Pulp Fiction Review

Hi, this is Lauren Lester and you're listening

to the GeekCast Radio Network. Hi, this is Lauren

Lester and you're listening to the GeekCast Radio

Network. Hello and welcome to another special

episode of Cinema Geeks as we continue our Quentin

Tarantino retrospective. Today we are looking

at Tarantino's second film, the infamous Pulp

Fiction. But before we get to the film talk,

let's go over who's here. Of course, you have

myself, Movie Rope Vault Dan, and joining me

as always is Kevin Optimus Solo. How's it going?

It's going well. It's going well. I can't complain

because it wouldn't do me any good anyway. Well,

isn't that what podcasting is all about? Isn't

that why podcast was created? Exactly. Exactly.

There was that one day that wasn't complaining

on the internet. And then the second day of the

internet. And then the second person joined.

Exactly. Exactly. For those who have not listened

to our past episode, yes, we are doing a Quentin

Tarantino retrospective. We started with an introduction,

we last reviewed his first debut film, Rest of

Our Dogs, and we'll continue as we review each

film that he has directed. Today, we're going

over the 1994 smash hits that was critically

acclaimed and nominated for Best Picture Pulp

Fiction. And there's like a lot of ways to kind

of get into this movie. It's such an infamous

movie, it's hard to even talk about it, but I

think it's a good place to start, Kevin. I know

when we talked about our introduction and we

talked about Pulp Fiction, you mentioned that

when you saw it, you maybe didn't have the...

Kind of a question. For this retrospective, I

went back and I read and watched a number of

reviews regarding Pulp Fiction when it came out,

and they all had different things to say. a lot

of positive marks, obviously, but one of the

consistent things I saw, and it was the praise

the movie got for its originality, and its ability

to be unlike anything at the time. But now, like

21 years later, you know, Pulp Fiction has become

ingratiated into our pulp culture. Its influences

can be felt on a multitude of films. We've got

a lot of Pulp Fiction knockoffs, or at least

it's homages, what have you. And we've also had,

you know, six Tarantino films since Pulp Fiction

has been released. So considering the fact, do

you feel that one of Pulp Fiction's greatest

assets has dissipated, leaving it impossible

to really appreciate one of its unanimously praised

qualities, or is Is the court -pol -fiction success

so timeless that it still maintains that, despite

the familiarity, or maybe, do you feel? Now,

removed from its initial hype, we can see pol

-fiction for what it really is, an average crime

film with a unique structure. I think that's

going to be based on the intelligence of who

you asked that question. I feel like that response

could be said to so many things. I think so,

too. But the reason I say that is because...

If you are a cinephile an intelligent cinephile

and You're somewhat educated on the history of

film. You're somewhat in the know on Not just

mainstream box office, you know blockbuster type

things You're gonna have a much different take

than maybe someone who's somewhat ignorant to

some of that stuff because I can see what you're

saying and I can see like if you're asking someone

who wasn't exposed to Pulp Fiction in the 90s

and didn't see it until like a recent time that

maybe some of that would be lost and it would

feel like they wouldn't give it the credit that

it's due as far as being the influence that it

was on so many directors and so many different

types of film that came afterwards. So I mean,

I think there could be a little bit of ignorance.

for some people, maybe younger generations or

just people not as educated, but I think if you

know what came before and what came after Pulp

Fiction, I don't think you can, I don't think

it loses that, what you're saying, that quality,

that keystone quality for it maybe as far as

its originality, its break in the mold, its shockwaves

that it has sent, because I think... If you're

aware of that stuff, you can see those those

that domino effect even more pronounced through

the last five or ten years even Yeah, I definitely

agree and I think it's hard for a movie 20 years

old to have the same effect It did when it was

initially released. I think you make a good point

about the intelligence of Someone regarding it

not necessarily maybe intelligence. It's maybe

yeah, that's a better for example You know, you

might it's like the guy who sees the Gus Van

Sant psycho and thinks like, oh, that's the most

original movie ever. It's like, well, no, there's

actually another psycho directed by another director

you might have heard of. So I do think that's

a good point. But I think there's even even though

there's been a lot of pulp fiction type of movies,

you know, the go comes to mind. You know, we've

had other Tarantino films. I still think. there's

nothing else quite like Pulp Fiction. And maybe

it's not fresh, it's hard to be fresh when you're

that old, but I still think it holds up as just

unlike most films in a lot of ways, and we can

get into that. But I was curious, too, that you've

rewatched it. I think you said you've watched

it before, but it's been a while. What were your

overall feelings towards it now, seeing it during

the stretch? I think if I'm going to be 100 %

honest, I believe my biggest issue for why I

wasn't as on board with Pulp Fiction as it seems

like everybody else I know was was it's not having

to do with anything with the typical like oh

everybody else likes it so I'm not gonna like

it it wasn't that it was for some reason whenever

I watched it the first time or whenever I was

exposed to it when it was on and I'd come in

or someone be watching it or whatever I just

don't think I was in the right the right frame

of mind, the right state of mind to to just really

get hooked into it from beginning to end. And

I don't know what was going on in my life at

the time. I have no idea. Or what mindset was

or, you know, if it was too many times coming

in at the wrong, you know, not at the beginning.

