Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 51:24 — 29.4MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
Do you know what they call a podcast in France? Well why you ponder that question why not check out the latest edition to our Quentin Tarantino Retrospective as we review Pulp Fiction. Has it become a victim of its own success? Is it the film making masterpiece so many make it out to be? Will we ever find out what was in the briefcase? We answer those questions and so much more.
Geeks:
Kevin @OptimusSolo
Dan @MovieRevolt
Guys this have been fantastic so far. I have seen most of QT’s stuff and enjoyed it but would never consider myself a super fan of his. I did go back and watch Pulp and have to agree though that it is so much better than I gave it credit for. I like it mind you. I didn’t love it. Seeing it this time though I picked up on so much I didn’t see before. Especially how the structure makes it more enjoyable.
Sounds like we had similar re-watch experiences. Glad you are liking the series so far! Hope you continue liking it as much! I am loving doing these episodes!
Guys this have been fantastic so far. I have seen most of QT’s stuff and enjoyed it but would never consider myself a super fan of his. I did go back and watch Pulp and have to agree though that it is so much better than I gave it credit for. I like it mind you. I didn’t love it. Seeing it this time though I picked up on so much I didn’t see before. Especially how the structure makes it more enjoyable.
Sounds like we had similar re-watch experiences. Glad you are liking the series so far! Hope you continue liking it as much! I am loving doing these episodes!
Where do you rank Pulp Fiction as a 90’s movie? Shawshank Redemption is rated most highly here on IMDb. Braveheart is always a fan favorite. Fargo is one of the great crime stories of all time; not to mention Goodfellas which also shares in that accord. The Matrix is one of the great cross genre films.
Where does Pulp Fiction rank among the titans of that decade?
That’s a good question, we may have to tackle that on a whole episode! Hard to do quickly!
I’d love to hear it.
I say it has to be in the Top 5 which makes me wonder how Kevin only give it a 9? Come on now it’s a 10 no doubt. What’s holding it back for only being a 9?
I’ve been questioning myself on that lately. I am in the process of starting to compile my Top 100 of All-Time. I’m wondering how many 10’s I will give out. In 63 episodes so far I’m pretty sure I have given out less than 5, perfect 10 scores. Possibly Whiplash, 12 Years a Slave and Her. Pulp Fiction is close but I still have it at a 9. I’ll try to dissect why for you as soon as I get some free time!
So you are saying a movie might make your top 50 of all time
and not be a perfect score? Out of all the movies you watch it makes its way to the top 50. But not enough for a perfect score? What more can a movie do to make it a full 10? Pay your taxes? Maybe buy you lunch? To me it sounds like you are trying to elevate their rankings of movies and act like when they give a ten it means something special.
I think you may be getting caught up in semantics a little bit. You think giving a ten should NOT mean something special? This is too much like the whole ‘everyone is a winner’ give medals out for participation mentality that our culture unfortunately has adopted. To me a perfect 10 out of 10 absolutely should mean something special. It’s the equivalent in sports of a player being a hall of famer. That shouldn’t be given out everytime we come across a good or temporarily great player. It should be the best of the best. I have no problem giving out a dozen perfect scores in a year IF it’s warranted. Its not like we have some artificial quota of we can only give out ‘x’ number of 10’s, ‘x’ number of 9’s etc etc. If a film warrants a 10 I’ll give it a 10. Maybe this year there are twelve perfect 10 scores maybe next year there are 2. I’m still only going to give it out to a film that I think is extra special and elevates itself from the rest.
I feel people today. That includes fans and critics alike are way too precious with perfect scores. Except those who give perfect scores for everything. I have a book of 800 movies Roger Ebert gave four stars to over a forty year span or so. Which is about 20 movies a year which I feel is fair. This one or two perfect scores a year thing is people thinking being a good critic is about not awarding a high score.
I don’t think that’s entirely true. Did you listen to our episode on how we rate things? I view a perfect score as a symbol that a movie is perfect. Very very few things in life (literally nothing in reality) is perfect. It has nothing to do with me trying to make myself sound like a more legit critic etc.
The term perfect shouldn’t apply to a movie or form of art really in my opinion. When you say a movie has to be perfect to get a perfect
score I get the sense someone is starting out with a basic score and taking points off whenever some sort of mistake happens, and if no mistakes you get a perfect score. Is a movie more memorable because it doesn’t make mistakes, compared to a movie that has ambition and goes for broke? To me a rating should be on how the movie makes you feel. Not everything you love is going to be perfect. When is the last time you heard someone talk about an all time great and used the word perfect as a reason why its great?
I both agree and disagree with some of your points. How many movies since 2010 do you think de serve 10 out of 10 scores? ( which fyi I think is much different than 4 out of 4 or 5 out of 5)
I’ve gone back and forth on it. Overall if I feel a movie deserves a five star rating or whatever perfect score you want to give it I’ll award it such. I don’t believe giving that rating means you are saying its perfect because then you could never use it because no movie is perfect.
I do agree people are too precious with their ratings. And to only use a perfect score once or twice every couple of years is kind of ridiculous. It’s a lot of, “This movie is great and amazing in every way, I can’t really find any faults with it at all. 4.5/5”.
But on the other hand, its like if I give this movie a 5 am I also placing it with the all time greats like Pulp Fiction. Most often not so then it becomes a challenge of how you separate the greats from the all time greats.
Ebert did watch a lot more movies than we do so percentage wise we are probably about the same. But I think what Ebert realized, what most of people of today don’t, is that ratings should be differentiated based upon what the movie is doing. He’d give a genre film a perfect score if it was a great genre film.
