Shiva Baby. This is one that popped up while looking about.
A Jewish woman about to finish college goes to a funeral with parents. While there, she's interrogated by friends and family about her studies, her employment prospects and her love life. Also there are her ex and her sugar daddy who's brought his successful wife and screeching baby.
There's some black comedy and farce but its a pretty serious film. Similar tales have been released in recent years about young women struggling with what's expected of them and fighting back so there needs to be something to stand out from the rest.
This has some great direction in it. There's brilliant tension building and the release is not exactly as expected. I think the setting represents the death of the protagonist's youth/innocence and that's the actual grieving she does. No big names here but some familiar background actors.
Worth the watch.
Too much to cover there but certainly an interesting perspective on Straw Dogs, appreciate the time taken to reply; not sure I entirely agree with the assessment but then that's maybe the enduring aspect of the film in the first place. That it's not entirely obvious, and whatever subtext exists is in some respects up to the viewer - which the best movies often have going for them. Nothing's spelled out to you, pieces are put forward and the rest is left to the viewer. I also wonder if cultural assessment might have been different if it was someone else behind the lens and not a man already quite infamous for violence. Who knows; hadn't twigged this was based on a book though.
The book is quite different and the author was outraged himself at the changes Peckinpah and the screenwriter made. Apparently Peckinpah thought the book was awful.
Hmmm if you say he was himself a violent man, then I wonder how much of this obsession with violence as some primordial absolute was simply projection on his part. Seems like it can't be a coincidence; Tarantino was a modern director who took Peckinpah's violence and ran with it - but you'd not accuse Tarantino of being a violent man himself.
Well, he was violent, as in prone to outbursts of rage. Whether that turned into fisticuffs or not is a different story and how much that had to do with his alcoholism is anyone's guess. But I think he was a deeply disturbed individual in a number of ways, the effects of which would often appear in a...um...temperamental manner. Here he is being interviewed by Barry Norman in 1976 and you can see from the get go that he's a difficult person, to say the least.
Am meaning to check out Cross of Iron again, it's in the list, interesting you reckon it's his best work though. I seem to vaguely recall the movie just ending, and because Peckinpah died before it was finished (too lazy to Google). SAid it before but you gotta love that era of filmmaking where for your WW2 you just went to Spain or Yugoslavia and you had access to both period equipment & hundreds of extras (from those armies) willing to be in your movie. Fascism had its uses in the end
'Cross of Iron' would be one of my favourite war movies, and that particular list would be quite short. Most war movies are junk and I have little time for them. As for its ending, it was more wound up than ended, but I've always thought that the ending was perfectly fine. It finalises the story of the two characters that conflict with each other throughout film and Coburn's laugh over the beginning of the end credits illustrates the absurdity of it all. The shoot was particularly tough, though, and there were a lot of fights between Peckinpah and the studio execs and in the end the money ran out and Peckinpah just went "to hell with it then, there's your film". He didn't die in 1977 though. In fact he went on to make another two films before he croaked in 1984.
As for period equipment, that's a double edged sword. For example, the T-34's in 'Cross of Iron' are a different model (T34/85) than would have been around in the time frame the picture is set in (T34/76). But that would fly over most viewers heads and it doesn't let the film down in any case. What was great about it was the fact that Peckinpah only had access to two tanks for a day (I think) but made it look like many more with some clever editing.
That's certainly true, bar Straw Dogs there's little in a Peckinpah movie that you won't have seen many times over in modern movies - but then I suppose that's often the way with trailblazing directors or work: they laid the path for others to follow but ended up looking quite tame or derivative when retrospectively watched. Though in Peckinpah's case I'd say his work often carried a certain nihilism and cynicism that modern movies wouldn't have.
There's certainly a grittiness to his films that's lacking in a lot of "modern" movies and often his characters aren't people with whom you'd like to spend any time with, but that's one of the things I like about his stuff.
It's funny, I've just realised while writing all of this waffle that I actually own all of his movies and didn't know it. 🤣
Anyway, that's enough yap about Sam Peckinpah. Here he is from the documentary 'Hollywood Mavericks', which is well worth a watch.
