Ready or Not Film Review

Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett

Starring: Samara Weaving, Adam Brody, Mark O’Brien

Rated R for violence, bloody images, language throughout, and some drug use

“Ready or Not” stars Samara Weaving as a new bride, Grace, who is trying to be accepted to her husband’s new family. Grace, on her wedding night, must play hide and seek but the game become deadly as her husband’s family tries to kill her, as a ritual cult. In all it’s gory fashion, we see the deadly game of hide and seek.

“Ready or Not” is an horror/suspense comedic film that is surprisingly a good time. From the beginning, we get to meet Grace as a kind hearted person who is not marrying her husband for money but for love. The film does a well job explaining how Grace does not come from a wealthy family and shows her as an outcast compared to the wealthy family she is marrying into. This is in part of the job done by Samara Weaving, who has done a fair job portraying a new bride who is being hunted down. The pain and suffering Grace goes through is sold extremely well by Samara Weaving. The rest of the cast are amusing as well, in part because their roles are more of a comedic roles. Kristan Bruun is the standout of the family as Fitch, who always has a quick line or something comedic to say. Unfortunately his role is very limited, I would have loved for his character to get more of a role in the film.

As mentioned before, the film takes a comedic role as supposed to a horror film. “Ready or Not” quite honestly would have worked perfectly as a horror film. It has all the horror film elements, murder, haunted mansion, and cult rituals. But the had directors chose to take a comedic role due to the ending, which is ridiculously bad. In fact, the entire third act is where things fall apart. For instance, we get one character who instantly changes to the villain’s side. I found that switch so out of place, considering how this person’s character throughout the film was set on the goal of not becoming the villain. I could understand the sudden switch, but in the end, it was a waste of character development. After we see the switch, multiple characters die in a gory fashion. Was it fun to watch? Yes, but it was very unbelievable, it threw the entire film off. The entire film was grounded in reality but the last five minutes threw that out the window.

I would have preferred to seen “Ready or Not” as a pure horror film as a new bride trying to escape her husband’s family from death. I am in no way trying to dismiss the film or it’s comedy, because the film is actually worth seeing and the comedy is hilarious when done right. It just that I would have chosen a different route if I were one of the directors of the film. But “Ready or Not” is an entertaining horror comedy that does have its fair share of issues, but the entertaining value overshadows the flaws of the film.

3/4

47 Meters Down: Uncaged Film Review

Directed by Johannes Roberts

Starring: Sophie Nelisse, Corinne Foxx, Brianne Tju

Rated PG-13 for creature related violence and terror, some bloody images and brief rude gestures

The great Alfred Hitchcock once explained the difference between surprise and suspense. “Let’s suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, “Boom!” There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock and there is a clock in the decor.” “47 Meters Down: Uncaged” features multiple scenes of cheap surprises, director Johannes Roberts has no knowledge on how to make a scene suspenseful. There are many instances where a scene could be suspenseful, instead Roberts goes in for the typical jump scares. The question of why suspense is not displayed in a film like this lingers throughout the film, along with other questions such “how in the world does a shark get inside a cavernous lake” or “why does this film exist?”

“47 Meters Down: Uncaged” is the sequel to the first “47 Meters Down” in which a group of teenage girls go scuba diving under a lake, in a cave, only to find a blind shark hunting the girls down. Now the girls are against time as they try to escape the shark and exit the lake. This film is marketed as a sequel to the first “47 Meters Down”, yet it has no connections to the first film. I have a feeling that this film was written under a different title but the studio forced the writer to change the title to have it connected to the successful original film.