But today people will say you gave this movie five stars this one three so you think this movie is better than that movie when that’s not always the case. So the problem is in perception a lot of time times. Which is why I think ranking movies does become important. Gives a better perspective on how you overall feel about a movie compared to its peers.
Okay that’s a bad example. A better example would be a few years ago I gave Lincoln the rating of four stars and the remake of Red Dawn 3.5. Does that mean Lincoln is only a half star better than Red Dawn? No, because the rating is based on the type of film.
Where do you rank Pulp Fiction as a 90’s movie? Shawshank Redemption is rated most highly here on IMDb. Braveheart is always a fan favorite. Fargo is one of the great crime stories of all time; not to mention Goodfellas which also shares in that accord. The Matrix is one of the great cross genre films.
Where does Pulp Fiction rank among the titans of that decade?
That’s a good question, we may have to tackle that on a whole episode! Hard to do quickly!
I’d love to hear it.
I say it has to be in the Top 5 which makes me wonder how Kevin only give it a 9? Come on now it’s a 10 no doubt. What’s holding it back for only being a 9?
I’ve been questioning myself on that lately. I am in the process of starting to compile my Top 100 of All-Time. I’m wondering how many 10’s I will give out. In 63 episodes so far I’m pretty sure I have given out less than 5, perfect 10 scores. Possibly Whiplash, 12 Years a Slave and Her. Pulp Fiction is close but I still have it at a 9. I’ll try to dissect why for you as soon as I get some free time!
So you are saying a movie might make your top 50 of all time
and not be a perfect score? Out of all the movies you watch it makes its way to the top 50. But not enough for a perfect score? What more can a movie do to make it a full 10? Pay your taxes? Maybe buy you lunch? To me it sounds like you are trying to elevate their rankings of movies and act like when they give a ten it means something special.
I think you may be getting caught up in semantics a little bit. You think giving a ten should NOT mean something special? This is too much like the whole ‘everyone is a winner’ give medals out for participation mentality that our culture unfortunately has adopted. To me a perfect 10 out of 10 absolutely should mean something special. It’s the equivalent in sports of a player being a hall of famer. That shouldn’t be given out everytime we come across a good or temporarily great player. It should be the best of the best. I have no problem giving out a dozen perfect scores in a year IF it’s warranted. Its not like we have some artificial quota of we can only give out ‘x’ number of 10’s, ‘x’ number of 9’s etc etc. If a film warrants a 10 I’ll give it a 10. Maybe this year there are twelve perfect 10 scores maybe next year there are 2. I’m still only going to give it out to a film that I think is extra special and elevates itself from the rest.
Maybe that’s the difference. I don’t equate a overall rating with how much I like a movie. Which I know sounds weird. My rating is about the quality of the film. For example Sandlot is one of my all time favorite movies, but I wouldn’t give it five stars or a perfect ten. I have a personal connection to it, but I realize when it comes to film making its not in the top echelon.
I agree with @optimussolo:disqus. 5 stars should be reserved for truly great films. Some years may not have a 5 star movie. Some may have a few. Either way a 5 star rating should indicate a movie is super special.
I feel people today. That includes fans and critics alike are way too precious with perfect scores. Except those who give perfect scores for everything. I have a book of 800 movies Roger Ebert gave four stars to over a forty year span or so. Which is about 20 movies a year which I feel is fair. This one or two perfect scores a year thing is people thinking being a good critic is about not awarding a high score.
I don’t think that’s entirely true. Did you listen to our episode on how we rate things? I view a perfect score as a symbol that a movie is perfect. Very very few things in life (literally nothing in reality) is perfect. It has nothing to do with me trying to make myself sound like a more legit critic etc.
The term perfect shouldn’t apply to a movie or form of art really in my opinion. When you say a movie has to be perfect to get a perfect
score I get the sense someone is starting out with a basic score and taking points off whenever some sort of mistake happens, and if no mistakes you get a perfect score. Is a movie more memorable because it doesn’t make mistakes, compared to a movie that has ambition and goes for broke? To me a rating should be on how the movie makes you feel. Not everything you love is going to be perfect. When is the last time you heard someone talk about an all time great and used the word perfect as a reason why its great?
I both agree and disagree with some of your points. How many movies since 2010 do you think de serve 10 out of 10 scores? ( which fyi I think is much different than 4 out of 4 or 5 out of 5)
I’ve gone back and forth on it. Overall if I feel a movie deserves a five star rating or whatever perfect score you want to give it I’ll award it such. I don’t believe giving that rating means you are saying its perfect because then you could never use it because no movie is perfect.
I do agree people are too precious with their ratings. And to only use a perfect score once or twice every couple of years is kind of ridiculous. It’s a lot of, “This movie is great and amazing in every way, I can’t really find any faults with it at all. 4.5/5”.
But on the other hand, its like if I give this movie a 5 am I also placing it with the all time greats like Pulp Fiction. Most often not so then it becomes a challenge of how you separate the greats from the all time greats.
Ebert did watch a lot more movies than we do so percentage wise we are probably about the same. But I think what Ebert realized, what most of people of today don’t, is that ratings should be differentiated based upon what the movie is doing. He’d give a genre film a perfect score if it was a great genre film.
But today people will say you gave this movie five stars this one three so you think this movie is better than that movie when that’s not always the case. So the problem is in perception a lot of time times. Which is why I think ranking movies does become important. Gives a better perspective on how you overall feel about a movie compared to its peers.
So you are saying you would give one movie a five and another a three but actually like the three more?
Okay that’s a bad example. A better example would be a few years ago I gave Lincoln the rating of four stars and the remake of Red Dawn 3.5. Does that mean Lincoln is only a half star better than Red Dawn? No, because the rating is based on the type of film.