Peckinpah himself was a pretty violent individual and, yes, often drunk out of his mind. James Coburn tells the story that Peckinpah was so drunk on numerous occasions during the shoot of 'Cross of Iron' (his best film) that the actors ended up improvising scenes while he was passed out in the director's chair. The next day, during rushes, Sam wouldn't remember that he didn't shoot any of the scenes he was reviewing but claimed ownership anyway. On other occasions he'd burst into furious bouts of shouting over the most miniscule of reasons. He's a curious character, for sure, and I think one that was made more and more bitter by how the studios treated him and his pictures. They were (mostly) fine with him when he was making the likes of 'Ride the High Country' or 'Major Dundee', but by the time of his revisionist western 'The Wild Bunch', the rifts were showing. But because that film made some money, Warners were happy to shut up and give him another picture to direct, but he ended up moving to Fox, when 'The Ballad of Cable Hogue' barely made its money back and after a few films there bounced around burning bridges with other studios.
Am meaning to check out Cross of Iron again, it's in the list, interesting you reckon it's his best work though. I seem to vaguely recall the movie just ending, and because Peckinpah died before it was finished (too lazy to Google). SAid it before but you gotta love that era of filmmaking where for your WW2 you just went to Spain or Yugoslavia and you had access to both period equipment & hundreds of extras (from those armies) willing to be in your movie. Fascism had its uses in the end 😂
I think he had a fascination with the depiction of violence, while not exactly embracing it, and his lack of restraint in showing it garnered him a certain reputation that he was unable to shake off. Even Monty Python took the mickey out of him in their hilarious Sam Peckinpah's Salad Days sketch. But, to be honest, most of the violence shown in his pictures pale in comparison to what other directors show today. If you think the rape scene in 'Straw Dogs' is awful, stay away from 'Irreversible'.
Nimona. Nice little film 😊
@pixelburp
Yeah maybe that's a fair point: I haven't been left with such a shivering sense of distaste for a mainstream film in a long while. I hadn't really considered that angle at all and came at my own conclusions due to the young girl's own oddly ... sexual demeanour; first with DAvid, then with David Warner's character when she seemingly got nowhere with David. Certainly Warner's actions felt more "innocent" than an outright predator, even if the outcome seemed the same - and just appeared to be yet another awful little aspect of The Worst Village In England (The Wicker Man was set in Scotland, ha).
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I think there's hints that Henry Niles had done "something" to a young girl before and that the people of the village keep him away from the kids. In the book, he's a child killer who's killed three times, so there's gray area there at all. In the film, he's a mentally handicapped man who doesn't seem to be aware of any kind of boundaries or of normal behaviour and has to be managed, as it were, by the locals. This is made all the more difficult, of course, because Tom's teenage daughter Janice keeps flirting with him, perhaps because she's unaware of the exact nature of his past? Or maybe she believes he's a harmless "test subject" for her own ends. Either way it doesn't end well for her, but it's clear that Niles doesn't mean to actually kill her. With the teenage character of Janice, I think Peckinpah is trying to show the audience what Amy was like before she left for America. Perhaps Amy Sumner was the girl that Henry Niles did "something" to in the past. In any case, I think I'd rather head up to Summerisle than that village in Cornwall.
I certainly think she gave as good as she got, and did seem to be superficially charmed by her boyhood fling still being having an interest, a charm that stopped once things got way out of hand ... but by and large David was a gigantic, controlling asshóle to her in his own right, the scales in that marriage felt quite lopsided as he seemed utterly incapable of dealing with her as being her own person. David often talking down to her, infantilising her, and even trotting out the classic "well if you dressed like that, what do you expect?". While with his psychotic break at the end, as I said he just outright threatened her. Am curious how that remake treats all that, or if the David Warner character even exists.
Oh the scales of David and Amy's marriage are definitely "lopsided" alright. David's a maths geek who probably never dreamt he'd end up with a girl like Amy and probably looks down on her for choosing him in a number of ways. Or maybe he's realised long ago that she's merely settled for him and could have any man she liked, if she wished, which would further engender his insecurity in the relationship. So he has this controlling element in an effort to maintain equilibrium he feels is on dodgy ground. As for his threatening her during the climax of the story, I think that comes from David's state of uncertainty as to which side Amy's on, his or the folk of her former stomping ground. In fact Amy clearly states that she won't help him and she also tells Charlie, her ex boyfriend who was, at least, complicit in her rape earlier that she'll let him back in the house. She's kinda stupid and doesn't realise the peril that both her and her husband are in. It isn't beyond the realms of reason that they are both in mortal danger from the armed goons outside who might very well end up killing them as well as Henry Niles.
As to the remake, I saw it when it came out but I remember nothing of it today, other than it was one of those utterly redundant and insipid remakes of a controversial 70's film, like 'Last House on the Left' or 'I Spit on Your Grave' that ended up containing none of the impact that the original had, even if the original's impact was for dubious reasons. So I don't think your missing anything really.
