Tagged: Quentin Tarantino
The Paperboy (2012)
Would have been better, had it been based on the Nintendo games.
Ward, a reporter (Matthew McConaughey) and his younger brother, a college drop-out named Jack (Zac Efron) investigate the events surrounding a murder to exonerate a man on death row, named Hillary (John Cusack). However, the only reason they are doing so is because the gal that wants Hillary out, a sexxed-up, piece of work named Charlotte (Nicole Kidman), just so happens to be the apple of Jack’s eyes.
I’ve been hearing a lot of crazy shit about this film and to be honest: it’s all deserved. Everybody knows Lee Daniels because he pulled-off Precious about 4 years ago and it showed him as the type of director that can get a story, no matter how gritty or despicable, and be able to make it in the least-bit inspirational for people. However, it wasn’t his first rodeo, as that honor (and I guess, dishonor) goes to a little, fucked-up movie called Shadowboxer. If you’ve never heard of it, please, don’t go watch it because it’s just an insane piece of work to watch and it will have you question whether or not you’ve just watched two films, from the same director. And if you have heard or have actually seen it, then buckle up, because that exactly the same type of crazy shit you’re going to get here.
As much as Daniels’ debut may have blew huge gonads, this flick is actually more controlled than that one and that’s probably because it’s just wild, without making any excuses for being so. There’s definitely that type of grungy, exploitative look and feel to the movie that has you feel as if you are in the dirty South, around the 60′s when racial-issues were up to the forefront and everybody was just sweating their asses off. If anything Daniels does do right in this flick, it’s at least nail the look and feel of the period that he has it placed-in, but everything else, well, it is sort of all-over-the-place.
Being “all-over-the-place” isn’t really all that much of bad thing if you can do it, and get away with it. The problem isn’t that Daniels can’t do it, because he sure as hell makes sure that everybody knows he can in every, damn second of this movie, but it’s more that he can’t get away with it. He can show two people making each other cum without ever touching one another and just simulating dirty things to one another, but it sticks out like a sore-thumb to everything else, and he can’t get away with it; he can show a girl peeing on a guy because he got stung by a bunch of jelly-fish, but it’s just odd and seems like it was only done for shock-factor, and he also can’t get away with it; and lastly, he can try and bring some issues up about the whole Civil Rights-movement, but when you compare it to the last sequences I just mentioned, it seems uneven, and once again, he can’t get away with it. Directors like Quentin Tarantino, Pedro Almodóvar (who apparently wanted to take this material at one time), or even Robert Rodriguez for that matter, could take this material, do whatever the hell they wanted to with it, and at least make all of the crazy shit and melodramatic stuff gel well enough together, that you almost don’t notice it, but Daniels isn’t one of those directors. He’s just a regular-director that seems like he’s trying his damn near hardest to have us all forget about the over-weight girl story he pulled-off 4 years ago, and try to distract us with insane amounts of sex, whether it actually happen on-screen or just be insinuated. Either way, there’s a bunch of sex that seems to come out nowhere at times.
Look what you’ve been missing out on, Tom!
Is all of this wackiness and cookiness fun? In a way, yes it is and honestly, as much as I may be ragging on the film right here, I am more or less just hating on Daniels. Not to say that the guy doesn’t know how to make a story move, because he definitely does, but it focuses way too much on the personal lives of these characters and not in an exciting or electric way either, it’s just a boring, way-too-dramatic way that comes off as trying too hard. We never really care for these characters, the case they continue to push to the side, or what their relationships are with each other and how that affects one another, and I guess that was the point. Daniels is just giving us a bunch of dirty people that we can either care to like or not. Whether or not we actually do, doesn’t matter, because as long as Daniels is just allowing us to see how insane he can be, then he’s the one with the real joy in the end. That kind of ticks me off now that I think about it, because there was definitely a crap-ton of promise with this flick and premise, it’s just a shame that it had to fall so far from ever achieving that said promise.
The only promise that this flick ever does hit head-on, is the ensemble cast and what they are able to do with each of their roles, no matter how wacky or unbelievable they may be. Zac Efron is the sort-of voice of reason throughout this whole flick and is definitely growing-up right in front of our own eyes, but if you think about it, it is sort of a dull role for the guy but nowhere near as dull as the role Robert Pattinson had in Cosmopolis. Still, Efron makes this character work and his performance shows-off a kid that definitely wants to be treated like an adult, yet, still has the tendencies of a kid that just doesn’t yet know what to do with his life or who to spend the rest of it with. Sort of how Efron is now, just without being peed-on. Then again, I still have no idea what him and Vanessa Hudgens did in their spare-time.
Playing his big bro, Matthew McConaughey is good as the slick and sly reporter that can not only charm his way into getting whatever the hell he wants, but also has a bit of problems brewing underneath that he’s pretty good at hiding. This is a nice role for McConaughey and it’s one that he can practically play while sleeping, but after a year where tore the roof down as force to be reckoned with in flicks like Killer Joe and Magic Mike, this one definitely ranks the lowest-of-the-low for him. Not to say it’s bad, but it’s not to say that it’s anything special, either. John Cusack is playing really, really against-type here as the psychotic and nutty Hillary, and shows that Cusack can probably do more than any of us ever expected from him. He’s strange, he’s weird, but he’s also very sinister and I like how Cusack totally just swan-dived right into the role, totally leaving all shades and memories behind of Peter Gabriel tapes in his pathway. Not to say that this is a special performance that makes us think of Cusack in a different way now, but it’s definitely a role that shows the guy can do more than just be that old dude from the 80′s we all remember relating to when our dates walked-out on us at prom. Yeah, that he is no more.
Better get used to that look, because that’s all you’re going to see him look half of the damn movie!
The one who really steals the spotlight from the rest of these dudes is Nicole Kidman, as the starlet fire fox, Charlotte. Kidman hasn’t been this sexy or bad-ass since the days of Eyes Wide Shut and To Die For, but here, she totally steals all the glory and attention, and has all of the fun out of everybody here. She just relishes in the fact that she can be sexy, be a little dirty, but also be a little bit sympathetic as well and once things start to go South for her and this story, she’s the only one you really give a single hoot about, especially since she’s the only one that has the most believable convictions out of the whole story (she just wants love). Kidman is probably getting the most recognition and praise for her work here and rightfully so, because the gal just looks freakin’ hot and steams up every scene she’s in, whether she’s trying to seduce people and act sexy, or not. Either way, Kidman definitely had my attention in almost every scene and I’m glad so, too, because she deserved it.
Consensus: You may have a boat-load of fun with The Paperboy if you’re looking for some weird shit to happen, non-stop without any rhyme or reason as to why exactly, but if not, then you may just be bored and annoyed by how uneven everything is, despite Daniels trying his hardest to make us think or see otherwise. You strike-out this time, my friend!
6/10=Rental!!
“I triiiiiiieeeed to not get type-castedddd…..”
Django Unchained (2012)
No way the dirty South could have been this dirty. Could it have been?
Jamie Foxx stars as the titular character named Django, who is an escaped slave who teams up with bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) to rescue his wife (Kerry Washington) from sadistic plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).
Let’s just get it all out in the open and out of the way for everybody to see and understand before I jump any further into this review: this was my most anticipated flick of the year. Obviously, I’m not much different from others out there in the movie-world, and it’s probably no shock to any of you out there who know that Quentin Tarantino is one, if not my favorite writers/directors working today. This has been a passion-project of his since day 1 and it only seems right that after knocking-out homers left-and-right over the past 20 years, that he finally get to do, what he does best: showing us a little piece of his sick, but original mind.
Everything you see in this flick is exactly what you would expect from a Tarantino flick: crazy characters, wacky dialogue, oodles of violence, ironic use of pop-music, homages to classic flicks that only he and about 5 others actually “get”, and a huge deal of suspense, that almost seems to come out of nowhere. These are the staples of Tarantino’s flicks and as much as they have came-out to be nothing short of expected by now, that still is in no way, shape or form an insult or negative about Tarantino and this movie, because it’s still freakin’ awesome and probably the most original flick I’ve seen all year.
The topic of racism is what really stands in the front of the line with this movie and even though the flick basically takes place during 1858, in the South where slavery runs high and mighty amongst rich, white men, the topic is never used to be thoughtful, or even used as a metaphor for the world we are in now. It’s basically used as another tool for Tarantino to show loads and loads of gruesome/graphic violence and actually give it meaning, rather than throw it at the screen and hoping that it will make sense in the grander scheme of things. Nope, Tarantino’s not all about that and anybody who complained about Inglorious Basterds not being the action-packed, gore-ride they were expecting from QT, then he will definitely shut you up with this one because every piece of violence here, is bloody, gory, and ever so stylized, as we can always expect from Tarantino. Sometimes it’s almost too vicious to watch but hey, that’s not a bad thing considering this is coming from a movie who’s director had 15-minutes of a movie dedicated to a chick hacking-up people, all-over-the-place, with a samurai sword, of all weapons to choose.
So, a white man and black man walk down the streets of a Southern town, around 1858….
The violence in this movie definitely stands-out among the rest of what Tarantino uses here, but the script is even better and is classic-Tarantino, at it’s finest. As usual, we get a lot of the witty, catchy-banter between characters that seems almost too energetic to be true, but Tarantino really works himself hard as a writer, especially with this movie, because he actually goes somewhere we never really expected him to in the first-place: comedy. Yeah, it may seem like a bit of a head scratcher that I would talk about how much comedy Tarantino uses and how it surprised the hell out of me because with the flicks that he’s done over the years, it would seem like he’s been doing comedy forever. To be honest, Tarantino has always had a knack for incorporating a great-deal of humor into his scripts, but not as obvious and not as important as it is used here. There are so many scenes here that just had me laughing, not just because Tarantino is doing something that only I, as a movie-geek, actually get, but more or less because he is actually trying to make me laugh and it worked so, so very well.
