Better than Pulp Fiction? - Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead (1995) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

i agree, this ia an absolutely brilliant film. however, nothing beats pulp fiction.

"The hardest thing you can do in this world is live in it. Be brave. Live."

reply

[–] umbrella_bow_cody 17 years ago

i'd say alot of movies beat pulp fiction, even in the genre you guys seem to think it created

reply

[–] a_78_loki 19 years ago

Pulp Fiction is a GREAT film, and I'm not taking anything away from it... but.. .I agree. Things To Do In Denver was better, in my opinion. It has more heart, and that's what I love in a movie. The writing, the directing, the cast... it was all there. Again... Pulp was an amazing movie, and I would say the only place it beats Denver is in it's originality. But for me, nothing can replace the amount of heart in Denver

Boat Drinks

reply

[–] strike1988 19 years ago

Donnie Brasco beats Pulp Fiction!

reply

[–] DoubleFeature86 14 years ago

Hahahahaha! nice one

reply

[–] BleedingRed77 12 years ago

Donnie Brasco sucked, in my opinion. It doesn't enter the same stratosphere as Pulp Fiction. Comparing "Denver" and "Pulp" is a bit unfair. Apples and oranges. I don't really think of them as very similar. I do love the heart of "Denver". Characters too. "Pulp" is far more inventive and much funnier than "Denver". I think the people that love Denver (to hell with the quotation marks, y'all get it) feel a need to justify it because Pulp received so much acclaim worldwide and Denver was unfairly, hardly noticed by anyone. Also, with the entire cinema world as their backup, Pulp fans are unfairly critical of any movie that followed it as derivative of Pulp. Often, that was the case, however it does not apply to Denver. Also, because of it's brazen inventiveness, it is not just scholars of fine cinema that love Pulp. A lot of idiots adopted Pulp as their movie too. Arguing with imbeciles is an exercise in frustration and futility. I think that is the primary reason so many Denver fans feel compelled to argue or question or compare Denver's legitemacy to Pulp's. My reality states that both of the films are surprisingly good, deliver on all of their promises and more, never make me feel regret for watching them, are always and will always be endlessly rewatchable, beautiful examples of a uniquely brilliant moment in USAmerican cinema history, and neither deserve to be compared to each other or any other movie before or after. When a movie just rips it up like both do, it's a disservice to engage in rating and comparing. I intend to watch them both along with my other favorites (and all of the favorites I pick up along the way) until it's time for boat drinks. That means, better than most and good enough for me! BTW, I have never watched Donnie Brasco beyond my first, disappointing theater experience, and I have no intention to ever attempt a rewatch. To even bring that movie up (even if I am wrong, and it's better than sucking, it in no way can be good enough to stand beside, much less above either Pulp or Denver) takes you out of the conversation in my book. It's not personal and I am not trying to be a jerk, just arguing the cinema choice, not the person...

the only thing i could do was be me and keep on keeping on, like a bird that flew...

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mikecool1 19 years ago

I'm watching it on IFC on Friday, as it does have Buscemi and Walken. But NOTHING is or will ever be better than Pulp Fiction.

I can't technically say this for sure as I'm yet to see this film, but it doesn't SOUND very good. And even if it did, I'm positive it won't come close to Quentin's masterpiece.

Then again, time will tell.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?
HAIL QUENTIN

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mikecool1 19 years ago

Haven't seen Bullitt, Good/Bad/Ugly, or Seven Samurai. I think Clint Eastwood is overrated and is one of those action-over-story actors. I love Taxi Driver, but the long, boring scenes do it harm. Pulp Fiction simply is the greatest film I've ever seen, and I doubt I'll see another that will beat it.

I just saw this flick. Not even close to Pulp Fiction. In fact, I'd give it a 73%, more or less. I know this may NOT be true, but it seems like this guy's prime influences are Quentin, Scorsese, Coppola, and Oliver Stone. The first is near perfect, the middle two are great but flawed, and Stone sucks.