Normally I try to find the positives in films, regardless of the quality. Unfortunately I cannot find any redeeming quality in this terrible film. The film itself is quite hilarious, but not intentionally. This film features some of the most dumbest characters I’ve seen on film. Spoiler alert, but most of the characters die in the film and they deserve it. The film does not make any of the characters sympathetic so when a character bites the dust, the audience does not care. The beginning of the film has one of the most boring title sequence put on film. I normally don’t skip or get bored of a title sequence in films, but the filmmakers put thought and care into these. Whether they feature great visuals such as “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” or great music such as “The Hateful Eight” or even both, such as “Goldfinger”, a title sequence has to have one or the other to make it standout. But the title sequence is lackluster as previews the film as another dull film. It may sound like nit picking to point out the opening credits but the opening credits here are just insulting to exceptional opening credits.

After the credits, the audience sees a slow motion shot of a girl falling down the pool. The slow motion is shown constantly throughout the film and it annoys me. It adds nothing to the film and makes the editing so choppy. In regards to the editing, in the third act , our main heroes must swim back where they came from and go to the sea, where they can escape the sharks. When they group goes back swimming, we get a cool shot of the girls swimming with eerie sounds a red light flashing. But immediately the flashing stops and suddenly the group is in a whirlpool. I was so confused on how the group arrived at the current indicating that they are near the sea. How is that the group have trouble throughout the film but arrive at the edge of the sea with no issue? I have a feeling that the editor of the film cut a scene to keep the run time down. But the film is an hour and a half, so a long run time is no issue.

Other issues that hurt the film is the slow paced scenes in multiple scenes. It takes about thirty minutes before the group goes into the cave. Some of the acting leaves a bad taste as well. Nia Long plays the mother of the two characters, yet she has little emotion and acts like she is only there for a paycheck. I don’t blame her as well as her role feels more of a cameo. I’m sure it was an easy paycheck for her along with the other actors.

If “47 Meters Down: Uncaged” was featured on the SyFy channel or on Netfilx, I would have dismissed the film as a cheesy, run of your mill shark film. Instead it is a film that is shown in a theater, in which audiences have to pay about $10 to watch this. As I prepare to give this film a 1/4, I feel as that rating itself is way too lenient. “47 Meters Down: Uncaged” is poorly directed, edited, and acted film that has little to no value.

1/4

Good Boys Film Review

Directed by Gene Stupnitsky

Starring: Jacob Tremblay, Keith L. Williams, Brady Noon

Rated R for strong crude sexual content, drug and alcohol material, and language throughout – all involving tweens

“Good Boys” is a film that is not meant for everyone. If you saw the redband trailer for the film, you would have known that this is a very raunchy film. But the redband trailer did not do the film justice as the trailer omits the best parts. “Good Boys” is a coming of age comedy starring three tweens, (Jacob Tremblay, Keith L. Williams, and Brady Noon) are set to go to a kissing party to prove themselves to the “cool kids”. But there are roadblocks preventing the middle schoolers from attending the party, the three tweens must clear those obstacles in order to attend the party.

“Good Boys” is a very hilarious comedy with three great leads. Tremblay, Williams, and Noon have the task of reading off lines that are written by adults and making it sound natural. Keith L. William is the funniest of the trio, as a down to Earth tween who is in the middle of his parents divorcing and wanting to do good at the same time. He has the funniest lines throughout the film, there was never a moment where I grew tired of his character. Keith L. Williams is the standout in the film and hopefully we see Williams in more comedies as time goes on.

The one thing that is holding this film back is towards the end of the film. In this scene, the trio have a disagreement and leave a park crying. It is meant to show the emotional side of the film. This a trope that is often shown in film and it is done to death. There was nothing that added to this scene and we all know that the trio would end up together. It is only done to make the film’s run time longer than it is, I wished this scene would have been cut. What I did enjoy was the aspect of the possibility that the trio would slowly drift apart. This is done very well as we see the trio go on the separate paths and meeting up from time to time. This is of course something all friends go through in school and is rarely shown in coming of age comedies. For that, I enjoyed exploring a concept that is not often shown.

The best way to describe this film is “Superbad” meets “Booksmart”. Both are great comedies (with the latter being severely underrated) that share the same plot elements. If anyone is a fan of any of those film, then “Good Boys” would suit you very well.

