Django Unchained.

Review #1932: Django Unchained.

 

Cast: 

Jamie Foxx (Django Freeman), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio ("Monsieur" Calvin J. Candie), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda "Hildi" von Shaft), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen Warren), Walton Goggins (Billy Crash), Dennis Christopher (Leonide "Leo" Moguy), James Remar (Butch Pooch / Ace Speck), David Steen (Mr. Stonecipher), Dana Gourrier (Cora), Nichole Galicia (Sheba), Laura Cayouette (Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly), Ato Essandoh (D'Artagnan), Sammi Rotibi (Rodney), Clay Donahue Fontenot (Luigi), Escalante Lundy (Big Fred), Miriam F. Glover (Betina), Don Johnson (Spencer "Big Daddy" Bennett), and Franco Nero (Amerigo Vessepi) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, #1307 - Jackie Brown, #1551 - Inglourious Basterds)

Review: 

"I want to explore something that really hasn't been done. I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."

It should only figure that Quentin Tarantino had his eye on Sergio Corbucci. Tarantino was actually writing a book about the director when he found a way to tell a story that he wanted to make in a tribute to Spaghetti Westerns, one where he found inspiration in what he saw as Corbucci's "this evil Wild West, a horrible Wild West" in his feature. Specifically, Tarantino is doing a tribute to Corbucci's Django (1966), a film that the director co-wrote that featured Franco Nero as star involving a drifter and a companion mixed into a deadly feud between Confederates and Mexican revolutionaries. The film was made to capitalize on the success of Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars (1964), which in turn was a "loose" remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961). If you remember, Inglorious Basterds (2009) was made by Tarantino as his desire to make a Spaghetti Western but as a World War II film, and we all know how that went: good for some, okay for others. Here, he has made a film that he calls a "Southern" that is part of his long line of tributes to genres of film such as revenge films, road-rage movies, and martial arts films.

Honestly, I enjoyed the film far more than I thought I would, with my hopes being that it would be a slightly more interesting of sprawling alternate history than the weird jumble that came from his last feature. Of course, Waltz and Tarantino won Academy Awards for their work on the film (both winning their second award for acting and writing, respectively), so who knows what kind of expectations were to be had here from Tarantino's seventh feature. I felt it was a consistent pulp experience that shows its respect for the filmmakers of the past in terms of classic Western types without becoming just a carbon copy of the things that were. It packs a message about slavery and racism in a revenge movie that conveys a sense of scope and scale worth all of the attention it has received in the ten years that have passed since its release. It is dignified mayhem seemingly split into two segments: a movie about the repertoire of its two main stars and a movie about revenge through the eyes of Foxx. History is taken to the woodshed in a glorious manner, with Tarantino saying that he wanted to show two types of violence: the brutal reality of slave life and the violence of retribution, since he believes the genre of the Western reflects the time it was made in more than any other genre to go along with reflecting the morals and feelings of its audience. The Western may not be the most prevalent genre of the past few decades, but they sure do pull an interesting punch when a director is interested in generating fresh voices of the West. It is funny when you think about the fact that DiCaprio and Jackson don't show up until the first hour has passed in a 165-minute movie. And yet, the pair of Foxx and Waltz are ideal to hold everything together, making a great pairing in both chemistry and their distinct approach to the art of hired guns. Foxx is confident and capable to the task at hand, and it is interesting to see that he was not the first choice approached, since Tarantino wrote it with Will Smith in mind, but he rejected it (he wanted to make a love story, not one about vengeance, go figure). Foxx knows what he wants to do and say as a knight of vengeance that is never consumed in self-parody. Oh, the film does have little moments of humor between the two, particularly since Waltz plays dignity to an amoral(ish) killer, which he plays magnificently: they are fun together without making one think the whole film is just them and nothing else. DiCaprio is magnificent in clear-cut villainy in his time on screen that makes him suitably intense when you see him on screen. Jackson is the ideal foil in as the off-center moral compass with resourceful timing and the expressive nature you expect from him that makes him an ideal actor that has collaborated with Tarantino countless times. The rest of the cast proves worthwhile in their own contribution to the terror of dignity in 1858, whether that involves Johnson and his huckster plantation act or the oozing menace in Goggins or the weary fear in Washington. The movie has a wonderful design and atmosphere to it, but I am sure you already know that.

