Pulp Fiction

Continuity mistake: When Vincent and Jules are at Brett's apartment at the beginning of the movie, Jules takes the hamburger from Brett's table after he asks to taste it. The hamburger in the first shot simply contains cheese and ketchup, but when Jules bites it there is only a leaf of lettuce. Moreover, the hamburger appears first intact, but in the next shot it appears already bitten.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The cheese is there when he bites into it, and there is only a piece of lettuce sticking out on one side, a side you don't see when he picks it up. You also can't see if there already was a bite taken out from that angle. My guess is, it's the same burger, no reason for it to be otherwise. When it only "appears" intact, it doesn't mean it is.

lionhead

Revealing mistake: In the iconic Big Kahuna burger scene, Brett gets shot in the shoulder, a normally highly debilitating injury. However, in the frame before he is killed, he throws back his arms with the ordinary range of flexibility, and it becomes obvious that the actor's mobility is not really impaired, and he was only faking an injury.

Continuity mistake: When Yolanda is standing on the counter during the robbery, she gets so upset while screaming at Jules that she has a big blob of spittle on the left side of her chin. We cut away and when we cut right back, the spittle blob is gone.

Continuity mistake: After being sprayed in the face with water while tied up in the basement, the next shot shows Butch and Marcellus Wallace having no water anywhere surrounding them on the ground.

Ultimate Warrior

Continuity mistake: When Butch crashes and Marcellus shoots the woman, there's a second woman next to the door, and a white cup next to her. In the wide shot the cup is gone.

Sacha

Vincent: Jules, if you give that fuckin' nimrod fifteen hundred dollars, I'm gonna shoot him on general principles.

More quotes from Pulp Fiction
More trivia for Pulp Fiction

Question: What exactly does the title of this film mean? Is there even an answer to that?

Sir William

Chosen answer: It is a reference to a class of fast-paced, sensationalistic, and frequently exploitive stories published in cheap magazines from the 1920's through the 1950's. They were called 'pulp' because of the cheap quality of the paper they were printed on, as opposed to the 'slicks' which were more like full-color magazines of today.

Rooster of Doom

More questions & answers from Pulp Fiction

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.