It's one of those films you almost have to see to understand Tarantino… but I don’t think it lives up to the hype surrounding it. This movie helped solidify Tarantino’s career, turning him into a director whose releases—whether they are good or bad—draw large crowds to theaters. I’ve never been a fan of his, and I probably won't become one. He has made some films that resonated with me, while others I disliked intensely. It isn't predictable or safe, but it is undeniably original, true to his style, and seems unconcerned with pleasing audiences. The film weaves together multiple storylines: a pair of violent criminals attempting to rob a diner, a boxer nearing the end of his career who must flee after winning a fixed fight, two hitmen working for a mob boss tasked with retrieving a stolen briefcase, and that same mobster’s bored girlfriend, whose restlessness leads her lover to assign an assassin to babysit her. What connects them all? Beyond their natural intersections, they are all part of the same violent, brutal, and marginal world. Many consider this film one of the best from the 1990s. I wouldn't go that far; it’s an exaggeration in my view. It is reasonably good, has gained a cult following, and has its admirers, but it isn’t a masterpiece—at least not to me. The film isn’t dull or exhausting, and the various subplots are skillfully interwoven with elegance. There's a significant amount of violence, coarse language, and drug use, which can be jarring at times. However, this heavy language, drugs, and violence feel like a natural part of the criminal underworld where the characters exist, something established from the beginning. And there aren’t any sympathetic characters to evoke empathy; therefore, it doesn't matter whether they live or die in unpleasant ways (and some endure considerable suffering). These are all positive aspects that will be even more appreciated by those familiar with the “pulp” literary subgenre. I am not one of them—it's not part of my background—and I needed to look it up online just to understand what it was and its characteristics. Despite this, there were several things about the film that I didn’t like or found excessive. The dialogues are a prime example; some scenes feature lengthy conversations on uninteresting topics seemingly for no reason. One such scene, early in the movie, revolves around foot massages. Many scenes feel drawn out because of these endless exchanges. Also, there are too many shots of bare feet—Tarantino gained notoriety as a fetishist, but he always denied it… watching this film makes that claim hard to believe. And one of the characters, a murderer, delivers an extended quotation from the Bible...it's the kind of literature I doubt an underworld killer would memorize. The acting is strong; several well-known actors are featured. John Travolta is excellent in his role, with that black suit and oil-slicked hair. Samuel L. Jackson isn’t far behind, and Uma Thurman is fantastic. I'd say that at least Thurman and Travolta deliver some of the best performances of their careers in this film. Bruce Willis isn't bad, but he's not particularly memorable. It was nice to see Maria de Medeiros in her only major international role; it’s a shame she didn’t have more opportunities, but that’s life. Tarantino himself appears in the film, and his presence would have been better left out—he is an over-the-top actor. Technically, the film has many strengths, beginning with the excellent cinematography, featuring vibrant colors and good lighting. There are well-executed action sequences for every taste, and the soundtrack makes effective use of familiar musical themes.

Source on TMDB