Good (maybe great) film, but not a masterpiece.

Rating: 8/10 (10 November 2002)

When Pulp Fiction first came out, I thought it was the greatest movie ever made and was sure that it would become a classic. Earlier today though, I saw it again after not viewing it for several years and my opinion of it is now a bit lower.
It's still a good movie and there are aspects of it that are certainly great. The plot is well constructed and the story lines are compelling. There are a variety of interesting characters and many humorous and dramatic scenes. Several actors (who were at their peak at the time) have juicy roles and give excellent performances: Uma Thurman, Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, and Christopher Walken. Overall, the movie is unbelievably entertaining.
After seeing Pulp Fiction again though, with several more years of movie viewing experience now under my belt, parts of it look amateurish. The shots don't always work; composition is bad, stuff is out of focus, lighting is bad. Although the banal conversations are fantastic, the dialogue doesn't work all the time either, particularly for Samuel L. Jackson's character. When I listened to him, I couldn't help but think that this is how a white dude thinks a black gangster should talk. There are also a ton of obvious continuity and factual errors in the film that are distracting (check the "Goofs for Pulp Fiction" page here at IMDB for an incomplete listing of them). In most movies, I don't notice these kinds of errors because they're so subtle, but in Pulp Fiction they're glaring.
Pulp Fiction is still cool and enjoyable, but it seems like I can look at it in a more critical light now. It's been almost ten years since it was made and the hype is finally starting to die down. It's a good (maybe great) film, but it's not a classic or a masterpiece.