Love it or hate it, but I give it "5" of 10 for style!

Rating: Null/10 (15 November 2000)

Read the external reviews, like Ebert's or Barardinellis', if you want to know more about "content" of Pulp Fiction. Following is my personal take on the film.
Many have praised this film for "interweaving 3 different stories." Ever watch the TV series "Northern Exposure?" Every episode consists of 3 different, interwoven stories, and done much better than Tarentino does here. What this film does well is poke fun at the gangster movies, and does it with very witty writing. I especially liked the way these sordid characters got into various "philosophical discussions", like why in France a quarter-pounder cannot be called that, because of the metric system. Or why Jackson's character would not eat pork, because it is a dirty animal.
To really enjoy this film, you have to numb yourself to all the filthy language and the gratuitous violence. However, it is neither an innovative film nor one with lasting meaning. That is why I rate it 5 of 10, and only that high because of the clever screenplay and direction.
That reflects my own preference in movies. I give my highest ratings to such films as "Longitude", "Nixon", "Apollo Thirteen", "Amistad" - films based on great true stories. Or just entertaining but inoffensive ones like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Matrix". Or thought-provoking ones such as "Shawshank Redemption", "American History X", "Lone Star", or "Good Will Hunting".
I give low ratings to such films as "The Game", "The Usual Suspects" - films which on the surface seem to dazzle, but in final analysis simply try to fool us into thinking they are something special. I don't think "Pulp Fiction" exactly does this, but its fans have given it high praise that I'd bet even its creator would hesitate to do.