So trying to put everything together or it could

have been a whole bunch of different factors

kind of combining. But for whatever reason, when

I when I initially watched it, I think it wasn't

a situation where I was in the best mindset to

watch and appreciate the film. I think part of

that might to also be like kind of expectations

in the sense anytime you have a movie that is

so iconic or so built up like this or Godfather

what have you something that's listed as one

of the best movies of its time it's like when

you have watched it you have that like impress

me type of like okay what's this all about it's

just nothing it's natural for people to do that.

I was probably maybe the first time I saw it

somewhat similar because I think what it does

Really? Well in as someone when this came out

in 1994 I was you know Lion King movie of all

time So definitely not old enough to really appreciate

it. But when I first saw it, I don't think I

could truly Grasp what was so great about it.

You know what I mean? It was it's what was doing

was not what I appreciated in filmmaking That

wasn't really when I saw a movie wasn't I wasn't

looking for the story structure or how the Dava

worked. That wasn't, you know, what I was looking

for. I was looking for those wow moments and

it has some but not in the way I was expecting.

The mindset thing is a good way of saying it

because the idea of kind of going in with an

expectation of what makes a good movie and depending

on age that can vary. And I think a big part

of that too was what we were talking about prior

when I would have seen this the first time. I

didn't have that experience. I didn't have the

exposure or the... Not saying that I'm some type

of a great critic or anything like that, but

I wasn't watching movies with that eye, with

knowledge of different directors and different...

types of Storytelling and all the different things

that go into it. I just I wasn't an experienced

moviegoer And so I think some of it might have

been lost on me the first time and it was one

of those more like, okay Everybody says this

is great. So I guess this is great, but I don't

know why it's great Type of thing. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, I get I could definitely get that because

I do feel Watching podcasts listening to podcasts

and going back and reading a lot of review old

review, especially Roger Ebert stuff I do feel

like a more educated movie watcher. I never cared

about how a camera was used. I never even considered

that. I didn't even know that was a thing you

could do. I just thought you pointed that out.

Right. Nobody could have told you, like, oh,

did you see that long take in Pulp Fiction? And

you would have been like, I don't know what you're

talking about. Yeah. I mean, I can recognize,

oh, this feels different, but I never even considered

it being in one take. I didn't even know takes

were a thing. All freely meant, I think... I

love Pulp Fiction. It's one of my favorite movies

of all time. For me to talk about the ins and

outs or like the overall quality, I feel like

I'll just be a cheerleader here and there. But

I think there's a lot of things to talk about.

Oh, there definitely is. So now that you are

that more educated... Don't give me too much

credit. Hey, hang on. with the podcast knowledge

that you have obtained over the time. It sounds

like you definitely enjoyed it more. So what

about it did seem to click this time that didn't

in previous experiences? Well, I think number

one, I was sitting down with a clear mindset

from beginning to end. There was no distractions.

There was not coming in two -thirds of the way

through or a third of the way through or dealing

with... A big group of people while I'm watching

it or anything like that. So I mean it was basically

just Yeah, you put yourself isolated in a nice

little yeah, it's a truly experience basically

and And not just the the clear focus of being

able to just focus on the film and watch it from

beginning to end with no distractions but like

you said, I think something to do with just Watching

more films with listening to more people talk

about films becoming more educated on the ins

and outs of things and then really I think What

was the biggest thing was? seeing things that

happened in this film that Like we were talking

about had become Evident in other films and it

doesn't have to be a film. That's like pulp fiction

It doesn't have to be a story. That's like pulp

fiction, but just the The things that you know

we were talking about last week that it was the

first Tarantino film So we recognized a couple

things that that he was doing there and kind

of said you know Obviously we've seen some of

the films so kind of know some of the staples

or some of his like Main go -to techniques or

things motifs or whatever but now Seeing that

with the second film. You can start to see some

of those things really solidify and and become

what would have been at the time something that

you're starting to notice now between you know

on this director if you're someone who's looking

at the director you know with the critical eye

you can definitely see a lot of the stuff we

brought up in the first film carried over here

and being evident here again so i was thinking

of seeing that type of stuff seeing similar things

that other directors have done that just really

made it an enjoyable experience and i mean i'm

sure we'll get into some of the ins and outs

but just the dialogue, the acting, the humor,

but all kind of wrapped up in like this somewhat

mysterious storytelling that keeps you interested

the entire time. So, I mean, it had a much better

effect on me this time. I would say it was quite

improved over my original take on the film. Yeah,

and I think the thing that kind of always shouts

out to me when watching Pulp Fiction or the characters

and We talked about with Retro Dogs, I think

that I mentioned casting and how brilliant Tarantino

is at casting. And I think he's really evident

in this. And for one obvious reason, that's Samuel

L. Jackson and his role. I mean, this is the

role that made Samuel L. Jackson, Samuel L. Jackson.