However, as much as he may put the emphasis on comedy this time-around, Tarantino still never forgets to switch things up and make it more dark and serious, and the tonal-changes are swift, unnoticeable, and always deserved. You know once Tarantino gets into his “serious mode”, then all of the violence and, in a way, more comedy actually comes about since this is the type of material that Tarantino strives for and always seems to have a blast with. Certain scenes would really catch me off-guard because here I would be expecting it to be a scene where a couple of people are sittin’ around, shootin’ the shit, and basically being a bunch of goof balls, but then would all of a sudden change into this very dark and tense scene, where all hell is about to break-loose and anybody you actually care about in this movie, could be gone as quick as you can say the word, “dead”. Seriously, just that snap of a finger, and all of a sudden a scene does a total 180 where we don’t even know what to expect. That sure unpredictability is exactly what I come to expect from Tarantino and it’s put to good-use here, so many damn times that I was literally sweating with tension at-times. The idea of not knowing where a film is going to land next, is always my favorite-aspect of a movie and here, it’s only better because it’s Tarantino and this guy always seems to have a blast with just fucking around with the audience, their minds, and their moods. That damn Tarantino! He’s always so snarky.
This scene would have been so much more epic if more than 3 people got what the hell Tarantino was referencing. Not including me, by the way.
Even if Tarantino seems to be having a ball with this movie, he’s not having the most fun. Actually, that utter sense of joy and pleasure goes right to the ensemble cast, who are all amazing, well-picked, and having the time of their lives just doing what they do best: act their asses off. When I first heard about Jamie Foxx’s casting as Django, I thought it was a tad unoriginal, and just another-way for Foxx to go around, acting all cool and jive, while wearing a cowboy hat. You know, in an ironic-way. I wasn’t really-looking forward to seeing him play this role, but you know what? Foxx kicks-ass in it and it’s a huge wonder as to why I ever doubted the dude in the first-place. Foxx isn’t as front-and-center with this story as you may think, but whenever he does get the time to shine and do his own thing, he owns it, and doesn’t even have to say anything. Sometimes the emotions on his face tell it all and as easy it is to make us feel something for a slave that wants to be free and get his wife back, it’s even easier to make us feel something for a character that we know can fight his own battles and not ask for sympathy. Django, in terms of the actual-character, is the perfect, Spaghetti Western cowboy, because he’s soft-spoken, cool, but always has something witty to say on his mind. And Foxx owns that role to a T.
In the past 3 years, ever since Basterds hit the theaters and made Christoph Waltz a bona-fide star, it seems like Hollywood has never been able to capitalize on the guy’s real talents as a serious and dramatic actor. However, Tarantino knows how to use the guy best and shows that with every-line of dialogue that comes out of this man’s mouth. Waltz plays Dr. King Schultz, the nicer-version of Hans Landa, but still is just as sadistic and smart. What makes Schultz such a great character is that the guy is always one-step ahead of everybody else around him. He always knows to act in every situation, he always knows the right things to say, he always knows how to keep his cool, when shit starts to get heavy, but the most-important factor of his character out of all, is that he always knows how to kill anybody that stands in his way. He’s a violent bastard that seems like the type of guy you want to be bounty hunters with, but as time goes on and he starts to have heavier obstacles thrown in his way, Schultz starts to fold under pressure and show how sometimes, Django is better-suited for certain situations. It’s a great dynamic the two characters have, and it’s heightened even more, mainly because of the pitch-perfect chemistry between the two that always seems to feature the best lines in the whole movie.
The nicest way to ask a black man if he cared to have a smoke back in those days.
I was mainly looking forward to this movie for many, many reasons, but I think the most, out of all, surprisingly, was the fact that this was Leonardo DiCaprio’s first, main-role as a villain in lord only knows how long, here as Calvin Candie. I’ve always been a huge fan of Leo and all that he’s been able to do in the past decade or so, but even I will admit, his act seemed to get a little stiff by the 10th time he played a confused, and troubled victim of something bad being played against him. It was the same-old routine in almost every movie he seemed to sign-up for and even though the guy did awesome with that routine, it started to become glaringly old, and a role as a campy, over-the-top slave owner, in a QT film, sounded like the perfect-way to spice things up in the dude’s career. And damn, was I ever so happy that I was right about that sweet, soothing sound.
DiCaprio is, well, how should I put it? Perfect in a role like this. Calvin Candie is cunning, funny, campy, and very, very sly in his way of handling himself through every situation he’s put into but you can always tell that there’s something darker lying beneath the surface and the way DiCaprio handles all of that, is probably the best-acting he’s done in awhile. DiCaprio doesn’t just explode with anger, rage, and energy whenever the camera’s on him. No, he just lets it sit there, watching him, letting us know his character, all that he is, all that he does, and all that he can be, if he has to turn the other-cheek and be an evil asshole like we all expect him to be. Eventually, Candie does turn into that evil asshole we expected to see from him right-away, but DiCaprio is so good and so masterful at portraying it, that you really cannot take your eyes off of him. No matter how hard anybody else around him actually tries, DiCaprio is the one that steals the spotlight in every scene he has, and it’s just perfect to watch, especially coming from a guy who’s been wanting a role like this for Leo, for the longest-time. When he loses his shit, he loses it in the most-hardcore way of all and demands your attention, rather than simply asking for it, in the kind-way, Candie likes to fool people with. I really don’t think I can hit the head on the nail as much as I have already, but I’m just going to leave my whole two, orgasm paragraphs on Leo by saying this: that motherfucker deserves the Oscar this year. I’m done, I’ve said it, and yet, I still feel like I haven’t said enough! Aaaaahhhh! Leonardo DiCaprio is perfect. End. Of. Story.
“Listen, bitch!! I’m Samuel L. Jackson, and I’m just loud! Get used to it!”
Now that that is over with, let me move onto everybody else that deserves a bit of a shine from the spotlight as well. Samuel L. Jackson seems to be another-one in this cast that’s having a ball as the head house slave Stephen, a total Uncle Tom from head-to-toe in terms of appearance, and mental-state also. From the first-shot of the guy, Samuel L. is almost unrecognizable as Stephen, but as time goes on, you get it in your head that it is Samuel L., doing his funny-as-hell, loud yelling and screaming that we always expect from the guy and it’s just so great to watch, especially since it seems like Samuel L. in his comfort-zone. I don’t know if the guy ever left to begin-with, but watching him just have a blast with a role and take over the screen like he does, is always a joy to watch in my book.
Kerry Washington was a bit of a disappointment to watch as Django’s baby girl, Broomhilda Von Shaft (trust me, see the movie and you’ll understand), not just because she isn’t featured in the movie a lot, but mainly because she doesn’t have as much of a screen-presence as everybody else in this flick seems to have. And that’s especially weird to have coming out of my fingertips, considering this is a QT movie and the guy always has kick-ass, female characters to show off. Don’t get me wrong, Washington is still good with her role but doesn’t really get much to do other than cry, yell, and looked terrified the whole-time. There’s so many more faces and stars in this cast that are worth mentioning and bringing to your attention but seriously, just go see the movie for yourself and realize that Tarantino is not only perfect when it comes to writing and directing, but also casting. The guy’s just got it all and all of these rumors of a possible, early-retirement has me scared shitless. Oh well, let’s just hope he keeps on churning out movies until he can’t no mo.
Consensus: Some trimming of the fat needed to be done here and there with Django Unchained, but for a movie that is 2 hours and 40 minutes and is never, for a second, ever boring or uninteresting, I have to say that’s pretty damn a-okay with me, especially if it’s a Tarantino movie, where fun, violence, comedy, cheekiness, homages, and pop-culture references all come together, in one beautiful, original blender of ideas.
9.5/10=Full Price!!
Apparently, people DO care if Don Johnson ever works another day in his life again.
Merry Christmas to all! Enjoy it and enjoy the presents you may or may not get from Santa!
The Man With the Iron Fists (2012)
It would have totally been better if the rest of Wu-Tang was here. Even you, ODB. Even you.
In feudal China, small village’s blacksmith (RZA) is forced by radical tribal factions to create elaborate tools of destruction. When the clans’ brewing war boils over, the stranger channels an ancient energy to transform himself into a human weapon. As he fights alongside iconic heroes and against soulless villains, one man must harness this power to become savior of his adopted people.
With Wu-Tang Clan madman RZA directing, co-writing with Eli Roth, and having Quentin Tarantino produce, The Man With the Iron Fists definitely seemed like something in my backyard. I love the old, kung-fu movies that RZA obviously loves and pay homages to here, and the story itself just seemed like the perfect fit for a mixture of those oldies, with the new, gore-tastic days of today. Sadly, all of that hype and promise lead to it being just another passion-project, that never goes it’s full-distance.
Apparently during post-production of this movie, RZA threw a huge fit because he had to cut-down a 4 and-a-half hour movie, to an hour and-a-half. To be honest, I don’t blame the guy because that is a butt-load of footage and seems like the type of job I wouldn’t want being told to do, especially if it was my own movie. However, I think that’s the problem this film hits in the first-place: it’s WAY too cut-down. What I mean by this is that certain characters will just show-up for 5 minutes, and apparently have some sort of significance to the plot, without us ever realizing it. It almost seems like there were all of these back-stories meant for these types of characters, but weren’t there for the final-cut, so instead, we get a bunch of characters that don’t really do anything for the plot other than just show-up, speak their lines, and get killed.
That element of this movie, and the fact that the story is pretty confusing is the reason as to why the cutting of this film hurts the final-product. Throughout the first hour or so, it’s never made clear as to who the villains are, who the heroes are, and just who the hell this story is going to be focused on. The Man With the Iron Fists himself, doesn’t really get much of a spot-light until the last 30 minutes or so to where he all of a sudden means a lot to the premise because of something bad that happens to him. I mean, there was an idea of who the bad guys were because of who they killed, how they did it, and what their intentions were, but after awhile, it just became a bit confusing and made me wonder just who was important to this story and who wasn’t. Once again, there was probably plenty of footage developing these characters and their story-lines a lot more, but sadly, didn’t make the final-cut and are just kind of left lost on the cutting-room floor. Poor scenes, maybe there’s a director’s cut in the future. Maybe.
Where the story fails, however, is where the action of this movie prevails and definitely made this a lot of an easier ride as it went through. Even though the whole story is filled with little bits and pieces of action here and there, the final 30 minutes is where all of it really comes into play and tears down the house and shows RZA’s true eye for fun and entertainment. The kung-fu is goofy with a lot of wire-work used to the point of where it almost seems like self-parody; the music is a mixture of hip-hop and some score music, even though it’s not entirely like the same soundtrack RZA used for Kill Bill, and gives every scene a pretty cool, retro feel while still keeping it current; and the gore/blood is pretty awesome and shows that there was a huge Roth inspiration going-on throughout this flick the whole time. All three of these factors is why I enjoyed the last 30 minutes of this flick because instead of focusing on a crappy and confusing plot, with crappy and confusing characters, we get what we came for: bloody, crazy, and fun action without any logical-reasoning as to why all of these people are flying in the air other than the fact that they are in a kung-fu movie.