Lower-middle C range film. Had some great aspects but was ruined by some very poor ones.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?
HAIL QUENTIN

reply

[–] girouxski1 19 years ago

Wow! I think you are being a bit close-minded. While I agree that Pulp Fiction is a great film, it is hardly the greatest film ever made. While true it may be the greatest film YOU have ever seen, I find myself wondering how varied your film-going experience is. If you have actually seen a lot of films, I wonder if you have been open enough to see great films for their greatness. Of course, if you have just been going to your local megaplex since Pulp Fiction came out then I would probably agree that the pickings are slim. As for Pulp Fiction, when it came out, Tarantino provided us with a unique visual style and an extremely clever and witty writing style. The film changed Hollywood for about six months...which is impressive. It was a singular moment in film history. A great film, no question. And as for Mr. Tarantino, I love his visual style (gorgeous photography in the two Kill Bills), but I think his writing style is becoming a bit tired. There are only so many "clever conversations" one can handle before it becomes redundant and gimmicky. If you haven't seen these films, you should try to rent them:

A Clockwork Orange-Stanley Kubrick
Strangers on a Train-Alfred Hitchcock (or almost any Hitchcock film)
Blade Runner-Ridley Scott (or perhaps Alien)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly -Sergio Leone (not a "typical" Eastwood movie)
8 1/2 -Fellini (might not be appropriate if you don't like foreign films)
Seven -David Fincher(which I consider the one of the best movie of the 90s)
Touch of Evil - Orson Welles
Stray Dog - Akira Kurosawa

DISCLAIMER: Of course, this is just my opinion. And like many, my opinion changes every day. Of course, I understand and respect that everyone has their own opinions, however, it is important to allow yourself to be open to new (and old) cineamatic experiences.

Oh yeah! I guess I should mention Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead because this is it's message board. I completely agree with you mikecool, this is an average film at best. It is the kind of film that makes me realize two things. First, it makes me realize that I can make a better film. And two, it makes me realize that the Hollywood has been accepting mediocrity for quite sometime (not a difficult thing to see).

reply

[–] jolie30 19 years ago

i would not call Things/Denver average in anyway. the story is great, the photography is pretty damn good and the acting is superb. garcia rules and how can you not like a flik with walken and buscemi in it.(Mr Shhh is now one of my fav buscemi characters) i dont think that this should be compared to tarantino however...quentin is in a league of his own, and nobody can ever get in. i like pulp fiction better than this, but i dont compare the two at all.

like you, girouxskil, my opinion changes everyday aswell. and i do believe in respecting others'. however i dont think that you (or anybody for that matter) should bash tarantino. he changed film forever, not just six months...and if you really appreciate his work, you may find, as i did, that Jackie Brown is his most impressive (although like i said, my opinion changes nearly everyday). and anybody who says that deniro was wasted in his role as lewis should be shot, once in the chest and once in the belly!

where can i put my ash...

reply

[–] girouxski1 19 years ago

If you read my post properly you would see I was not "bashing Tarantino." What I wrote was that Tarantino changed HOLLYWOOD for six months. In otherwords, Hollywood, the place of ultimate trend followers, followed up with (mostly bad) Tarantinoesque film clones. When I say he changed Hollywood for six months...well...that's a compliment. I agree he changed film (that is, the filmmaking landscape) forever. My only problem is his tired use of "clever conversation" in his overly stylized screenwriting. I respect your opinion, but please don't try to twist my opinion so you can go on some diatribe about how I bashed Tarantino.

reply

[–] jolie30 19 years ago

my bad girouxskil, i misread you.

reply

[–] kelvin41 19 years ago

I loved the first half hour of "Things" (the tape ran out(see "the ending))
About as close to Irony as Americans can get.
The excessive use of slang was nice.
I had never heard of most phrases
"Give it a name"
.......................................
a great NON ironic gangster movie, way better than bullitt
"Point Blank" (set in LA, director Boorman was he English?)
........................................
A great Ironic pastiche of a Gangster movie,
perhaps the best movie ever:
"A bout de Souffle" (Breathless) Belmondo & Seberg
Ironic that the best movie of all time is a parody af a Hollywood B movie.
.......................................