Overall, “Good Boys” is a straight forward comedy that you will or will not enjoy. If you thought the redband trailer for the film, then you will have laughs for the film, if the trailer did nothing for you, then you are better off skipping the film. “Good Boys” is a hilarious and heart warming comedy that I had a pleasant time with and I am sure other movie goers will have a pleasant time with as well.

3/4

The Farewell Film Review

Directed by Lulu Wang

Starring: Awkwafina, Tzi Ma, Diana Lin

Rated PG for thematic material, brief language and some smoking

“The Farewell” is the sophomore effort from writer and director Lulu Wang. “The Farewell” centers around Billi (played by Awkwafina), an Asian American who returns home to China after learning that her grandmother has lung cancer and only has months to live. But the grandmother does not know of the diagnosis as the family is keeping the news from her as it is a Chinese custom.

The majority of “The Farewell” takes place in China. Director Lulu Wang does an exceptional job of showcasing China and her beauties. There are multiple moments in the film where we get to see China’s culture and customs. It was refreshing to see another country’s culture by a person who has actually been to that country. For that, the audience gets to feel as if they are taking a field trip to a new country. The foods, the rituals, the interior of a Chinese home are all presented in the film in a beautiful way and I applaud director Lulu Wang for bringing those beauties to American audiences. The music in the film is also presented very well. The score is elevates the film to make the audience feel as if they are actually in China.

The screenplay is written short and sweet and to the point. There is a mixture of comedy and drama and when the scene calls for comedy, there are actually genuine funny moments. The banter and interactions between Billi and her grandmother made me laugh and reminded me of my relationship with my own grandmother. The drama in the film is very compelling as it deals with a very serious question that the film indirectly asks. Would you want to know when and how much time you have left before you pass away? That questions follows the characters throughout the film as the characters grapple by the fact that there is a death in the family coming but that person does not even know it. As the characters think throughout the film as to whether to tell the grandmother, the audiences start to think of what they would do in that situation.

Most audiences will unfortunately think that this film is a slow burn but it’s far from it. This is a film that is meant to make the audience think and look in awe of the Chinese culture. The film’s main star, Awkwafina delivers her strongest performance yet, as the granddaughter who thinks keeping the secret is wrong. She is faced with the moral dilemma of revealing the truth along with her emotions on full display for the audience to see. Credit should be also given to the grandmother, Nai Nai (played by Zhao Shuzhen), as she is a typical grandmother who wants what’s best for her children and grandchildren. The final shot of the grandmother is of course very heart wrenching, and of course Zhao Shuzhen sells the performance.

The best part of “The Farewell” is that this is a family film that all families can relate to. “The Farewell” captures the majestic beauties of China and the emotional feeling of having to say goodbye all while never getting dull and always keeping the audiences engaged. “The Farewell” will of course not win all audiences but this is a delightful little film that will a majority of audiences will love.

3.5/4

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw Film Review

Directed by David Letich

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba

Rated PG-13 for prolonged sequences of action and violence, suggestive material and some strong language

It’s funny to think how much the Fast and Furious series has evolved from its original format. The original Fast and Furious film that premiered in 2001 was a crime action film that centered around street racing. Slowly as time went on, the films went on to be more ridiculous than its predecessors. We eventually reach the point that the film series has produced a spin off film, which has nothing to do with street racing but feels more like a parody of a spy film. Despite this, the spin off, “Hobbs & Shaw” is an enjoyable film with two hours of pure entertainment.

“Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw” is the 9th film in the Fast & Furious series and the first spin off of the series. The film has series regulars Luke Hobbs( played by Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (played by Jason Statham) team up in order to prevent a virus being released to the public by a superhuman former MI6 agent (played by Idris Elba) .

