Pulp Fiction | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Pulp Fiction’

You’ve Got To Learn To Laugh. That’s The Way To True Love…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Andie MacDowell, Angels, Bob Hoskins, Chicago, Dorothy Winters, Frank Quinlan, General Comments, Heaven, Huey Driscoll, Iowa, Jean Stapleton, John Travolta, Michael (1996) — movie review, Movie Reviews, Nora Ephron, Pansy Milbank, Pulp Fiction, Reviews, Robert Pastorelli, Strong To Highly Recommended Movie, The National Mirror, Vartan Malt, William Hurt on May 12, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Michael” (1996) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the mid‑90s fantasy / rom‑com “Michael”, directed by Nora Ephron and starring John Travolta as Michael, a rumpled, cigarette‑smoking archangel on temporary leave from Heaven; William Hurt as Frank Quinlan, a burned‑out tabloid reporter trying to keep his job and his patience; Robert Pastorelli as Huey Driscoll, Frank’s more excitable partner who believes every weird story they chase; Andie MacDowell as Dorothy Winters, a would‑be “angel expert” with a secret of her own; Bob Hoskins as Vartan Malt, their editor back in Chicago trying to keep the National Mirror afloat; and Jean Stapleton as Pansy Milbank, the elderly Iowa woman whose letter claiming she lives with an angel kicks off the whole adventure. The film mixes light comedy, mild romance, and a road‑trip structure as this odd group travels with an angel who seems more interested in pie, dancing, and mischief than anything holy.

Background: This is a re‑watch for me. I’ve seen it well over a half-dozen times, but it’s been a few years since I last enjoyed it. I mainly remembered it as “the one where Travolta saves the dog” and as part of his post‑“Pulp Fiction” run of star vehicles. Released in 1996, “Michael” was a modest box‑office success, but it didn’t receive any Academy Award nominations. Historically, it sits in that 90s space where studios were still making comedies with a light fantasy hook. It’s not a “prestige” film, but it’s a above average title from the mid-90s.

Plot: The National Mirror receives a letter from Pansy Milbank claiming she has an angel living with her. Editor Vartan Malt sends reporters Frank Quinlan and Huey Driscoll to Iowa to check it out, and he insists they bring along Dorothy Winters to give the story a “spiritual” angle. Malt touts Winters to be an expert on angels. When they arrive, they actually meet Michael: wings, feathers, cigarettes, beer, and all. Michael agrees to return to Chicago with them, but only if they drive. The rest of the film is a road trip: diners, motels, bar fights, tourist traps, and a lot of Michael nudging the humans toward dealing with their own emotional baggage. Frank and Dorothy bicker and circle each other, Huey tries to keep up, and Michael alternates between being a mischievous tourist and a being who knows exactly what each person needs. By the time they reach Chicago, relationships have shifted and Michael’s real purpose becomes clear.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Mostly; decent; clean and simple; several; yes.

Any good? Mostly. “Michael” is a gentle, slight road movie with a fantasy hook. It’s not a deep film and it doesn’t pretend to be. The story is episodic — you can feel the “now we stop here, now we stop there” structure — but the tone stays light enough that it doesn’t become a slog. When the movie works, it’s because it leans into the idea that Michael is here to fix the people, not the world. When it doesn’t, it feels like a series of skits loosely tied together by car travel and pop songs. By the way, the songs / music are / is outstanding!!

Acting: Travolta carries the film. His Michael is physical, playful, and deliberately un‑angelic: he eats too much, drinks, smokes, flirts, and gets into trouble. Underneath that, though, there’s a sense that he knows exactly what he’s doing with each person he meets. Hurt plays Frank as a man who’s tired of his own cynicism, and he gives the character enough weight to make his gradual softening believable. Pastorelli provides the broader comic reactions, which fit the tabloid‑sidekick role. MacDowell plays Dorothy with an earnest awkwardness that works for the character. Hoskins, mostly back in the office, still manages to give Vartan a sense of desperation and affection for his staff. Jean Stapleton is warm and matter‑of‑fact as Pansy, grounding Michael’s introduction.