reply

[–] BleedingRed77 12 years ago

Really dude (mikecool1)??? Platoon sucked? Salvador sucked? U-Turn sucked? Talk Radio sucked? Wall Street sucked? Born On The Fourth Of July sucked? The Doors and JFK sucked? Midnight Express and Scarface sucked (screenplays by Stone)? BTW, Coppola made 3 (arguably 4) masterpieces in just a 7 year span. Ohhh, I wonder how many director's wish they could be as great but flawed as he is? I'm not even going to engage in defending Scorcese. If you can't recognize him as one of the greatest, most consistent, brilliant filmmakers in the entire world throughout the entire history of cinema, than we don't speak the same cinematic language. As for Tarantino, I love Tarantino. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp and Kill Bill are breathtaking. I can't get enough of Jackie Brown either (though that was Elmore Leonard's story). The Basterds was a real good time. True Romance was a great screenplay made into a wonderful movie by Tony Scott. Deathproof, fun but flawed. QT has skills for sure, but he hasn't changed cinema any more than the others you mentioned have. I don't understand why fanboys can only prop their preferred icon up by kicking out the knees of other's. If you do it though, you better be able to back it up better than you did in your original statement. The funny thing is that outside your assessment of Stone (who QT has never forgiven for re-writing Natural Born Killers into something other than perfect umbrage of Tarantino's original intent), I have a hard time believing even the grand and egotistical Tarantino (these are plusses concerning cinema, for me) would be hard-pressed to speak about Coppola and Scorcese as you have. Totally lacking the proper respect for visionary geniuses of the field. It seems there is only room for one genius in your cinematic world, thankfully mine can hold many...

the only thing i could do was be me and keep on keeping on, like a bird that flew...

reply

[–] blanco2k 18 years ago

alright everyone get this,
I have been a bit of a hater of tarantino, not so much his films, but i tend to over-slate them perhaps because everyone else 'bums' them. I had to sit through my film studies at college listening to everyone go on about tarantino and i dont think he deserves half the respect he gets.

Firstly tarantino is not that innovative, the only thing i think hes really good at is writing (I think true romance is the best thing hes been involved in). So pulp fiction, 'dogs' and jackie brown have a 'disjointed order and structure, so what!. Directors were doing this in the fifties and sixties and most of the style which tarantino is credited for is in fact 'borrowed' from the world cinema (european and asian) of years ago. Because joe puplic has never seen rashamon, breathless or wild strawberries he quite reasonably thinks taratino is some kind of genius. What irritates me most is tarantino does more than foreground this 'stylishness' until it becomes nearly as gratuitous as the work of a british 'gangster' film maker who will remain nameless.

Someone mentioned earlier the word 'heart' which i find greatly refreshing. Obviously there is a divide here but i think a film has to have innovation and emotion to be a great film. Im not saying tarantino's films are devoid of emotion but i think it's fair to say that when people talk about his films words like 'stylish', dynamic' and 'cool' are banded about a lot more than moving or deep.

I just want to stick up for 'things to do' and think it deserves 7 point 2 or something. I know it's not cool to prefer it to 'legitimate?'(who legitimizes it?) classics like pulp fiction and maybe thats the problem. The cast of denver give stellar teary eyed performances. And nobody can deny the intelligent way in which this film was made. The cut video sequences of the afterlife advice are placed very cleverly and powerfully throughout the film, sublime stuff. To me this kind of innovation is far more valid and appropriate than tarantino's style for the sake of style (i could write an essay on kill bill here but i wont). Taratino treads the line between critical success and commercial success by reviving other peoples ideas and bringing it to the masses in the form of sameul l jackson with an afro and a steelers wheel song.
tarantino should be bought down of his high horse (drumroll, the fourth film by quentin taratino?!).

