1994 was an interesting film year, in that it produced two of the most highly lauded films in recent memory -- Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump -- which, in my humble opinion, are both grossly overrated. I'm not sure I could say Pulp Fiction is the worse of the two, but it's certainly the more disappointing.

The reason for this is that Quentin Tarantino's script demonstrates his flair for hip, knowing dialogue, and his ability to use such dialogue to take the edge off violence (a good or bad thing, depending upon your views). The problem is that, rather than use this gift to create characters in whom you are actually interested in following, Tarantino instead opts for the equivalent of writing and directorial masturbation -- i.e., showing what he can do merely for the purpose of showing that he can do it, without any real concern for character or plot. Such an approach may be call for praise from critics and devotees, but for me they are a grievously missed opportunity. Indeed, what was wildly praised as ingenious film-making (i.e., through the non-linear and looping time order of the scenes) instead smacks of an effort to cover up the lack of coherence in plot and character.

As for the highly lauded performances, only three really stand out for me, and two -- Harvey Keitel and Christopher Walken -- in glorified cameos. The only other truly developed character is that of Samuel L. Jackson, whose character discovers something from his experiences, and attempts to act on what he has learned. The other performances in the film range from the passable (Ving Rhames), to the flat (Bruce Willis), to the really annoying (John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Amanda Plummer).

If you want to see the best Tarantino film, watch a film where he creates believable characters and puts them through their paces, albeit with the help of Elmore Leonard source material -- Jackie Brown.