🎦 Pulp Fiction full movie HD download (Quentin Tarantino) - Crime, Drama, Thriller. 🎬
Pulp Fiction
Year:
1994
Country:
USA
Genre:
Crime, Drama, Thriller
IMDB rating:
8.9
Director:
Quentin Tarantino
John Travolta as Vincent Vega
Samuel L. Jackson as Jules Winnfield
Tim Roth as Pumpkin - Ringo
Amanda Plummer as Honey Bunny - Yolanda
Eric Stoltz as Lance
Bruce Willis as Butch Coolidge
Ving Rhames as Marsellus Wallace
Phil LaMarr as Marvin
Maria de Medeiros as Fabienne
Storyline: Jules Winnfield and Vincent Vega are two hitmen who are out to retrieve a suitcase stolen from their employer, mob boss Marsellus Wallace. Wallace has also asked Vincent to take his wife Mia out a few days later when Wallace himself will be out of town. Butch Coolidge is an aging boxer who is paid by Wallace to lose his next fight. The lives of these seemingly unrelated people are woven together comprising of a series of funny, bizarre and uncalled-for incidents.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x816 px 14757 Mb h264 13360 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 852x362 px 1847 Mb h.264 1500 Kbps flv Download
iPhone 480x204 px 823 Mb xvid 600 Kbps mov Download
Reviews
Several crime stories woven together
"Pulp Fiction" (1994) tells several crime stories woven together in an amusing way, not a laugh out loud way. I'd rate it 3/4 or 7.5. Its comic aspect comes from an exaggerated use of prose by the main characters, as they discuss matters at length. These long routines can become tiresome because they are not always that amusing; I suspect they do become tiresome to some viewers. They also are not realistic. In a way they play out like skits by Sid Caesar, Carl Reiner, Howard Morris and Imogene Coca; but without being as funny. The movie is best when it has a little more action and violence. There is excessive use of the word "nigger" to the point where it sounds intentional and forced.

I guess this is classified as neo-noir, but it's not all that heavy on noir themes. What comes through is that much of the interpersonal conflict has to do with dominance and subordination. Almost everyone seems to have a chip on their shoulder or get hot under the collar, seeing insults and affronts to their dignity at every turn. People fly off and have to be made to be cool. Not all. They have to exercise self-control in a number of instances, to the point that this attempt at proper behavior and even empathetic behavior becomes a theme. This is an impression of the characters we meet. Also, some take drugs routinely. Certainly, violence comes natural to the most important characters. There is discussion of loyalty and Jackson's character undergoes a change of heart, but these are not that innovative in such movies.

The acting is good. The writer-director, Quentin Tarentino, is to be congratulated for getting his vision made and profitable at that. His style is talky in this movie. Examples abound throughout, such as a long story told by Christopher Walken and Tim Roth's rather forced monologue on different kinds of robberies. We do not find here innovative steps in using the camera or staging to tell the story. I didn't get absorbed into the look of the film either.
2016-05-28
The rebirth of a genre – and film history
I can only speak for myself, but I had never seen anything as stylish, cleverly constructed, well written and electrifying as this milestone when I first saw it in 1994. What really pulled me in right from the start is what we've now come to know as a Tarantino trademark: the dialogue. When gangsters Jules and Vincent talk to each other (or all the other characters, for that matter) there is a natural flow, a sense of realism and yet something slightly over the top and very theatrical about their lines – it's a mixture that immediately grabs your attention (even if it's just two dudes talking about what kind of hamburger they prefer, or contemplating the value of a foot-massage). Then there's the music: the songs Tarantino chose for his masterpiece fit their respective scenes so perfectly that most of those pieces of music are now immediately associated with 'Pulp Fiction'. And the narrative: the different story lines that come together, the elegantly used flashbacks, the use of "chapters" – there is so much playful creativity at play here, it's just a pure joy to watch.

If you're a bit of a film geek, you realize how much knowledge about film and love for the work of other greats – and inspiration from them - went into this (Leone, DePalma, Scorsese and, of course, dozens of hyper-stylized Asian gangster flicks), but to those accusing Tarantino of copying or even "stealing" from other film-makers I can only say: There has never been an artist who adored his kind of art that was NOT inspired or influenced by his favorite artists. And if you watch Tarantino's masterpiece today, it's impossible not to recognize just what a breath of fresh air it was (still is, actually). Somehow, movies - especially gangster films - never looked quite the same after 'Pulp Fiction'. Probably the most influential film of the last 20 years, it's got simply everything: amazing performances (especially Sam Jackson); it features some of the most sizzling, iconic dialogue ever written; it has arguably one of the best non-original soundtracks ever - it's such a crazy, cool, inspirational ride that you feel dizzy after watching it for the first time. It's – well: it's 'Pulp Fiction'. 10 stars out of 10.