We can almost take it for granted because what's

interesting about His role is his role here is

that Tarantino wrote it specifically for for

him after Samuel Jackson Tried out for or auditioned

for reservoir dogs and didn't get the part But

then he wrote this part for Samuel L. Jackson

and it's meets a testament of how Tarantino knows

how to use the strengths of actors better than

anyone That's why he can get great performances

out of actors that many have given up on you

know This movie is full of them carpet caratel

Was he kind of resurrected? John Travolta, obviously,

you know, he had a resurrection because of this

movie and I just think he knows how to recognize

talent and use it in a really intelligent and

strong way. He knows what makes Samuel L. Jackson,

Samuel L. Jackson's just the one audition and

he created a character that used all his strengths

and now ever since then that's been kind of the

character that's followed Samuel L. Jackson.

It's easy for someone to break that character

today, but in 1994, that wasn't the case. It

reminds me of someone like, even though I'm not

a big fan of him, Bill Belichick, in coaching

of football, where he'll take someone that other

people may not necessarily utilize all that well.

And but he'll make them an all star because he

knows what their talents are and knows where

to put them. And I think that's what Tarantino

does better than anyone. Yeah. And I think you

bring up a good point, obviously, with Samuel

Jackson. And obviously, there was a couple of

different parts that were specifically written

with people in mind for this film. But I think

that kind of goes back to what we were talking

about a little bit earlier, too, with your experience

and when you're watching the film. because you

know you can just see and I'm not trying to like

stereotype a generation or whatever but you could

see someone from like a younger generation who

who sees this film and it's like oh that's just

Samuel L Jackson played in the same character

he's played in them in every film but it's like

no this is this is what created that that type

of character, that persona that has been used

so much because everybody loved it so much in

this film. So it's all about perspective, I guess,

and how much education you have on where things

came from. But it's not just Samuel L. Jackson,

like you said, John Travolta. There's so many

people in this film, whether they were the ones

that... Tarantino was specifically writing the

role for or whether it wasn't it seems like all

of them were It's it's it's almost like every

single character was already picked out before

the writing had started even though that wasn't

the case Yeah, I mean And I think that comes

to Tarantino being such a, to identify himself

and have such a strong film knowledge that he

knows, he's seen Tarantino, or not Tarantino,

but he's seen Travolta in Blowout. So he knows

what type of actor he can be in. He doesn't allow,

like, where the actor currently is, like, oh,

this actor's kind of on the downward spiral.

He doesn't consider that. It's like, well, no,

he was great once and he can be great now. He's

not reading people's most influential Hollywood

stars or whatever. Yeah, exactly, exactly. He's

not, you know, he's not... drafting players into

a fantasy world. Though it'd be great if you

used, you know, Michael Fassbender in his next

movie, I'm just saying, if he needs to. Speaking

of the characters, what I love about Pulp Fiction

2 is that each character has like a distinct

voice. I think a lot of times with movies today,

or movies in general, You can tell that the character

is coming from the same person. They all kind

of talk the same. They have the same cadence.

They talk in very familiar dialogue, but with

Pulp Fiction, each character is its own thing.

Part of that is utilizing actors, but part of

it is also writing that dialogue. Everyone has

a certain way about them, but they always still

feel like they're in the same movie. If you look

at... Jackson and Cartel compared to like Bruce

Willis or Ving Rhames Everyone has their own

type of way of doing things and I think it allows

those characters to stand out and be unique and

be Easy to gravitate towards because you kind

of know who they are Immediately just by the

way they behave and correspond with one another,

you know, it's the infamous first scene You know,

what would you what do they call? A quarter powder

with cheese and in which it seems kind of ridiculous

But when you realize it it's telling you so much

about these guys that are hit men They approach

it in such a just just a matter of fact way that

it's just yeah I'm gonna go kill someone but

I'm talking about hamburgers beforehand that

gives you a lot of information about who they

are as people without you having to Kind of get

a huge backstory or a lot of plot. It's just

it's story about character not Sorry about it.

Right. No, I definitely agree with that. So getting

since we're talking about characters and being

one of the highlights of the film, are you able

to pick out a favorite character from the film?

Man. It's hard not it's hard not to just immediately

want to go to Samuel L. Jackson. And I think

I have to just because I love his art the most.

seeing him in the different, like him compared

to like the final scene and with Tim Roth's character

compared, you know, with him doing the classic

vengeance is, you know, lay my vengeance upon

you, like just to see the different parts of

him. I just, I think without a doubt, he's my

favorite character. Though I'm not, I'm a fan

of Ving Rhames too. I think he's just. a lot

of fun in the movie as well. And I will be lame

and say the exact same thing because I think

it has to do with the whole arc of Samuel L.

Jackson's of Jules character and just kind of

from the beginning to the end if you want to

say from the beginning to the end I guess in

this movie. Well technically I guess he's If

you go linear, he's in the beginning and the

middle. But I do think he has the most rewarding

arc there and some of the best lines, so it's

hard to not go with Samuel L. Jackson. What?