Oh 100% "Bloody Sam" rode a very fine line between "this violence is awesome" and "this violence is terrible". The film very definitely left a feeling of disgust, but I suppose my modern eyes couldn't help see the ways that the women were just these things left to stir the pot but given no sense of agency or purpose - except to drive the men crazy. And I don't think Peckinpah meant to be misogonistic - I know nothing of the man's personality either way, 'cept he was constantly drunk by the end & Cross of Iron - it's more that I think in a rush to despair at one half of the human condition, he kinda sacraficed the other half.
A fascinating film for sure either way, though in my growing list of "great films I never wanna watch again"; was gonna put on The Getaway next, another Peckinpah I'd been meaning to catch up on. Why hello, Ali McGraw.
But despite the fact that his movies were part and parcel of the cycle of debate around movie violence that pops up now and again (and during the 70's his output was, practically, public enemy No.1) he had no shortage of people willing to work with him. But after the reception by certain people to 'Straw Dogs' he mellowed quite a bit. 'Junior Bonner' and 'The Getaway' are nearly Disney films compared to some of his previous material.
Uh, it rang a little abstracted without any edits, but would I be right in spitballing the cut version only made it seem even more like Amy was into it?
The shortened version of the scene made it kinda look that, not only was Susan George's character "enjoying" being raped, but that it looked she was being sodomised too. I put enjoying in "" because even in the cut down version, I never viewed her character as enjoying her ordeal in any of the versions of 'Straw Dogs'. The uncut version makes things clearer though. Although the controversial part still remains in that Amy does, in fact, succumb to her ex boyfriend's advances and her initial resistance fades. Where the scene becomes uncomfortable further is when Charlie's friend comes in and, for want of a better phrase, has a go as well. But she obviously still has feelings for Charlie and, more than likely, would rather still be with him than David, whom she thinks is a coward.
An interesting reading on 'Straw Dogs', but I think reducing David Warner's character down to mere "child molester" doesn't take into account that the character is severely mentally handicapped. I'm not so sure he's just a child molester in the sense that we would know it or that would be commonly used. It's more that he has the brain and development of a child himself. I don't think there's any real calculations going on in that character's head.
I'm also not too sure that Susan George's character is all sweetness and light either to be honest. She's clearly supposed to be a girl that's used to a more, shall we say, "manly" other half in a relationship and she was the one time girlfriend of one of her rapists who never abandoned his "claim" over her. Something she doesn't seem all that upset about. The caveat there is that she doesn't deserve to be subjected to what she is.
I think that what Peckinpah was trying to achieve, and in many respects achieved, was for people to be disgusted by the casual and shocking nature of violent actions that seemingly come out of nowhere, but are actually the result of minor and constant chipping away at a situation. Which, all too often, is the case. Tense situations that can be easily resolved can and do explode into violence, leaving many wondering what the hell happened.
I think 'Straw Dogs' is a great film, albeit a flawed one, just like every one of Peckinpah's movies. It's a tough watch, for sure, and it presents an uncomfortable viewing that few other pictures do.
As an aside, it's one of cinema's little ironies that that the cuts imposed on 'Straw Dogs' made the rape scene even more problematic than it was in the uncut version.
Dustin Hoffman's mathematician, David, is someone that she's clearly settled for, however. But there doesn't seem to be any real affection there. Hoffman's character is dull and a bit of a coward and she's accustomed to something else entirely. He's certainly more intelligent than her, but he's been the butt of "toxic masculinity" himself, and he's experiencing it again with the characters in the village intimidating him and Amy wants him to be more of a "man".
Unfortunately what "more of a man" means in this case is being violent to other men who are violent to you. In other words resorting to a primitive behaviour, with all parties abandoning reason. The resulting siege of Trenchard's farm then plays out with David's intelligent violence combatting the stupid and drunken violence of the men looking to break into their house and lynch Henry Niles and probably do a mischief to the Sumner's too. David says "I will not allow violence against this house" and then has to succumb to his own innate violent tendencies to prevent that reality. Clearly, by the conclusion of the film, he's enjoyed his victory a bit too much.
Straw Dogs (1971)
In a word: yikes. "Depiction does not equal endorsement" is all well and good, but callous disregard can also be its own tacit misdeed.
