The modern-day movie public seems entranced with the in-your-face barbaric and crude film style of Quentin Tarantino. The writer-producer-actor definitely has talent, and an imagination. But films such as this that have long-running dialogs - some sensible but mostly far-fetched, need to have a solid plot to be interesting. The plot of "Pulp Fiction" is very weak - almost pointless. And when the long stretches of cinematic street philosophy are punctuated with brutal scenes of blood and guts, I don't find much of anything entertaining.

I enjoy great mysteries, including some of the better film noir. But for the gore and guts movies to be good and have appeal, they must at least have an interesting plot and very good screenplay. "Reservoir Dogs" was such a Tarantino movie. But this plot has scenarios that bounce around in a weak screenplay. While there's a thin thread that connects some parts, others don't mesh. So, it comes across as a few short stories put together, some of which have the same characters.

An example of this is when Christopher Walken's Captain Koons tells a tall story to a young boy named Butch Coolidge. Two scenarios or so later, Butch is a full-grown boxer played by Bruce Willis. Other scenarios happen out of order, or in reverse order. This seems to be a style with Tarantino, and one that some movie critics and buffs think is a great talent. I think it's a technique meant to grab an audience where the writer can't figure out a way to do it with a straight story chronologically.

This sort of sets on end the long-standing teaching and methods of storytelling, writing, and playwrighting. And, there are a number of people who still prefer the chronological order of stories. We don't mind the use of flashbacks which are clearly identified as such. But wide changes in time or order, back and forth, from one scenario to another is confusing and says the author couldn't come up with the right ending. So, he or she used some weird techniques to make an ending superfluous. And, some of these films really don't have endings.

This film could have started or ended just about anyplace within the screenplay. Tarantino or the director just needed to shuffle the pages. It ruins what might be a good story for me. As for the acting in this film - what's so outstanding about characters spewing vulgarities back and forth, or screaming and intimidating people with foul threats in running expletives? Seems we all have a tantrum streak within us.

"Pulp Fiction" isn't an enjoyable or entertaining film. It is a look at the underworld of drugs, thugs, blood and guts. The only thing I can see that might attract such near adulation for this film is the huge and diverse cast. But I'll take any number of other types of films that can entertain with solid plots, screenplays with civility, and great acting.