What country you from? What ain't no country

I ever heard of? They speak English in what?

What? English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Yes. Then you know what I'm saying. Describe

what Marcellus Wallace looks like. You know what's

interesting though, it's like I would consider

him the main character though He was nominated

for best supporting actor with John Fulton. I

don't understand how one of them would be one

and one would be the other Yeah, they were about

on the screen the same amount of time weren't

they? Well, maybe no, I guess I guess Vincent

was probably in he was in every Was he in all

of the different sub segments or however you

want to call it I think I think there was yeah,

I would say he has more screen time but still

like I feel like every even when he's on screen

It's not necessarily about him per se like he's

part of the story Obviously characters are a

strong point. Casting is a strong point. We brought

that up in Reservoir Dogs. And again here, another

thing that we brought up in Reservoir Dogs, and

I talked about it a little bit already, but was

the dialogue and the writing of this film. Obviously

Tarantino shows that Reservoir Dogs was not a

fluke at this point, and he's really showing

that he has a knack for the dialogue and the

writing. Just some absolute great lines and some

absolute great... Interchanges and see all together

scenes like, you know in reservoir dogs. We had

the diner scene You know with the tipping and

that type of thing and you definitely get some

of the same types of Conversations in this one.

I think right off the bat. You can think of the

whole conversation between Tim Tim Roth pumpkin

or whatever you want to call him and and honey

bunny about robbing restaurants versus Robin

Banks, that's just a great back and forth. And

then also, of course, we have the debate about

foot massage. Yeah. So I mean, just some great

lines amongst those two. And that's just picking

out two out of, you know, you could obviously

take a bunch more. Like you already mentioned,

the whole pseudo Bible reference by Jules. That's

obviously something that gets played a lot it's

people's ringtones or podcast intro music or

whatever you want exactly so i mean there's just

great dialogue throughout this whole movie which

makes you really appreciate it yeah there's a

there's not a wasted word it like everything

is informing you of something it everything that's

being said it has some sort of importance to

it even if it's about nothing it just i don't

know it's just fun to listen to it's like a like

a really good song that you don't want to end

it in that in that aspect And what's kind of

interesting too with the dialogue, another kind

of thing that Tarantino is known for is violence

in a lot of ways. You hear that complaints in

some instances that his movies are too violent

and I was actually surprised when I mentioned

we had a lot of older reviews on this and I did

see that a lot where Pulp Fiction got the violent

movie label and I was curious what you think

regarding that. Do you feel like Pulp Fiction

is a violent movie? Man, that must be... That

must be a sign of our numbness or or something

the effect that the last 10 to 15 years has had

on us maybe because That thought didn't even

cross my mind Yeah, I mean outside of and I guess

spoiler alert should we do that for any I don't

know what I mean, even if it does Gets it swirls

itself. You know, I forgot that Phil Lamar was

in this film in this film and obviously with

all the work I've done, you know on the voice

acted website I know him from all of his voice

work and I totally forgot he was in this film,

but I mean His end is probably the most violent

scene or maybe not the most violent but the most

The most blood and gore the most gruesome scene

out of it I guess but even that they're not necessarily

showing it straight on They're showing the effects

of it. So I mean, I just really never got the

violence even with a lot of the other scenes

like especially with with Ving Vinger Ames and

Bruce Willis when they're Getting out of their

predicament. It could have been much more violent

Being desensitized is a good thing to bring up

being you know, and also you compare this like

change you want to change You're like really

they're not even in the same ballpark and it's

interesting. I was watching our interview with

Tarantino with Charlie Rose like in like 1994

when this came out and even mentions like a lot

of the violence happens off -screen and that

and then I think it's just a threat of it like

the knowledge of it happening Maybe people get

so caught up in it They forget that they're not

actually witnessing a lot of the violence and

I wouldn't like you consider this a violent movie

in fact I think it's much more responsible with

the violence it does have than most films because

There's consequences to it. Like you kill someone

in your car you Your story becomes cleaning up

that car. Just so that is something that would

So much be brushed over in so many other films

and then you just see them like later on be like,

wait a second Do you think do you think Tarantino

heard all these complaints about violence and

was like you guys think that was violent Partially

I well he I mean that's been a huge debate with

him like there's There's tons of different conversations

when it comes to violence in movies. And I mean,

that's something we can definitely touch upon.

I think maybe we get into like Hillbill and and

whatnot. And I think in a lot of ways it was

we probably saw it's like, you know what? Going

to call this violent. Let's show you something.