Even though these action scenes are the only times the movie really comes to life, the cast does do their best to try and help-out, but end up getting over-shadowed. Lucy Liu is having the same type of fun with this role, as she had with the one in Kill Bill, and that’s all fine and dandy until you realize that the gal isn’t really trying anything new, other than working with a lesser-script, and no offense bud, but lesser-director as well. The only one who seems to be having the most fun, and brings that out onto the audience is Russell Crowe as an English mercenary, Jack Knife (gedd it?!?). Crowe is such a weird-pick for this role, but seems like the perfect-fit once you see him because he knows what movie he’s in, what role he’s playing, and what’s expected of him to make it work. Even though Crowe kicked plenty of ass in Gladiator, it still doesn’t make him any type of martial-artist master, but still shows that he can be as sinister and dangerous as he was in that classic. Yeah, it’s only been 12 years and I’m already calling that one a classic.
As a director, RZA may not be the unstoppable force to be reckoned with, but at least he still tries to maintain that credit as an actor. Sadly, his role is mainly just him keeping that one, signature, sullen-look we all know and love him for but sadly, doesn’t allow us to really stand-behind automatically, despite him being our main hero that we’re supposed to cheer for. Thankfully, though, RZA knows this and doesn’t take the center spot-light, which is pretty respectable in my opinion. Also, it was pretty neat to see former-WWE wrestler Dave Bautista show-up somewhere again as a bad-ass that can’t be stopped. I miss the hell out of that guy and it’s nice to see him doing movies now, even though a guy who turns to bricks and only has about 12 lines of dialogue isn’t the ideal role out there for a pro-wrestler. But hey, how many movies has John Cena showed-up in this year? Exactly.
Consensus: If it weren’t for the final 30 minutes of this movie where everything finally comes to head and is fun, exciting, and bloody just like we expected, The Man With the Iron Fists would have definitely been a huge-disappointment because of it’s lack of distinctive-style, sense of plot, or sense of characters. Instead, it just comes off as a minor-disappointment.
6/10=Rental!!
Halloween Horror Movie Month: The Descent (2005)
As if cave-diving couldn’t get any freakier.
In a remote mountain range, six girlfriends meet for their yearly adventure, a caving trip into the arteries of the earth. The group makes their way through the remote cave system, enjoying the hazardous but beautiful surroundings. However, they end-up trapped after a break in the cave and somehow find their problems with a bunch of humanoid-like creatures that have come to eat them alive.
I don’t know about any of you out there, but cave-diving is definitely not one of the main things I feel like I need to do in my life before I die. That’s mainly because it’s terribly claustrophobic and the idea that I could get stuck down there without anybody ever really being able to save me is just all the more frightening and gives me more of a reason not to do it. However, I can now add weird-looking, albino creatures to that list of reasons as well.
That whole fear of claustrophobia is what writer/director Neil Marshall taps into very well and what kept me so damn interested from start-to-finish. Actually, the first 45 minutes or so is just all about these gals crawling down small-ass caves and barely making it out is what kept me watching and wondering just when shit is finally going to blow-off. Thankfully, once shit does start to blow-off, it blows-off in a way that doesn’t feel cheap or unnecessary whatsoever, and that’s the way I like my horror movies, man.
I’m just going to go right out and say it, but this movie surprised the hell out of me. Before I saw it, I knew it was going to be good but what really got me the most was how the transition from cave-diving spectacle, to full-on escape/action-flick felt realistic and just kept me involved so much more. Maybe calling it an escape/action-flick isn’t doing the whole “horror-element” of this film any justice, mainly because I feel like that was the weakest part of the movie. Some of the scares here are effective and come out of nowhere at times, but other times, feel calculated as if you know Marshall was going to get us with a boo-scare eventually because I mean honestly, is he going to go that against the typical, North American-view of horror movies? That’s not really a rip on Marshall, necessarily, because a guy’s gotta do what a guy’s gotta do in some cases, but it definitely seemed like something was clicking for me enough on that end to really hit me hard.
What did hit me hard was when Marshall decides to kick his story into high-gear and allow us to sit on-the-edge-of-our-seats wondering just what the hell is going to happen next, as we await each and every one of these girls’ impending dooms. That’s a terrible thing to say about characters in a horror movie, but here, you just feel like nothing is going to go right for them but that’s where this movie surprises you: these beotches fight back and actually kick some ass. This is where the movie becomes very unpredictable as not everyone here feels like a damsel-in-distress who needs to be saved from her knight in shining armor. They can all stick up for themselves and give these weird-looking S.O.B’s a run for their money in terms of killing bitches one-by-one.
And god, did all of this action and craziness just look so bloody, beautiful. Since a lot of this film is shown through night-lights and flash-lights that the girls bring around with them, there’s very few chances for Marshall to really get artsy at all with this look and feel for the movie, but he somehow finds a way to, in a very horror-ish kind of way. I don’t want to go right out there and state that this is a gory film, because it really isn’t, but still does use gore when it’s needed and really stays in your head, long after it’s over. You don’t see too many colors, but when they do show-up, they are usually in red and green and both colors have a distinct-look that makes this film a hell of a lot more creepier than it already was before. Even when the blood and gore does somehow find it’s way into the movie, it feels deserved and never for once feels like Marshall’s way of just throwing ketchup around, just for the sake of doing so. No, he’s no Eli Roth and I don’t know if that’s a good thing, or bad thing. I think I’m starting to go with the 1st thought. Sorry Eli, you can always depend on Tarantino to keep your relevant.
And where Roth follows the usual conventions of horror-movies, Marshall necessarily does not, in terms of the cast that he picks. It may come off as a big surprise to most people seeing this movie, but this full female-cast actually worked in Marshall’s favor because it not only provides a larger-sense of danger and unpredictability for these gals, but also allows us to get to know them before we go off and see them shipped-away to cannibals. The whole cast is pretty damn good, with Shauna Macdonald doing the best job here as Sarah, a woman who’s kid and husband died a year before she goes out cave-diving. What I liked so much about Macdonald here is that the girl really seemed like she was going to annoy the shit out of me the whole way, but suddenly, grasps a change of heart and decides to fuck-up everything that stands in her way and it’s great to watch as she goes through this transformation, and even better because you know it’s all done by a female, not a masculine piece of crap like a male.
However, everything was going fine and dandy for me in this straight-forward horror flick, that was until, Marshall decided to pull a High Tension-twist ending on me and ruined half of my experience. Without giving too much away, I’m just going to go right out and state that the whole twist to the movie makes it feel a bit cheap and as if Marshall had that bright idea go off in his head that made him think that twist-endings really spice the whole story up once it’s all said and done. It doesn’t really give us our traditional, Hollywood ending we’re all so happy and used to seeing, but it’s not that element of the ending that bothers me, it’s just the fact that it doesn’t seem needed and could have just ended in a way that didn’t need any more interpretation whatsoever. This is horror people, not a Kubrick film.
Consensus: High Tension fully functions as a tense, edge-of-your-seat thrill-ride that is unrelenting in the violence and gore it shows, doesn’t show, and keeps you waiting for, even if the pay-off may not be what you would want the most from a film of this nature.
8.5/10=Matinee!!
Seven Psychopaths (2012)
See, this would have never happened if more people had cats!
Colin Farrell stars as a struggling screenwriter named Marty, who inadvertently becomes entangled in the Los Angeles criminal underworld after his oddball friends Billy (Sam Rockwell) and Hans (Christopher Walken) kidnap a gangster’s (Woody Harrelson) beloved Shih Tzu.
Even though I heard a lot of hype surrounding it way back in 2008, In Bruges still surprised the hell out of me. Not only was it hilarious and violent (the way I like my mobster-like movies), but also surprisingly touching considering the characters were just a bunch of cold-blooded hit-men when you think about it. That was easily one of my favorite movies of that year and that is why I was looking forward so much to seeing what writer/director Martin McDonagh could do next. Thankfully, it’s the same type of stuff around again but this time, with dogs. Even better.
What I liked most about McDonagh’s script and what he does with this story, is he pulls no punches, and makes no apologies for where he goes with it. Right from that memorable first scene, we already know what we are getting ourselves involved with: a slightly off-kilter, type of movie that will kill when it needs to. That’s how I like my crime movies and this one is no different, but there’s more of a darker-edge to it that really works, especially in the comedy-aspect of this movie. There are a couple of jokes here and there that will really fly by people (as it did to me), but what always hit me hard was when McDonagh would have his characters practically dissect what it is that we usually see in movies that are in the same vein as this one, or In Bruges for that matter.
This is made possible because of the fact that Farrell’s character is a movie screen-writer, working on a script while all of this crazy shit is happening, which allows McDonagh to not only go balls-out in the fantasy sequences, but give his own two-cents on what it’s like to make a crime movie that has so many obvious conventions that it’s almost too hard to stray away from. Not only do I love it when movies take certain cheap-shots at movies themselves, but I love when they do it and it’s hilarious, which is exactly what this movie and it’s something I don’t think I’ve stressed enough about this movie. The humor is as dark as you can get, but a lot of other humor bits are intentional and they still work no matter where they are placed in this story. Trust me, you won’t get every single line of funny dialogue, but with the ones you do get, you’ll still be happy and laughing your ass off.
However, as you could expect, it’s not all that sunshine and games with McDonagh and his story as it does get very gruesome at points and may even take you by surprise to the limits it goes. That’s right, characters that you don’t expect to get killed off, do in-fact, get killed off and as heartbreaking and unexpected as it may be sometimes, it still furthers the story on and makes you realize that this is a writer/director that takes no prisoners. This not only adds an extra-level of suspense onto the film, but a whole other layer of heart and emotion to these characters as you feel like any scene with them, could quite literally be their last. It’s something that McDonagh pulls off perfectly and reminded me that this is the type of writer/director we need more of for the crime-genre.