Well, the movie is probably not for everyone, which you might say for a number of Tarantino movies depending on one's patience for violence or language, particularly with the use of one particular word. However, the movie sat fine with me, since Tarantino has a keen eye for what he wants to show in violence and atmosphere without going up his own nose in gratuitous excess (he actually trimmed the film's violence down a bit before release anyway, even though it already received an R rating from the MPAA), despite what critics may think of his interest in not just making a message movie with the usual trimmings. What's not to ponder in a movie that seems a reference of phrenology, people being used as human shields, fighting to a pulp, supremacists dwelling on how hard it is to see out of a hood, and action that might as well be called Shaft (1971) on a horse? You know what really is more of a problem than violence in movies? Folks who really believe that toning things down is better than confronting them head on. It is the grisly Western that represents its era in all of the ways it needs to be: honest without condescending, brutal but not exploitative, and entertaining but not inattentive to the matter at hand. It is the sensation you would hope from Tarantino in the art of making fresh kinetic cinema. He may not hit the mark on every moment of bold brutality, but he knows where he is going without wandering too far from wanting to entertain himself and others.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Spectre.

Review #1891: Spectre.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (James Bond), Christoph Waltz (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Léa Seydoux (Madeleine Swann), Ben Whishaw (Q), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Dave Bautista (Mr Hinx), Andrew Scott (Max Denbigh [C]), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), Jesper Christensen (Mr White), Monica Bellucci (Lucia Sciarra), Ralph Fiennes (M), Stephanie Sigman (Estrella), and Alessandro Cremona (Marco Sciarra) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall and #1585 - 1917)

Review: 

Go figure that this ended up being split into multiple paragraphs. Actually, this is the first Bond film I saw after deciding to start getting into the James Bond novels, you know, the ones that inspired the movies. So yes, Casino Royale was a pretty neat book, and I am curious for the other books done by Fleming and maybe I will look at the movies a bit differently by the time I finish them.

It is interesting to consider how people try to spin the wheel of continuing the James Bond franchise (as produced by Eon Productions) into another decade. The Daniel Craig era started in 2006 with Casino Royale, probably the best Bond film since either Goldeneye (1995) or Licence to Kill (1989), depending on your tastes. It did so with its attempt to inject a bit grittier realism into the series while keeping the entertainment level high. One never knows what to expect from a series created out of a character intended to be boring, as devised by Ian Fleming. Quantum of Solace (2008) was so much of a nonentity that I can barely remember watching it, but Skyfall (2012) certainly resounded better for all of its strange little quirks that came with attempts at emotional depth. The beauty of covering a film I took a pass on doing because it seemed too mild to watch in a theater seven years ago is that there isn't exactly much to spoil for those who do films. Of course, if you like surprises, go ahead with whatever you want to do. Besides, the Bond series would continue with Craig for No Time to Die (2021) after a number of years in development that retained certain actors from before. There were four writers: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Jez Butterworth. Mendes and Logan apparently came up with the main concept of the plot together before lingering dissatisfaction in script from key groups led to asking Purvis and Wade to step in for re-writes (Butterworth ended up stepping in for the screenplay), and you may remember that Logan & Purvis had served as writer on these films since The World Is Not Enough while Logan helped to write Skyfall. So, three years later, with the same director in Sam Mendes from the previous film, who decided to do the film after initially saying no (Nicolas Winding Refn had said no in the meantime), here is another one of these Bond movies. Oh, but it's not any kind of mild follow-ups, no, it's the kind of sequel that tries to go all out in all the narrative and epic pulls you might see in a franchise blockbuster of the 2010s. 