Off the bat, “Hobbs and Shaw” is a ridiculously fun film. In that I mean that 50% of the film is ridiculous and 50% of the film is fun. There are multiple moments where you question the physics of the film such as how in the world can Dwayne Johnson fall on top of a car and walk up and fight as if nothing happened. This entire review could be criticism of the ridiculous moments of the film but the film knows that it’s ridiculous. This is a film series that went street racing to saving the world, James Bond style, so it’s has already been building up to this. The film works best when the audience turns off their mind and view the film as a action blockbuster.

But because the audience can turn off their mind and accept the film as a fun action film, some of the writing is cringe worthy. It’s embarrassing that a great actor such as Idris Elba is reduced to a generic villain who is reading off lines that feels like it was written by a 7 year old. Also in regards to the script, some of the scenes feel too long, more specifically the two cameos in the film. I understand that director David Leitch has gotten two great cameos that will certainly surprise the audiences but there was a sense that the cameos kept lingering. As much as I enjoyed the cameos, the cameos were getting unfunny a minute into the scene. In addition, this may be a minor nitpick, but the film abruptly ends while more exposition is given in the credits. The ending just felt so rushed and as if the director had to quickly cut the ending before a deadline. This aspect felt so lazy and left a bad taste in my mouth when I walked out of the theater.

In regards to the villain, played by Idris Elba, I certainly wished more was given to Elba as supposed your run of the mill villain. His role as the villain is forgettable as truth be told, I didn’t even know the name of the character until researching the film. The same goes to the sister of Shaw. Although Vanessa Kirby plays a tough bad ass, it feels like something we have seen before in multiple films. But as much I have multiple complaints of the film, the action is still enjoyable. The visual effects are still eye pleasing. In particular, the stand out action sequence is the chase in London.

As much I have multiple complaints of the film, there is still much enjoyment in the film. This is an action film that features a villain who can flip over a car with no issue. It knows that what exactly what it is, which is a fun action flick with mindless action. Audiences can certainly appreciate “Hobbs & Shaw” if they don’t overthink the film. So in other words, “Hobbs and Shaw” fits perfectly with the rest of the “Fast & Furious” films.

2/4

Stuber Film Review

Directed by Michael Dowse

Starring: Dave Bautista, Kumail Nanjiani, Mira Sorvino

Rated R for violence and language throughout, some sexual references and brief graphic nudity

“Stuber” is an comedy action film starring Dave Bautista and Kumail Nanjiani as a cop and an Uber driver, respectively. Vic, played by Bautista, is an officer who is trying to seek revenge for the killing of his partner. But Vic is unable to see due to Lasik sugery, therefore has to take an Uber to his destinations, his Uber driver is Stu, played by Nanjiani.

The opening scene of “Stuber” has a very interesting action scene in which two cops have a shootout in a hotel room, followed by a chase sequence. But immediately when the action started, the film was plagued with shaky cam. This is not only in the opening scene but the shaky cam is used in all the action scenes. Not only is this annoying but it is headache inducing. I was under the impression that shaky cam was dead. It is unnecessarily used for no good reason. This is something that stands out from the film, for a bad reason.

With the shaky cam gimmick, the film is very cliche. It feels like this is something we have seen before. Primarily, “Stuber” is the modern version of “Taxi” (2004) with Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon. Yes, the film feels like a rip off of a 2004 comedy film that is largely forgotten. Not only is it a copy of another film, but some of the comedy falls flat. Yes, there are many hilarious moments in the film and I praise that. That is mostly due to the comedic timing of Bautista and Nanjiami. Those two are funny together whenever the comedy is actually good. But there were multiple instances of the comedy being unfunny or being dragged out. There is one scene where both Bautista and Nanjiami characters are trying to get information from someone else. Instead of being funny, the scene feels like its being dragged out and feels like a failure. It was unfunny and was just painfully awkward.

As much as I enjoy the two main leads, there are many moments of the film that could have been cut out. For instance there is a fight in a sporting goods store. Not only did it have the dreaded shaky cam and some bad humor but it feels completely unnecessary. In addition, there are two supporting characters, Nanjiami’s love interest and boss who have a few scenes. These two are a complete waste of time, they add nothing to the story. I suppose those characters are added to to add more to the run time since the film is fairly short. The two characters could have been cut out to add more interesting scenes instead we get Nanjiami’s boss saying how lonely he is with sappy music.

