Mark Turner There was a time when jokes abounded about Michael Caine saying he would take on any role at all in hopes of a paycheck. The thing was at the time I don't think he was in need of the money but he was seen in numerous films each year. But early in his career he played several roles that put him in a position to become the movie star that he was. One of those was GET CARTER. Unfortunately, for me at least, he and director Mike Hodges followed that up a year later with PULP.The term "pulp" here refers to those low grade thriller novels once written and published on cheap paper stock, books that told of hard boiled detectives and the seamier side of life where women were dames and gangsters ruled. The movie tells the story of Mickey King (Caine) an author of that style of books. King is not the best of people you will find having left behind his average job as well as wife and three children behind to pursue his muse and write pulp fiction. Under pseudonyms hoisted on him by his publisher like Gary Rough and Dr. O.R. Gann, his books are spoken onto tape and transcribed by services in whatever country he is in.King is contacted by a man named Ben Dinuccio (Lionel Stander) with the request to be a ghost writer for the autobiography of an ex-actor and possible gangster named Preston Gilbert (Mickey Rooney). Preston was at the top of his game portraying gangsters in films back in the 30s and 40s. But those possible connections he once had with the gangster crowd forced his deportation from America. Now he wants to tell his story.King takes on the task but due to the attitude of Preston finds himself not enjoying it much. Preston is full of himself, feels more important than he truly is and takes far too much pleasure in ridiculing those around him. Where he feels he's being funny it's always at the costs of someone else's feelings or embarrassment. When King finally gets the nerve to tell him off Preston is shot and killed. Now that same person is out to kill King as well. Could it be that Preston told him something he shouldn't have heard? Now King must find the answer to that question as well as who is behind it in order to stay alive.Sounds like the basis for a good movie, right? Except that it isn't. What I've provided gets you to the halfway point or more into the film. The rest is a mish mash of political commentary and discussion of what was going on in Malta at the time as a reflection on the rest of the world. Some 45 years later none of it seems relevant.My issue may be a personal one but I find films that make the conscious decision to play fast and loose with reality, to mix the off the wall moments with a solid story, often fail to entertain, to enlighten or to offer any enjoyment. That's the problem I had with this film. The mixing of oddball characters, of using a hero you don't care about, of absurd situations just doesn't work for me. The voice over narration, what is supposed to be a sort of homage to the style of pulp fiction works like those of Mickey Spillane doesn't work either, coming off as more an attempt at the style without fully capturing what it was like. Instead it seems like the work of someone turned down even by the publishers of those novels.Caine even comes off poorly here. I felt like he was just walking through and using carious characters he'd portrayed in the past, dusting them off and combining them in a character with no charm but who seemingly has women falling all over themselves to get to him. That in itself becomes an issue as the women depicted here come off as little more than bimbos ready to jump into his arms simply by his standing next to him. Really?I've read several reviews of this film from various people who praise it. No offense intended but those that do make me wonder if they actually watched the film or if they are part of the cadre of movie lovers that love to show how worldly they are by taking on the task of adoring films that are out there, that are strange, that are just weird in an attempt to show that they are above the masses who enjoy the standard movies that are offered. If so then fine, enjoy them and discuss them with other like-minded individuals. The fact that the film did poorly at the box office and is only around now because it's developed a cult like following speaks volumes about how good the movie actually is.Arrow Video still has provided the best version of the film to be found with a 2k restoration from original film elements supervised and approved by director of photography Ousama Rawi. Extras are well done including an interview with director Mike Hodges, an interview with Rawi, an interview with assistant director John Glen, an interview with Tony Klinger (son of producer Mike Klinger), the original theatrical trailer and reversible sleeve artwork. While the movie may not be my cup of tea for fans this will be the version you'll want to have thanks to Arrow.

gavin6942 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.

HotToastyRag Michael Caine plays a writer of pulp fiction novels in the European pseudo-mystery, pseudo-comedy pseudo-thriller Pulp. His books are full of sex and violence so risqué that the secretaries who are in charge of listening to his dictation get distracted by his sensational images. It's pretty silly, but not exactly funny enough to make you laugh. Then, a has-been movie star, played by Mickey Rooney, hires Michael to write his biography, and they become the target of a mysterious villainous group.If you like Michael Caine, you're not going to like this movie. Not only does he look very different than the dreamboat you'll be expecting to see, but Mike Hodges's script makes his character hard to root for. If you like Mickey Rooney, you'll be disappointed in this movie. He's only on screen for about twenty minutes.The sense of humor, sequence of events, and general style of filming felt just too European for me to like this film. It's quirky, and not my type of quirk, but you're welcome to give it a try if you like that kind of movie.

bob the moo 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.