Guess what? It isn't particularly good. It reminds me of a goldfish in a fishbowl: the fish seems to be happy in the bowl, and it gets to look something nice outside the bowl, but its memory span will prove forgettable despite all the food (spectacle in this case) you give it. In short, it manages to show not the strengths of spectacle in locations and budget but rather the weaknesses of trying to use it to hide a limp story that runs at 148 minutes for reasons I can't really comprehend. You may or may not remember that the character of Blofeld had been featured in physical form as the primary villain in four movies (one being a non-EON feature), but none since the 1980s. Of course, you would hope in that time spent away dealing with litigation with Kevin McClory that EON found folks that could make a quality adversary that would make the best portrayal (Telly Savalas) proud. Nope! Being overshadowed by Bautista playing a heavy with one word to say is bad, being nondescript and being brought down by narrative choices is just as bad. He manages to be like a shadow, non-descript in menace because of the choice of time given to Waltz (because hey, time to visit another country on the plot that is totally not familiar). And yes, there is a twist to help connect these previous films together: Quantum is basically a subsidiary to the real power behind the throne of secret doom: Spectre (no, not SPECTRE), complete with being linked together because someone found a ring that had everyone's fingerprints all over it (get it?). Spectre and the master plan involves surveillance that seems cribbed from both a 1984 ripoff and the "Cain and Abel" narrative. Maybe I wouldn't have seen the twist coming if I never saw the villain having a connection to the spy in "family"...in Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002). The idea of one adoptive brother wreaking havoc on the other adoptive brother is hysterical in its ridiculous contrivances - remember that after Blofeld reveals his whole "daddy liked you better" spiel to Bond and mildly tortures him (tied to a chair, but thank goodness for watches), his next brilliant plan is to go to an abandoned building and taunt Bond to find him with arrows pointing where he is while trying to do the "save yourself or save the girl and die"...totally not a parody to guess how that goes. Exploding watches are one thing, but somewhere you have to draw the line (that line probably gave up when it heard about smart blood). It almost clouds the fact that the "surveillance angle" the film tries to play is the bare minimum of an angle, which would not be a problem if you have a striking villain or actual conviction to do something beyond "Is James Bond still relevant?" again. Simply having an adventure while tinkering with the tiniest things of the formula is too much, nah, you have to play it really safe or throw as much spectacle in digital effects to distract from this being a neutered average movie (unless you count not shooting someone as innovative). Having the illusion of an opening sequence done in one take is probably the best trick the film plays in a movie that seems to have no idea where the third act is going to go besides just throwing things up in the air and "leaving it to God" (which is probably how they decided on Sam Smith being the title singer for the film rather than Radiohead). 

You know you might be in trouble when you have not one but two Bond romances to go around, and one of them is basically a glorified cameo that really is there for info-dumps than actual passion (Bellucci, in a role I imagine had a nice paycheck, because "oldest Bond girl" means diddly squat). Seydoux reminds me of a broomstick in that things are meant to happen, but you completely forgot why you had it there because you fell asleep. The chemistry of Seydoux and Craig is amusingly dry (the age difference has never been more apparent, going from 10-11 in the previous three to...seventeen), inflicting only the bare minimum of what you might expect from a Bond romance arc...but of all the ones where you see the two do a walk off into the sunset, this is not even in the top half of being convincing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the parts that work to the usual Bond formula (a Q, a M, and a Moneypenny) do pretty well when it comes to seeing Fiennes try to make his first mark as M or the small moments of Harris and Whishaw when paired with Craig, whether that involves seeing how James Bond lives for the first time in a while or hijinks with tech. Bautista does make a useful adversary in the art of quick-skilled brutality (mostly in his first scene) that contributes to an involving chase scene or two that works best among the rest of the muddy foundation points, which goes with Scott and his "totally not a bad guy" presence and Christensen...uh, I will be honest in forgetting who he was supposed to be (Casino Royale had him get shot in the leg and that's all I remember). Of course, Craig still seems like the stellar man to play the lead role, one who has the confidence required to pull the film away from being the total disaster it might have been with someone who can't have a little bit of fun with some of these lines. In other words, he still seems likes the kind of person who can pull off being an odd man that big things happen around him (while not reminding one of late 1980s Roger Moore). As a whole, I really did want to like the film. I wanted to like the idea of a James Bond feature that continued the thrill of where the previous venture left off and see where one can go further in spy adventure as the series goes past its 50th anniversary. And yet, somehow, I found it to be probably the most mind-boggling misfire since Die Another Day (2002). In trying to dazzle the audience with new tricks, all they managed to do is show an empty hand. It may be a nice film in parts, but it is a dull stinker in all the other ways that make it a muddle to sit through. It isn't the worst Bond film, but it is probably the most confounding, and I imagine whenever I see the next one I can only have the slightest of expectations that they found a way to just, you know, do a Bond movie that isn't a big muddle when everything else is fine.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Inglourious Basterds.

Review #1551: Inglourious Basterds.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Lt. Aldo "The Apache" Rain), Mélanie Laurent (Shosanna Dreyfus/Emmanuelle Mimieux), Christoph Waltz (Hans Landa), Eli Roth (Sgt. Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz), Michael Fassbender (Lt. Archie Hicox), Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark), Daniel Brühl (Pfc. Fredrick Zoller), Til Schweiger (Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz), Gedeon Burkhard (Corporal Wilhelm Wicki), Jacky Ido (Marcel), B. J. Novak (Pfc. Smithson "The Little Man" Utivich), Omar Doom (Pfc. Omar Ulmer), Samm Levine (Pfc. Gerold Hirschberg), and August Diehl (Dieter Hellstrom) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and #1307 - Jackie Brown)

Review: 
"Some people will like Inglourious Basterds. Some people won't. But it was made with all the passion I've made everything with - except maybe my first film, which was probably made with more passion than I'll ever have again."

