I’m sure this topic somewhere in here, or at least something similar to it. If so, I couldn’t find it. Which do you think is better? PF or RD? why?
I tend to lean more toward RD. PF seems a bit more contrived, like Tarrantino was TRYING too hard. i put RD first, but PF is a very close second. thoughts?
ZZZZ….do we really need another Tarantino post?
But to answer your question, I tend to lean towards Reservoir Dogs. I still think it’s his best film.
I do not like Pulp Fiction alot, because it’s a movie critics (and audiences) adore like it’s sunday, and seeing the reasons the film is revered, I don’t see it. It’s a GREAT movie, just not a classic. Tracing back it’s influences, it would exist. Not to say it isn’t great, prefer Reservoir Dogs.
RD is fresher, better movie. Actually I’ll be honest, it’s when Pulp Fiction became so famous (and imitaded) that I began to dislike it. A movie only needs to come at a perfect time to change the industry, and that’s Pulp Fiction’s legacy.
Pulp Fiction. It’s funnier.
Pulp Fiction. There are more chicks in it.
pulp fiction, simply because it is a better movie in all aspects.
Pulp Fiction is more fun and more original but Reservoir Dogs might be more substantial.
It is very close for me, but I think I would have to chose Pulp Fiction.
Honestly, True Romance, because it wasn’t so obviously cobbled together from City on Fire (RD), The Taking of Pelham 123 (RD), and everything else from 70s TV & film (PF).
Reservoir Dogs- simply because Pulp Fiction is full of the fanboy masturbatory dialogue that is so allegedly, achingly hip that it just grates. “Dogs” has a tighter stricture, better direction and whilst the wanky dialogue is there, much more of it is put to better effect, serves the narrative and gives some great actors some great two-handed moments.I don’t care how that in France a Big Mac is called LE BIG MAC, or for Samuel L. Jackson mugging to the camera and shouting that crap about furious vengeance. It betrayed what talent Tarantino actually has. Besides, “Jackie Brown” is better than both of them.
people dont like “pulp fiction” because of blowback. like they’re mad that the movie is so popular, and only that. they rarely object to it on aesthetic grounds. if they do, it’s usually annoyance at the dialogue. like all of tarantino’s films dont have the same style of dialogue or something. if “pulp fiction” was overrated when it first came out, its now highly underrated (the inverse is true for “reservoir dogs”). how quickly we forget. after all, this is the film that literally changed hollywood and independent filmmaking too. time will tell the tale though. i guarantee you we’ll be celebrating the originality and impact of “pulp fiction” 50 years from now.
“pulp fiction” is a classic. a (post)modern american masterpiece. “reservoir dogs” is a great film, but tarantino reaches for the stars with “pulp fiction”, and he grabs them too. “reservoir dogs” is a dry run for the brilliance of “pulp fiction”. i love it, and its a great film. but “pulp fiction” is in a different stratosphere.
I haven’t got a problem with it being the film that made Tarantino popular, it’s that the dialogue truly lets it down. “Jackie Brown” is better than Pulp Fiction, if only to show he has two main characters at a certain age and at a certain time in their lives, and he manages to make a mature, heartfelt piece of work. In essence, he calms down in “Jackie Brown”. Of course, he’s still shoving in pop culture references, but the whole feel is of a director maturing beyond his years and leaving behind his junky obsessions. “Jackie Brown” will never be as popular as “Pulp Fiction”, because it deals with characters who are not young or hip, who blurt out quotable dialogue that men imitate with other men at a gathering.
Pulp Fiction" is a world where fast food matters, and little else. It’s undisciplined and lacks any kind of depth, being merely gourmet garbage for jaded gluttons. “Jackie Brown” has a compelling plot, sharp characterization and the kind of dialogue that adds meaning to the story and engages the audience, instead of relying on gratuitous violence. The dialogue has a rhythm to it, but not so skittish as to be rat-a-tat-tat and pointless, a la “Pulp Fiction”.
Pulp Fiction deserves a reopening of it’s praise, the praise sucks.
That was a movie that came at the right time, when Sundance was relevant and the indie second wave was beginning to take hold.
Tarantino had a fresh vision, even if everything in his fabric as cobbled together from genre sources. In a way, he was the perfect director to appropriate all the styles at the time, and blend them into his own. I hate him for it, and prefer filmmakers who are less aware of their sources.
It’s a revered film that changed the landscape, and perhaps like it less since then. It’s technique is great, and so is the dialogue, but the elements too familiar (and director too savvy) to stand on it’s own as the masterpiece that folks believe it is.