This was as stiflingly bleak and transgressive as advertised, a film whose lingering cultural identity centred around a scene that certainly lived up to its reputation. Yet rather than some isolated incident of shock like the parrot in Citizen Kane, designed to rouse you out of complacency, this was a feature where the most infamous moment was a horrible inevitability, another horror among the embedded sense of depravity or looming threat of sexual violence. Yet even then, that scene didn't function as some grotesque narrative pivot around which lessons were learned, opinions changed and villains met with cathartic violence. Ultimately this was a story of monsters, both those in a community and domestic ones and where Peckinpah's repeated and infamous use of violence as a thematic device came to something of a crescendo - but therein lay the film's strength and most significant weakness.
The crucial contextual lynchpin here that transcended the thing from any kind of Revenge Fantasy was that Dustin Hoffman's character was no saint. He was easily as contemptible as the feral Cornish locals that circled his and Amy's house - or indeed her person: Hoffman's David possessed the thinnest patina of smiling and vaguely smug civility, all masking what amounted to controlling and psychologically manipulative behaviour at home; this was a marriage teetering on collapse before the film began and David's obvious insecurities, pettiness and emotional abuse merely mutated into a physical form by the end (threatened if not actualised, but what's the difference?).
When the switch flipped in his head in the last act, it was less like a triumphant Death Wish adjacent release of potential - where the ostensibly weak were pushed too far - but of a man embracing his own repugnant nature to the fullest as he stubbornly sheltered a child molester of all things, common sense be damned. All repressed impulses that were clearly signposted from the off in David's treatment of the housecat. So there was something fascinating, if horrifying and vulgar, at play in all this, but therein lay the largest problem when modern perspectives clashed with the old: simply put, Peckinpah didn't have the language, nuance - or maybe base interest to be honest - to interrogate the themes from the female point of view. Both main female characters suffered horrendous fates at the hands of violent men, yet neither were given agency, sympathy or any promise of an escape hatch - they were kinda deployed as tragic objects for the sake of Peckinpah's critique of male violence.
The more obvious narrative structure that would have tempered the pulse of this thing was if the marriage was a truly loving, pacifistic one: where two urbane equals were suddenly trapped and out of their depth, beset by shotgun-wielding locals. It's a format of the "Folk Horror" genre well understood, completely clichéd without doubt - and probably hated by rural tourist boards across the world. It can be crude and primal, but it can work, especially if as I mentioned a female perspective is used to interrogate the themes. Going double if the person wielding the shotgun at the end is the woman.
Instead the violence was relentless and inescapable in the life of Susan George's Amy, buttressed and trapped from the get-go by male toxicity emanating from both the men of her hometown and a dismissive, emotionally abusive husband. She seemed smart, capable and self-aware but was never given a chance. Peckinpah's rush to show the depths of masculinity run amok forgot about the woman at the centre of it all, left violated then inexplicably second-place to a child molester as her husband mutated into his final form; again, the boilerplate exploitation angle would have been David's rage be born from learning of the rape - but here, he never does. His entire murderous rampage never born from even a scintilla of concern for Amy - indeed he merely threatened to break her neck as she pleaded to simply hand the molester to the locals.
I'm almost half curious to see the remake 'cos I can't imagine even half the execution transferred over to 2011 vehicle.
lo Capitano
This was the Surprise film at the Dublin Film Festival. It's rare that the festival would choose a subtitled film but I thought this was a great choice.
It's about two cousins from Senegal who make the journey north through Africa to find work in Europe. It's quite a tough watch at times as they have to deal with people smugglers, corrupt border guards and violent militia, everybody out to scam and steal every penny from desperate migrants. The landscape is deadly as well. The life and death journey across the desert is depicted really well.
Ultimately though it's a compassionate film. The cinematography is stunning and the soundtrack is a pumping desert blues.
It won the Silver Lion at Venice for best director for Matteo 'Gomorrah' Garrone and is up for the Best International Film at the Oscars.
Yeah, great film. Deserves to be more well known.
Watched Dune Pt1 last night in preparation for hopefully seeing Pt2 in the cinema.
A good film for sure, but in terms of sci-fi classics like Alien, Star Wars etc, not even in the same ballpark for me. An enjoyable watch and by all accounts Pt2 is better, so looking forward to seeing how that pans out, as I never managed to read the book, having started it a few times over the years.
Watched 'Veronica Guerin' and noticed something intresting during the funeral scene. Why is 'the monk Gerry Huth' there ? Was he actually there in real life ?
Was this just a mistake by the prouders ?
Watched The Gift last night, a movie I'd always been meaning to watch but just somehow it kept sliding down the priority list. Saw it was on Prime and bit the bullet.
