Pulp

One reviewer suggested that "Pulp" never became a box-office hit because it can't be easily classified into a genre. That's certainly a legitimate way of explaining it. Another explanation could be that it's just not a very good movie. It wants to be a mystery, but the plot never grips you like it should; it wants to be a comedy, but the laughs are not as frequent as they should be (one great line, though: after trying to watch a film that is projected upside down, a guy says "This would be a big hit in Australia!"); it wants to "say something" about the thin line separating reality from fiction, but that "something" doesn't come through very clearly. Michael Caine gives a sly performance, full of his typical cool bemusement, and he just about manages to get you through the film (with some help from the pleasant Malta locations and Nadia Cassini's long legs). Near the end, there is a scene on a deserted beach that may remind you of the finale of "Get Carter". That's not a good thing, however, as you may find yourself wishing you were (re-)watching that film instead of this one. (**)

I was an extra in this film.. We had an hilarious time in Malta and the whole cast was great fun.. (I'm the blonde girl - tallest of them all - in the scene when they check in at the hotel..

The whole film team was living at a hotel called the PRELUNA in Malta - fantastic place still. and someone managed to use a euro-plug in the British style sockets and short-circuited the whole hotel.. Everyone pretended not to know who!!

The plot is weak but Rooney was great and Michael Caine is and will always be just Michael Caine.. He is good.. It's a pity you can't see this film on TV any more.. I have a real OLD video copy,.,,

A seedy writer of sleazy pulp novels (Michael Caine) is recruited by a quirky, reclusive ex-actor (Mickey Rooney) to help him write his biography at his house in Malta.

This is Mike Hodges' follow-up to "Get Carter" (1971) and takes a bit of a different turn. Though there does remain that seedy element, only this time transported to Malta. Fans of Italian exploitation and Z-grade science fiction are sure to recognize Nadia Cassini ("Starcrash", 1978).

Hodges spent a long time coaxing noir veteran Lizabeth Scott out of retirement to fly to Malta for the shooting. Scott said that while she enjoyed the beauty of Malta, she was not pleased that most of her footage was cut out — eight scenes in all. Hodges for his part reported that Scott was challenging to work with while shooting. Scott "hadn't make a picture in 15 years and I had to really coax her into coming back." But Scott overcame her stage fright and Hodges was pleased with Scott's performance.

Mickey King is a jobbing writer, spitting out lurid gangster novels under various fake names with the usual mix of violence and sex making them sell. He is approached to ghost write for an unnamed Hollywood "legend" and, pocketing a nice advance for his troubles, he agrees. He travels by coach to meet his subject and meets several strange characters along the way. One of them ends up dead and King steps into the background to let the police find the body but keep himself out of it – however when the body seemingly disappears he is at a loss to explain it and unable to report it.

A misfire this one but one that does have some reasonable ideas within it. The gimmick of king's narration versus what is happening and the simple view of his books versus the complex unfairness of reality is a nice idea but it does not translate into a good film. Those that really like the film (both of them) claim that this is not given enough credit because the majority of viewers don't "get" it but I beg to differ – I think it is rating "average" and remembered as such because of the film itself being just that – average. The gimmick wears thin when you realise that there is nothing else than a poorly delivered mystery. Towards the end there are themes and things of interest that vaguely start to drift out but by then it is too little too late. Comparing it to things like Chinatown is a joke and those that have suggested this have offered nothing by way of justification.

The cast are mixed. Caine plays to play into his character and indeed he does get some moments of interest with his essentially harmless character, but as the material thins so does his performance. Rooney is interesting for playing an unusual character but offers little more than novelty value. The rest of the cast fill in around the edges in strange turns here and there. Malta as a setting is filmed with a real lack of interest and comes over as dry and colourless – a visual impression that does not help the material one little bit.

Overall then an OK idea falls flat as it brings nothing else of interest to the room. Caine tires of it long before the end so it should be of no surprise if you the viewer do as well.

PULP re-teamed Actor Michael Caine and Director Mike Hodges just a year after their Box-Office hit and Modern Classic GET CARTER (1971)

Anyone hoping for a Film that is up there with GET CARTER will be sorely disappointed as PULP fails to match the success and quality of the former.

PULP has Michael Caine playing Mickey King a rather seedy Author of trashy Pulp Fiction who is hired by a reclusive and quirky former Actor Preston Gilbert (played with huge enthusiasm by Mickey Rooney) to ghostwrite his Autobiography.

PULP was a big flop on its original release back in '72 and to a large extent I can understand why, very little actually happens in the Film and Caine's sarcastically witty narration - although funny - has to carry the entire Film - and it ends very suddenly which makes you think 'Oh, that's it then?' which is never a good sign.

Filmed on the beautiful surroundings of Malta and Co-starring Lionel Stander and 40/50's star Lizabeth Scott with a rather pointless role played by Dennis Price (in one of his last roles) - PULP is worth watching, but it's never as good as it probably should have been and isn't a patch on GET CARTER.