Response to Pulp Fiction Review

Response to Pulp Fiction Review
James Berardinelli, author of over 3,300 movie reviews, has a good deal of experience in watching movies. So when James Berardinelli watches a movie, it’s a good bet that he knows what he is watching for. If a movie is meant to be a comedy, Berardinelli will view it through a non-serious, untraditional scope. He understands what the director wants to accomplish with his film.
When I first saw Pulp Fiction, I was fascinated. All I had previously known was that the movie was, by public perception, very good. Full of twists and turns; drama, mystery, murder, and crime; yet also humor and spontaneity, Pulp Fiction seemingly dominated every genre one movie could possibly contain. With so many differing elements, I didn’t know what to make of it. As full of excitement as it was, I wasn’t sure I had enjoyed the radical chaos.
Berardinelli begins his review of Pulp Fiction by clearly stating his viewpoint that Director Quentin Tarantino created a classic and lived up to “expectations that are invariably high.” He then explains the layout of the movie (a three-part story with interwoven subplots) in a clear manner, which, even though I hadn’t seen the movie in roughly a year, helped recall my memory and even answer some questions the chaos had created. Although he spends a good portion of his review explaining the plot, Berardinelli takes into account that the common audience, myself included, may be left in the dust by the spontaneity and suddenness of transpiring events in Pulp Fiction. Thus, his review is justified in its lengthy demonstration of Tarantino’s three-part story.
After reading Berardinelli’s review, I gained an understanding of the purpose of Pulp Fiction that had been sorely lacking in my prior judgment of the movie. Throughout the review, Berardinelli emphasizes the humor embedded in Pulp Fiction: “vulgarity-laced monologues and conversations ripple with humor and are ripe with points to ponder…he presents meaningless issues in an intensely-fascinating and almost lyrical fashion.” Indeed, when I had watched Pulp Fiction, I was watching with an ear for the serious ton, realistic monologues, underlying messages and an overall theme. While I was ready for the vulgarity, I was lost in the meaninglessness of the conversations, especially because every situation, dependent on these conversations, posed life-or-death consequences. This is why it didn’t make sense to me at first: I hadn’t realized that Tarantino is completely mocking present day government-gang relations, and at no moment of the movie are the situations presented supposed to be serious, although the characters’ tones may seem otherwise.
I was somewhat foolish in trying to take a movie titled Pulp Fiction as a realistic film. James Berardinelli opened my eyes to what Pulp Fiction really portrayed. Instead, it is indeed filled to the brim with juicy, pulpy action, and, within the realm of the possible, it’s so ultimately unrealistic that it can be reduced to fiction. Because the film is not to be taken seriously, one must keep in mind that the random, tiny details and events do not mean anything whatsoever; instead of analyzing the film, as Berardinelli relates, just sit back and enjoy the hilarity that ensues. There are no themes or important underlying messages; it’s just a completely entertaining thriller. Without even rewatching the movie a second time, I now view it as one of my favorites, solely because Berardinelli’s review helped me understand Tarantino’s purpose.