Clever but derivative and hollow

Rating: 6/10 (28 August 2015)

Admittedly, "Pulp Fiction" was incredibly seductive when I first saw it in the theatre (as was "Reservoir Dogs"). It was so un-Hollywood in many ways. It mashed together French New Wave with schlocky exploitation with Hong Kong action with gangster films, etc. Maybe that's enough to make it a notable film. Certainly, to any casual American film-goer, Tarantino is very interesting and entertaining.
However, after a couple of decades of exploring world cinema, "Pulp Fiction" drops a couple of pegs. All the clever dialogue, quirky music choices and obscure film references can't conceal the fact that there's very little story and you really don't care much about the characters.
This is not to say the actors aren't terrific, because they are (other than Tarantino himself, who is dreadful). Samuel L. Jackson is particularly intense. But it's a bit too much style over substance. Great to have authentic, human dialogue, but better if you get to know the characters and care to follow their journey. Sure, there's suspense, in that you wonder who might get done next, but hard to care whether they do or what that might mean to the other characters.
I also feel "Pulp Fiction" borrows far too much from other films. Some will perhaps say, "it's Tarantino's thing," "it's not lifting, it's homage" or "it adds a layer of depth for film fans." But come on, that's really a copout. You can be influenced and even wear your influences on your sleeve, but there are scenes and ideas that are straight lifted from Godard, Woo, Aldrich, Boorman, Besson and Kubrick, to name a few.
In the end, after you're through stripping away the "homage," the casual violence, and the suspenseful threats of violence, you've got some colourful dialogue skits delivered by some fine actors. But it leaves you wondering, what was the point of it all?