Filming / FX: The filming is straightforward mid‑90s cinema: small towns, diners, and roadside attractions all look like the real thing. The cinematography leans into warm daylight and cozy interiors. The visual effects are minimal — mostly Michael’s wings and a few small touches — and they hold up well enough because the movie doesn’t lean on them. The soundtrack is very of its time, but it fits the “easy road trip” vibe. Actually, it’s pretty excellent! LoL. There are really only two FX: Michael dies and fades away surrounded by the three “reporters” and (at the very end,) just before the credits roll, Michael and Pansy dance down a Chicago street and “glow-off” into Heaven.

Problems: Several. The film never fully decides how seriously it wants to take its own premise. Sometimes Michael feels like a genuine spiritual presence; other times he feels like a plot device to move the humans from one emotional checkpoint to the next. The road‑trip structure means some scenes feel like filler. The romance between Frank and Dorothy is predictable and not particularly deep. The tone also wobbles between broad comedy and gentle sentiment.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes (very much). “Michael” is not a great movie in a classic cinema sense, but it’s a pleasant one. It’s the kind of film you can put on, watch in pieces, and still follow without much effort. Travolta looks like he’s having fun, and that goes a long way. I appreciated the small moments where the film lets Michael be quietly kind instead of loudly quirky. It’s not laugh‑out‑loud funny but it does have moments where it is deeply moving (with both miracles and gentle charm).

Final Recommendation: Strong to high recommendation. “Michael” is a light 1990s fantasy / rom‑com with a big‑name cast, a simple premise, and a warm, easygoing tone. It has no Oscar pedigree and only modest historical significance, but it’s an easy watch if you’re in the mood for something fun. Watch it for Travolta’s playful performance, the mild humor, and the reminder that sometimes an angel can still point people in the right direction.

.
Click here (12 May) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Mediocre Tarantino

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alita: Battle Angel, Brad Pitt, Bridget von Hammersmark, Christoph Waltz, Col. Hans Landa, Daniel Brühl, Diane Kruger, Eli Roth, France, Fredrick Zoller, Germany, Kill Bill, Lt. Aldo Raine, Lt. Archie Hicox, Mélanie Laurent, Michael Fassbender, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Movies, Pulp Fiction, Sgt. Donny Donowitz, Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz, Shosanna Dreyfus, Til Schweiger on July 19, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“Inglourius Basterds” (2009) — movie review
Today’s review is for the “alternate reality / history” WWII military drama “Inglourious Basterds” and stars: Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine, Diane Kruger as Bridget von Hammersmark (an actress / double agent who is trying to help the allies), Eli Roth as Sgt. Donny Donowitz (one of the “Basterds”), Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus (a Jewis girl seeking revenge against the Nazis), Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa (the bad-guy SS officer who killed Shosanna’s family and who is now hunting the “Basterds”), Michael Fassbender as Lt. Archie Hicox (a British Officer sent behind enemy lines to assist in the killing of Hitler), Daniel Brühl as Fredrick Zoller (a German war hero and the subject of a Nazi film), Til Schweiger as Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz (a German soldier who rebels against the Nazis and who then joins the “Basterds” squad).

Basic plot: In WWII German-occupied France, a young Jewish girl witnesses the slaughter of her family by SS Officer Colonel Hans Landa. Narrowly escaping with her life, Shosanna Dreyfus plots her revenge several years later when German war hero Fredrick Zoller takes a interest in her and arranges a movie premiere (he is the subject of the movie) at the theater she now owns. Meanwhile, Lt. Aldo Raine forms a special commando team composed of Jewish-American soldiers to fight the Germans behind enemy lines. So, the Germans have made a war movie about Zoller and with the opportunity of having every senior Nazi commander and politician in attendance, in the same theater, Raine is sent to blow-up the theater when the film premiers, not knowing that Dreyfus is already planning to lock everyone in the theater and burn it down with everyone inside. In this alternate universe, the bombing fails, but the burning succeeds and Hitler and the Nazi high command is killed so the war ends.