I totally respect everyone elses opinions, whatever floats yor boat is great and the world is a happier place for it but if anyone would like an arguement that would be fun and maybe interseting too.

reply

[–] dw002m 18 years ago

I agree that Tarantino gets a bit tiresome, especially when you've seen Reservoir Dogs multiple times. Most of his movies don't really have much replay value, to borrow a gaming term; Pulp Fiction is worth two or more viewings, but movies like Dogs and Kill Bill really don't merit more than one (in my book).

Maybe multiple runs would be fine several years apart, but people get way too into these movies and want to watch them once a month.

That said, I still like Pulp Fiction better than Things to Do.

reply

[–] thanatron 18 years ago

Absolutely. As a whole production , Things to Do... was a more masterfully peiced together film. Although the dialogue isn't as outstanding and rugged as pulp fiction, and it follows a simple path of chronology, as opposed to PF's dips and switches into different periods of time throughout the film, it is still, simply a better film. hands down.

regardless, Snatch, is a PERFECT film.

end.

reply

[–] wesleysr 18 years ago

has anyone else brought up this fact? all these movies get compared to pulp fiction. over on the pulp fiction board, there is no thread where someone felt the need to compare it to things to do in denver when you're dead. know why? because pulp fiction sets the standard. don't get me wrong, i love this movie. but at the end of the day, it's just an excellent movie, pulp fiction is a landmark film.

"The hardest thing you can do in this world is live in it. Be brave. Live."

reply

[–] BleedingRed77 12 years ago

Nobody brings it up because the entire cinema world is in love with Pulp (rightly so). The problem is that any movie that came after Pulp with any similarities to it at all, gets pummelled into dust for being a Pulp rip-off. Sometimes fairly, othertimes unfairly. What's left is people that love a movie (like Denver) constantly having to justify the movie's independent existence. Pulp and Denver are not that similar. I love them both. I don't compare them, they both exist in my realm of excellent cinematic taste. Also wesleysr, I hate to be the one to tell you but Pulp Fiction (much like the great Reservoir Dogs) blatantly rips off countless films. Sometimes it is in homage and sometimes it's the idea or the movement or the wardrobe or the camera or the...words. (If you don't believe me, follow the trivia bump from the Pulp Fiction page onto another page, click on the Connections button and then tell me how long it takes you to read through the 7oo+ connections Pulp has to other films, at least 600+ are from Pulp referring to other films/TV that came before Pulp, though I know that after the movie came out, it was an easy reference for many a TV/movie coming in it's wake.) Tarantino is the greatest, most all encompassing, shamelessly obvious cinema thief in all of cinema history. I am not knocking it by any means. I think we are all richer for it. Nobody has ever taken from so many different films from different directors and different time periods and different styles and thrown all of that replication, that love, into a singular film before. To do so and still create a unique (and usually wonderful) cinema experience is almost unbelievable. Nobody has ever stolen so brazenly and so thoroughly and so gleefully as our delightfully brilliant QT!

the only thing i could do was be me and keep on keeping on, like a bird that flew...

reply

[–] adamk-2 18 years ago

You think you're going to get some grief? Well, here goes: I never cared for Pulp Fiction. I thought it was a triumph of style over substance, flash, hip and derivative, a film for people who don't know films. Shortly after it came out, someone I knew was praising it and they said, "It's like no other film I've ever seen". "Oh," I replied. "Ever seen The Asphalt Jungle? Touch of Evil? The Killing? The Killers? The Set-Up? Lady from Shanghai? Point Blank?" He hadn't seen any of these. "The reason it's like no film you've ever seen is because you just haven't seen enough films". C'mon, even Tarantino admits that he steals from(sorry, "pays tribute to")all the films he used to see when he worked in a video shop, and this is no exception. Tarantino is a pastiche artist: a fine one, but a magpie of a filmmaker who can only skillfully patch together scenes and references from other films, pasting over the cracks with a veneer of hipness and a great soundtrack.

