Both those movies have lead characters. Syd Field says you can always tell the main character because he’s the one that moves the story towards the ending. In Butch and Sundance, that’s Butch. In Res Dogs, it’s Mr Orange. In Pulp Fiction, that’s more an anthology and each story has a main character.

It’s a stretch but I see your point. Its still bad form for random people to turn up and save your protagonist from death though.

Except that bit where the primary antagonist has the no agency in the death of the main protagonist?

Or the film fades, and we see a bunch of clothed dinosaurs sitting in a cinema, having just watched a screening of ‘cocaine human’

Or the last dying dinosaur whispers to him ‘I ask you, who is the real monster? No, not I’. Adam drops to his knees and cries out. Fade to black. The end?

He realises he’s just slaughtered a whole bunch of costumed performers at a children birthday party in Disney World.

Wait… given the look of total loss followed by ecstatic realisation, I thought Dutch had mistaken the direction of the trap and just lucked out? His ‘come and do it’ was a sincere attempt to lure the predator in.

Wait… given the look of total loss followed by ecstatic realisation, I thought Dutch had mistaken the direction of the trap and just lucked out? His ‘come and do it’ was a sincere attempt to lure the predator in.

Wait… given the look of total loss followed by ecstatic realisation, I thought Dutch had mistaken the direction of the trap and just lucked out? His ‘come and do it’ was a sincere attempt to lure the predator in.

Wonky face

I’m not sure I’d agree many of them handle their budgets well, although they certainly have bigger ones, and I’ve seen plenty of weak performances in their catalogues, but I think we’re just going to have to politely accept we see this differently.

I think they’re repulsive, and a lot of the time that’s what it’s supposed to make you feel; revulsion. Given how little there is of it, and that it rarely lingers, it didn’t feel gratuitous to me. But to each their own.

He never said he didn’t intend that from what I recall, but I’m clearly far from the only one who saw that as a clumsy piece of foreshadowing. Having already accepted I remember the end of the film wrongly, I’m not quite sure why that got downvoted since much.

Of course it’s a matter of taste. But you can’t have it both ways. He named a bunch of action directors as being very poor, you counter many of them are really good, while also arguing the bar is low. That’s counter intuitive.

Ok 2 things; first, I think she lives as well, and I’ve even said the director said as much earlier. But I did think she had a cough at the end of the film- but I’m more than happy to admit I’m wrong on this if that’s not the case. There’s 0 chance I’m sitting through any of that again.

If you say so. I mean, firstly, there’s not that much violence in his films, it’s just the moments are memorable and make an impact because they often feel out of place, but violent directors include Tarantino, Lynch, Fincher, Cronenberg, Pekinpah, Verhovan, De Palmer, Miike, Stone, Scorsese, Noe, and Haneke. I think you’re pressed to say the bar is low just because a film has violent parts in it. This isn’t an argument to say he deserves to be in the above tier of directors, but I’d argue he is more than he isn’t. Compare him to the hundreds of other violent directors the world has already forgotten because they have no talent, I think he has a promising back catalogue.

It’s Chekhov’s gun. Don’t show the ingredients can be deadly if you don’t intend to flirt with it. I think they’re plenty of ways you can illustrate that same point, not that you need to, the film already established this without needing it… also, the film closes on her having a coughing fit. That’s not an accident. Lol

Dracula, repeatedly. LOTR, following on from the cartoon. Red Dragon, Manhunter was poorly received at the time.

You can make a violent movie well or you can make it very very badly. He shows a very good command of his budget and he always gets a good performance from his cast. He’s only a hand full of movies into his career, he shows a huge amount of talent.

You say this, and I get your point, but I think it’s meant to be a point of contention; the foreshadowing for the bad meat is NOT subtle, and the pay off is how she chokes on it the while on the boat in the closing seconds. It’s there to make you doubt what’s happening. Personally, I find it unlikely that he’d kill her that way, I think the director has said so himself, but the film is posing that question. It’s being impish.

Wind River doesn’t get enough love

It’s great!

Totally agreed, although I didn’t even think 3 was anything near ‘fine’ haha

Yeah 3 was a dumpster fire, but 2 I found really enjoyable. It couldn’t just trade in on the whole period/werewolf comparison any longer, so delving into mental health and drug abuse wasn’t a bad choice. But I can see why people prefer the first.