Background: I like war movies. I like action movies. I like “based on true events” movies. “I don’t really care for “alternate reality / history” movies – mainly because made up history, in pop culture, creates an uninformed / misinformed public who “believe” the movie is an accurate portrayal of real history. Our American education system is not able to compete with fake history – which doesn’t help… Anyway, I purchased this movie in DVD format several years ago and have just never gotten around to viewing it. This review is from my first viewing. It was prompted by my seeing the promo on YouTube. (Yeah, they got me again.)

So, is this movie any good? The actors? The action? And, should you make time to view it? To the first three: so-so. To the last: it depends…

Any good: This movie was directed by Quentin Tarantino. If you like his work – and many do – you will probably like this movie. I have enjoyed several of his movies (ex: “Pulp Fiction“, “Kill Bill“), but I found this film wore that enjoyment down pretty thin. The “film” techniques: chapter headings, physical and bloody brutality, heavy use of black and red color schemes are all so standard now (and copied by others), they are actually almost boringly expected. Ho-hum…

The actors: Laurent and Waltz are the best of the lot. This is the first time I’ve seen Laurent and the camera loves her. Waltz is Waltz. If the camera loves Laurent, it adores Waltlz. He is an eye magnet even when he’s not the one speaking. The problem I have with him is I’ve seen Waltz in multiple roles and he’s starting to seem like he’s John Wayne “playing” Rooster Cogburn. Yeah, he’s great in THIS role, but he’s really just playing himself, again. Bond villain, check. Django, check. Tarzan, check. The only stretch I can remember was in “Alita: Battle Angel“. Maybe, it’s just me… I enjoy Brad Pitt, but for seem reason I just can’t go as far as saying “I’m a fan”. I’m not sure why, either. Kruger is okay in her role, but I liked her more in the “National Treasures” movies. I can’t think of much else I’ve seen her in which really made me sit up an notice her. I liked Brühl in this movie. I didn’t really like Fassbender. Brühl was believable, Fassbender wasn’t. I thought Schweiger ended up being wasted in this film. He was a little gem (when the camera focused on him) and I would have liked him to have more minutes.

The action: Tarantino. Blood. Gore (multiple scalpings). Pretty typical for “T”.

Should you view this movie: Again, if you like “T” style films, this is as good as any of them. If you do not, you may still find a reason to view it. If you are not a “T” fan, it’s probably a miss. I have two main objections to this film: 1) what’s here is done well, but there’s almost nothing “new” or interesting done here. Even allowing this movie is now almost fifteen years old… And, 2) As a veteran, I object to the depiction of an American officer saying I’m part Indian and if you agree to join my unit I want 100 scalps from each of you. I’m not saying American’s have never committed war crimes. Obviously, we have – and still do. Hopefully, it’s only occasionally and not purposefully done – as depicted here. I would be particularly offended if I were a Jewish-American and I was being told: “The enemy is brutalizing Jews so I want you to brutalize them. We are going to be so brutal to them, they will fear us.” This attitude assumes Jewish-Americans have a greater proclivity to seek revenge and to commit war crimes. I don’t believe this is true and, yes, I (personally) find it offensive to suggest it.

Final recommendation: moderate. The acting is pretty strong – individual performances, anyway. The action is pretty “Tarantino-ish”. I just didn’t find the story to be at all believable – even as I was watching it, and, even within the confines of “alternate history / reality”.

.
Click here (19 July) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Code

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged Inspirational Codes, Kenneth Robeson, Philosophy, Pulp Fiction, Quotes, The Doc Savage Code, The Man Of Bronze on November 5, 2014| Leave a Comment »

Let me strive every moment of my life to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, that all may profit by it.

Let me think of the right and lend all my assistance to those who need it, with no regard for anything but justice.

Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.

Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens and my associates in everything I say and do.

Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.

― Kenneth Robeson
From his book: “The Man of Bronze“

[Popularly known in “pulp fiction” (and on the web) as “The Doc Savage Code” — kmab]

.
Click here (5 November) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.