"Things to Do..." is a completely different kettle of fish (okay, I'm about 3/4 of the way through it, but I'm impressed already). It's taken me a while to get into it, but I love the little, bizarre character flourishes and dialogue which don't, as in Tarantino films, wink at the audience as if to say "Huh? Huh? Clever, aren't I?" The acting is much better, as well: these aren't marionettes to Tarantino's coolness, these are desperate, damaged characters trying to find their way out of their mess. It's almost a mood piece spattered with bizarre violence, a film that's unafraid to present a challenge to the audience and to take it's time.

Besides, Pulp Fiction didn't have Fairuza Balk in it. She rocks.

reply

[–] good_day_for_me 18 years ago

""...Pulp Fiction. I thought it was a triumph of style over substance, flash, hip and derivative, a film for people who don't know films...."" ??? Really??? Maybe for people who likes flash action. And the "Things to do..." is for people who like more emotion and drama. So if you don't know people and the fact that there are different kind people who like different kind of movies, why are you making such negative critiques about them? See and study, then talk. If you don't know something, don't say negative critiques about.

"Things to do..." (1995) --> 6.6/10 (6,601 votes)
"Pulp Fiction" (1994) --> 8.8/10 (162,335 votes)
Do these numbers say anything to you? If a movie became popular more people will watch it. People will like it. If they hear negative things about a movie they will probably not watching it. This is fact.

reply

[–] adamk-2 18 years ago

Yep, there will always be different kinds of people who like different kinds of films, and they are certainly free to express this and - as witnessed on this thread -- they duly do. Oddly, I thought I was as well. I thought this was a message board, where people could express opinions. What I was saying (and perhaps I didn't make myself clear) was that I thought (sorry, did I not make it clear that it was an opinion?) Tarantino is overrated as an "innovator". I quite clearly quoted the massive PF fan who told me he'd never seen a film like it. Several people I spoke to (yeah, okay, not 162, 335 of them) said pretty much the same thing. If they'd actually seen any of the the films I mentioned (and there are many more, I'm sure) they'd know that it's all been done before.

Oh, and thanks for the figures, but they're meaningless: They say that one film is more popular by those who frequent IMDB and can be bothered to quantify these kind of things. But, "More popular" does not actually mean "better".

The Sun is Britain's most popular newspaper, selling more copies than any other, yet it's nothing more than a slightly more news-worthy National Enquirer. At one point, Bananarama were the biggest-selling all-girl group EVER, outselling even The Supremes. By your standards, this would make them better. Mind you, by your standards, Pulp Fiction is a better film than Citizen Kane or Mean Streets. In fact, by your standards, Rocky IV and Johnnie English are better films than Mean Streets.

"If a movie became popular more people will watch it. People will like it." You think so? I'd rather hope they'd make up their own minds.

reply

[–] BleedingRed77 12 years ago

Dude, adamk-2 - AWESOME! I thought I was going to have to write something to clarify obvious dips in logic and improper analogy-making. I couldn't have stated it better than you, myself. I feel compelled to educate these cinema freshmen concerning the levels of "innovation" QT really contributes. I think he steals with both hands from everybody that came before him. I also think he is brilliant at it (which perhaps may be his finest contribution-brazen,gleeful, replication as homage). Anyway, the point of this post was to let you know that when I read a post such as the one you wrote before this, I become really frustrated with IMDB for not having Upvote/Downvote ability through these threads. UPVOTE for your intelligent, concise skewing and educating of the less learned!

the only thing i could do was be me and keep on keeping on, like a bird that flew...

reply

[–] adamk-2 12 years ago

Why, thank you. I don't post on IMDB that much any more since someone specifically sent me a message, having read my reviews, to call me a "retard". So, it's always nice to find someone who appreciates what one's trying to say.