But as I mentioned before, some of the comedy is actually funny. It indeed does get many great laughs because of the character’s actions.As much as I have multiple complaints with the film, this is an entertaining film. But the goal of a comedy film is to make the audience laugh and it certainly does but only sparingly. “Stuber” is best viewed on demand as supposed as watching the film on the big screen.

2.5/4

Spider-Man: Far From Home Film Review

Directed by Jon Watts

Starring: Tom Holland, Samuel L. Jackson, Jake Gyllenhaal

Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence, some language and brief suggestive comments

Spider-Man: Far From Home directly follows the events after Avengers: Endgame. So if any viewer has not seen Endgame and is coming into Far From Home without seeing the previous Marvel film would confuse the viewer. But considering that Endgame is the second highest grossing film of all time, its hard to find one viewer who has yet to seen Endgame. With the events that proceed Endgame, Spider-Man: Far From Home is a wonderful addition to the MCU.

Spider-Man: Far From Home is the 23rd MCU film and newest addition to the Spider-Man series. Peter Parker/ Spider-Man (played by Tom Holland) goes to Europe with his classmates for a vacation. His vacation is suddenly cut short by Nick Fury (played by Samuel L. Jackson) who needs Spider-Man to help save the world with Mysterio (played by Jake Gyllenhaal).

Spider-Man is a story that has told multiple times throughout the years. The first Spider-Man film that came out in 2002 with Tobey Maguire tells the origin story with Uncle Ben and MJ as his love interest. The Amazing Spider-Man with Andrew Garfield told the same origin story with the exception of MJ being replaced with Gwen Stacey. But ever since Tom Holland has stepped into the role, we have yet to see the origin story or Uncle Ben. I give props to the current series not giving us the origin story since we have seen in multiple times. But I also think the reason being that we have yet to see or hear the mention of Uncle Ben is because Tony Stark is Uncle Ben. Stark is certainly a father figure to Parker who passed away. Stark’s death certainly has a toll on Parker that carries with him throughout the film. I enjoy that we don’t have to see the traditional Uncle Ben story arc, but instead the story arc is swapped out for one character for another.

Both Tom Holland and Jake Gyllenhaal as Spider-Man and Mysterio, respectively, are a joy whenever they are present on the screen. Holland’s acting as Spider-Man has progressed since we first saw him in Captain America: Civil War. There are multiple scenes where Holland acts emotional due to Stark passing in the previous MCU film. On the other hand, Gyllenhaal proves why he is a great actor. Without giving any spoilers, Gyllenhaal certainly has fun as Mysterio in the second half of the film. In addition to both Holland and Gyllenhaal, Zendaya as MJ breaks away from the traditional MJ character we have seen in previous films. MJ is a totally different character from audiences are used to, it is also refreshing having one character arc being different than we were expecting.

The biggest problem with Far From Home is the first half of the film feels slow. Not that the film is not to par but there are certainly scenes that could have been left in the cutting room floor. It is not until we see the reveal of one character does the film actually pick up. The reason for this is because we now know the actual streaks and serious danger the other characters are in. And of course, the reveal in the half way point of the film was very predictable, for me at least. The moment I saw the trailer for the film, I knew how the film would play out. To keep it short and simple, I felt like I was watching The Incredibles (2004).

Nevertheless, Spider-Man: Far From Home is fun and exciting that audiences will enjoy. Although the first half of the film moves on at a slow pace, the second half is great that ends with a jaw dropping cameo that fans of the series will enjoy. I highly recommend to view Far From Home, casual viewers and fans of the series will certainly have a blast with this one.

