Gladys Hamilton (Seattle) i was told that I can migos Pulp Fiction free download, but I did not believe, especially the year 1994 New York. Michael Whitehead (Lexington) Quentin Tarantino Pulp Fiction free download Bluray at high speed, and even in the USA Cambridge.
Pulp Fiction
Year:
1994
Country:
USA
Genre:
Crime, Drama, Thriller
IMDB rating:
8.9
Director:
Quentin Tarantino
John Travolta as Vincent Vega
Samuel L. Jackson as Jules Winnfield
Tim Roth as Pumpkin - Ringo
Amanda Plummer as Honey Bunny - Yolanda
Eric Stoltz as Lance
Bruce Willis as Butch Coolidge
Ving Rhames as Marsellus Wallace
Phil LaMarr as Marvin
Maria de Medeiros as Fabienne
Storyline: Jules Winnfield and Vincent Vega are two hitmen who are out to retrieve a suitcase stolen from their employer, mob boss Marsellus Wallace. Wallace has also asked Vincent to take his wife Mia out a few days later when Wallace himself will be out of town. Butch Coolidge is an aging boxer who is paid by Wallace to lose his next fight. The lives of these seemingly unrelated people are woven together comprising of a series of funny, bizarre and uncalled-for incidents.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x816 px 14757 Mb h264 13360 Kbps mkv Download
Reviews
One of the Best Film's I've Seen In A LONG Time... and still is
Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is a terrific film. It also gets better with each viewing, especially if one of those happens to be on a big theatrical screen where all of the BIG compositions get bigger and more detailed. How much else is there to talk about it after all these years? It's filled with dynamite, sudden and always interesting action, great and naturally clever dialogue, and memorable characters. Also, the acting is always something to behold as by turns straightforward, over the top, subtle, and just downright menacing and spot-on. The directing is one of the strongest that we've seen from Tarantino, as he makes his choices in pacing with shots in unconventional ways but never in a way that would be distracting. And writing, already noted, has been copied by many, and only equaled by a select few.

The dance sequence. Samuel L. Jackson's superlative monologuing. It has loyalty among low lifes, and many other odd characters that are all bad and not one is a villain or hero. And somehow even after years of parody and terrible rip-offs, it holds its own and- as one can say after seeing it at a midnight screening- holds its audience as much as it had the countless times before they saw it (or if they are, the first time). The first time you're surprised, the second time you look for the clues or other ambiguity, and then the third time you laugh you head off. The fourth time... I'll leave to you.
2000-01-20
the worst movie i have ever seen
i don't why people had ranked this movie so high but there is nothing in this movie which is good expect john and Jackman Samuels acting.................this is slowest movie i have ever seen the parts like start with boss wife is not needed..................... when i have seen rating of this movie i was really exited to see it i bought the movie CD when i stated watching movie is good at start it attracts mine interest but after the two stories the third seems much boring and after that the others are also boring and does not make any sense i thought that there will be any suspense in the last part but what i thought was crap so movie is much much below mine expectations.......
2007-04-04
At least the Emperor is wearing underpants
Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece! No it isn't. It's over-rated. It's good, don't get me wrong, but it's not as good as it's painted. And Tarantino's faults - which become more apparent with every (pretentiously) numbered subsequent movie - are all here on show.

His dialogue is good - it's his main strength, and is correctly recognised as such. But a) it is over-reliant on the F-word (his CSI episodes and Inglourious Basterds show that he can write excellent dialogue without it), and b) it would greatly benefit from external editing: Tarantino badly needs a McCartney to sweeten his Lennon, a Lennon to apply an edge to his McCartney.

His direction is good - he extracts brilliant performances from his ensemble, and his ability to present a truly eye-catching image on screen is beyond doubt. Action is good, effects are good, set design is good etc.

But he comes in for undue praise for other things. Self-indulgence is one - again, he desperately needs someone to take him in hand and moderate some of what he does for the benefit of the film.

Case in point - Pulp Fiction's non-linear storytelling. The zip-rewind halfway through is not some sudden work of genius. It may very well be experimental but, if so, it does not work as well as linear storytelling would have done (which, I suspect, would have involved more work in breaking the story threads into coherent sections which still worked together when interleaved, or else inserting flashbacks). Tarantino has taken an unconventional, but easy, road and, in so doing, has got away with it because of the "Emperor's New Clothes" factor. However, it doesn't make Pulp Fiction a work of genius, it actually makes it a worse film.