When we get to some of the other genres, I think

it makes a little bit more sense But what's crime

like crimes necessarily? It's a it's always has

violence crimes always have even you know Godfather

to Maltese Falcon has always been like murder

and it's always been a part of it It maybe it

has a little bit more graphic Violence and something

compared to like Maltese Falcons for the time

But I don't necessarily think the the act of

violence or the use of it is any less appropriate

than any of those across pretty insincere if

We're having a story on the subject matter and

there's no violence whatsoever. I don't know

You'd have to do that to make it seem not I don't

know faker insincere like I said now one of the

things that you liked from rose board dogs that

you brought up was the whole idea that There

was somewhat of a mystery to the point where

Tarantino's not showing you everything. He's

not necessarily spelling everything out for you

over the course of that movie. And we brought

it up there and obviously has a part here too

because you have the... the suitcase mystery,

so to speak, that, you know, we never necessarily

find out what's actually in there. So did that

work as well in Pulp Fiction for you as the things

that you like similar to that in Reservoir Dogs?

I will say that the first few times I watched

Pulp Fiction, the briefcase was something I,

I don't know why, I just never really paid that

much attention to. Never really crossed my mind

that it was this key item and I think it works

in the sense that It does create some intrigue

like what you know, what exactly is that? But

I would say a lot of the my interest in it became

After the fact just hearing all the theories

and things like that in in the act of the film

It never was nothing something I truly focused

on honestly it it was there. I saw it blow I'm

like, oh, that's interesting, but I was more

interested in other aspects of the film So that

mystery part of it wasn't really what? gravitated

towards I'm more gravitated towards the mystery

part of it of when you walk into the room and

you see that, you know, Samuel L Jackson and

Travolta are like in shorts and a t -shirt and

like what what what happened with Like that there

was more the mystery of the structure and how

the movie was always ahead of you that I I felt

more I felt more effective than Did you find

yourself yelling at the screen or rolling your

eyes at the decisions that the character of Butch

is making at certain times. He does what he does,

and obviously there's going to be people out

to get him, and he knows that. And the whole

sequence of him having to go back for that watch

is just like, you deserve to die now. What are

you doing? And it was like, it's not even that.

He's going in the house to get the watch. you'd

think, you know, in your head, you're going,

okay, if you're going to do this, you get there,

you grab the watch and you get out. You don't

stop and make pop tarts or you don't do anything

else. So that was just like, you were making

so many wrong choices right now in your life.

What's funny about Pulp Fiction really though,

it's like all the situations that characters

get themselves in are their own doing. It's like

the entire theme of the movie is seeing people

screw up and get themselves deeper into crappy

situations and deeper and deeper and then somehow

try to figure their way out. The Pop -Tart thing,

you know, it's like, okay, that seems a little

bit... Okay, why is it just he's just irresponsible

maybe I don't know Yeah, the Tarantino is like

this guy's just you know, that's him poking fun

with the audience I kind of understand that complaint

where it's like Got to be a point where he at

least makes one smart decision No, it didn't

bother me but it it was just something where

you having a hard time relating to a character

like that, because you're just like, I can't

picture anybody I know doing that. So the thing

is, I could probably picture someone doing that.

Yeah. I also had to point out one thing that

I really appreciated that I'd never caught the

first time or the first partial times that I

was watching this film. But I really love the

fact that Steve Buscemi is a waiter at that.

50s location given the fact of his whole speech

and res war talks I didn't even put that the

two and two together, but that is I'm hoping

that was intentional I'm sure it was pretty stickler

for details, but I wonder if he I wonder if they

What other things that you want to bring up about

this film that did you have any nitpicks we have

anything that you don't like about it It's hard

to say. I mean the only thing that kind of the

one segment. I feel is the weakest It's really

portion of a segment. It's which is Segment when

he's in the hotel room with yeah is with his

girlfriend I just like that to me was just the

weakest part of it just because I felt like it

just maybe went on for a little bit too long

And it didn't have the same type of energy didn't

have the same type of reward or payoff either

No, no, it felt like it was just Getting him

to that aspect of getting his watch back. I was

actually more mad at her When he was trying to

get her to get on the bike Like no like you need

to get on the bike right now like listen to this

guy Yeah, I agree with you. I think that was

that was probably the weakest weakest segment

if I had to pick one What did you feel I'm not

not trying to sidetrack but that that made me

think of? Obviously the different segmenting

of the stories. What did you feel about the the

putting up? the text on the screen to show you

that we're telling this story now and that Do

you think that was something that was necessary?

Did it bother you? Did you like it? I think it

fits completely with the mold of what the movie

is considering it being pulp fiction and Originally

when it was being created The original idea was

an anthology film that was his first idea was

doing that so I think it it's still very much

an anthology film, but it's an anthology film

that exists within itself and it's And the structure

of it and Tarantino he makes this point where

he says instructor is really very commonplace

when you look at something like a like a like

a novel it's that happens all the time in novels

but it's different for films and you think of

novels they you know their chapter base and each

chapter has a title often so I think it makes

a lot of sense I think it perfectly fits considering

where the idea came from this Talking about motifs

his kind of trademark. He that's he always does

segment his movies and give each segment Don't

title get you an idea of what exactly we're we're

focusing on. Right. And since this is a Tarantino

retrospective, I think we should obviously mention

a little bit about, you know, this is a second

film and he goes from what we talked about last

time with Reservoir Dogs, which is obviously

something that was very limited release, very

small presence in the theater, etc. And then

we get this one, which makes one hundred and

seven million dollars. on a eight million dollar

budget. And five million of those dollars were

just to pay for it. Yeah, that's impressive.