Favorite films: http://www.IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/
2014-07-24
At least the Emperor is wearing underpants
Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece! No it isn't. It's over-rated. It's good, don't get me wrong, but it's not as good as it's painted. And Tarantino's faults - which become more apparent with every (pretentiously) numbered subsequent movie - are all here on show.

His dialogue is good - it's his main strength, and is correctly recognised as such. But a) it is over-reliant on the F-word (his CSI episodes and Inglourious Basterds show that he can write excellent dialogue without it), and b) it would greatly benefit from external editing: Tarantino badly needs a McCartney to sweeten his Lennon, a Lennon to apply an edge to his McCartney.

His direction is good - he extracts brilliant performances from his ensemble, and his ability to present a truly eye-catching image on screen is beyond doubt. Action is good, effects are good, set design is good etc.

But he comes in for undue praise for other things. Self-indulgence is one - again, he desperately needs someone to take him in hand and moderate some of what he does for the benefit of the film.

Case in point - Pulp Fiction's non-linear storytelling. The zip-rewind halfway through is not some sudden work of genius. It may very well be experimental but, if so, it does not work as well as linear storytelling would have done (which, I suspect, would have involved more work in breaking the story threads into coherent sections which still worked together when interleaved, or else inserting flashbacks). Tarantino has taken an unconventional, but easy, road and, in so doing, has got away with it because of the "Emperor's New Clothes" factor. However, it doesn't make Pulp Fiction a work of genius, it actually makes it a worse film.

Tarantino's lack of self-discipline means that, despite his abundance of talent, his output continues to be over-rated.
2011-03-30
Why Did People Like this?
Why did people like this?

Tiresome streams of pop-culture references?("like kane in Kung Fu" "Elvis or Beatles? Brady Bunch or Hogan's Heroes? Buffy St. Marie or Dusty Springfield? Leo Sayer or Captain & Taneall?")

mundane out of context dialogue?("wow this coffee sure is good. I didn't expect you to have such good coffee. this is one mean cup of joe!")

Hip depictions of Drug Culture.?

It's annoying bellyflop into the middle of the retro craze fashion herd?

one dimensional characters pointing guns at each other's heads? (the cheapest, most half-assed, most cliched way to generate drama = person pointing gun at another person's head. And yelling. over and over.)

"cool" sunglasses?

Take these things out, and the movie still isn't very good. Leave them in and it's trendy and annoying.

If you are a teenager and don't know anything about HK films, films from the 70s, or the 70s in general, are easily duped by hype, I urge you to see this movie. It was made for you!! It will TOTALLY BLOW YOU AWAY, MAN! Dude!

2000-11-30
Not as good as Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction is good, but it's not as good as Reservoir Dogs. The reason for this is that after his debut with Dogs, Tarantino no longer felt obliged to make his films in any way realistic. I know Dogs is derivative and probably not even realistic, but there is a certain suspension of disbelief - a humbleness in terms of realism - that Tarantino never felt obliged to observe again.

I love The Bonny Situation especially. I love many aspects of the film. But it's too retro and silly. Dogs is more real and shocking.

Jackie Brown I feel he tried again to get the realism, but since then has simply not bothered. It's like he's said to himself: to hell with it... this is the way I am...
2015-06-28
Pretty bad!
The story development is very poor, and has very long dragged scenes that add nothing to the story. The non-linear and looping time order of the scenes smacks of an effort to cover up the lack of coherence in plot and character. The movie is like several episodes of a TV show thrown together.

Some sequences, especially one involving bondage harnesses and homosexual rape, have the uncomfortable feeling of creative desperation, of someone who's afraid of losing his reputation scrambling for any way to offend sensibilities.

