I can't believe that I have to defend this movie.

Rating: 10/10 (31 January 2000)

Normally, I wouldn't bother to contribute my thoughts on a movie made back in '94, but I'm doing so for two reasons: 1.) It is my favorite movie of all time (and like everyone that uses this database, I've seen quite a few) 2.) I just watched it again last night (on DVD for the first time), which motivated me to go to IMDB and read the reviews. I was aghast to read some of the negative comments that this movie inspired in many contributors. The following is more for the naysayers than anyone else.
For those that championed the opinion that it glamorized drug use and violence: well, this is an age-old argument that's been pretty much exhausted. Summed up in the question: "does art reflect reality or does reality reflect art?", I believe that it's a two-way street, and Pulp Fiction, evil intentions or no, rides right down the middle. It's a glimpse of a world that I dare say is alien to most of us, so who are you to question it's authenticity in regards to its use of drugs, violence, language, and a lax attitude towards them all.
For those that complained about the pointless dialog that did nothing to promote the plot: have you never heard of character development? A lot of the things that have been dismissed as pointless and wasteful can be attributed to educating the audience of the character's thoughts and attitudes. The "pointless" conversation between Jules and Vincent about cheeseburgers illustrates that not only is Vincent a traveler (and drug user), but that the two have a good working relationship, share similar interests, and genuinely like each other.
The "pointless" dialog between Butch and Fabienne regarding potbellies is an insight to their relationship. That exchange yes is silly and contributes nothing to the plot itself, but those are the kinds of pointless conversations that are often shared between a couple. It's almost a milepost as to the seriousness of their relationship that they can enjoy such a trivial exchange.
And plot? Well, as it's been stated many times: its redemption, stupid. Not only for Jules, but for Butch as well. Anyone who doesn't see that doesn't really deserve to have their opinions read let alone considered with any modicum of seriousness.
Regarding the non-linear editing: is there a real problem with that? Did it really confuse people all that much? Were you still trying to mentally arrange the scene sequence ten minutes after the credits ran, or like most of the people I saw it with, figured out the jumps rather quickly and enjoyed the diversion? Did Tarantino do it simply for the sake of doing it in an effort to be hip and cool? I think not. I do believe it was done in order to have the film end on a high note. The alternative, if he had stuck to a linear formula, would have been Fabienne and Butch riding off on Zed's chopper, and that would have been a bit disappointing.
Acting: what's not to like? Have you seen any of Travolta's movies prior to this? Utter trash. With this one performance, he erased dozens of regurgitated, forgetful roles of leading men in mass-produced romantic comedies and dramas. Samuel L. Jackson's performance was simply unparalleled. Bruce Willis, who is normally unimpressive, blew me away with his performance. The scene in the hotel room when he goes nuts after not being able to find his watch was just a joy to watch. Seeing him seething mad at his mate's packing incompetence, and his fighting back that emotion and trying to reflect the blame back on himself...well, just the facial expressions were priceless.
Direction? Are you serious? The needle-through-the-chest scene is perhaps the best directed sequence I've ever had the pleasure to watch. You WERE in that living room with them. You felt the frenzy, you could smell the sweat and the bong water, and you were just as on-edge as Vincent when you realized the potentially bad things that could result from the incident. That intensity could not have been duplicated by anyone of mediocre or non-existent directing talent. The choreography was in a word, perfect.
And as far as hype, is concerned, how could such a gem of cinematography not be hyped? In my own defense, I saw this movie THE DAY it was released (and many times since), only days after first watching Reservoir Dogs. Basically, I knew little of Tarantino, but I knew that Dogs was among the best movies I'd seen in a long time. Although I had seen and enjoyed Natural Born Killers and True Romance prior to PF, I was at the time unaware that their origins were with Tarantino.
Pulp Fiction deserves all of the hype and all of the praise that it spawned. If you haven't seen it yet, what in God's name are you waiting for? If you saw it and didn't like it, what in God's name is wrong with you? What part of the formula for a good movie is missing in Pulp Fiction?
Kudos to those who have praised it, and thank you Quentin for upping the ante of quality movie making. My apologies for the length.