So many classic lines and characters. Although Samuel L. Jackson's famous quotation of the bible verse before he kills his marks is only slightly accurate and mostly fabricated, I can forgive it. I want to go to Paris to get a Royale with cheese every time I see that movie.

It's not for everyone. . .it shouldn't be on the top of this list. . .but this film's script is so sharp and fearless. . .Hollywood doesn't have the guts or brains to make a film this violent or edgy anymore. . .as "fiction" ages you can notice the films that try to capture its energy and wit and fail miserably. And a foot massage is in the f#cking ballpark, man. . .

It was good, but I would agree that "Resevoir Dogs" was much better. With an honorable mention for "I just shot Marvin in the face", the Bruce Willis part was the highlight for me, but his girlfriend in the movie was like fingernails on a chalkboard. It had more than it's share of moments I suppose, but ultimately overrated. It's actually the last movie of Tarantino's I liked much at all. He was given legend status far too soon, in my opinion.

Good, but not great. If Tarantino does have a "masterpiece" in his cinematic canon, then it is, in my humble opinion, "Reservoir Dogs". "Pulp Fiction" was a little too uneven to qualify for the status of "classic" although it is certainly entertaining (at least for the most part it is). Tarantino, by this point, had gotten carried away with his own recently-acquired reputation for writing gritty, clever dialogue that sounded as if it might be "genuine" criminal lingo, and too much of "Pulp Fiction" strayed into pretentiousness. Also, too many sections of the film were dull and plodding. Still, there are numerous bright spots throughout the picture, and it does have the capacity to shock. Bruce Willis was a revelation for me. He was perfect as the tired, cynical but basically decent boxer enmeshed in "difficulties" that no normal human being should have to experience. Every time Uma Thurman appeared on screen, she kept your eyes glued on her. Samuel Jackson, as always, was magnetic, even when he wasn't totally convincing as the messianic hitman (again, more the fault of the dialogue as written by Tarantino than Jackson's admittedly immense acting talent). John Travolta's role as Jackson's partner-in-crime was the one that revived his moribund career, and I'm not entirely sure why. He was ok in the role, but it didn't require any great demonstration of acting ability; nearly any half-way proficient actor could have done as well, if not better. Christopher Walken, in a cameo part, is hilarious. Unfortunately, the slow spots are very slow (the whole subplot with the girlfriend of Bruce Willis, as I remember it, nearly put me to sleep). I don't think of Tarantino as any kind of cinematic genius, but I thought "Reservoir Dogs" was a near-perfect little gem in the non-linear way it was constructed, and the dialogue, whether truly authentic or not (I doubt it was, but then I've never been a jewel thief or a gunman), worked in an updated cheesy-Mickey-Spillane-sort-of-way. "Pulp Fiction" isn't nearly as good, but it is still a very effective, often exciting, occasionally exhilerating crime thriller, and considering the horrible crap being foisted continuously on the American public by Hollywood (and Madison Avenue, and the music industry, and the publishing industry, and...etc. etc.), it's still well worth seeing. Check out "Reservoir Dogs" first though (and then rent "Bad Lieutenant" with an absolutely mesmerizing Harvey Keitel in the lead role).

I'll go out on a limb here and say that it is a very good movie although burdened by the weight of its reputation.  It is loaded with clever ideas, tight dialogue and an imaginative narrative.  And it is highly stylized and cool looking.  It made for a decent night out at the movies.  There are knocks to be made for its trivialization of violence and crime, but that is a complaint that can be leveled at half of what comes out of Hollywood.  For a couple of years after this film came out Tarantino was almost universally hailed as the great fresh voice in the world of fim.  It was a near impossible feat to live up to the hype, but I also think he failed to capitalize on the golden ticket he had been given.  He made a srting of films derivitive of his own work and the work of his great influences.  Fifteen years (almost) later, I think the hype has cooled to the point that the film can be viewed with objective eyes and I think it would probably look pretty good.

The chattering classes including the critics keep telling us this trash is great! What in the world is going on? When I watched this, I didn't leave the theater early since I was with a group. I asked members of the audience when we left the theater what was their reaction. Stinko and terrible was the answer. I guess if a director has slash and splatter, that is great, to the current critics..

I agree JW, I didn't care much for the movie , and I never understood what all the fuss was about. I don't mind flashbacks, but chronologicaly, it was just too confusing and ubsettling for me. I thought I was the only one who felt this way.

I like these kinds of movies but not this-or Tarantino's other dreck of a movie Reservoir Dogs. I think Tarantino is the most overrated director ,ever.

I agree, I don't see the big deal about Tarantino? This movie was horrible. Don't get me started on the Kill Bill's.

A complete waste of time and money. Quentin Tarantino is by far the country's worst movie director...it would take a really horrible person to replace him on the bottom...

Quinton Tarantino couldn't direct a piece of paper, much less a movie, successfully. An offensive waste of time.