Another thing that more crime-movies should definitely have is an ensemble that we can literally not stop watching. This is exactly what Seven Psychopaths has, and then some. Colin Farrell, once again, stars and plays one of the more cowardly guys in the film, but is the straight-man here, more than anything else as Marty (teehee, gedd it?). Farrell is not only great at playing the straight-man, but also lets a couple of his own weird laughs come through as well and it’s great to once again see this guy stretch his comedy-strength, but also still be able to show that he has what it takes to make an endearing character that we still care for in the end. The only difference between this character, and the one he played in In Bruges, is that we sort of cared for that one more since he seemed so much more innocent, even though he was a hit-man and this guy is a screenplay writer. Actually, that could almost be said about the movie as well, because even though I liked all of these characters and seeing what they did with this material, I wasn’t as emotionally-invested with them here, as I was with the three in McDonagh’s last flick. Maybe it was the size of the ensemble, maybe it was the different sub-plots, or maybe it was just something that made me want to be more entertained and laugh, rather than cry my eyes out. Either way, In Bruges was better in that aspect.
The two cast-members everybody will probably be talking about the most coming out of this film are none other than Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken, the two infamous dog-nappers who start this whole shit-storm in the first-place. Rockwell is one of these actors who comes close to stealing the show in every movie he does, but somehow, just hasn’t gotten that big-break he so rightfully deserves just yet, but I don’t think he has to wait any longer. His character as Bill is a pretty wacky and wild one that seems like he came straight-out of a Tarantino movie, but has more than meets the eye with him. You think that Bill is just a total psycho that does stupid things because he has nothing else better to do, but you realize there’s a reason for doing all of the stuff he does and as twisted as it may be (and trust me, it is), in a way, it’s a bit sweet as well. Rockwell is great at playing both sides of this character and I really, really, really do hope this catapults his career to even higher-lengths than he could have ever imagined. Seriously, the guy deserves it and I could totally see him winning an Oscar sooner or later.
Then, of course, we got the always awesome and delightful Christopher Walken doing his best, well, you know, “Christopher Walken”. As unoriginal and lazy as that idea may come off as, it isn’t in the least-bit because Walken is having an absolute ball with his role here as Hans and it reminds you why this guy is such an icon in the first-place. All of the lines that Walken’s given, he nails in that deliberate-delivery of his that’s always great, and all of the emotions he has to emphasize with this character, works but not just because he’s an old-cook, but because he’s a sweet, endearing, old man that seems like he could still kick anybody’s ass, if he’s pushed to that point. Basically, it’s Christopher Walken, playing Christopher Walken and what’s better than that? Nothing at all.
Rounding out the rest of the cast is Woody Harrelson as the crazed mob-boss who goes looking for his doggy like any other pet-lover. Harrelson is a very diverse actor in the way that he is able to have us love him when he’s being the typical, cool guy we all know and love him for, but is also able to have us despise the hell out of him when he’s playing an absolute d-bag that can’t be trusted. Harrelson plays with both sides of the quarter here where he shows us his sinister side, but also allows us to see his charming side whenever he’s actually around his doggy or has to think of it being taken away from. It’s a great role for him but in all honesty, I would have loved it even more if they gave it to Mickey Rourke like they originally planned as it would have been downright hilarious with that nut in the role. Playing another nut-case in this film is Tom Waits, who shows up with a bunny and tells his side of being a psycho killer. Waits is here, essentially, as an extended cameo but it’s still fun to see him show-up and do something really random and weird. That’s how we love to see the guy and that’s how we always want to see him.
The other two in this leading-cast are the two gals (Abbie Cornish and Olga Kurylenko) and they were the two ones I was the most disappointed by when it was all said and done. They aren’t really given much to work with, other than a bunch of one-dimensional lines that don’t do anything for their characters, other than make us wish that they’d just be gone and allow this to be a strictly-sausage party, but it was also lame how McDonagh didn’t really give them much to play around with in the first-place. Seriously, it seems like Cornish and Kurylenko could have had some of their own fun in-between all of the dudes just fartin’ around, so why not give them something, Martin?
Consensus: Seven Psychopaths will take most viewers by surprise by how dark and sinister it can get, but most viewers will also find themselves having a ball with the excellent script, spirited ensemble, and a story that’s not only hilarious, but unpredictable in the way you have no idea where the hell it’s going to g0.
8.5/10=Matinee!!
Cosmopolis (2012)
Join Team Edward. You’ll get all coke, sex, and parties you want.
Set during a 24-hour period, Cosmopolis stars Robert Pattinson as Eric Packer, a 28-year-old newlywed billionaire who manages to lose both his fortune and bride in the span of one short day. He starts by doing one bad thing and keeps going on to the next; and you know what happens in the end? Nobody cares because he’s a little rich piece of shit.
This was a film I really wanted to like. It really was. Writer/director David Cronenberg hasn’t always been one of my favorites per se, but he’s got this unique vision when it comes to making his movies: his own ways, and I could at least respect that about him. That is, until now.
When I think about this film and what really pissed me off throughout it, I think about Cronenberg and how he easily could have made this one, crazy, effed-up wild-ride from start-to-finish. Problem is, it’s just as much the trailers’ fault as it is his. All of the teasers and trailers have been promoting this Cronenberg’s big return-t0-horror film, where R-Pat is going around, shooting guns, doing drugs, being a total a-hole, and effin’ ladies in the limo. But it’s not that at all! Instead, it’s just him going around and talking to people about absolutely nothing! Actually, I shouldn’t say that because they do actually have some conversations about the state of the world and where it’s going, but never did I feel compelled, never was I on-the-edge guessing what was going to happen next, and never was I thinking to myself, “Oh shit! All hell is about to break loose up in this bitch!”. Nope — instead I just kept dozing off and wondering when the hell it was finally going to fade to black.
That’s what really bothered me about this film: the non-stop talking. All these characters do is talk, talk, talk and that would have been fine had the script been a bit more Quentin Tarantino-, Aaron Sorkin-, or even Martin Scorsese-esque. But Cronenberg doesn’t add anything new or engaging to this script to fully keep me involved when everybody is just blubbering on about God knows what. It’s just way too dull and pretentious to keep me even somewhat intrigued. It makes me wonder if Don DeLillo’s novel was one of those situations where it looked good on paper, but when it came to be being brought-up on film, just didn’t fit. And since that’s what it seems here, it’s a real bummer because a lot of the material seems thought-provoking and very relevant if you think about how a lot of it is about the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer while encasing riots everywhere they go. Could have been so much more interesting if there was just something here to keep it going and alive.
One of the most intriguing aspects about this film that caught my eye way before I even saw a trailer for it, was the fact that Robert Pattinson was in the leading role as numb billionaire, Eric Parker. I’ll give Pattinson some slack, the kid definitely seems like he can act and actually has some skill to him, but he keeps on getting bogged down by shitty movie, after shitty movie and I thought that this was going to be his one light at the end of the tunnel. How wrong I was.
See, what Pattinson does here is exactly what he’s been accused of before: being way too dull. Eric Parker seems like one of those great characters that just wreaks of sleaze, where he doesn’t give a shit what happens to him, when it happens to him, and how, he just wants to live up his life with sex, booze, and money. That’s your typical rich dick-head that can sometimes make or break a movie depending on who’s playing them; I think it goes without saying that he breaks the hell out of this movie, in a bad way of course. I get that Parker was supposed to be a numb character that didn’t feel any sort of excitement until society has finally started crackling down into ashes, but Pattinson’s performance doesn’t bring anything else but that and by the end, it starts to feel one-note. So one-note, that even when his character starts to seem like he’s actually gaining some sort of edge towards the end, you can’t really feel it because he’s got the same type of delivery with each and every line. It was almost like Cronenberg told him to go out there and act like you’re in a zombie movie, but to be the zombie that can talk. Seriously, he’s that lifeless, which, in a way, could be the point, but it still didn’t work for me. I think this will stand as the moment where I realized that Pattinson may not have any talent at all, and is just that piece of brooding little shit that all of the dudes hate, and the girls love. Maybe that’s why K-Stew is getting so bored of him now. Heyyoh!
What’s even worse about his performance, is that when anybody else from this ensemble shows up on-screen, you barely even pay attention to him as everybody here gives it there all. The problem here is the same one that I had with Pattinson: so damn dull and lifeless. Each and every performance seems like they are just another annoying character that barely has any emotions whatsoever, and almost every supporting performance doesn’t last for more than 8 minutes on-screen. So really what you have here is a dull Robert Pattinson, running around the streets of New York (obviously filmed in Toronto), meeting up with even duller people, and at the end of it all, you’re supposed to look at the world we live in and realize something that CNN has been telling us for the past year: the economy is going way, way down-hill. Thanks Cronenberg! I really needed to wake-up and smell the cauliflower on that one!
Consensus: Cosmopolis may be a very thought-provoking and smart thing to read on-paper, but being adapted into a feature film just doesn’t cut it because of the dull performances from everybody involved, the uninteresting direction that Cronenberg goes for and succeeds in, sadly, and the ideas and insight into the world we live in that seem very current, but just don’t bring anything new to what we have already heard before.
2/10=Crapola!!
Water for Elephants (2011)
Hans Landa vs. Edward Cullen: imagine if this was handled by Tarantino.
Taking place in the Depression Era veterinary medicine student Jacob (Robert Pattinson) joins a 2nd-rate travelling circus and falls for the star performer (Reese Witherspoon). Christoph Waltz plays her husband, August, a dangerous paranoid schizophrenic animal trainer who is as mean to his wife as he is to the circus creatures.
With all of this talk and hype about how director Francis Lawrence may take over the sequel for The Hunger Games, I thought what better way to know what you’re going to get yourself into than to check out his latest work. No, not I Am Legend, even though I wish it was.
I never read the best-seller that this is based off of (probably because it wasn’t written by Elmore Leonard) but I can definitely tell just by watching this flick, that it was probably one hell of a read with the story they have here. The story itself takes place in 1931, and it sort of feels like a film that could have been made around that time as well. This reminded me a lot of the old-Hollywood movies where there are little or no explosions, heavy violence, heavy cussin’, or CGI for that matter.
The cinematography, costumes, and set-designs also brought me back to the time of where things were harder to get and the people were a lot more sad than usual, but in the end, an honest works pay was still an honest works pay. It’s just a straight-up, old-fashioned, love story that almost played in the same reign as countless other flicks like The Notebook and Seabiscuit and rather than just telling another generic, love story that offers nothing new or original, we get something that is at least interesting to keep your eyes glued onto.