Absolutely found it enthralling from the start, for a first time effort from Joel Edgerton it's incredible. Pacing, tension, atmosphere, the nature of the unravel, the turns, all absolutely superb.
Don't want to say too much about the movie itself, but the premise is pretty simple - a couple move back closer to home, and the husband happens by chance to meet an old high school classmate who is a little over zealous in his attempts to befriend them.
As mystery/thriller/suspense type movies go, this was absolutely perfect and I couldn't rate it highly enough.
Watched the first two Pusher films. I think I was expecting something a bit more "actiony" but these are definitely more character driven films, especially the second one. I thought the first one came out later than it did, so there were a couple things that made me think "Trainspotting rip off" but they were both made the same year.
Definitely recommend them.
The Animal Kingdom (2023)
Suffered a touch from being underwritten within its two main narrative pillars: the family drama angle didn't really have much sustenance in its plotting, but the broader & more arresting concept itself went a shade under-explored too. The idea of humans suddenly mutating into animals - in a manner that was brutal, painful and distressing as one's sapience evaporated - invited a spectrum of avenues to explore; not least how society and authorities would react to these sudden & random changes. There's something uniquely intriguing to me about these kind of stories of bodily change, whether they're played as metaphor, horror, aspiration or what have you - and this felt like a fresh idea, played straight.
Frustratingly little of those storytelling possibilities appeared though, outside of a few stock prejudicial comments from side characters & ones that hit all the tropes we've seen since the days of X-Men; the text of film content to render the public's perception as automatically hostile or fearful, even if more diverse opinions might have added layers of interest. While equally, the main "creep" (as the mutating people were called) we met was a violent and hostile bird man, leaving any potential thematic nuance a bit intangible, not even achieving something as hackneyed as "hey, maybe we're the animals here". It was like the writers came up with this singularly arresting concept then failed to think up anything interesting to do with it - bar one fun, macabre sequence at the fish counter in a supermarket.
Still, to the positives, starting with the absolutely fabulous creature effects that were deft combinations of practical FX and CGI augmentation, with results that straddled the line between something evocative - almost alluring after a fashion - and outright body horror; as said the transformations weren't cute or playful (take a look at Netflix's Sweet Tooth as a contrast, where its animal-children often sport different ears or fluffy tails - but rarely anything repulsive or distinctly "other"), but looked painful and disorienting as people's bodies slowly contorted and changed, their sense of self slowly ebbing away in tow. And while sure it was thinly sketched the family drama of the son's own change worked well enough: it sidestepped many lazy clichés of teenage angst that might have otherwise added a yawn inducing source of conflict; the son and dad's struggles founded on love and support, even as it became clear the father was about to lose a son, his wife already mutated. Both actors did the heavy lifting here and a bittersweet ending felt earned because little before it felt overcooked. Praise for Paul Kircher's physical performance in particular with the little ways he changed his stance and movement as he slowly changed, coupled with the practical FX.
Perhaps the most egregiously underwritten aspect of the movie though was the policewoman played by Adèle Exarchopoulos: taking the gong for the most superfluous character I've seen in a film in a long while. Removed from the plot her absence would have left no imprint and it left me wonder why she was a main character at all. I wondered if she was the victim of rewrites here: that maybe the initial point of her was to be a potential future path for the dad; where he'd have to weigh continuing the quixotic emotional tether of his wife, now a wild animal and beyond him, against the potential of a new partner and more human connection. Heck, there was even a specific moment when I thought OK, here we go; the classic accidental moment where two characters accidentally fell on each other, they stared into each other's eyes for a minute then ... oh wait; he just stood up. Never mind. Granted, the age difference felt a little much - but that never stopped films before when the writer/director externalised their midlife crisis.
'Pulp Fiction' is an excellent movie, no doubt. But 'Reservoir Dogs' pips it at the post. But I really like his three first films and would highly recommend each to someone who's never sat down to them.
As to 'The Hateful Eight' and 'Inglorious Basterds'...the former film is brilliant, until everyone starts spewing geysers of blood and we turn from a well made series of events into stupid land. In other words we reach the point where Tarantino loses me. The latter film contains, for sure, some tense scenes. Namely the two scenes you mention. But the rest is terrible.
I can't deny I'm dead curious to know what his Star Trek 4 treatment / script looked like, apparently centring around that famous "Gangster Planet" episode from the original 1960s series. It sounds so stupid, and there's not a hope in héll it'll get made (thankfully), but I'd love to know more, even if it was probably written as a joke.