Doing a Quentin Tarantino film can be quite an experience, depending on one's moods for his particular style towards filmmaking that have made him an interesting auteur with ten released features in the span of over two decades, which are generally known for their handling of violence, ensemble casting and drawing upon films and other media. Tarantino spent ten years writing the film, but he apparently could not come up with an ending at first. He has stated his desire to make a spaghetti western but as a World War II film, one that could forward the war-mission subgenre with more artistic movement. Of course he also believes that the opening chapter of the film was the best thing he had written since True Romance (1993), so cut it however you like it.

It's rather amazing with all the spectacle and time built into making a 153 minute film that goes where it wants with dual stories (alongside a significant amount of dialogue spoken in Italian, French, and German) and many actors making an appearance (such as a brief nod for Rod Taylor and Mike Myers, believe it or not) that it all comes down to being remarkably average. I don't really know what I was expecting, but while I found some of it fairly enjoyable when it comes to exploitation material, other parts seem to go on for quite a bit longer than they really should and it really seems like a case of too much boldness where it needs to be less. His films are definitely ones that could desire multiple viewings, but I really didn't latch onto this one that much to really think I'll go back and just look on it again anytime soon (which is strange, since I re-watched his subsequent film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) and actually liked it better than I already did, and that also is a sprawling film involving alternate history). For something that aspires for sprawling story, it really feels like two hollow ends of the same instrument. Pitt leads the film with reasoned edge, confident in exactly what is needed for someone needing to deal in blunt vengeance. Somehow, Laurent didn't really seemed to connect well here, as if somehow one desires more interest in the other structure of revenge than passiveness that really didn't make as much an impression as I might've liked, which is probably important with the whole "let's burn it all down" time spent - she might be shown as bigger-than-life, but it sure doesn't translate to a big factor of focus. Of course this could also apply to Fassbender or Kruger as well, since they both feature in a whole sequence involving accents, a guessing game, and exactly what you might expect in tedium. Waltz is the best part of the whole film, honestly. It seems strange that of a diverse grab-bag of international actors that it is the one involved in television and film since the late 1970s (in either German or English language) as a native of Austria that outranks the rest, capturing a great adversary of courteous and sardonic skill. Roth (occasional actor and director of films such as Cabin Fever) makes the most impression of the title characters, mostly because of a bravado to go with a big swing.

I have given a bit of slack to films that resonate in entertainment despite perhaps lacking in depth. For this, I just can't really give this that much to grab on because I feel that it is just okay at actually executing itself in boldness beyond a few tricks of war films past and an attempt at making revenge and action seem more than it really is. It brandishes itself in camp and fervor that does do fine with some of its sequences in generating shock or a bit of smile, and the opening sequence is at the very least a useful to set itself up on the right track. Pitt and Waltz do enough to carry a film in casual interest of sidestepping history that mostly make up for a film with flickering energy to actually land its convictions and passion it yearns to have, but it certainly could provide a curiosity for those interested in its presentation and its vision to get there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Alita: Battle Angel.

Review #1193: Alita: Battle Angel.

Cast: 
Rosa Salazar (Alita), Christoph Waltz (Dr. Dyson Ido), Keean Johnson (Hugo), Mahershala Ali (Vector), Jennifer Connelly (Dr. Chiren), Ed Skrein (Zapan), Jackie Earle Haley (Grewishka), Jorge Lendeborg Jr. (Tanji), Lana Condor (Koyomi), Eiza González (Nyssiana), Idara Victor (Nurse Gerhad), Jeff Fahey (McTeague), and Rick Yune (Master Clive Lee) Directed by Robert Rodriguez.