However, there were some obvious things that seemed to bother me especially when it came to the casting here. I really do want to like Robert Pattinson, I really do. I think beyond all of that Twilight shit he gets thrown onto him, somewhere lies a very talented actor that is ready to just branch-out at any second, but keeps on getting roles that just seem to put him in the same exact boat as he was back in 2008. Pattinson’s role here as Jacob (irony!) comes off more bland even though it’s obvious he is trying his damn near hardest. It’s not like watching this guy is brutal by any means, because he’s definitely a tolerable actor, it’s just that this role seemed like they needed a man but got more of a boy instead. Maybe in a couple of years down the line once he has a whole bunch of experience with some roles, Pattinson might be a forced to be reckoned with, but for now, I think he has to safely rely on Cosmopolis. For now, anyway.
Another piece of casting that didn’t quite work like I would have wanted it to was surprisingly Christoph Waltz as the angry circus-owner, August. I loved him as Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds, as did everybody else including the producers who pretty much give him the exact same role, but instead of killing jews, he was killing circus animals. This is a huge bummer considering that this guy doesn’t really disappear into this role at all and just gives a character that is a little bit too menacing for his own good. Yeah, he’s supposed to be a bad guy that looses his temper very quickly and easily, but this guy is so damn sinister and effed up in the head that I couldn’t buy him once as a guy that owned a circus with a bunch of fun-loving animals, or even buy him as a guy that wouldn’t kill every person that worked for him either. Waltz is good with this role, as you would expect, but this guy was just a little too mean for his own good and definitely took me out of his character’s believably more and more as the film went along.
Believe it or not, the cast member that actually finds a way of coming out clean throughout the whole flick is actually Reese Witherspoon as both of these dudes’ object of affection. She’s sexy, cute, and has a lot of charm to her that seems to work and make you realize why she is so damn irresistible and beautiful. Still, her chemistry with Pattinson is a bit lacking but I guess that’s another problem we have here with the casting.
Actually, the one performance that really t0ok me by hold was Hal Hollbrook here, who plays the older version of Jacob in the scenes where it’s just him talking to a fellow circus-worker. Obviously, you can’t compare 25-year old Pattinson to 86-year old Hollbrook when it comes to acting, but Hollbrook’s performance as a sweet, heart-broken old man comes off as one of the main reasons this guy is such a damn good actor and one that deserved a lot more screen-time here.
Consensus: Some of the casting and chemistry may be off, but Water for Elephants is still a flick that brings you back to the old-Hollywood days with a sweeping romance, some fine-looking scenery, and a romance that we can actually care for rather than just rolling our eyes at.
6.5/10=Rental!!
Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004)
Why isn’t there blood spewing out of these people?!? Better yet, why isn’t there that many people getting hacked off?!?
After having killed the first two on her death list, The Bride (Uma Thurman) continues in her journey of vengeance to hunt down and kill the remaining victims, Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), Budd (Michael Madsen) and ultimately, Bill (David Carradine).
Basically in a nut-shell, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 kicked ass and I was so hyped up to see this one after that. However, if you go into this one expecting that one all over again, check again bitches. Hell, I wish I actually checked again.
Without a doubt, you have to see the first one before seeing this because it will make you understand the story so much better and even the little things that popped up in the first one, will still somehow find their way back into this one so just be ready for that. What sets this film apart from the first flick though is that it’s not an insane, fast-paced action flick with people getting chopped up by samurai swords everywhere. Instead, this is a lot more of a character/plot-driven flick that depends a lot on Quentin Tarantino’s writing to create a mood and a certain amount of suspense. This guy is perfect for that and he does a great job with that here because the scenes of dialogue may go on longer than you may expect at first, they still feel relevant to the story and it’s just so damn hard to be bored of a Tarantino flick, especially when somebody in one of his films are talking.
Another element that separates this flick from the first is that there isn’t many homages to a lot of what Tarantino loves as much as there was in the last one. I liked how he was able to incorporate everything he knew, saw, and loved about movies and could put them all up into one flick but barely any of that is here, which sort of relies on him to use his also perfect directing skills. Tarantino doesn’t disappoint and there are of course some funny little nods to the kung-fu movies and spaghetti westerns but I was kind of disappointed by the lack of homages and tributes from Tarantino’s fan boy self.
The main complaint that I had mostly with this flick was that I honestly was just totally bummed by how much action there wasn’t, which may sound dumb but they honestly feel like two different movies, which I know they are, but I was just let down totally. I was expecting crazy action left-and-right like the first but what I got was just a bunch of slow and tense conversations which did work but I honestly couldn’t go from one to the other in such a different style. It may sound like a bit of a dumb complaint but I just was expecting something a hell of a lot more insane, which I think is to expected coming from Tarantino.
Don’t get me wrong though peeps, there is action here and when it does go down, it’s pretty freakin’ awesome. There’s also plenty of times where Tarantino plays with our natural fears such as being buried alive, being bitten by a snake, getting our eyeballs taken out, getting shot with a dart, and plenty of other crazy and effed up shit that will make you squirm but also feel cool about because Tarantino does it in such a creative way that it’s hard not to feel a little smile on your face about. That damn Tarantino always gets me right when I think I’m lost.
The acting is definitely a lot better this time around since we get to see these characters a lot more than we did in the first. Uma Thurman is great once again as “The Bride”, but this time she gets to show a lot more to her character rather than just slashing Japanese effers up. There’s a lot of emotions she has to show here such as anger, terror, happiness, sadness, and enterprisingly even love. Thurman does a perfect job with this role here where she actually feels like a real human with emotions even though she could kick my ass in any second.
As for the other two villains in this flick, they are pretty fine too. Michael Madsen plays Budd, Bill’s washed up brother, and brings that charming evilness to his character that he always seems to do so well and his scenes are all pretty good. Daryl Hannah is pretty bizarre again as Elle Driver, and gets to use a lot of her key bitchiness to her aide this time because her character is just a chick that you want dead right away but she always seems to be one step ahead.
Oh shit, I almost forgot to mention the man villain of them all, Bill himself. David Carradine is great as Bill because he is everything that a great villain needs: he’s charming, funny, likable, creepy, and always scary with every scene he has. There’s just this certain atmosphere Carradine brings out every time he is on-screen like I felt like this guy would just snap crazy in one second and wouldn’t give a single shit who he killed. It also helps that he has some of the best lines in this flick as well and the one that always sit in my mind at the end is the one he makes about Superman. I won’t spoil it here but it’s pretty smart and may actually think a little bit, which is definitely a total surprise considering it’s a Tarantino flick where it doesn’t matter what themes or morals he may be throwing out there, it’s still a flick about bad people doing bad things. Get used to it peeps.
Consensus: Kill Bill: Vol. 2 is not exactly like the first installment but that’s not all of a bad thing: there’s plenty of action, well-written scenes of tension done by the master himself, and it’s definitely a great way to close off this two-parter even though I don’t think Quentin is all that done here.
8.5/10=Matinee!!
Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)
Don’t eff with a chick that dresses like Bruce Lee. Especially if shes waving around a sword.
The Bride (Uma Thurman) was once part of a group of world-class female assassins until her employer, Bill (David Carradine), and other members of the group turn against her and have her shot. Five years later, she awakens from her coma. She heads off around the world seeking revenge with plans to kill each person involved, saving Bill for the grand finale.
Take it from Quentin Tarantino to take what is essentially a simple, and pretty standard revenge story and give it the style that harks back to the good old days of 70′s kung-fu action movies, spiced up with many other random styles that Quentin just feels like throwing in there.
What I loved most about this flick was how the fighting, action, and blood were filled with so much energy and were better than half of the shit I’ve seen in the past 10 years, that I wanted more of it. Right from the beginning we get a nice little fight between The Bride and her second target on her list and it seems goofy because of all of the swooshing you hear when they move, but it’s so vicious and so brutal that it’s hard to laugh especially when these chicks are very close to just gutting the other person out. It’s a very minor scene but it’s one that starts the film off on the right foot and the action just keeps getting better by getting more vicious, more violent, and a hell of a lot more bloody. The blood is insane in this flick and it may be a bit ridiculous how Tarantino just makes every single kill have blood shoot out from these people, but it still gives this film this cool and deadly look that could only be achieved with an R-rating. Actually, it’s more of a very hard R-rating, one that only Tarantino can get because he’s the freakin’ man.
As we always get with Tarantino flicks, there are plenty of homages and influences seen here and they all work perfectly. The whole film is basically one big kung-fu movie that reminded me of the days when I would just sit home and watch all of these Bruce Lee flicks where he would be either taking on 50 dudes at once (no homo), or he would be getting kicked in the chest by one of Lew Alcindor’s big feet. I can definitely tell that Tarantino did the same thing when he was a little kiddy and his inspiration just runs throughout this whole flick with a giddy and original feel to it. However, it’s not just kung-fu movies that this flick seems to be harking back to, you get a bunch of blaxploitation homages, spaghetti western moments where the score is just over-powering, a random ass anime scene that may seem weird but is just as brutal as the rest of the flick, and even a little bit of nods to his own previous work such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I don’t know how he does it but Tarantino is the master at taking everything he knows and loves about movies, and putting them all into one crazy and madly original flick.
There was only problem I had with this flick and it was one semi-cheap scene where we see Bill in the classic villain mold which is a bit unnecessary. I don’t really think I’m giving too much away talking about this scene but it shows one of Bill’s associates, Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), sneaking into The Bride’s hospital room about ready to poison her while she’s sleeping. However, at the last second Bill calls it all off, saying that she “deserves better than that”. I thought that this was kind of a cheat way just for the story to continue and to show the reason why The Bride continued to live on and basically cause havoc to everybody on the planet. Also, wouldn’t a real assassin know how ruthless she is? So why wouldn’t he just off her right then and there? Regardless though, it’s only one scene but it still was at least the only negative I could come up with.
Uma Thurman is the perfect choice as The Bride because she just fits that deadly and sexy look so well. Uma is tall, sexy, blond, sweet, great to look at, but she can also be very scary and look like she’ll be hugging you one second like a sweetheart and then chopping your head off the next like the vicious killer she actually is. It also helps that her story is very easy to get behind because the chick was practically left for dead by all of these people and who wouldn’t want to get some good old revenge? Tarantino knows how to make great characters for leading ladies and it’s definitely one of the rare occasions where I actually found myself scared of a female character in quite some time.