I respect all well made views so far, but Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece for me. Best Tarantino film IMO. Also appreciated The Hateful Eight.
Inglourious Basterds had one great scene about asking for 3 drinks in German. The whole build up was so tense. Also the opening scene was great, meeting Christoph Waltz for the first time, mesmerising performance.
'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' is fine up until the ending where it takes a turn into stupid land
What's more, the ending only even makes any kinda of "sense" if one's aware of the life of Sharon Tate, and what the ending uppends; like Tarantino thought he could do the Inglorious Basterds ending again and it'd be as effective. So it was just a completely out-of-nowhere about turn into Grindhouse madness when up 'til that moment was a mature reflection on creeping obsolescence - and felt a bit introspective on Tarantino's part.
Funny how often some of our biggest creative minds have these unsung people who were so quintessential to their success. Though like I said it'd probably be near impossible now for Tarantino to make a film as low-budget as Reservoir Dogs, which itself forced him to focus.
'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' is fine up until the ending where it takes a turn into stupid land. And this has been a problem for me with Tarantino's films for a long time. There is always a point where he loses me because he cannot restrain himself and he puts in a dumb scene or two that effectively ruins the movie to a certain degree. His best efforts, by a country mile, have been his first three films. But by the time we get to 'Kill Bill' you can see he's losing the run of himself. Although the nadir of his output will probably always be 'Inglorious Basterds'. That movie is out and out dreck. There's just too much dumb going on in that film.
1st episode of a Danish show Prisoner, Prison show from the guards perspective. Its good so far, I dont know if its one series and done?
edit I see not the TV thread, still worth a look though
Some of the drift is down to the death of Sally Menke, his editor through to Inglorious Basterds - although tbh as early as Kill Bill Part 2 you could already see the excessive preciousness and baggy writing creeping in, but it's impossible IMO to look at the jump from Inglorious Basterds to Django Unchained and not attribute it to a change of editor.
It definitely doesn't suffer the kind of bloat that would plague his later work; that lack of time, money or clout probably stopping impulses he'd later indulge. Agree about Jackie Brown being his best work, it's a shame he drifted so far from that as he went on, though Once Upon a Time... definitely seemed to claw back that more mature, reflective tone.
Seen at the Dublin Film Festival:
Monster
The new film from Hirokazu Kore-eda. This starts off as a story about a boy who is being bullied by his teacher but as the film progresses we see the same scenes being played out from different characters viewpoints to gradually reveal what is really happening. That old narrative device but it’s done so brilliantly here. There’s a level of humanity in Kore-eda’s films that feels so natural and real. Monster is one of his best (which is really saying something). The emotional payoff is so powerful and well earned. Just a beautiful film.
Stolen
An Indian film that proves there’s more to Indian cinema than Bollywood. A man witnesses a baby being stolen from her sleeping mother at a train station and he and his brother get involved in the police investigation. Through a combination of social media, misunderstanding and the power of mob mentality, local people in this rural area come to believe that the brothers and mother of the baby are the actual child kidnappers. What follows is basically one long chase movie as the trio try to escape from the angry mob and get the baby back.
It’s got the immediacy of an Alfonso Cuaran film, the camera right in the middle of the action, long takes and great sound design, building to an anxiety inducing ending.
^
I think it's still Tarantino's best film. 'Jackie Brown' being a close second.
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
This felt like watching a slightly sketched out stage play, albeit one that crackled with naked provocation to the extent I could still absorb how and why it caused such a cultural splash when it first landed; but also a film whose production limitations could be quite obvious, no matter how much Tarantino's script, editing structure or notably cinematic direction tried to work around the constraints. Or indeed just leaned into the lack of shekels through the form of an in media res bank heist, the disparate criminals arguing over the particulars of events we never got to see; the character drama fuelled by a predominance of addled paranoia. I had forgotten just how little of the job itself was shown across the story, at most only ever seeing a few scenes in the aftermath but nothing at the jewellery store itself.
And because it was a first film, the various ingredients that would come to inform Tarantino's more visceral films often felt a little embryonic in places; tropes and tics that would become iterated over across the director's subsequent features felt a little half baked in places - or in the case of the intentionally vulgar, epithet riddled dialogue, perhaps a tad too Try Hard. Mind you, I was never much of a fan of that particular bullet in Tarantino's gun in the first place, so that element was always gonna chafe. But like I said, I could still perceive that sense of something that was a grenade in the room when it first came out.
