original posting I could see 
    indicates that it came from a student at Yale.  Take
    that into account as you read this ..
    
    
    --------------- Begin forwarded message ----------------------------------
    
    If you all are anything like me then you had no idea what was in the 
    briefcase in Pulp Fiction.  So, through a friend of a friend of 
    a friend who had a two-hour conversation with Quentin Tarantino himself,
    I now know, and I thought I would pass along the information because 
    it makes the movie even 100 times better than it already is.  
    
    Remember the first time you were introduce to Marsellis Wallace.  The
    first shot of him was of the back of his head, complete with band-aid.
    Then, remember the combination of the lock on the briefcase was 666.
    Then, remember that whenever anyone opened the briefcase, it glowed, and
    they were in amazement at how beautiful it was;  they were speechless.
    Now, bring in some Bible knowledge, and remember that when the devil 
    takes your soul, he takes it from the back of your head.  Yep, you guessed
    it.  And what is the most beautiful thing about a person: his soul.
    Marsellis Wallace had sold his soul to the devil, and was trying to buy
    it back.  The three kids in the beginning of the movie were the devil's
    helpers.  And remember that when the kid at the end came out of the
    bathroom with a "hand cannon,"  Jules and Vincent were not harmed by the
    bullets.  "God came down and stopped the bullets,"  because they were
    saving a soul.  It was divine intervention.
    
    Ezekiel 25:17
    
    "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities
    of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.  Blessed is he, who in the
    name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of
    darkness, for he is truely his brother's keeper and the finder of lost
    children.  And I will strike down upon thee with great vengence and
    furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.  And
    you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengence upon thee."
    
    --------------- End forwarded message ----------------------------------

    
    
    I prefer thinking it was drugs and that the kids were trying to screw
    Marsallus.
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    re 677.79
    
    That certainly answers a lot of the questions the films raises!
    
    Nice explanation - I noticed the 666 on the briefcase and the plaster
    and was wondering where it all fitted in...
    
    
    Tom

    >bring in some Bible knowledge, and remember that when the devil
    >takes your soul, he takes it from the back of your head. 
    
    Can any Biblical scholars out there help with a reference here. I've
    studied the Bible a little in a previous lifetime and don't remember
    anything like this.
    
    Royston

  Rented this one over the weekend and I really liked it a lot. In some ways it
seemed like an elaborate Twilight Zone episode. 

  Patty was disappointed that we didn't see it on the big screen but it worked
for me on TV. I find that's usually the case for movies like this one that are
more story and less f/x. Also, seeing it on tape solves the length problem
since you can take breaks.

  **** out of 5,
  George

    Pulp Fiction-most beloved and respected?????

    S_COLLINS
    
    O.K.    "PULP FICTION" MAYBE NOT LOVED BY PEOPLE THE WAY THE OTHER
    FILMS ARE, BUT, IT IS AND WILL BE RESPECTED BY CRITICS, ASPIRING
    FILMAKERS AND HARDCORE MOVIEBUFFS FOR YEARS TO COME.   PLEASE FORGIVE
    ME IF I MADE IT SOUND LIKE IT WAS A FILM FOR EVERYONES TASTE. REMEMBER
    "CITIZEN CANE". IT IS NOT REALLY A CROWD PLEASER, BUT IT IS DEFINITLY
    RESPECTED, AND HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME. AS WILL IN MY OPINION "PULP
    FICTION".  
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    RE: GUMSHU::S_COLLINS
    
    Could you please take the "Caps Lock" off when entering your notes?
    
    When the entries are in all caps it makes them unpleasant to read and
    it comes across as SHOUTING.
    
    Thanks,
    
    - Dave, with moderator cap-lock on