Review: 
It is astonishing to see the amount of time that it took for a film to progress from concept to product. James Cameron was attracted to the idea and wanted to write and direct a film adaptation (with a domain name for the film being registered as early as 2000), although he held off doing the film for other projects such as Dark Angel and Avatar (2009) before deciding to focus his energy on making sequels to the latter. Cameron wrote a screenplay that was accompanied by hundreds of pages of notes, and he shared the script (which he co-wrote with Laeta Kalogridis) with Robert Rodriguez (director of films such as Desperado and Sin City) in order to see if he could help condense it into a working shooting script. Satisfied with his result, Cameron hired Rodriguez to direct the film, while serving as producer (along with Jon Landau). The film is based off the cyberpunk manga series Gunnm (also known as Battle Angel Alita) that was created by Yukito Kishiro that was run in Business Jump magazine from 1990 to 1995. I suppose the enjoyment level is much like when watching a comic book movie, complete with story beats that will occasionally feel familiar but still manages to generate excitement and entertainment. Sometimes you just need a movie with cyborgs beating each other to shreds (including one fighting with a legendary martial arts style), bounty hunters named Hunter-Warriors, and a gladiator sport in Motorball that feels like a hyper version of Rollerball (1975). It's a fun piece of spectacle that never really stumbles in its aspirations, even when its attempts at setting up further adventures can seem a bit clumsy. It feels just fine at 122 minutes, having a fine pace and balance.

Salazar (utilizing a motion-capture suit alongside big CG eyes) delivers a capable performance, being an interesting hero to follow in her journey, and she pulls off a well-done job in showing the growth of her character throughout the film without testing the audience's patience or feeling too sudden. Waltz, essentially playing the wise old man type, does fine with dealing with tech-spewing and such. Johnson is fairly effective in keeping up with the quickness of the film while also having a bit of chemistry of Salazar alongside some offbeat moments that eventually prove itself for its climax. Ali and Connelly play their conniving parts with relish when needed; Skrein and Haley are quite entertaining in their menace when playing off against Salazar that makes for some well-done action sequences together. Undeniably, the film is a winner in the visual department, with Weta Digital doing a great job in engineering a product that manages to balance itself into not abusing CGI into a crutch or being too glossy. The Motorball sequence is a clear fun example of that, being dazzling without feeling like a distraction or an excuse to show off without reason. The punches that the film tries to pull within its climax (or more specifically where it is trying to go) work just fine, particularly if you are into what the movie is trying to sell you on (again, much like a superhero movie trying to do some world-building). The film certainly has enough action to go around, with plenty of (blue) blood being spilled in its cyborg showdowns that prove one can really do anything with cyberpunk action if the budget (roughly over $150 million dollars) is right. On the whole, I wasn't at all familiar with the material that the film is based on, but it didn't interfere with what I found to be a pretty entertaining experience, filled with action and spectacle to go along with a neat little story that will prove a winner for people looking for something packing with action and science fiction in one package. Whether there is further adventures about Alita coming or not, I can say that it is one that certainly will merit an audience that appreciates the effort to bring itself on screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Green Hornet.

Review #451: The Green Hornet.

Cast
Seth Rogen (Britt Reid), Jay Chou (Kato), Christoph Waltz (Benjamin Chudnofsky), Cameron Diaz (Lenore "Casey" Case), David Harbour (District Attorney Frank Scanlon), Tom Wilkinson (James Reid), Edward James Olmos (Mike Axford), Jamie Harris (Popeye), Chad Coleman (Chili), and Edward Furlong (Tupper) Directed by Michel Gondry.

Review
This is one of those films I never had actually got to finishing twice. Around the end of the year (heh, big shock) when every test was done, our classes used to watch some films. The Green Hornet was one of them, though I never got to finish the film. Until now. Everytime I watched it, I had a few questions that popped in my head about the movie: So in the 1960's show, was Kato more useful than the Green Hornet? Was Kato always better in hero work than the Hornet? Why does it seem that the Green Hornet is eerily similar to Batman? And who is Seth Rogen? The answers to my questions are: There are none. Well, maybe one answer. The Green Hornet was created on radio in 1936, 3 years before Batman was, with comic books about the Hornet coming 4 years later, later spawning two serial films, a short 10 minute French film, and the short lived but memorable 1960's series with Bruce Lee and Van Williams. The history of the Green Hornet is probably more interesting than the film itself. What I mean is that Rogen doesn't provide too much to the table, he feels more like the comedy relief to Jay Chou than an actual hero. The Black Beauty is a beautiful looking car though, and the effects are halfway decent, though it can't make up for the mediocre acting and the mediocre story. This was meant to be a superhero comedy, but it feels more like a chore, and Waltz, while admirable in his attempts, can't liven the film enough. This would be a disappointment, but since I don't really know the Hornet, it's just a miss.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.