The film really only focuses on two villains here (Vivica A. Fox and Lucy Liu) and they are both very good at playing these evil roles, especially Liu who I think had her best performance ever in this flick. She plays O-Ren Ishii and is one of those samurai sword waving villains that you always see in the kung-fu movies and seem cheesy as hell but never do you take them as seriously as you take this chick. Liu plays this character very well because she’s very quiet a lot of the times and more or less let’s her killing do the speaking for her. It’s a shame that Liu hasn’t really gotten the right roles after this but I guess that’s what usually happens to you when your biggest blockbuster hit was Charlie’s Angels.
Consensus: Kill Bill: Volume 1 shows Tarantino in top-form with a style that is bloody, violent, vicious, and shows every single one of his influences in a way that not only shows what he loves but also creates a wholly original flick on its own. Definitely can’t wait to see Volume 2.
9/10=Full Price!!
True Romance (1993)
Don’t eff with the comic book nerds.
The film tells the story of a novice prostitute Alabama Whitman (Patricia Arquette) and the adventure with her lover, comic book store clerk Clarence Worley (Christian Slater). When Clarence kills Alabama’s pimp (Gary Oldman), the newlyweds ride off into the sunset — with $5 million worth of cocaine in a suitcase and the police and the mob on their trail.
Since director Tony Scott is in such a slump nowadays, I honestly think he should just go back to having Tarantino write his scripts because he gave him two of the best films of his career. Aside from ‘Crimson Tide’, this is the other one.
The real selling point of this flick is that it’s written by Tarantino himself, and as everybody already knows, this guy is a freakin’ original genius. Tarantino is able to take any situation and make it go from normal to completley insane in about a matter of 5 seconds and it will give you this bad-ass feeling that you could not expect. The story is a pretty familiar but there are people getting killed at every second that you wouldn’t expect, twists and turns, random pop-culture references that somehow fit into the story, and just a whole bunch of other cool moments in this flick that make it ten times more the awesome thrill ride that it is known as today.
My complaint with this script is that even though it is by Tarantino, this is definitely not his best work by any means. Yes, he does get to use all of his trade-marks like funny one-liners, pop-culture references, and tense stand-offs but for some reason it’s not as edgy as you would expect. There was just something that felt like it should have really hit me harder and stuck with me more but instead it just ended up entertaining me and left me with a pretty happy mood. I don’t think Tarantino had full control over his story and that’s why the story may come off as a little more lame than his usual stuff, but it still at least works in a rather medium way.
Director Tony Scott also adds a bunch of fun to this flick by giving it this straight-forward, energetic thrill ride that isn’t filmed with that annoying shaky-came he can’t ever seem to get his hands off of nowadays. Scott is a good director when he’s got good source material, which he definitely has here, and even though it’s not drenched in style like you would expect from him, it still has a fast-paced to it that keeps the story going and the bullets flying.
However, what really had me going for this flick was its whole ensemble cast that is filled with just about every star from the early 90′s. Christian Slater is pretty good as Clarence, a guy that may seem a little strange but after awhile you start to believe and actually hope he comes out of all of this shit alive. Patricia Arquette is also a lot of fun to watch as Alabama, and you can totally feel like this one girl could actually fall in love with this type of dude. Their romance is something you actually care about because we spend enough time to see them together, and to see them be happy with one another so that when they go on this road trip and their lives are in danger, we care not only about them but their relationship as well. Sounds pretty sappy, I know, but it’s something that surprisingly worked here.
The rest of the cast is freakin’ great too, considering that just about every big star this flick had to show is in here for about 5-10 minutes each but totally kick-ass for the time they have. Dennis Hopper is great here as Clarence’s dad, in a non-psychotic role; Val Kilmer is here as “The King” but is still funny and cool, considering we barely see him; Gary Oldman is hilarious and menacing as Drexl, the white boy pimp with dreadlocks; Brad Pitt is also here as our pot-smoking friend, Floyd, and probably one of the best performances of his career, and I am willing to go toe-to-toe with whoever thinks otherwise; and Christopher Walken shows up for about 7 minutes but gives the film’s best scene where its just him and Hopper talking shit to one another and once again, it’s always Walken who steals the show at the end of the day and I can’t say that I expected anything else. Aside from these peeps I already mentioned there are plenty of other familiar faces here such as Samuel L. Jackson, James Gandolfini, Michael Rapaport, and Bronson Pinchot among others. Basically, it’s one of the better casts for a flick that I’ve seen and they all do excellent jobs with what they are given.
Consensus: It may not be Tarantino’s best script ever written, but it still has a great energy to it, with crazy performances from the ensemble cast, and some really kick-ass moments that make this film a fun watch if not as good as you would expect from these Scott and Tarantino working together.
8/10=Matinee!!
Out of Sight (1998)
The beginning of what some people may call “The Clooney”.
Meet Jack Foley (George Clooney), the most successful bank robber in the country. On the day he busts out of jail, he finds himself stealing something far more precious than money, Karen Sisco (‘s heart. She’s smart, she’s sexy, and unfortunately for Jack, she’s a Federal Marshal. Now, they’re willing to risk it all to find out if there’s more between them than just the law.
I guess back in 1998 the names Clooney and Soderbergh didn’t draw that much attention considering this was a pretty big box-office flop. If it was released in today’s world, the film would have been doing some major work but I guess everybody just has to get their start somewhere.
The film is adapted from a Elmore Leonard book that I have not read but from what I hear, is just exactly like the same tone and pace that this film gives it. What I liked about this writing is just how funny it was without being too obvious and that there was still a lot of suspense, mystery, and crime to be happening. I mean everybody in this flick is a little bit goofy, just like the situations they get themselves caught up into but for some reason the film didn’t seem uneven with its wacky humor and awesome heist and action sequences. Let me also remind you that this is a story that actually has some believability to it where I could actually see certain things like this happening if these certain people were to actually be put into these situations. Then again, I’m not saying that your average con-men/bank robbers look like George Clooney or do many Federal Marshal’s look like Jennifer Lopez, I’m just saying that a lot of what happened here doesn’t seem too insane for a flick.
The film is also perfectly directed by Steven Soderbergh, who took one big-step out of the indie world that he caught himself in and did a great job with just about everything here and finding a way to give it his own cool style. His style makes the film feel like a 70′s crime flick with the sort of funky music playing in the background and the grainy-looking camera he uses that looks as if it was used for filming some old school porno’s back in the day. It’s a really cool style but it’s also the fact that this film just breathes cool where everything you see works.
There are plenty of heist and action moments that this film works perfectly with but it’s the romance that I keep on remembering the most about. The romance is perfectly handled here, which was a total surprise to me in the first place, but the fact that Clooney and Lopez get into a discussion about how in ‘Three Days of Condor’, the romance felt forced and too quick and then they have the same exact romance. What I liked about this element is that the scenes are laced in here perfectly to the point of where it doesn’t feel like the film is just shoe-horning it all in there. It’s also pretty sexy if you think about it and it’s one of those romances between two different characters that seems to work even when the film constantly shifts in between them both fighting one another on opposite ends.
My only problem with this flick that actually didn’t take away too much but it still had me bothered was the fact at just how much this flick reminded me of ‘Jackie Brown’ and I think it’s just one of those cases that since both films were adapted from the same author, that they both kind of give off the same style. Tarantino’s flick was witty, suspenseful, filled with a cool style, and had his usual signatures that he features in just about all of his films but here, it’s kind of the same with a little bit of different touches. Hell, both films even have Michael Keaton playing the same role in both so it’s pretty obvious that I would get some déjà vu.
The main reason why this film works though is because of its awesome all-star cast that shines with every single star. George Clooney broke out with this role as Jack Foley, and would continue playing that same role for the next 13 years but to be honest he’s great here. He’s sly, funny, sexy (for the ladies, not for me..then again maybe for me), and everything he does here he seems to be having a blast playing this bad guy that we can’t help but to love considering he seems like he’s one step ahead of everybody else. Jennifer Lopez is also equally as good as Karen Sisco. She is basically the same person as Jack Foley, instead she is all for the law rather than against it. They both work great together and the romance between them I was talking about earlier I don’t know would have worked with anybody else in these roles. Every scene they have is more memorable than the one that came before it and it’s kind of a bummer that Lopez hasn’t really done much else that’s worth noting since this flick.
Don Cheadle is also good as a dick playing Foley’s main opponent in the heist-game, Snoopy; Ving Rhames is the man and surprisingly very funny as Buddy; Dennis Farina is J. Lo’s dad and it’s surprise to see him playing someone else other than a gangster; Albert Brooks is barely in it but still good; and there is even some nice little side-spots from Steve Zahn, Catherine Keener, and a very young Viola Davis as well. Everybody here is great and they all seem to be having a ball with their performances which added more to my enjoyment of this flick as well.
Consensus: Out of Sight may remind me of Jackie Brown, but Soderbergh’s stylish direction and everybody’s performances here make this one of the most exciting, fun, and enjoyable crime comedies I have seen in a long time and it still makes me wonder just why this didn’t get much money in the first place.
9/10=Full Price!!
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Screw actual history! This is the kind of stuff I want to be taught in history class!
A Jewish cinema owner (Mélanie Laurent) in occupied Paris is forced to host a Nazi movie premiere, where a radical group of American Jewish soldiers called the Basterds, led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), plans to roll out a score-settling scheme. The face-off is about to go down — that’s if Col. Hans Landa aka “The Jew Hunter” (Christoph Waltz, in an Oscar-winning role) doesn’t get in the way.
I watched, and reviewed this last year but something just came back inside of me that I had the total need to see this. It also still lives up to the first time.
One of my favorites of all-time, writer/director Quentin Tarantino is an absolute genius with his work here. Whether it’s on the keyboard, or behind the camera, this crazy son-of-a-bitch knows how to make great movies, and this no different. Now if there’s one thing I know that this film will do, and that’s cause a lot of high school history teachers heart-attacks over the historical inaccuracies here. The way that this film was so historically inaccurate was actually pretty inspiring and awesome to see actually come out on screen, because I’m sort of sick and tired of seeing the Oscar-bait WWII/Holocaust films that Hollywood turns out every year, and I feel like Tarantino is just sticking his middle finger out to that whole machine.