You know what’s a truly great film? Boogie Knights. Paul Thomas Anderson brought a vision influences by Robert Altman and Scorsese to that film, but it’s elements where fresh, entirely his. Can you say the same of Tarantino? I beg to differ.
how can a filmmaker be less aware of his sources? everyone has sources (influences). what you’re trying to say is you like a filmmaker who tries to hide his references. nothing wrong with that. just like there’s nothing wrong with a director who parades his sources with unabashed excitement and admiration.
how can a director be too saavy? especially too saavy to create a masterpiece?? i dont understand that one. that’s like saying a director is too smart or too good to create a worthwile film. again, this is another example of inadequate criticism towards tarantino on the part of his detractors.
as far as “pulp fiction” being undisciplined, i dont see where. its an incredibly rigorous film with regards to the direction and the narrative structure, as well as thematic structure. its clearly the work of a man who has a vision, and knows how to achieve it. who has a unique style, and knows how to express it.
gourmet garbage for jaded gluttons with no depth? wow. ok. i guess that kind of opinion is inarguable.
“jackie brown” has no gratuitous violence, and “pulp fiction” does? about the same number of people are killed in both films. and “pulp fiction” even has a cinematic resurrection that negates one of those deaths. “pulp fiction” ends with optimism and hope, and a refutation of death. “jackie brown” ends with death, and the refutation of a possible love affair because of that death and others like it.
but just to make sure we’re on the same page, “jackie brown” is a brilliant work.
Reservoir Dogs any day; his best film…I don’t believe he will top it. PF is very good indeed and I love it also, but DOGS is more spontaneous and less contrived.
I think Pulp Fiction, but these days thinking of Tarantino makes me roll my eyes.
Pulp Fiction, but narrowly.
They’re both good, but I think PF holds up better, somehow. I saw them both recently after years not having seen either, and Pulp Fiction seemed much fresher. I agree with Mark that Pulp Fiction is sort of contrived, particularly the dialogue. I remember Siskel and Ebert proclaiming the dialogue so authentic and “from the streets,” but of course it’s not. Tarantino’s characters sound like they’re reading Tarantino dialogue. Still, Pulp Fiction is remarkable for its unique departure from the three act structure and single protagonist dynamic. It’s such an incredibly tight script, it deserves high regard. Reservoir Dogs is good, but we probably wouldn’t be talking about Taranatino if it weren’t for Pulp fiction.
i am not a tarantino fan although i think pulp fiction was atleast watchable. there is such a thing as too vulgar when it comes to a movie. when every sentence uses a cuss word then that word eventually looses the power it once had and becomes annoying to hear. that is one thing that turns me off of his films. also i think the last thing tarantino watched before making pulp fiction was the killers(1964). pulp fiction only wished it could be that good.
Easily Pulp Fiction. Don’t get me wrong, i like Resevoir Dogs, but after i saw it, i did not understand all of the hype.
“the killers” (64) isn’t a great film to me. surely not on the level of “pulp fiction”. i dont see the influences of it.
by the way, the 64 killers wishes it could be as good as the 47 killers.
Easily “Pulp Fiction”. No contest.
Reservoir Dogs, even if it is a cobbling of Pelham, City on fire and Kubrick’s The Killing. Pulp Fiction made the multiplex safe for nonlinear narrative. That said, I don’t ever want to see it again.
As for his famous dialogue style – bfd. Barry Levinson ‘s characters were talking about tv shows and quoting big chunks of movie dialogue in Diner and Tin Men. Whit Stillman’s deb losers in Metropolitan were making pop culture references.
Pulp Fiction, no contest.
RESERVOIR DOGS. Still, after all this time, Tarantino’s one and only good film.
I like them both in different ways, so I will be boring and say equal. RD has such a tight structure, and great pacing, plus the characters have so much more depth. PF has such a broad range and vast scale that you really see many stories at once. There is far less depth and seriousness, but it is very relaxed and fun to watch. They both have ups and downs, I prefer RD when alone, PF with friends.
But I agree with Calero, Tarantino has serisously gone downhill lately
i didn’t like reservoir dogs at all, but i did think pulp fiction was entertaining and funny
I find Jackie Brown to be his best film to date.
“jackie brown” is certainly still underrated. but nothing tops “pulp fiction”. “jackie brown” is just the popular choice for those who want to react against the popularity and uniqueness of “pulp”.