... the surgery as a near end point. The real person also, according to Wikipedia, died of AIDS in 1987. There's another story there.

Also as an aside, Leon the partner is treated respectfully especially for the period but does not appear enough and it's hard to see him as Pacino's wife. The film also doesn't alienate its audience too much versus reality - the real person was already well transitioned by then and just needed...

Possibly the oddest thing about the film from a 2025 perspective bsky.app/profile/marw...

It's also not clear why Sal decided to join this caper but John Cazale is so full of characteristic menace that his stares make that question superfluous.

perfectly and there's enough chemistry between them that you never doubt they work together. The relationship between the hostages and the robbers otoh feels dated in the bad way, too much of taken from a bad press article about Stockholm Syndrome.

That's a lot of cultural commentary but it would be wrong to see the film as a museum piece. It's excellently constructed as a thriller and while the end is obvious and signposted, there's a lot of mystery and suspense involved in how they get there. The interactions between the hostages work...

But on the 'no change' side there's even a joke about what would now be called fedposting.

The unfriendliness towards the police is a thing that has shifted over time but would have dated the film immediately in the 'vibe shift' of the 80s (which was a real one). But it's hard to imagine a popular film now assuming the public would support the criminal over the cops.

... which foreshadows the director's NETWORK, released a year later. As does the uncharitable attitude to that 70s of beast, the activist celebrity.

One of the charms of this film is actually seeing how much certain depictions haven't changed and how much some have. The stuff about the robber and hostages as celebrities feels trite now, but the comic hypocrisy of the media does not. It is deservingly unmerciless towards the press in a manner...

One would be tempted to see this decline and yes, but there are some 70s charms here such as the vague suggestion that the lead turned gay as his wife was fat and annoying, her portrayal would belong to the sitcoms of the era. A lost era of wokeness this was not.

'Is that true?' is an important question for governments to answer for many reasons, but from a 'actually getting re-elected' perspective, 'will this fix the problem we need it to?' is, you know, mission critical.

It's very much "the Tabloid newspaper view of the UK".

Now off to google "projections of revenue from North Sea Oil".

An expression not just of contempt for the current model of the UK's political economy but also total complacency that if you set it on fire *something* will turn up and it will be fine really.

How long before they decide that fracking might be the future after all?

"seriously fantasises" I would think would be more accurate here.

"UK Labour should try and find affinity with US Republicans" has never worked well before... and it won't work well now.

"Abolish at-will employment to stop the boats" is not something I've ever heard anyone argue although it would be more effective a policy than the performative cruelty we usually get.