Honestly though, who cares about those inaccuracies because this movie is down-right amazing. The script is just near-perfect with the usual twists and turns you would expect, the film references are there but not so annoying this go-around, and you are constantly on the edge of your seat being entertained, and also wondering what’s just going to happen next. There are many scenes here where I had no idea what was just going to occur next, and the suspense keeps on building up, and up until the final conclusion which is usually just so crazy. Also, let’s not forget that there is plenty of awesome, bloody violence here but nothing that Tarantino fans, have already come to enjoy and understand.
My only problem with this film is that it does drag on too long for some scenes. A lot of this signature talkiness that I have come to know and love from Tarantino, happens and works here, but there are just times where I felt myself wondering just why the hell are they keeping this going for so long. If you also look at the title too, it says Inglorious Basterds. These guys are probably the best parts of the film, but aren’t in it as much since there are about 3 other subplots. However, I still enjoyed these subplots and loved each and every time these Basterds were on screen.
Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine was a freakin’ riot here! He does this cracker-jack shtick that masterfully brings out his comedic charm for this character, and brings out all the well-deserved laughs in between the violence and suspense. In the end, he plays Tarantino’s cartoon character brilliantly, and that’s all we ask for. The whole film was promoted on Pitt, but the real center-piece here is Christoph Waltz in the Oscar-winning role as German S.S. Colonel Hans Landa. I honestly don’t know how this guy could be so good at playing someone so evil? He is probably one of the best good bad guys ever on film, and I know it’s hard to understand but it’s one of those things you have to see to believe. His character is just one of those evil, smart, witty, and manipulative villains that you want to hate so much, but can’t help but commend him for actually being so smart and actually amusing. Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna is also amazing in this role, and really brings out some powerful emotions within her character just by using her facial expressions and it works so well with her character. There is a huge cast here that are also very good such as Michael Fassbender, Eli Roth, Daniel Brühl, Diane Kruger, Til Schweiger, B.J. Novak, and also a surprisingly very good little cameo from Mike Myers. This guy needs to come back it’s been too long.
Consensus: Though some viewers will be thrown off by a lot of the talking, Quentin Tarantino still has that masterful mind to have viewers thoroughly enjoyed by his amazing script, non-stop suspense, and great acting from the cast that looks like their all just having a great time.
9/10=Full Pricee!!
Crimson Tide (1995)
Black vs. White, in a submarine.
Controversy boils over when Soviet rebels point nuclear weapons at the United States, and a message for the nuclear-missile sub USS Alabama gets cut off during transmission. Capt. Frank Ramsey (Gene Hackman) thinks he’s been ordered to launch a pre-emptive strike, while Lt. Cmdr. Ron Hunter (Denzel Washington) believes the submarine has been ordered to stand down. Will the Alabama prevent a nuclear holocaust, or start one?
Crimson Tide is directed by my not-so favorite director, Tony Scott. He has always been known to make crazy action/thriller films with no real purpose, other than to just have you brainlessly entertained.
This film film looks like a thriller and plays like a thriller, but what distinguishes it, are it’s ideas it has. In the high pressure world of submarine-in-crisis, this film stages a debate that gets to the very heart of nuclear deterrents. The paradox is that nuclear weapons only deter war as long as you don’t use them, and you have to be instruction of your own side. There is also a lot of questions about right-and-wrong, which will stay in your mind long after your done watching this film. You’ll also notice some pop-culture references randomly in here, probably because some of this script is written by Quentin Tarantino. That crazy bastard finds himself in everything!
Tony Scott also does a good job at directing this film keeping a lot of tension built to the point of where you think something just terrible is going to happen. With this film, I knew exactly where Scott was going but he puts us in this submarine with these men, and we feel stuck in there with them as their lives are being threatened. When the energy picks up Scott kicks it into high gear, but when its slow and working on suspense, it works as well. In my opinion, this may be one of Scott’s best directorial efforts.
The only problem I had with this film was the ending. I felt a little bit too much of it was uninspired, and way too hokey for a film of this raw nature. Now I know you can’t judge a whole film on it’s ending usually, but in this case I can, cause when you see it, your honestly going be so letdown.
Denzel Washington is as usual, awesome here, and keeps that strong and smart man act up. He doesn’t do anything completely different here, but that’s not a problem, cause he is just great at it. Gene Hackman is down-right amazing playing Frank Ramsey, the guy who we all soon start to hate, and love at the same time. He is just so callous about his job and so prideful, that when he starts to see his high-position getting taken away from him, he just gets so pissed and does things you would have never expected. However, you believe it because Hackman is so good at playing this type of character. Others who are good in this are Steve Zahn, Viggo Mortensen, James Gandolfini, and Matt Craven.
Consensus: It may look like slam-bang action thriller, but it has more ideas and messages than just your ordinary popcorn thriller. The cast is having a ball with this material, and Scott is probably at his best keeping the suspense, as well as energy up the whole time.
8.5/10=Matinee!!!
The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day (2009)
In honor of Saints Patrick’s day, its time for everybody’s favorite murdering Irish brothers.
Skillfully framed by an unknown enemy for the murder of a priest, wanted vigilante MacManus brothers Murphy (Norman Reedus) and Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) must come out of hiding on a sheep farm in Ireland to fight for justice in Boston. Joining them in writer-director Troy Duffy’s long-awaited sequel is Romeo (Clifton Collins Jr.).
For basically every human that has seen The Boondock Saints, almost everyone has said its great. Why? It just is, and honestly it is too hard to explain. But can it live up?
The thing with the original Boondock Saints is that it had a certain style that was a mixture between Quentin Tarantino with the witty dialogue and jokes, while also containing the great blow-em-up action sequences from the likes of John Woo. However, all that charm seems to relies more on the latter part. I will say some of the jokes in this movie will have you laughing, cause it certainly did to me, but the first one had a more sneakier approach to its jokes and wit, while this one seems more obvious with its jokes. It just didn’t seemed like a lot of the sex jokes they had fit real well, if at all.
However, the film did have some good elements to the film. Unlike the first, this film actually realizes that its not anything other than a B-grade action film, and not trying to bring up some hidden messages about crime and murder. Also, the action is insane. There is so much more blowing up, shooting, and just an overall driving force that you always look forward to seeing.
But does the film live up to its predecessor? I can’t quite say I actually can. I’m glad that the original director Troy Duffy came back to do this film as well, I just don’t think his mind was in the right place here. He had a certain style in the first one that was so intriguing that it was hard not to enjoy, but I think he was trying to hard to get some mainstream buzz with this one, it just didn’t feel like it had the heart like the first. However, I will say that I think his writing is in the right place with the balancing of comedy and action.
The performances here are like the first one, as in OK. Flanery and Reedus are a lot more experienced with their abilities this time around and actually bring out a lot more into their characters than the first time around. If there is one character in here that left me scratching my head, its Julie Benz as FBI Agent Eunice Bloom. (Replacing Willem Dafoe) Sporting red hair, high heels, and one of the fakest Southern accents in film history, she’s one of the most over-the-top characters ever. That’s a lot to say considering Willem Dafoe was a gay FBI agent who likes to dance to opera music in crime scenes. Benz also recreates the crime scenes like Willem Dafoe but in one instance, she’s in a cowgirl outfit dancing around like she’s a stripper. It made me realize how much I actually missed Dafoe. The Saints’ sidekick, Romeo (Clifton Collins Jr.), is one of the funniest characters of the year and the film lights up every time he’s on screen.
I mean if you didn’t like the first one, you definably won’t even be able to bear this one. However, there is an ending in this one that makes one of those endings like “to be continued….” and I hope they go in that direction, cause I’m ready. Here’s to another!!
Consensus: Not as much charm and style like the first, but enough action, humor, and spirit to be a very well-deserved sequel for all of the Boondock Saints lovers out there.
8/10=Matinee!!!!!!
Hard Eight (1997)
PT taking a page out of Tarantino’s book.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson’s first film charts the relationship between reckless youth John (John C. Reilly) and world-weary card shark Sydney (Philip Baker Hall), who takes John under his wing after showing him how to exploit the casinos’ perks. Years later, the surrogate father and son are successful gamblers until John falls for a cocktail waitress (Gwyneth Paltrow) and gets mixed up with a shady stranger (Samuel L. Jackson).
The film looks like as if its going to be your usual gambling drama film, but then suddenly switches into the mode of suspense thriller, which totally took me by suprise.
The one extraordinary thing that this film does is that it does focus so much on the thrilling aspect but on the characters at hand. PT Anderson gives us these interesting and compelling characters who from the get-go we know nothing about, but want to know so much more as the film goes on.
PT Anderson really does show off some of his best work here, as he uses the camera to make so many things work. For example, he uses the camera to move with the same action as somebody handing another person a paper, instead of just the usual thing in big-time Hollywood, and blowing it up. Also, there is a lot of very good writing here as it seems all so realistic as it goes along with the scene.
The problem with this film is that its pacing in the middle is a little off. The beginning is energetic and entertaining, but in the middle the film starts to drag. The ending I had a lot of problems with, one because it ends with this random bolt of violence that we don’t see once throughout the whole film until then, and two because it just seems like the big twist at the end was a little tacked on. I will say it did throw me off a bit, but it didn’t feel right in this story and just added on to put in more shocking things to happen.
Baker Hall is just without a doubt so mesmerizing in this role, and I’m just so surprised to see how some performance of this nature, and of this talent couldn’t land him any more big roles. Samuel L. is basically as crazy as usual but I would have liked to see more from his character until he just randomly starts more combustion near the end of the film.
Consensus: Hard Eight is an impressive debut from PT Anderson, with great performances, catchy writing, and a wonderful character study, but misses the mark with its pacing, and its random use of its ending.
7.5/10=Rental!!!
Hostel (2005)
Germany is such a really fucked up placed after all.
American backpacking students Paxton (Jay Hernandez) and Josh (Derek Richardson) head to a hostel in Slovakia rumored to be brimming with willing women — but instead, they become objects of torture in an unimaginable house of twisted horrors.
What else is better than watching a film that is so disturbingly disgusting that the food your eating comes right out of your mouth, and you can’t finish it? I’ll tell you what’s better, everything.