Tarantino's lack of self-discipline means that, despite his abundance of talent, his output continues to be over-rated.
2011-03-30
Offensive
I am baffled by the users who rate this film so highly. If one deleted the N word and the F word there would be no script. How can we expect young viewers to treat people respectfully when Hollywood bombards us with racial slurs? Yes life imitates art although calling this movie art is a stretch.

I read that Tarrantino is a high school drop out. Must be true judging from this script. I am certainly no prude or a stranger to adult themes and language. However the script was filled with glorified drug use and violence yet failed to show one ounce of Character growth. The barrage of profanity and violence was both offensive and boring. Quentin Tarrantino movies are on my list of films to avoid. Waste of time.
2012-10-28
9 IMDb? Really?
Sorry for the image, but if you take a bowl of crap, rearrange it, put some sugar and a little cherry on top, what to you get? ... a bowl of crap.

This is the most overrated film of all time. I'm even feeling strange to call it a film. It has no story, no feelings, no plot, no music - just 4 different scenes of disgusting, violent, abusive, offending and racist content put together in a mixed sequence.

How this crap scores a 9 on IMDb is beyond me. Sometimes when people see a 9 they automatically deceive themselves into believing this is a masterpiece and that maybe if they didn't like it, something is wrong with their opinion or taste. Nothing's wrong. It's a bad movie from beginning to end. The problem is that sometimes Hollywood movies are over-hyped for business reasons like what happened in Titanic and Avatar which by the way were "OK" movies but didn't deserve the huge credit they received.

I gave this a 1 because Samuel L. Jackson was the only thing interesting in this disaster. I'm not going to tell those of you that haven't seen it not to, you have to go through the experience on your own and make your fare judgment. Don't listen to anyone's opinion - especially the ones that think if you love this one, then you're COOL!
2013-03-07
Is Tarantino Our New Kubrick?
It seems to be the fashion among film "intelligentsia" to give wild praise to the most incomprehensible and incoherent rubbish, sending the partly unspoken message that if you, the film-goer, do not get it, you are not smart enough to understand it. This applies to most of the oeuvre of the late Stanley Kubrick (with the exception of LOLITA, DR STRANGELOVE, and to a point A CLOCKWORK ORANGE), and it applies equally well to this odd and trashy bit of nonsense handed to us by Quentin Tarantino. To say that sitting through it was painful would be an understatement, but if that isn't bad enough, it is also incoherent and confusing (at one point the Samuel L Jackson character dies, if memory serves, only to show up alive later with no explanation given). Uma Thurman is striking to look at in that dark wig, and Travolta stretches what little acting talent he has, but I still to this day have no idea what the movie was about, and frankly, Tarantino failed to make me care very much.

Like most of Kubrick's work, this film is visually striking: the color palette in particular is stunning. But at the end of the day, how a film looks means nothing unless there is some substance underneath the surface, and if there is any here, I did not see it.

At the time this movie came out, the critics were falling all over themselves proclaiming that it represented a new direction for Hollywood films. Fortunately that seems not to have been the case.
2011-05-26
Awesome!
I just finished screening this movie for the first time after putting it off for a number of years because of what seemed like equivocating appraisals from some of my friends. In hindsight, however, it seems to me that while the movie must have definitely bowled them over, overall they weren't sure exactly what to make of it or how to articulate what were probably a confused mix of feelings. But I am so impressed that I feel compelled to add a few specific observations to the many fine reviews already on this database.

First, this movie hits you with an impact somewhere in between, say, APOCALYPSE NOW and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and for some people may be just as disturbing (however, in this respect I am happy to report I didn't think it rose to the level of NATURAL BORN KILLERS). Full of graphically violent action and language, PULP FICTION is not a picture for everyone - I would definitely not recommend it to my parents, born in the 1930's (even to my one fairly "hip" relative of the same generation who, at age 66, still teaches high school sex education and likes to talk about things like sunbathing nude, among other potentially sensitive issues).

Irrespective of audience sensibilities, however, the film-makers, supported by superb acting in every role, manage to create a world full of the most fascinating sleazy characters possibly ever to appear on screen. From Travolta's pronounced almost-child-like curiosity about the world to Jackson's sincere and thoughtful philosophical ruminating and Willis's deep devotion to the memory of his father, I think such fascination lies not only in the characters' personalities as they are portrayed but in the way they tantalize the viewer into considering the possibility that such people could actually exist. As a lawyer of some years' experience dealing with all sorts of people I was particularly drawn to this aspect of the film.

