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.

A Boy and His Dog.

Review #1665: A Boy and His Dog.

Cast: 

Don Johnson (Vic), Tim McIntire (voice of Blood), Susanne Benton (Quilla June Holmes), Jason Robards (Lou Craddock), Alvy Moore (Doctor Moore), Helene Winston (Mez Smith), Charles McGraw (Preacher), Hal Baylor (Michael), and Ron Feinberg (Fellini) Directed by L. Q. Jones.

Review: 

I will admit that this film has piqued my curiosity for quite some time, mainly because of its interesting place within science fiction - namely the fact that it is a black comedy in the middle of a decade with plenty of distinct features that has a collection of useful presences for a cult favorite. How many weirdo dystopia movies are there? There may be several of these films, but one cannot deny the irresistible amusement that comes from its depiction of a wasteland - both in material and in its ethics. As one might expect, it is an adaptation of previous material, in this case it is an adaptation of the novella of the same name that was written by Harlan Ellison in 1969. It would soon evolve into a narrative cycle, as Ellison would write further stories in the timeline over several years; for example, Ellison would also write stories that took place before and after the original novella, such as with his graphic novel collection Vic and Blood, but Ellison had apparently written another section that would be collected for a book (called Blood's a Rover), which was in his words in "screenplay form". Jones had ideas to do a follow-up film, one that would take place through the eyes of a woman (named Spike, which incidentally was the same name of the character Ellison used in his follow-up story), but funding issues and the death of the dog hindered any serious thoughts. In 2018, Blood's a Rover was published by Ellison, which collected the stories from before alongside a teleplay that he had written for a failed-to-launch television series. Oh, right, who is Harlan Ellison? To describe Ellison is something I'm sure those who have read his works or heard of his exploits can do better, so the best way to say it is that he was a prolific writer that described his work as "foursquare for chaos." The Cleveland native wrote the gamut when it came to speculative/science fiction that ranged from short stories (over a thousand) to screenplays (for which just one was filmed in The Oscar...no joke) to teleplays (such as "The City on the Edge of Forever", which true to form had Ellison griping upon the changes made for what ended up being one of the best Star Trek episodes of the original series) before his death in 2018. Ellison was favorable to the film, although it was the final line that caused him considerable consternation; the film ends the same way the novella did in its shocking (but darkly humorous) conclusion, with the novella ending on a title reference and the film ending on a spry pun - he called it a "moronic, hateful chauvinist last line, which I despise", although he mellowed slightly over it in later years. Given that Ellison had his share of causing/being involved in contentious disputes that ranged from Texas A&M University to James Cameron, it certainly seems quite amusing to note. 

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that this proved an inspiration to a subsequent dystopian work with Mad Max (1979). This was the second and last film that was directed by L. Q. Jones (who had changed his name from Justus McQueen to the name of the character he played in his first film - Battle Cry), who had directed The Devil's Bedroom (1964). Ellison had started work on the screenplay for the film before having writer's block that resulted him turning it over to Jones (who Ellison described as "fiery" in independence) to write the screenplay, which he would do for over a year. Jones was a character actor in film and television for five decades until his retirement in 2006. He certainly has an interesting foresight when it comes to the future of depraved weirdos, even if it didn't exactly come out with an apocalypse; instead, one will settle with a weird R-rated version of a buddy movie that is certainly not for the faint of heart, where the only thing worse than glowing people in the dark is not having enough to eat or women to have sex with. And that is a good thing, because who needs their dystopian movies to be routine and quiet? I adore irreverent movies that engage for 93 minutes with no easy out answers or effects plays. Our star is Johnson, appearing in his fifth film role. The Missouri native had first done his share of acting within high school in the theater program before doing a spell of study at the University of Kansas and the American Conservatory Theater before getting into work within the theater and film/television. I'm sure most of you folks know that this features Johnson years before he became a household name with Miami Vice (and I would too, since it is on my schedule), but one can't forget the fact that he is quite effective here. He drives the film with dog in tow with good timing, doing so with a craven energy that resonates with the offbeat energy of the movie in a way that would have felt off-kilter with perhaps any other actor. When one needs an actor to play a strange savage that is nevertheless quite watchable, Johnson delivers. McIntire makes up the other part of the duo, and he was cast after hundreds of auditions (with one reported voice in name being James Cagney, but the filmmakers felt he was too recognizable a voice). He was a character actor that had a handful of roles within television and film, although others might recognize his contribution in the music department to films such as this one and Jeremiah Johnson (1972). He and Johnson make for some quality timing when it comes to their time spent together, an unlikely pair in terms of cynicism meeting amorality that make for a different kind of road movie. In other words, he chills the surface in misanthropy that we gravitate to (besides playing a dog, obviously) that makes a diverting time in the not-too distant future of 2024. Benton manipulates her way through with enough flourish to make a worthwhile contrast to the main duo - in a different movie she might have been the scheming focus of a cold underground, but we are talking about a movie that focuses on survival of the nuttiest rather than just survival of the smartest. In that sense, she does well for what is needed in the balance between the duo and the overall underground. Robards makes his extended appearance midway through the movie (in a place where everyone is caked in white makeup), and he handles the proceedings of rural caricature with what you would see from a key presence in cinema as Robards was, where he does not need big speeches or action shots but instead just needs to drive odd moments forward. By the time it gets to the underworld, one is curious to where else can it go in the varying perspectives of folks "surviving" the apocalypse and the craven ways to maintain it. At the end of the day, it proves charming enough in its shock value or those who like movies with irreverence and the guts to follow through all the way in its details to make for a grisly and capable good time, if one has the time, taste, and stomach for its trek into the wasteland.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Knives Out.