So I mean, can you think off the top of your

head of any director that has had such a stark

difference between one film and the next? That

might be something we have to come back to as

we go through the retrospective, but man, going

from Such a small film at the time in Reservoir

Dogs to something like this that we're not just

talking about a Wider release we're talking about

a hundred seven million dollars at the box office

Academy Awards You know nominees and nominations

and wins up the you know up and down the whole

thing like The only like one that kind of comes

to mind it's not nearly to the same level as

Pulp Fiction and It's an actor the director was

actually had a few films and that was like Nicholas

wounding my friend like he had You know, he was

directing a lot of foreign films. He had like

The Hall of Rising, which in like Bronson, a

lot of really smaller, you know, non -commercial

hits, and then he created Drive, which, you know,

financially wasn't the biggest success in the

world, but I think it certainly had a lot of,

uh, huge impact within the movie culture, more

so than anything he did before. Uh, so I, that's

the one I think of, like, and then you have that

documentary where... where he struggles with

what to do next. So that's the only one that

I can kind of think of. Right. We'll have to

do some brainstorming and see what we come up

with over the course of the next few episodes,

but I think it's definitely an impressive feat.

Just a few more stats for you. It came in 10th

at the box office in 1994. So $107 million in

1994 was good enough for 10th, Dan. That is not

something we'd be used to with our box office

predictions in the last couple years It was the

little bit of trivia here, too It was the third

highest grossing film of the year if you take

out and just look at the rated -r films Now not

to try to put you on the spot, but can you have

any guess at what rated -r films made more money

than it in 1994? They were in the top ten but

man I would never come up with these, actually.

The two rated -R films that did better than Pulp

Fiction would have been True Lies and Speed.

So, third as far as rated -R films, tenth overall

in 1994, but man, definitely a feat there, but

it wasn't just about the money. Obviously, we

all know how well it's done critically. It's

on every type of top list you've ever seen on

the internet, from AFI to IMDB to Rotten Tomatoes

to, I don't know, every other publication that

puts out a top movie list. It's on there somewhere,

I guarantee it. And what's kind of interesting,

too, I was listening to an interview with Robert

Rodriguez. He interviewed Quentin Tarantino.

I think this is kind of important to bring up

in the sense of... how you never really know

what you have until you kind of see the impact

it has on people and Tarantino was talking about

after you meet pole fiction like he showed it

to a lot of people and a lot of people didn't

think it was going to be that great like a lot

of his director friends had a lot of not negative

things to say but didn't really know what he

had and one of the few people that actually kind

of was a early proponent of it was Catherine

Bigelow and you know showed James Cameron of

course and like And a lot of people were worried

that, you know, maybe Pulp Fiction is going to

be the thing that hurts his career, but then

it premieres at Cannes, wins the Palme d 'Or,

and, you know, the rest is history. But even

Tarantino himself didn't know what he had. So

I think that, like, I hear people talk about

Refin, like he had the documentary where he talked

about his movie, Only God Forgives, and he didn't

know what he exactly had there. I think that's

a common place for a lot of directors. And when

you create something like a movie and how it's...

Really can't really appreciate something maybe

in the moment as much I think too It'd be hard

to see something from an outside standpoint if

you were totally invested in your film like you're

just in that world It's it's it's everything

you're living breathing eating and you know,

that's all that's going on So I think it's very

it would be very hard just for any general like

human nature to be able to step outside of that

and say How is someone else gonna view that because

it's a project of passion there should be at

that point. Yeah if you're a director that's

worth it. Sometimes you think something's gonna

be like amazing and it's like a dud and so I

think I think some people get caught up with

that and they hear like directors say well he

didn't know what he had it's like well you never

really sometimes what was it was a paramount

that passed on this or tristar I believe I knew

there was at least one studio that had it had

a chance with it and passed it up after they

read the script so What was kind of interesting

too with it winning the Palme d 'Or was that

there was some controversy there. The three color

trilogy is one of the two years prior. They had

blue one and then white one and then the red

came out that year too and a lot of people thought

that was gonna win again being like three years

in a row the same director winning but then whole

fiction won and Clint Eastwood was the Head judge

at the time so some people wondered if it was

just you know He wanted the American film the

win over the the foreign film or what have you

I mean, I think I like both films I I would say

I think both fixing better movie than the blue.

I love the three college children not blue, but

uh red it's intriguing how How there's some controversy

there when it comes to it winning an award though.

