Puppies

Rating: Null/10 (19 March 2001)

Spoilers herein.
Yet another film about acting, this time the undercover cop. But `Donnie Brasco' was sharper.
The tone is of a play, with artificially snappy dialog. But almost anything from Mamet does this better. The camera moves about to keep the central set from being dull. But dePalma is first among many are who is being copied here.
There's some cruelty, but it is fakey compared to, say Greenaway; and less cogent to the story.
Keitel does some teapot acting here, because the scenes are too static for his style. `Holy Smoke' is the sort of thing where he really shines. Penn was much better in `Short Cuts,' Roth was way better in `Vincent and Theo' and more self-referential in `Rosencrantz.' (I'll admit that this is Tierney's best role.)
The folded time bit is Tarantino's strength and it is done well here. But it is hardly original and has been done better by others. Of recent Hollywood films, `Out of Sight' and `Snake Eyes' are more artful and more integrated respectively.
My point is that Tarantino doesn't walk on water. This film is not original but a bunch of ideas from others cleverly bonded. It does not deserve the IMDB ranking in the top 250. Dogs DID change Hollywood -- not because of its art but its economics. Think `Blair Witch,' or `Easy Rider' if you prefer a film from a wunderkind.