Shameful Pulp Fiction Rip-Off

I started to write a review... I just can't do it. I'm too hung up on the crappy plagiarism that I can't seriously critique the movie. Good plagiarism is okay, but this was just obvious and stupid.

Here's the first paragraph I'd written:

There was a whole slew of Tarantino imitations after Pulp Fiction, especially in direct-to-video. The level of imitation by now has cooled almost to "influence" status, but "Tarantinoisms" are still pretty annoying. I think it might be helpful for someone to view this movie, as an example of what happens when you take that crap too far.

Now I'll list a few "similar" plot points:

1) Two badasses in a restaurant that gets robbed.

2) One of them has a metal briefcase.

3) He won't give up the briefcase.

4) Characters wonder what's in the briefcase. (We see what's in it, so that's a little different... but come on. If you're gonna rip off the plot point, don't ruin it too.)

5) The "Elvis Lives" speech.

This is the most common "Tarantinoism": Characters talking about pop culture for no apparant reason. Tarantino used it to develop characters, but the imitators never go anywhere with it. You'll see some conversation about Scooby-Doo or PEZ, and that's it. It's just random crap that, while it may be a little funny, doesn't go anywhere.

I could string together 50 Usenet posts into a movie, creating a mish-mash of "interesting" dialogue, but it wouldn't be a story. The Elvis speech is returned to twice, in some interesting ways. I still wonder what the point was. Maybe it was a general theme of the movie... a sign that the screenplay is about pop culture itself?

Honestly, I would have really liked this whole plot thread, if not for the other rip-offs making it look bad.

The Elvis Lives speech wasn't so bad, then... But what about the Wheelchair Guy? What the hell did that mean? And what about Bobcat's stupid dialogue/voiceover? If he's talking to himself, it might as well be a voiceover. It's the same mistake: Information the audience does not need or want.

6) Zed and Maynard, revisited.

I knew the second I saw that van. It was at that point, actually, when I completely lost faith in this writer/director. Then, during that entire sequence, they kept spouting off mindless Tarantinoisms! I couldn't stop myself from noting how much of a rip-off this crap movie is.

Other points of note:

1) Why have a strip club scene with no nudity? I wanted to kick the *beep* out of this guy -- through my TV. I wanted to just run up and drop-kick the TV, on the off chance that magical forces would intervene and he would feel it. Even the Dragnet movie had a better strip club scene.

2) How obvious is it that this guy's a John Woo fan?

I'm willing to believe that he's a Tarantino fan simply because he identifies with him. He probably saw Pulp Fiction and thought, "That's the movie I've always wanted to make!" I just think he should have *beep* made his movie. Instead, he tried to make Pulp Fiction.

I'd really like to talk to him. If it wasn't a writer/director movie, I could believe that something got lost in the translation. I just wonder what the hell this guy was thinking.

There are a lot of really great ideas in this movie. I watched it to the end, just to see the next original idea. Those original ideas were spread really thing, though. I don't know why this guy didn't just wait... Cut all the Tarantino "inspired" crap and wait for more original ideas to surface.

Accusations of "Tarantinoism" really piss me off; because I like all the guy's movies, and I like all the movies I've ever heard of him recommending. It's pretty obvious that a lot of people like that style and those stories. Critics don't differentiate, though. They may never notice the obvious identical-plot-point similarities in this movie; but if they see postmodernism and 1970s style "anything," they cry foul. It's ridiculous. Please, it's been almost 10 years since Reservoir Dogs, and nobody who draws from the same source material is ripping off Tarantino. Enough already!

That said, blatant rip-offs like Back to Back should be pissed on.

Similarities between your writing and someone else's are always going to occur. There's no way to eliminate unintentional similarities to "everything." Just don't do it consciously! It's lame. Lame, lame, lame!