3/4

Midsommar Film Review

Directed by Ari Aster

Starring: Florence Pugh, Jack Reynor, William Jackson Harper

Rated R for disturbing ritualistic violence and grisly images, strong sexual content, graphic nudity, drug use and language

There is a phrase many filmmakers and film critics love to say, show don’t tell. It is so commonly said when a filmmaker needs to present something on screen instead of having characters say it. Seasoned filmmakers know when to use this aspect and a majority of them use them well. Writer and director Ari Aster not only uses the concept of show don’t tell, but unfortunately uses it way too much.

“Midsommar” is a horror film in which a group of friends are invited to a Swedish village, which partake in cult like events. The main protagonist is Dani (played by Florence Pugh), who is recently recovering deaths in the family and is invited by her boyfriend, Christian (played by Jack Reynor). “Midsommar” is a film that is filled with shock and horror, along with gory images that are very unsettling.

This is the main criticism that was mentioned earlier, show don’t tell. There are too many aspects of director Aster showing too much on the screen such as graphic sex or gruesome deaths. For example, when we see two characters in the nude, we know sexual activities are engaging. But Aster has this scene play out for a few minutes which makes the audience feel extremely uncomfortable, that is perhaps the intentions of the director. But there is a line that is crossed when it comes to sexual and violent images and “Midsommar” certainly crosses the line.

But while there is criticism to be had with the imagery, I can commend the technical aspects of the film. Florence Pugh (who caught my eye in “Fighting With My Family”) does a tremendous job carrying the film. There are many moments where her character has to convey emotions of sadness, anger, confusion and all without saying any word. She does a great job with her acting, it is the highlight in the film. I certainly agree that Pugh was great to watch on screen and I do hope to see more of her in future films. The film is also filled with great cinematography and editing. The cinematography was certainly eye catching and was very pleasing to see on the screen. There are multiple scenes where the director chooses not to cut but instead keeps the film rolling.

The first 15 minutes of the film features a family dying in a disturbing fashion. Not only is it unsettling but it adds nothing to the rest of the film. There are multiple instances of this being brought up in the rest of the film but quite frankly, if this scene was not included in the film, then it would not change the film. The best way to describe the film is that it’s just slow. It is after the one hour mark where we actually get introduced the horror elements. When it is introduced, the film does drag on for the worse. To make matters worse, the film has a run time that is over two hours. Not that films with a considerable long run times are bad, but they need to be long for a specific reason. There were multiple scenes that could have been left on the cutting room floor to make the film shorter.

Although the film’s highlights are the acting, cinematography, and editing, the film unfortunately a slow burn with uneasy imagery. “Midsommar” is not meant for mainstream audiences, it is meant for the audiences who love indie films. If you are expecting a smart horror film that makes you think, this will certainly be your cup of tea but those who are expecting something else, such as myself, I would pass on this one.

2/4

Yesterday Film Review

Directed by Danny Boyle

Starring: Himesh Patel, Lily James, Sophia Di Martino

Rated PG-13 for suggestive content and language

Hey Jude. A Day in the Life. Yesterday. These are just some of the iconic songs that were written by Lennon-McCartney along with George Harrison and Ringo Starr. These four men wrote and preformed some of the most influential songs in music that are still being heard today. The Beatles emerged from the early 60’s and throughout the decade, the group wrote classics after classics. So when “Yesterday” asks the question,”what if the Beatles didn’t exist?” it showcases how one man uses the Beatles classic to reintroduce them to the world.

“Yesterday” is a Danny Boyle directed film that stars Himesh Patel. Patel plays Jack, a musician who is struggling to make it big. After an accident, Jack realizes that no one knows who the Beatles are, therefore he takes their songs and credited it as his songs. “Yesterday” has a very interesting concept as the screenplay is written by Richard Curtis. Curtis wrote a heartwarming love story that features exceptional songs. This is the best way to describe “Yesterday” as a feel good rom-com that is above average.

