No, it's not.

Yeah huh.

Each generation has movies that seemed different, that had everyone talking (The Sixth Sense and Avatar are two examples). Pulp Fiction was such a film.

But, beyond the gawk-factor of it, I wrote a five-installment series exploring "the gospel according to Quentin" - Pulp Fiction is a bundle of redemption stories that suggests he had much higher ambitions than just gawk-value.

It's still considered one of the best films of the last few decades/90's etc/cult film.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Each generation has movies that seemed different, that had everyone talking (The Sixth Sense and Avatar are two examples). Pulp Fiction was such a film.

But, beyond the gawk-factor of it, I wrote a five-installment series exploring "the gospel according to Quentin" - Pulp Fiction is a bundle of redemption stories that suggests he had much higher ambitions than just gawk-value.

The sixth sense was a big deal at the time but didn't have much rewatch ability. I think pulp fiction does due to the quote ability of it.

@intothenightalone said: The sixth sense was a big deal at the time but didn't have much rewatch ability.

Huh? If the movie does anything, it's making you want to watch it again to see how you could've missed the twist and look for all the hints.

Why do you say that? Who forgot about Pulp Fiction?

@Stratego! said:

Huh? If the movie does anything, it's making you want to watch it again to see how you could've missed the twist and look for all the hints.

What annoys me is about The Sixth Sense was Shyamalan attempting, during the DVD interview, to say that he put sufficient cues and clues into the movie that we viewers should have known the twist. I call BS because he was sufficiently inconsistent that the twist did indeed require a reveal, and it was the big shock talk of the time because it was not obvious, at all.

Among the most glaring - every other person who the kid saw bore the marks of their fatal injuries, yet we go through the entire movie never seeing the marks of...one key fatal injury. Gimme a break.

There were also scenes that we, the audience, only saw parts of...but, in the actual Sixth Sense universe, the situation would have either been going on before the camera was on or would have gone on after the camera was off that would have revealed the incongruence that would have revealed the truth. In your own mind, play through the restaurant dinner scene beyond what we saw on camera - at some point, we'd have known better what was going on, but how it was shot very conveniently precluded that opportunity. The hints he claims to have put in don't overtake the cheeky screenplay that ensures the reveal would be the most talked about in years.

From that interview, I saw Shyamalan as smug and arrogant, turned me off him. I watched/liked Unbreakable, then it was all downhill with no brakes...until Devil (but, I digress...)

@DRDMovieMusings said: I call BS because he was sufficiently inconsistent that the twist did indeed require a reveal, and it was the big shock talk of the time because it was not obvious, at all.

I agree his hints were not that obvious (although with enough experience the twist can be guessed), but I don't agree they were inconsistent. And when the twist finally is revealed, the whole movie does make sense and everything falls into place.

Among the most glaring - every other person who the kid saw bore the marks of their fatal injuries, yet we go through the entire movie never seeing the marks of...one key fatal injury. Gimme a break.

Well, Bruce Willis was wearing a coat most of the time and the injury was at his back. But ofcourse the director is not going to show us if he wants the audience the experience the movie from his perspective,. It doesn't mean the boy didn't see those injurues.

There were also scenes that we, the audience, only saw parts of...but, in the actual Sixth Sense universe, the situation would have either been going on before the camera was on or would have gone on after the camera was off that would have revealed the incongruence that would have revealed the truth. In your own mind, play through the restaurant dinner scene beyond what we saw on camera - at some point, we'd have known better what was going on, but how it was shot very conveniently precluded that opportunity.

That's the case with every movie with a twist, otherwise it doesn't work. Most twists need for the truth to be hidden at least partly. Why do we hear Norman Bates argue with his mother instead of seeing it for ourselves?

From that interview, I saw Shyamalan as smug and arrogant, turned me off him.

Could be, I've never seen that interview. I can say that I'm not impressed at all with the rest of his work.

Anyway, the point is that certainly mosty people would want to see the movie again to watch what they missed.

Devil was good. The village was a great twist. I haven't seen his latest which got good reviews (split).

@intothenightalone said:

Devil was good. The village was a great twist. I haven't seen his latest which got good reviews (split).

I haven't seen Devil. I was able to guess the twist of The Village just by reading the premise. When I finally saw the movie, the story didn't do anything for me.

@Stratego! I can go along with everything you just wrote...except one - you are right that "it doesn't mean the boy didn't see those injuries", which is fine as is.

But it does mean a few things: it means A) all the other injuries were evident not just to the boy but also to we the audience; B) hiding this one key injury is therefore inconsistent, it's not treated like the rest, to drive the big reveal. C) most movie makers who make a twist ending own that the twist was supposed to be shocking, not insult their audience by saying, essentially, "you idiots, how could you not see all the clues I provided to you with so much skill and craft that missing them should have been impossible, are you blind or were you just not paying attention?" (yeah, I paraphrased, but you get the gist).

@intothenightalone said:

Devil was good. The village was a great twist. I haven't seen his latest which got good reviews (split).

Didn't see The Village. Tried Signs and The Happening, then just tuned him out, didn't bother with Lady in the Water or Last Airbender. I didn't even see _Devil _in theatre, (I remember when its trailer showed before some other movie I'd gone to see, the theatre just erupted in laughter, he'd become a complete joke by this point) - anyway, one night, _Devil _was on TV and my movie review buddy said watch it. I did, it was good. Very good - I mean, there was some cheesy piffle, but the bigger picture of the story covered the piffle.

On your recommendation, I may try The Village!

The Village is his best... it goes beyond the twist ending and instead deals with both the philosophical and spiritual themes as well as dealing with the dramatic implications for the characters...

Highly underrated film, but one that he probably wouldn't have been able to pull off had he not done the Sixth Sense beforehand...

Also, Pulp Fiction is great and far from forgotten... It's actually one of those movies that younger generations have kept alive... I wonder if this will last though as I see people discussing Tarantino's latter movies more than the earlier ones...

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Stratego! I can go along with everything you just wrote...except one - you are right that "it doesn't mean the boy didn't see those injuries", which is fine as is.

But it does mean a few things: it means A) all the other injuries were evident not just to the boy but also to we the audience; B) hiding this one key injury is therefore inconsistent, it's not treated like the rest, to drive the big reveal. C) most movie makers who make a twist ending own that the twist was supposed to be shocking, not insult their audience by saying, essentially, "you idiots, how could you not see all the clues I provided to you with so much skill and craft that missing them should have been impossible, are you blind or were you just not paying attention?" (yeah, I paraphrased, but you get the gist).

It is tradition for every film with a twist ending to provide slight clues throughout so that the twist doesn't feel tacked on and to also give the audience a chance to guess. An example would be in The Usual Suspects where Kevin Spacey slowly looks across the notice board. Shyamalan wasn't saying "Here are the clues, if you don't get the twist, you be dopey." He was just pointing out the clues he left because it's interesting. If the interview your talking about was from the original DVD release, I saw the same interview. Those clues are supposed to trick you. That's part of the fun. They use traditional cinematic language to wrongfoot you. So he wanted to fool you. Not make you out to be an idiot. It's a sign of a bad twist if the clues make it too obvious.

The whole thing about the visible wounds is subjective. When your watching a film like that you're supposed to give it some leeway I think. Any twist in the world you could find that kind of fault with. It's up to you to dwell on it too much or to let it go.