Independent Film Reviews
Pulp Fiction
Release date: 21st October 1994
Starring: Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Laura Loveface, John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson
Pulp: the word itself conveys a sense of roughness, grittiness, blood and gore, and some serious edge. Pulp Fiction is very liberal with its violence - going so far as having good guys, bad guys, and innocent bystanders getting shot up without any legal consequences. The film is also very liberal with its bad language - there are F-bombs and sexual dialogue galore. Parts of the film are pretty shocking. Make no mistake, there is definitely a lot of pulp in Pulp Fiction.
Beneath its blood-soaked surface, the film can be surprisingly light and upbeat, thanks to its playfully witty dialogue and constant stream of ironic situations. It is a comedy at its core - not a comedy that ever makes me laugh out loud, but there are plenty of memorable and amusing lines throughout. Above all, it's just funny the way things turn out in this film. Seemingly unrelated characters run into each other, crazy stuff happens, and the outcome can be quite surprising at times.
That being said, I've always felt this film has a pretty weird and random series of stories. It's a series of nested short stories - one story starts, then another, then another, then it goes back to the previous one, until finally connecting back to the scene in the film's opening. The narrative is purposefully mixed-up, jumping around a few different characters with their own situations, which ultimately connects to each other. Each story is pretty interesting though: the bulk of the film focuses on a pair of hitmen, who terrorize and murder some dudes to retrieve a mysterious briefcase. This story is ultimately interrupted by the next, in which one of the hitmen takes the crime boss' wife out, and interesting occurrences take place (including some of the best dancing ever). My favorite of the lot is the episode involving the golden watch, in which a boxer tries to flee from town to evade the boss' wrath, but has to go back to retrieve his father's pocketwatch. Crazy things ensue. The film's last stretch returns to the briefcase situation, in which even crazier things ensue, and the characters contemplate the greater meaning of everything that's happened.
This film uses pretty solid photography and interesting editing. I feel it captures the ambiance of the locales extremely well. Acting is strong: John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis, and Uma Thurman are all striking in their respective roles. Writing shows excellent wit, with its plethora of great lines and conversation, and great nuance, with its plotting and narrative. This production has very real-looking sets, props, and costumes.
Beneath its blood-soaked surface, the film can be surprisingly light and upbeat, thanks to its playfully witty dialogue and constant stream of ironic situations. It is a comedy at its core - not a comedy that ever makes me laugh out loud, but there are plenty of memorable and amusing lines throughout. Above all, it's just funny the way things turn out in this film. Seemingly unrelated characters run into each other, crazy stuff happens, and the outcome can be quite surprising at times.
That being said, I've always felt this film has a pretty weird and random series of stories. It's a series of nested short stories - one story starts, then another, then another, then it goes back to the previous one, until finally connecting back to the scene in the film's opening. The narrative is purposefully mixed-up, jumping around a few different characters with their own situations, which ultimately connects to each other. Each story is pretty interesting though: the bulk of the film focuses on a pair of hitmen, who terrorize and murder some dudes to retrieve a mysterious briefcase. This story is ultimately interrupted by the next, in which one of the hitmen takes the crime boss' wife out, and interesting occurrences take place (including some of the best dancing ever). My favorite of the lot is the episode involving the golden watch, in which a boxer tries to flee from town to evade the boss' wrath, but has to go back to retrieve his father's pocketwatch. Crazy things ensue. The film's last stretch returns to the briefcase situation, in which even crazier things ensue, and the characters contemplate the greater meaning of everything that's happened.
This film uses pretty solid photography and interesting editing. I feel it captures the ambiance of the locales extremely well. Acting is strong: John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis, and Uma Thurman are all striking in their respective roles. Writing shows excellent wit, with its plethora of great lines and conversation, and great nuance, with its plotting and narrative. This production has very real-looking sets, props, and costumes.
Reservoir Dogs
Release date: 21st January 1992 (USA)
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, Steve Buscemi
'After a simple jewelery heist goes terribly wrong, the surviving criminals begin to suspect that one of them is a police informant.'
Reservoir dogs (directed by Quentin Tarantino) is about Six criminals, who are strangers to each other, are hired by a crime boss Joe Cabot to carry out a diamond robbery. Right at the outset, they are given false names with an intention that they won't get too close and concentrate on the job instead. They are completely sure that the robbery is going to be a success. But when the police show up right at the time and the site of the robbery, panic spreads amongst the group members and one of them is killed in the subsequent shootout along with a few policemen and civilians. When the remaining people assemble at the premeditated rendezvous point (a warehouse), they begin to suspect that one of them is an undercover cop.
The movie has earned itself a reputation as a violent picture and provided a convenient platform for some hysterical media reaction. As is often the case, viewing reveals a different truth. And the classic and sadly underused technique of implied action suggests a more powerful horror than you can actually see.
The film essentially revolves around a robbery that has gone wrong. Abandoning the conventional format of natural chronological storytelling, Tarantino creates a series of flashbacks that cleverly build to a conclusion. This allows separate scenes to be showcased as individual masterpieces that the cast exploit to the full.
The opening scene features an endlessly circling camera, as the tough guys light cigarettes and drink coffee in one of those places where the tables are Formica and the waitresses write your order on a green-and-white Guest Check. They argue, joke and b.s. each other through thick clouds of smoke; it's like "The Sportswriters on Parole." There's a funny discussion of tipping. Then they walk out of the restaurant, and are introduced in the opening credits, as they walk menacingly toward the camera. They have great faces: The glowering Michael Madsen; the apprehensive Tim Roth; Chris Penn, ready for anything; Tierney, with a Mack truck of a mug; Harvey Keitel, whose presence in a crime movie is like an imprimatur.