The actors are doing a fine job with the crap they are given. However the distinct lack of a coherent plot, the disjointedly interwoven and half-baked story lines, the absence of characterization and incorrectly using of the music, makes this movie a good example of bad Cinema!
2013-10-09
Am I blind?
You know that series of ads for Blockbuster Video featuring the oh-so-artsy film student that is really quite superficial and pseudo-intelligent? That's what everyone who sees greatness in Quentin Tarantino reminds me of. Come on, people, there are certain rules for movie-making that are indelible. You can't get by forever writing the script on the same day of shooting while hung over. Maybe I'm the blind man in the world of the sighted....or just maybe Tarantino has you all fooled, like Peter Sellers in "Being There."
1998-10-19
Tribute to On the Waterfront
I have read some of the comments on this website concerning Pulp Fiction and perhaps I missed it but no one has mentioned the fact that Tarantino used an element from Elia Kazan's "On the Waterfront" in 1954 staring Marlon Brando. In Pulp Fiction, Marsellus Wallace told Bruce Willis that he is supposed to intentionally lose to a boxer named Wilson:

Marsellus: "In the fifth, your ass goes down. Say it."

Butch: "In the fifth, my ass goes down."

Bruce Willis, not only doesn't go down and lose the fight, he kills Wilson. When I saw this, I became flushed with movie deja vu and felt very satisfied. Why was the boxer called Wilson? In "On the Waterfront" Marlon Brando has a famous monologue in which he expains how his boxing career ended: He went down intentionally against a boxer named Wilson because of greedy mobsters. Wilson, therefore was the invisble antagonist against Marlon Brando. Tarantino, being a smart guy, knew that in the deep annals of the film buff world, he could redeem Marlon Brando and all us film buffs that hate Wilson more than anything by killing Wilson. If it wasn't for Wilson, Marlon Brando "coulda been a contender." So, by killing Wilson forty years later, Tarantino effectively killed off the jerk that ruined Brando's Boxing career in "On the Waterfront." I don't know if many people had already realized this but I thought I would bring up to people's attention.

Also, for Tarantino fans, watch "Kiss Me Deadly" (1955) by Robert Aldrich. It has the answer to why the contents of the briefcase, when opened by Travolta, give a glowing lightbeam on Travolta's face and we never see what's inside.

2002-10-06
I gave it a 1 out of 10
That was to lower it's stupid ridiculously high average, but to put it quite simply, I hated this movie. I didn't expect to like it, I was only watching it for Frank Whaley, but I hated this movie, really hated with it with it's various plot holes that do not make sense(watch "Short Cuts" if you want to see a decent movies about the interrelating lives of people), obnoxious, unsympathetic characters(I wanted to cheer when John Travolta died, or did he die? I had no idea since the film epitomized non-sense making. Someone died, and I didn't like any of the characters, with the exception of Whaley's, so I would still have wanted to cheer), bad writing, with obvious attempts at being "cool" and trying to have "catch phrases," etc etc etc! I found nothing good about this film in the least. So why did critics? I hate when violent, immoral films are regarded as "daring" "good" film making. This one sure wasn't, and nominating John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson for acting awards?! The first one is just absurd and the second has proven to me that he can act, but the only thing he was acting in this film was obnoxious. This one is up there with "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Do the Right Thing" for my least favorite "good" movie.
1999-10-29
Not Something I'd Praise As A Great Movie
OK first of all I saw this a little while ago and I don't see how anybody could like this film except for the stars: John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Peter Greene, Bruce Willis, and Ving Rhames. The plot is all messed around and unorganized making it very difficult to understand. The Characters are all technically bad guys. Like I said the only good thing this film has to offer is the acting. Overall the film makes very little sense the way it is told, the characters are all unlikable. I really believe that if any film should get rated way lower than a 0 out of ten, this is it! I mean just how it got as high as an 8.9 out of 10 is beyond me. I'd continue on ranting about how bad the story is written but this film just isn't worth anymore time. Please if you're wanting to see a great crime film go watch Goodfellas(1990) and if you want to go see a good action film go watch the Hunted(2003). This film rated from me is only a 1 out of 10 since it did have many famous and good actors but Mars Attacks is way better and that was a comedy film!!!
2015-02-01
📹 Pulp Fiction full movie HD download 1994 - John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Eric Stoltz, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames, Phil LaMarr, Maria de Medeiros, Rosanna Arquette, Peter Greene, Uma Thurman, Duane Whitaker, Paul Calderon, Frank Whaley, Bronagh Gallagher, Burr Steers, Laura Lovelace - USA. 📀
×