Thank you again.

reply

[–] polysicsarebest 11 years ago

man someone on rateyourmusic specifically created an account to give all my band's albums half a star. that's the only thing he reviewed on his account. i sent a message to rateyourmusic and an administrator said, "Yeah he seems like a troll but what can you do? we can't ban him just for giving you bad ratings." hah. which is not what I was even asking!...

anyway, moral of the story is, don't let a user anywhere stop you from posting, and doing what you like.

-
Shuji Terayama forever.

reply

[–] pbl1 18 years ago

i'm a big pulp fiction fan, but AdamKY nailed it. Pulp was extremely derivative, but TTDIDWYD is a completely different type of movie. You can't even mention the two in the same sentence, save that Walken and Buscemi were in both.

Do you think that more people saw PF than TTDIDWYD was because PF had a much larger distribution in the first place?!? Not to mention winning Palm D'or at Cannes or being runner-up oscar winner. Also, Andy Garcia will NEVER be able to carry a movie box office-wise -- hence, his movies will always have a smaller distribution.

And don't base any movie argument on IMDB votes. Popularity and quality are usually mutually exclusive.

reply

[–] jimmykebab 18 years ago

Wow this discussion has gone on for quite a long time! Good to see some people on my side yay! theyre very hard to find. As for pulp fiction....well heres what i personally think. I DONT think this film is even remotely stylish, seriously the camerawork is pretty much always static and the editing is not exactly revolutionary; the fragmented story structure is quite possibly one of the worst executed ever in this film. It doesnt have any reason to be in it. What is the point of it?...to me there is no point and it seems to be used to mask what is overall an increasingly shallow and more to the point just plain un interesting set of events. Dont get me wrong, i dont hate this film, just dont really like it that much (id say 5/10) its not all bad; yet, a lot of it feels unnecessary. The much talked about dialouge is good, but it seems to be replacing any substance in the film, the characters are poorly fleshed out, their motives unclear, making for a detatched and otherwise pointless film. Plus the dialouge does not always seem what actual people would say; sometimes it does but not always. Reservoir dogs and Jackie Brown are much more succesful films, and sadly overshadowed by this hulking behemoth of glaringly overrated proportions; hes more reserved in the others. (While kill bill 1 sucks and kill bill 2 is a step in the right direction.) Overall i really dont see why ttdidwyd is compared cos really i dont see much resembelance. THat was the point i was trying to make :o almost a year ago haha.

Even the most primitive society has an inate respect for the insane

reply

[–] musampa14 18 years ago

Not better than pulp fiction but still a brilliant film that deserved at least 7.8/10.

Steve Buscemi should have one a oscar as 'Mr Shhhh'.

reply

[–] rodsta69 18 years ago

I wouldn't compare them because about the only things they have in common is they were both independent films and both cast Christopher Walken and Steve Buscemi. I think Pulp Fiction is a tad overrated but I do think it is a great film, just not the "perfect" film a lot of people say. Things to Do is one of my favorite movies. I enjoyed the performances of all the actors. It's rare that you see a movie and there aren't any actors in it that cause you to say "man, that guy/girl can't act." This was one of those movies.

But regardless of comparisons, any movie with Christopher Walken is going to be great!

reply

[–] user-11082 17 years ago

As far as I know, Buscemi was not in Pulp Fiction...

reply

[–] Championship-Vinyl 17 years ago

Buscemi most definitely was in pulp fiction, he played the waiter that served John Travolta and Uma Thurman at the Jack Rabbit Slims restaurant. Things to do in Denver when you're dead is barely even comparable to pulp fiction. PF had a better script, better characters and was a much more original piece of work. Denver started out well but the task garcia was given as his 'one last job' was pathetic. The group of ex gangsters he got together should easily have been able to rough up one guy, in fact Jimmy should have been able to do it on his own! It seemed to me like the writer(s) couldn't think of anything better and just wanted something to get them to the bit where they would throw in a load of emotional stuff that doesn't really fit in a supposed gangster film. The group should have been able to do the job easily, and then they should have thought of a better plan than sitting around waiting to be killed.

reply

[–] sonnythefat 18 years ago

yes...Boat Drinks to you all

reply