Though Saw is credited with starting the whole torture porn craze, Hostel is sort of the film that really did first start pushing the boundaries. And when I’m talking about boundaries, I mean BOUNDRIESSS.
The one thing I will say about this film is that a lot of the things that happen actually will make you turn away from the screen. It is torture at its finest that does get under your skin, and will probably make you very queasy.
Director and writer Eli Roth has a real fascination for these tortures and that really comes out in this film. He does not once shy away from being too graphic, and I credit him for that. But, the one thing I will say about this film is that other than the merciless torturing there isn’t really much else.
The first 50 minutes show these two young guys just boning women left and right, and it acted more of a bad teen comedy than a horror film. This really does make the film drag, and takes about an hour until the violence actually begins. The mood has this sudden change on two losers on a quest to get some, and then to this sudden amount of violence. However, because of the pacing this makes the violence scenes of the film seem very short and takes away from the overall effect.
Though I’m not going to lie that the film did live up to the gross-out level I was expecting, and by the end of the film it kind of started to get better. It turned into a revenge/on the run story which made me cheer on the lead character as it was going on.
The acting is OK to say the least. I didn’t have a problem with the acting as much as I did with how these characters were shown to be. I felt like the character development wasn’t that well done, and could have been better to create more memorable and likable protagonists.
Consensus: Hostel proves to be extremely violent, filled with plenty of gore and guts, and shows that Eli Roth loves his creations, but its pacing is very mishandled, the characters weren’t very likable, and starts out very bad which lessens the effect of the film.
6.5/10=Rental!!!!
Jackie Brown (1997)
God damn do I love Tarantino!!!!!!
Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is an aging flight attendant who smuggles cash on the side. But when she’s busted and pressured to help with an investigation, she plans to play the opposing forces against each other and walk away with the dough. Others include Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton, Robert Forster, and Robert De Niro.
This film was made 3 years after Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. Both of them have almost the same qualities: colorful characters, gritty life styles, twists and turns, and highly inventive dialogue.
I think this is one of the movie’s that show Tarantino at his best. Savoring the words and little details of behavior that make his characters so colorful and memorable. The film has all these different characters in one way or another all meet up and each scene is so memorable, cause you have these characters that you already know from their dialouge and both different personalities meet in all these different situations, and how it all happens is just perfect.
When I first heard about this film with Pam Grier as the lead cast, and the theme song “Across 110th Street”, I was expecting this to be Tarantino’s riff on blaxploitation films. However, I didn’t get that at all. Grier plays this run-down airline attendant who is tired and may lose the last job she’s ever going to get, and mostly worried about the subject of getting old. She is so laid back and smart, that you really do root for this woman, and just wish that she comes out on top.
The rest of the cast is really good too. Samuel L. Jackson does one of his better jobs as a lead bad guy who is so vicious and cruel, that at times you start to actually like him. But out of the whole cast, Robert Forster does one of the best jobs in a supporting role as a bail bondsman. The other main story is the love interest between Jackie Brown and Forster, and for those little scenes they have on screen together the chemistry is very rich and feels real. I’m still wondering how this didn’t revive their careers.
I mean for me this is not one of my favorites as a problem I had with his other film, Inglorious Basterds. That one as this, has so much damn talking, and none of it really leads to anything climactic. The suspense for the film was great and kept me on the edge of my seat of what was going to happen next, but the unnecessary scenes and talking sort of became too much of an annoyance for myself.
To say this is better than Pulp Fiction would be insane, but maybe a bit better Reservoir Dogs, and definitely Grindhouse. For people who love Tarantino check this one out because it will have everything you love from him, and maybe more, just minus some of the crazy violence.
Consensus: Jackie Brown has the charm and wit in the screenplay, with great acting, and a suspenseful story, but just needed to cut down on that talking in order to keep me more entertained.
9/10=Full Priceee!!!!
Lucky Number Slevin (2005)
Not seven, but Slevin.
Set in New York City, the plot focuses on the paths of Slevin Kelevra (Hartnett), Lindsey (Liu), two feuding crime lords known as The Boss (Freeman) and The Rabbi (Kingsley), and a mysterious hitman known as Mr. Goodkat (Willis).
One thing right from the get go of the film is that yu will notice it is a lot like Pulp Fiction. The way of story-telling, screenplay, even sometimes the way it looks, seems too much Tarantino’s masterpiece. However, it is definably not as good.
Basically the whole movie is a con, and it tries to make you, the viewer, understand the con that is going on. I felt a little too jerked around and felt that why should I care so much for the story if I don’t even know where half of the time it’s even going.
The film tries to work its way through acting as a thriller, but it didn’t quite seem that way. I felt like it was a blend of mystery and gangster genre, with a side bit of comedy. But I just didn’t feel like my needs were met as they were suddenly changed right in the middle of the film.
Slevin, has a screenplay that is pretty decent and actually turns out to be kind of witty. I enjoyed how the comedy wasn’t too bad, and it started out great at first but then soon started to drag, but was still fresh. Much of the dialogue is hard to understand since many of these characters seem like all they have are inside jokes and will actually take you a long time to comprehend who and what the joke was.
This film starts to really drag on and end it’s entertainment to me. I didn’t quite know who the good guys were and really didn’t know who to fall behind or anything of that, so I was kind of left scratching my head of who was good and who was bad.
Slevin features an ensemble cast that does actually do their best. Freeman and Kingsley do the best jobs and although their characters seem to be as stereotypes, they still try to work at it and actually put out some pretty good performances. Lucy Liu I felt was really annoying and sometimes changed her personality to really quirky and energetic then suddenly to serious and scared.
The ending to this film really does work out and saves this movie from a demise that could’ve been crucial. At the end all the little parts are explained and about everything comes full circle and it’s really cool to see all that plan out.
Consensus: Lucky Number Slevin tries to be a lot like Pulp Fiction, with it’s story-telling and witty screenplay but starts to fizzle out early but saves itself by the end.
5/10=Rentall!!!!
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
Mexico sure is a place full of wild crazy things, such as vampires, yeah OK!
Robbers-on-the-lam Seth (George Clooney) and Richard Gecko (Quentin Tarantino) take an ex-preacher (Harvey Keitel)and his kids hostage. On a race to the Mexican border, they rendezvous at a cantina, not knowing the owners and clientele are blood thirsty vampires.
The film starts out not that strong as a Hostage road drama, and then right in the middle switches gears into an vampire slaying movie. The film stars and is written by Tarantino, as Robert Rodriguez directs in what surely is to be labeled as a comedy-horror film.
From Dusk Till Dawn is basically a film that has no original content. Much of the content is taken from other films and most of it doesn’t seem original. Many of the features such as one bite and you turn into them and the conventional stab in the heart to kill are all taken from others and basically ruins an addition to the horror genre. Most of the originality starts off in the film and then ends in the middle and then it basically becomes something else we’ve already seen.
The film really does start to lose itself by the end of the film and actually started to lose me. I didn’t like the two characters, Clooney and Tarantino, and I really didn’t care what happened to these guys and they never really feel regret for what they have done in the past. When you feel like you just what the two main characters just to die then you have a problem with a film. The film by the last act starts to feel lazy and very tired and the action starts to lag into a very predictable boat.
The good things about this film are very noticeable as well. Tarantino does have a knack for a very clever written script and a fast-paced energetic directing job from Robert Rodriguez. They both have a good combination of making a very wise tongue-in-cheek horror action film. The special effects in this film are very good and don’t look like actors in costumes, although that’s what they are.
Clooney does an OK job but I will give him his credit since this is his first big movie role. The rest of the cast is pretty good and funny at showing all these opposite people who come together to face vampire’s and actually does prove some good laughs.
Consensus: The film is highly energetic filled with over-the-top action that will keep you glued, but I expected more from Tarantino and Rodriguez teaming together and didn’t feel my needs were there.
5.5/10=Rental!!!
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Now I have seen this film about 4 times but only on TV so everything was censored. Then I got the director’s cut and oh god did I miss a lot.
An inside look at a memorable community of criminals. Prizefighter Butch Coolidge has decided to stop payment on a deal he’s made with the devil. Honey Bunny and Pumpkin are a couple of young lovers and small time thieves who decide they need a change of venue. Meanwhile, two career criminals, Vincent Vega and Jules, go about their daily business of shooting up other crooks who are late on payments to their boss. While one is asked to babysit their boss’ dangerously pretty young wife, the other suddenly realizes that he must give up his life of crime.
OK let me just say this about the film it is great!!! Tarantino makes one of the greatest films of all-time right here. This is film making of an high order. This is a narrative movie that walks a long rope so complicated that if you don’t stop to think about the movie it starts to kinda double-back itself.
This is surely one of the greatest and probably on of the first that mix humor and crime together in one movie. Tarantino has made some of the most original material in the whole world of film. The stuff these characters talk about are hilarious but also very true. The topics of conversation range from foot massages, pot belly’s, double cheeseburgers, and of course crime. But all conversations are equally as funny as the last, and you don’t want these people to stop talking. Another great film from Tarantino is that he prepares us for one thing and gives us something else we weren’t expecting. The pop culture insight is surely a life of its own during this film.
The humor gets blind sided by some violence and pretty graphic violence but it’s not the violence that will make you turn away. Each story is not shown in chronological order but its still shown and well told through the stories that you don’t become confused. This is a movie you have to think about and when you do, you will love this movie even more by its cleverness.
The ensemble cast is purely amazing. There are many big name stars who don’t have huge parts but still do amazing and make their presence known on camera. The one thing I mostly loved about some of these big names is that they were sort of poking little jokes at themselves if you watch carefully. Travolta does the same walk at the end of the story that he did in Saturday Night Fever and Bruce Willis pokes fun at his character from Die Hard with the tough-nosed character that has a soft side. Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson’s story is probably the most entertaining and best well-acted where in which every scene with them the always steal the scene. This was a movie that made a lot of careers such as Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, and Tim Roth. Also be on the lookout for a cameo from the great Christopher Walken who is actually pretty funny in his 5 min. scene.
There basically is nothing bad about this film other than I wish there was more. I know 154 minutes is a long time but this film could’ve added so much more and been even better. But still I loved it no matter how long it was.
The greatest movie ever, ummm…maybe. But it’s clever, funny, violent, well-told, greatly acted, and surely an amazing classic for everyone to see.
10/10=Full Pricee!!!