The movie feels like it's going to be terrific, but Tarantino's script doesn't have much curiosity about these guys. He has an idea, and trusts the idea to drive the plot.
The idea is that the tough guys, except for Tierney and the deranged Madsen, are mostly bluffers. They are not good at handling themselves in desperate situations.
We see the bungled crime in flashbacks. Tarantino has a confident, kinetic way of shooting action - guys running down the street, gun battles, blood and screams. Then the action centers in the warehouse, where Madsen sadistically toys with a character he thinks is a cop.
Reservoir dogs (directed by Quentin Tarantino) is about Six criminals, who are strangers to each other, are hired by a crime boss Joe Cabot to carry out a diamond robbery. Right at the outset, they are given false names with an intention that they won't get too close and concentrate on the job instead. They are completely sure that the robbery is going to be a success. But when the police show up right at the time and the site of the robbery, panic spreads amongst the group members and one of them is killed in the subsequent shootout along with a few policemen and civilians. When the remaining people assemble at the premeditated rendezvous point (a warehouse), they begin to suspect that one of them is an undercover cop.
The movie has earned itself a reputation as a violent picture and provided a convenient platform for some hysterical media reaction. As is often the case, viewing reveals a different truth. And the classic and sadly underused technique of implied action suggests a more powerful horror than you can actually see.
The film essentially revolves around a robbery that has gone wrong. Abandoning the conventional format of natural chronological storytelling, Tarantino creates a series of flashbacks that cleverly build to a conclusion. This allows separate scenes to be showcased as individual masterpieces that the cast exploit to the full.
The opening scene features an endlessly circling camera, as the tough guys light cigarettes and drink coffee in one of those places where the tables are Formica and the waitresses write your order on a green-and-white Guest Check. They argue, joke and b.s. each other through thick clouds of smoke; it's like "The Sportswriters on Parole." There's a funny discussion of tipping. Then they walk out of the restaurant, and are introduced in the opening credits, as they walk menacingly toward the camera. They have great faces: The glowering Michael Madsen; the apprehensive Tim Roth; Chris Penn, ready for anything; Tierney, with a Mack truck of a mug; Harvey Keitel, whose presence in a crime movie is like an imprimatur.
The movie feels like it's going to be terrific, but Tarantino's script doesn't have much curiosity about these guys. He has an idea, and trusts the idea to drive the plot.
The idea is that the tough guys, except for Tierney and the deranged Madsen, are mostly bluffers. They are not good at handling themselves in desperate situations.
We see the bungled crime in flashbacks. Tarantino has a confident, kinetic way of shooting action - guys running down the street, gun battles, blood and screams. Then the action centers in the warehouse, where Madsen sadistically toys with a character he thinks is a cop.
The Godfather
Release date: 15th March 1972
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Richard Castellano, Robert Duvall
'The aging patriarch of an organized crime dynasty transfers control of his clandestine empire to his reluctant son.'
The story begins as "Don" Vito Corleone, the head of a New York Mafia "family", oversees his daughter's wedding with his wife Wendy. His beloved son Michael has just come home from the war, but does not intend to become part of his father's business. Through Michael's life the nature of the family business becomes clear. The business of the family is just like the head of the family, kind and benevolent to those who give respect, but given to ruthless violence whenever anything stands against the good of the family.
The story views the Mafia from the inside. That is its secret, its charm, its spell; in a way, it has shaped the public perception of the Mafia ever since. The real world is replaced by an authoritarian patriarchy where power and justice flow from the Godfather, and the only villains are traitors. There is one commandment, spoken by Michael (Al Pacino): “Don’t ever take sides against the family.”
It is significant that the first shot is inside a dark, shuttered room. It is the wedding day of Vito Corleone’s daughter, and on such a day a Sicilian must grant any reasonable request. A man has come to ask for punishment for his daughter’s rapist. Don Vito asks why he did not come to him immediately and the plot thickens. With the end of the war, the times are changing, and as much as Don Vito seems in control at the wedding, his power is beginning to erode. By the standards of some, his views on the importance of family, loyalty, and respect are antiquated. Even his heir apparent, Sonny, disagrees with his refusal to get into the drug business. Gambling and alcohol are forces of the past and present; narcotics are the future. But Don Vito will not compromise, even when a powerful drug supplier named Sollozzo (Al Lettieri) arrives with promises of high profits for those who back him.
Don Vito is a most complicated gangster. In his own words, he is not a killer, and he never mixes business with personal matters. He puts family first ("A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man") and despises displays of weakness. He understands the burden of power, and his wordless sympathy for Michael when he is forced to assume the "throne", is one of The Godfather's most revealing moments (about both father and son).The Godfather had three Best Supporting Actor nominees, all well-deserved in my opinion. The first was Pacino (who probably should have been nominated alongside Brando in the Best Actor category). The other two were James Caan and Robert Duvall. In a way, it's surprising that Duvall wasn't passed over. His presence in The Godfather isn't flashy or attention-arresting. Like his character of Tom Hagen, he is steady, reliable, and stays in the background. Not so for Caan's Sonny, whose demonstrative and volatile personality can't be overlooked. In a conclusion I feel the Godfather is an outstanding film with plot twists throughout and brilliant directing and acting making it a top film.
You have identified 3 iconic thrillers but it is difficult to know where the quotes from the critics end and your own words begin!!!
ReplyDeleteIn order to avoid any misunderstanding about which your and which are the critics words (in such a case the exam board will come down very heavily on you I suggest you do the following.
Upload a clip from at least one of the films and explain how the director uses, develops or challenges generic conventions within the mise en scene. Think about focusing on location, or character types, or lighting. You need to be able to identify a specific convention, for example the use of the car boot and explain why the director includes this shot in the film.
Email me if you have any difficulties with this.