Thus, and in response to some other reviewers' comments, I think this movie is more character-driven than plot-driven. Instead of a story peopled by basically weakly developed characters employed primarily as a mere device to move the plot along, as is too frequently the case in the movies (especially these days), the undeniably strong, clever, and unpredictable plot lines in PULP FICTION are actually of essentially secondary interest and importance, serving primarily as vehicles to get you worried about the fate of characters you can't help caring about despite the truly low attributes that otherwise form the basis for their respective personas. As at least one other reviewer noted, when the film ends you are actually disappointed, left craving more of these crazy people and their explosive lives.

Finally, and as strange as it may sound, this film reminds me of another Monumentally Great Film which one would never typically associate with it in any way in a million years - CASABLANCA. As in that film made way back in 1942, and as another reviewer has suggested, perhaps its special appeal - its unusually high degree of emotional impact - lies in its distinctly successful simultaneous application of several different genres in a single film - drama, action, dark humor - with the whole thing bound together by essentially flawless execution in every department. And while CASABLANCA is no doubt clearly much more wholesome and high-minded, like the older film PULP FICTION is not without a pronounced theme of redemption, even if it is not as strongly felt, considering all the later film's sleaze and violence.

In sum, when people say that this is probably the best film of the 1990's, it is easy to see why. Fundamentally a truly outstanding movie, it is a must-see for anyone who considers themself a film buff and can handle graphic subject matter.

(Incidentally, if you would like a more toned-down, much more overtly humorous and less serious picture with a not-altogether dissimilar look and feel, don't miss another 1990's Travolta picture, GET SHORTY.)
2004-04-18
Extremely overrated!
This is what I call a fad movie. People say it is a great movie because other people said it is great. People are afraid to express their true feelings because they don't want to be ridiculed by their friends, especially if one is a member of the so-called X-generation. I would imagine that the number of people who rented the video or saw it on cable that stopped watching the movie because it was so bad is fairly high, especially for a movie that is considered a great movie.

However, I concede that a number of people truly like it. However, I find that there are just as many people who are repulsed by this movie. They just don't express their feelings in this type of format because a bad movie isn't worth the effort of making a negative opinion.
1999-09-25
Unadulterated dreck
This is a great film? By what standards? Anyone can string together a bunch of violent, disjointed scenes, designed to shock and disturb the viewer. Violence, in and of itself, without context and pertinence to the story, is the tool of no-talent scoundrels masquerading as filmmakers. Such, unfortunately, is Tarantino. What a shame for Travolta that this was his 'comeback' film. For me, the only watchable part of this film was the sequence featuring Bruce Willis. Even that, though...how Willis was convinced to be in this film is a mystery to me. Cameos by Emil Sitka, Christopher Walken's brief part, and Harvey Keitel's appearance cannot save this self-indulgent and troubling example of a director gone wild, suffused with the sense of his own talent. This was a BOMB.
2000-09-25
Good Yet Over-rated
Quentin Tarantino is a good director who has a knack for combining wildly imaginative music selections for his movies that seem to work so well you have to laugh with joy.

He also is known for dark comedy, combining unexpected twists that dismay audience members to the point they often refer to him as a "genius".

The problem with "genius" is that what is genius to some is mundane to others.

Tarantino is also known for his plot twists. However the excessive focus on plot twists creates an expectation from the audience, which opposes the basic appeal: the element of surprise.

In Pulp Fiction, twists are introduced with little finesse. Tarantino has improved with the years, but Pulp Fiction, an early film, becomes boring before it is over.

Certainly worth watching, but early and raw compared to Tarantino's later films.
2014-08-24
Roland J. Tran (Saint Paul) i was looking for a movie free Pulp Fiction download, as 720p to download it in 1994, one of the first Quentin Tarantino Tallahassee. Clara J. Lovett (Buffalo) i love how they play John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Eric Stoltz, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames, Phil LaMarr, Maria de Medeiros, Rosanna Arquette, Peter Greene, Uma Thurman, Duane Whitaker, Paul Calderon, Frank Whaley, Bronagh Gallagher, Burr Steers, Laura Lovelace from the movie director Quentin Tarantino 1994 Miami.
×