Review #1306: Knives Out.

Cast: 
Daniel Craig (Benoit Blanc), Chris Evans (Hugh Ransom Drysdale), Ana de Armas (Marta Cabrera), Jamie Lee Curtis (Linda Drysdale), Michael Shannon (Walt Thrombey), Don Johnson (Richard Drysdale), Toni Collette (Joni Thrombey), Lakeith Stanfield (Detective Lieutenant Elliot), Katherine Langford (Meg Thrombey), Jaeden Martell (Jacob Thrombey), Christopher Plummer (Harlan Thrombey), Noah Segan (Trooper Wagner), Edi Patterson (Fran), Riki Lindhome (Donna Thrombey), K Callan (Wanetta "Great Nana" Thrombey), Frank Oz (Alan Stevens), and M. Emmet Walsh (Mr. Proofroc) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi)

Review: 
To have a good murder mystery is to have something worth looking at once enough to want to see it again. Entertainment is one thing, having something that compels you into its little game is another, as is the intent behind Knives Out, which has certainly gained a bit of buzz leading up to its release. It sure is amazing to see something as wonderfully average as this proves to be, as if someone wanted to make the dumbest smart mystery movie. It does prove a bit irritating to wonder how much one can really say about a movie mystery like this without seeming like a spoiler hound waiting to bite. Whatever you may say about "subverted expectations" when it comes to movies, it also proves irritating to manage to make a farce as opposed to a real intriguing mystery on a consistent level. The fact that it does just okay with its ensemble cast should inspire annoyance rather than rapture, really. You could've made this with average marquee-sounding actors and nobody would shout to the balcony about how it was exceptional in its execution. But hey, what are deftly built murder mysteries for when you can have snide humor and creaky foundations? You too can hit for the low hanging fruit for humor and mystery if you have the PR push (edgy political commentary for current year flavor? Ooh, tell me more before I stick a fork in my brain and call it art), where using buzzwords for certain moments makes for okay satire.

It certainly has the style to inspire charm, and there are no real bad apples in the acting bunch, so that does tend to help the film in its favor. If you happen to be in the mood for eccentric family drama, this probably seems right up your alley, unless one is more into the sleuth and his southern fried accent. In this case, Craig is easily the best part of the film, amusing in his mannerisms when it comes to working out the oddities that tend to arise, never overstaying his welcome in any sense. Armas makes for a fairly compelling lead to follow when faced with the mystery and the facts that surround her, handling things with a dash of grace and confidence. Evans is tasked with delivering oozy charisma (while doing it in a silly sweater) for the film's second half, and he proves just fine with that in mind, where brash confidence at being the entitled black sheep of the family just comes with the territory. When it comes to the other members of the family, I find myself gravitating towards Curtis and Shannon when it comes to how they interact with the others in their family, for better or worse. Honestly, I feel like the film could've just focused on them even more, since the film doesn't even have red herrings or anything that would lead the mystery solely back on these quirky caricatures besides flashbacks. Plummer is wry and easy to follow as the center of this whole film for when needed that fits the film's bill to a T.

Am I so jaded that I can't appreciate the idea of a mystery that is ever so clever in not really being that much of a mystery? Sure, it seems to want to have cryptic seriousness, before it deluges itself with self-awareness that seems as smug in trying to be clever as having a character vomiting when they lie. Gee, I wonder if this will be used over and over for laughs. By the time the film tries to deliver on its payoff, I was thankful moreso because it meant that the film actually meant something to make 130 minutes seem worth more than just hearing about grandstanding praise for a film that teeters on being dangerously hollow. The film does have a nice look to it, seeming fairly authentic when setting up its story trappings, complete with plenty of knives. It seems cruel to nitpick at a film like this, because my fair expectations were met with mild entertainment alongside confusion at its ultimate execution. Sometimes you can shoot the target and still hit for average in the final tally, but I do at least see myself wondering what could come next from Johnson at least. Curiosity can prove rewarding for this film, if it manages to hit all the right buttons for those who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.