I think Considering how beloved it is. I don't

think it's that And would you also say that it

was more deserving than Forrest Gump? I would

say so. I like Forrest Gump. I think it's a good

movie for sure, but I think Pulp Fiction is certainly

a better film. I'm going to agree with you on

that one. I definitely think it's one of those

where you kind of look back and say, well, maybe

we got this one wrong. I mean, 94 was a stacked

year when it came out. Yeah, Shawshank Redemption

out there, too. I did have one question for you,

and we kind of touched upon this, too, with the

briefcase. And there's a lot of theories out

there. Do you have a feeling of what you think

is actually inside the briefcase? Man, I've heard

so many different things. I really think that

I got to go with. with the way that Tarantino

answered that. I don't have something personally

because I just want it to be whatever. It's whatever

your mood at the time wants it to be. I don't

want to know. I don't want to know what was in

there. I'm going to go against it being... thing

rames his soul yeah i feel that's funny because

i think that's kind of those one of those theories

too that people take so many things out of context

or like he had a bandaid in the back of his head

so that means he gets sucked out his soul from

the it's like that's what i was reading i'm like

that's got to be the dumbest theory out of all

the ones that hurt and they're like no just because

he had a mole there it's like that's really that's

just bad i i i read somewhere that it was like

a scar or something yeah something like that

didn't want Yeah to be seen and then he focuses

right on it on that shot. It's just like I don't

know about that. But yeah, I I've heard kind

of like mystery Yeah, some of my favorite ones

are like at the ear from reservoir dogs, which

makes no sense But that's kind of funny. I heard

diet the diamonds from reservoir dog Yeah, that's

that I kind of I could if I had to pick something

I'd go with that because I like the idea of like

them like kind of existing within the same realm

You know being connected in that way But I agree.

I think I think it ultimately it doesn't matter

and I just like the idea that it isn't it just

it's just whatever I know some people that that

absolutely drives them nuts like especially like

a When a lot of films have that ambiguous ending

where you don't necessarily know if someone lives

or dies or if they Whatever it might be that

the decision is and and people go crazy with

that stuff But most of the time I don't mind

it if it's done, right? Speaking of endings.

I know this doesn't actually kind of have it

Typical ending because of the structure. We haven't

talked about the structure month So maybe we

just touch upon this a little bit. You know,

it's nonlinear obviously Do you feel like there's

that it's just a style choice. Do you think it's

actually it enhances the film? You know, would

it would it be just as good if they were to kind

of flip it around and make it a linear story

or does it actually enhance the experience? I

honestly don't think it would would be as effective

if it was linear I can't like back that up with

like a great thesis or anything like that, but

I like seeing them at different stages and then

being able to kind of put the pieces together

as far as what has got them this point. Like

even talking about Jules, his arc and seeing

him at different stages and being able to be

like, okay, well that makes sense with this or

that goes in that order. Like I like that. I

mean, I guess ultimately it somewhat is a style

choice, but I think as far as when your movie

is so much about the characters and When you're

just really getting in depth or character depth

on so many people I don't think it matters what

order you see things in something that's so so

focused on characters what I like about it doing

it this way is that it stays ahead of you as

as an audience. The movie's ahead of the audience

because you don't necessarily ever really know

where you're at. Even when, you know, because

you see a certain situation and a character gets

killed and like but they're in the next scene

so it kind of discombobulates you in that way

where you know there's people who like to kind

of predict what's coming next you know doing

like do like what's going on but it's like it's

harder to do that because the movie is Giving

you information when it wants to so it's always

ahead of you until that final scene Where you

catch up with it and it all kind of just makes

sense That couple that you saw in the beginning

that you maybe even forgot all about and suddenly

you see the the diner you're like, oh Oh, and

it all starts it's like that aha moment and this

has a lot of those aha moments that Tarantino

does and I think those aha moments do enhance

the experience like I said with seeing you know

jewels in different Tarantino and in their t

-shirt and shorts So you're like what why does

he have that weird shirt on and then you see

oh aha There's where that's coming from. So I

think those those are effective. So I think just

doing it You know from beginning to end what

it would really really hurt it or even Or if

they did it like they originally he originally

had the idea of doing an anthology I think it'd

still be good, but not nearly as as memorable

as it is doing it this way You know we almost

left out one scene that I think we should probably

touch on real quick and I I didn't think about

what we were talking about the violence or though

or the gruesome factor or whatever, but I think

the scene that makes me want to turn my head

the most is the resuscitation of Uma Thurman.

That is hard to watch. And even rewatching the

scene, or in the most recent rewatch, Amanda

and I both almost had to turn our heads and something

I didn't realize, I was kind of reading up on

that scene a little bit and I didn't know that

they did that in reverse. Yeah. And that's interesting

because The immediate conversation I was having

about that scene right after watching it is I

don't know if I could ever trust myself to hit

the target. Like I was telling her I'd have to

put like like a metal or like an aluminum cover

and like just cut out a hole. It'd be like three

hours later and I'd be like all right I'm ready

to do this. I wouldn't miss terribly I would

like Go for it and like hit them in the eye.

