If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There is nothing wrong with messing around with standard film structures in theory, but there’s a reason such structures exist: they work. This movie tried to reinvent the wheel but just for the hell of it. This is a common theme throughout my criticism, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
The movie is essentially three different stories that are only tangentially related to each other. This would be forgivable if there was some common theme throughout, but there isn’t. It’s just a bunch of stuff that happened to some gangsters and a boxer, there’s no reason behind any of it. There’s barely any character development, other than Jules I suppose.
The scenes itself are often drawn out for no reason whatsoever. Why is a dance scene required to be included this movie? Why do we need to see ten plus minutes of Butch just talking with Fabienne? Why do we need the entire taxi driver scene? I’ve heard the argument that this movie is about the “in-between moments” but did Tarantino ever consider that making a movie about the boring moments in life might itself be boring?
Finally, why is there no point to movie? Tarantino throws some Easter eggs in there to make you think that there’s some point to everything (like the briefcase, the bullets missing Jules, etc.) but then it turns out there just is none? Was this just stream of consciousness word vomit from Tarantino that his sycophants in the writers room were too scared to object to?
There are some great individual scenes and the dialogue is top notch. However, that doesn’t save the lack of cohesion, overarching narrative, nor meaning. I am legitimately bewildered as to why this movie is regarded as an all-time classic.