The film also features Ed Sheeran as himself who does a decent enough job in his acting. It is not exciting but interesting to see him act than more just a cameo. We also get Kate McKinnon, who is know for playing zany, goofy characters. But the character McKinnon plays is a villain like manager of Jack who is just wanting money. I suppose the character is supposed to be an allegory of actual music managers who are in it for money but it is odd to see McKinnon play a character that is not the protagonist. McKinnon does get multiple laughs every once in a while but in short, I feel like she was miscast.

The screenplay written by Richard Curtis is unfortunately a tad bit predictable. “Yesterday” is a love story that we have seen in multiple films prior but credit due to the intriguing question of “what if the Beatles never existed?” that follows the film throughout. There are also many questionable decisions that are written into the film. For instance, no one also knows who Oasis are. I can accept that as if the Beatles were never formed or never gotten big as they were, then a band such as Oasis never got inspired by the Fab Four, therefore Oasis never became a band. But no one in the world also knows what Coke or Harry Potter are. Were the Beatles influential to the soft drink and the book series? Although it gets a laugh when presented on screen, it is very odd to have this inclusion. It leaves more questions than answers.

“Yesterday” may be predictable but in the end it is a very lovable, heartwarming love story that revolves around one of the most influential musical acts of all time. If you are a big fan of the Beatles, there is much enjoyment to be had due to the Easter eggs and references to the Beatles. “Yesterday” has a few laughs and numerous unforgettable songs that are featured, “Yesterday” a good time that audiences will certainly enjoy.

3/4

Pulp Fiction Film Review

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Starring: John Travolta, Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman

Rated R for strong graphic violence and drug use, pervasive strong language and some sexuality

What could be said about a universally beloved classic film that hasn’t been said before? Pulp Fiction is indeed a classic film because it is a film that still holds up 25 years later. The snappy dialogue, the funny moments, the relateable anti-heroes are aspects that makes Pulp Fiction a film that is still remembered to this day, all thanks to writer and director Quentin Tarantino.

Pulp Fiction tells a non linear story of two hitmen, a washed up boxer, a wife of a crime boss, and a couple robbing a dinner. It a sense, it shows “a day in the life” of these characters we meet on screen but the story is not told in chronological order. This aspect is what is remembered from the film and deservedly so got praise for this. This influenced other films that followed Pulp Fiction to tell a story nonlinear.

But the highlight of the film comes from writer and director Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino was coming off fresh from his debut, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction was his sophomore effort. It is still impressive that a film like Pulp Fiction was well written coming from a director who had only directed one film prior. Pulp Fiction would turn Tarantino into a household name and becoming a director to watch with all of his following successors.

Pulp Fiction is a dialogue driven film that is still remembered to this day. There are many scenes that feature several minutes of dialogue, yet the film does not feel like its dragging because of it. The first act features two hitmen Jules( Samuel L Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta) walking to an apartment with a job to do. The moment both Jules and Vincent exit their vehicles and enter the apartment, we see the two characters have a conversation about foot massages, of all things. Most writers would have skipped the walk from the vehicle to the apartment and gotten straight to the action, but Tarantino is a writer that can make the dialogue work.

All of the acting is top notch as well. Travolta is the main star in Pulp Fiction, who has the most screen time in the film. His presence shines in the film, playing a drug using hitmen and he makes it work. We also get Samuel L Jackson in his most remembered role in his career and it also skyrocketed his profile and for good reason. When people think back to Pulp Fiction, most will think of the two most iconic characters of the 90’s Travolta and Jackson as Vincent and Jules, respectively. We also get Bruce Willis, who had mostly been in action films prior. His turn as a washed up boxer is a welcome change from a hero who is saving the day to a man who is in over his head.

Although the film is near perfect, it is not without its fault. The scenes that feature Bruce Willis and Maria de Medeiros are a bit slow but entertaining at the least. But when Willis goes off to retrieve his father’s watch, it starts to pick up. Nonetheless, Pulp Fiction is a must see movie as it is still has influences to this day. Reading a review of how excellent the film is does not do it justice. Pulp Fiction is indeed a timeless, classic film that stand the test of time.

4/4