Review of the Reviews

Pulp Fiction

Positive
By Desson Howe
Washington Post Staff Writer 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/pulpfictionrhowe_a01b66.htm

NegativeBy Stanley KauffmannNew Republic Critic
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/film/shooting#

Howe's review is organized so that the his opinion of the movie is the first piece of information given to the reader. He then continues on to talk about the acting, plot and writing. He is very quick and to the point with his information, however he does make a lot of references to other directors and other movies which is hit and miss with its potency. The review is very lighthearted and positive which ironically contrasts with the nature of the film. His main focus is actually on the director. Howe states that although his last two movies are  great films they are very similar in subject and he should avoid this topic to stay fresh.

Kauffmann's review doesn't talk about his opinion of the movie until midway through the review, he spends the first half talking about who Tarantino is and his life story. The author uses really long winded statements to reach fairly mute points, which makes the entire thing very hard to read. Also, most of his strikes against the movie are because of minor errors, two of which don't actually exist, or that the movie that has "fiction" in the title is slightly far fetched. He does make lots of references but they were to books that I have not read. His over focus is on how awful Tarantino is as a director but it comes off as fairly weak in its criticisms.

I agree with Howe.“PULP FICTION is everything it’s said to be: brilliant and brutal, funny and exhilarating, jaw-droppingly cruel and disarmingly sweet. Quentin Tarantino, the postmodern Boy Wonder of American crass culture, for whom the only thing to fear is boredom itself, has produced a work of mesmerizing entertainment. To watch this movie (whose 2 1/2 hours speed by unnoticed) is to experience a near-assault of creativity."  I really enjoyed the movie because it constantly provoked me and kept me on the edge of my seat during every scene. All of the dialogue was quick and witty and very funny. The acting was great by everyone in the cast which is rare. Plus the overall structure of the plot actually adds to the depth of the movie because every scene is disconnected from the next either because of time or characters, but they all weave together by the end to create a linear plot.


Again Howe's would be more convincing. He is quick to the point with each of his praises and slight criticisms where as Kauffmann takes a paragraph for each of his criticisms. This is key for me because if I want to read a review of a movie I don't want to find out the entire plot and back story of the director before you tell me if you think it is good or not. A review is supposed to be I thought-x because of-y, not a three page paper. I think it is valid points of praise or criticism based on fundamental parts of the film. Saying a movie sucks because it has a clerical error is kind of like saying the "I Have a Dream" speech by MLK sucks because he doesn't use perfect grammar. They are very minor in comparison to everything else in the film.

If I were to write a review of a film, I would keep it short and to the point. All I am doing is putting in my two cents, I am not writing a thesis paper on the movie. Also, all of my points would be about major factors to the film such as acting, writing, directing, cinematography, and plot/themes. People don't need to know that at one point the lighting changed from dusk to night 5 minutes faster than it does in real life.

I would avoid giving away too many plot points, it ruins the movie for those who haven't seen it. Also, I would never include funny or important dialogue because it ruins the significance or humor if you as the audience already know what is about to happen. Both of these critics made these mistakes, which was actually annoying. Lastly, I would let the reader know my opinion first and then give the evidence for my criticisms because that makes it much easier to understand the review as a whole.