Like I just punctured their lung. Damn it I would

be completely out out of it like like I wasn't

even close They said if you uh, if you slow it

down enough, you can see that uh You can tell

that it was done in reverse because if you if

you slow down you can see that the mark's not

there or something I don't know but uh definitely

a clever way that they filmed that one but that

that one made me turn away a little bit yeah

something about needles especially in the heart

it just the uh just it's just picturing yourself

in that moment or even you being the people like

the other people witnessing that it would just

be so I don't know it'd be freaky yeah uh anything

else you wanted to bring up any questions or

anything like that I did have two questions for

you okay one I guess they're both pretty pretty

uh laid -back questions, but are you a Martin

and Lewis guy or an Amos Nandy? Martin and Lewis,

I like vanilla. I'm with you on that one too.

I think I thought that was great. Great way to

do that. And I didn't even think about it when

I'm watching. I didn't even question, what did

he just ask him? What is the possible meaning

of this question? The only reason I knew what

that was is because I had the DVD version of

it, like a special edition, which had a menu

from that actual restaurant and I would read

through it. But I thought that was clever writing.

And then, of course, the other question would

be, are you an Elvis or a Beatles person? Beatles,

for sure. I probably would go Elvis. Really?

I don't know why. I think it was because I was

raised in a home. kind of like Barry from True

Bromance that I wasn't exposed to rock and roll

so I had to be watching like old or listening

to old country music or like folk music or stuff

like that so I think I just had more exposure

to Elvis as a child than I did Beatles. Yeah

I think I probably more exposure to Elvis but

it was his like Christian music which was not

yeah so that turned me on I had the opposite

effect but yeah I like the Beatles. All right.

I don't think I have any other questions. I don't

have any deep things this one. I just had two

simple ones. That works. But I guess one question

we didn't touch upon. We have sung its praises

and we didn't give any type of rating. I know

it seems moot at this point, but I think it's

at least as we're going through this, maybe something

to keep track of. So I think you gave Reservoir

Dogs an eight. So I'm curious to see what you

would give Pulp Fiction. Man, yeah, I gave Reservoir

Dogs an 8 on the first watch, and then I said

maybe possibly down to a 7 .5 afterwards, but

I think 8 was where I was at with that one. And

if you would have asked me at any other point

in my life if I was going to rank Pulp Fiction

higher than Reservoir Dogs, I would have said

no. But after this most recent rewatch, it did

improve. on my perception of it, and I would

actually put it ahead of Reservoir Dogs now.

So I will go to, I guess, eight and a half, nine

range. I'm not going to give it a 10, but I will

probably put it right there, nine out of 10 for

me for Pulp Fiction, which is a higher grade

than I would have ever given this ever before.

I'll go 10 out of 10. I'm not going to lie. Like

I said, it's one of my favorite films of all

time, probably my top 10. I think it's one of

the best films of the 90s. Maybe the best, you

know, within the last 20 years or so, definitely

one of the best for sure. So do you rank it above

or below Jurassic Park? As a as a quality film

or as a personal favorite? Both. I think Pulp

Fiction is definitely a better made movie for

sure. Overall, if I was like saying like which

one deserves like the Oscar, I would go with.

definitely go with Pulp Fiction. But as a personal

favorite, just Jurassic Park is like the movie

that I would rank higher simply because it has

that little special place in my heart where it

made me fall in love with movies. So very different

experiences. Yeah. So both very positive on Reservoir

Dogs, both very positive on Pulp Fiction so far.

So the retrospective is positive. Which is going

to be interesting when we get into Jackie Brown,

because I think if all his films maybe Maybe

with that's proof being the the exception one

life you had there's the highest amount of debate

about and I think also this will mark the the

different experience for me because I have the

book and so I had seen reservoir dogs and pulp

fiction prior to this and now we're entering

unknown territory for the middle section of this

retrospective because I will not have seen Another

film prior to this until we get into the inglorious

bastards and Django movies. So so this would

be this would be fun. Yeah I've only seen like

Jackie Brown once or twice. So again, it's one

of probably the ones I've seen the least out

of his filmography. So I'm really looking forward

to going back and you watching that, especially

when getting to learn more about it than I currently

do at the moment in time. So that should be a

little fun record, I think. A lot of fun discussion

there. We'd be curious to hear what you guys

think of The Retro Slector so far. If you can

share your thoughts on Quentin Tarantino, Pulp

Fiction, and you can do that by getting in contact

with us in a number of ways. You can email us

at feedback at geekcastradio .com. We're on Twitter

as well, just at cinemageekcast .geekcastradio

is also on Facebook at geekcastradio. Also, we're

personally on Twitter, and Kev, what's your Twitter

name? It's at Optimus Solo. It's the greatest

character in my childhood. And I am at my rear

-hold. I didn't realize till now where the solo

came from. Because I'm always by myself. Not

true anymore. I thought it was a Transformers

character. Han Solo. Optimus Prime 5 and Han

Solo. The mystery has been resolved. For everybody.

And I don't know where my Twitter name came from.

I like it though. Yeah. All righty, but yeah,

so we look forward to seeing you guys next week

when we get into the nitty -gritty of Jackie

Brown But thanks for listening and we'll catch

you next time