Desperado.

Review #2415: Desperado.

Cast: 

Antonio Banderas (Manito "El Mariachi"), Joaquim de Almeida (Cesar "Bucho"), Salma Hayek (Carolina), Steve Buscemi (Buscemi), Cheech Marin (Short Bartender), Quentin Tarantino (Pick-Up Guy), Carlos Gomez (Memo "Right Hand"), Tito Larriva (Tavo), Angel Aviles (Zamira), Danny Trejo (Navajas), Abraham Verduzco (Niño), Carlos Gallardo (Campa), and Albert Michel Jr (Quino) Written and Directed by Robert Rodriguez (#1193 - Alita: Battle Angel, #1903 - From Dusk till Dawn, #2377 - El Mariachi)

Review: 

Admittedly, I wanted to Desperado for quite a while. I bought a DVD pack with it included a while ago and, well, it is time to collect. Robert Rodriguez followed El Mariachi (1992) with a television movie assignment that came out of the blue with Roadracers (1994)*. But here were are with his second feature film, a "Neo-Western action movie" once again. The movie was shot in late 1994 with a budget that was described as, well, adding a few more zeroes from before that was shot in the same place (Ciudad Acuña) as the first movie; as before, Rodriguez serves as writer, director, and editor. Sure, the movie had its troubles: the original cut was rated NC-17 by the MPAA due to the graphic violence that had to see a handful of cuts just to get an R rating, complete with taking out a shootout at the end that I think you will be curious about. When the movie was released on August 25, 1995 (the first of three Rodriguez-involved projects in a year next to winter 1995's Four Rooms, where Rodriguez directed one of the four segments and 1996's From Dusk till Dawn), the film was a general hit with audiences, and, well, there was eventually a follow-up film with Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003). 

It is a nice movie for those who know what they are getting into with a movie that is more of a side-step sequel than anything, one that feels the need to see the last scene of the previous movie but with a different face this time around. Now it dwells on the idea that killing the killer wasn't enough to satisfy the fallen mariachi, now it rests to chop the head ahead of that guy too. For the most part, the movie is generally satisfying to those who liked the ambition shown in the other film without seeming like a product of compromises, which mainly means some energetic shooting and a few quick cuts to go with a slightly more packaged story. So yes, the adrenaline rush may not be for everyone, but it does have likeable folks to carry things for 105 minutes. Undeniably, Banderas has a gritty charm to make this character one worth searching further in how one could just slip into guns as if it was a rhythm to replace the one ripped from his busted hand. He clearly oozes the appeal that one could see a lover or a killer in the same breath without a false note detected because you roll with him and his baptism of fire that clearly needs the touch of people again. It helps to have Hayek (in her first key role in an American movie, after a good deal of telenovela appearances) generate just as much sensual appeal in curiosity at the idea of someone who isn't merely just a tool like other folks in the town but has their own sins just the same. Perhaps not surprisingly, their chemistry simmers quickly to the surface that is clear to root for and watch play out for all of the passionate strings you damn well know will be pulled. de Almeida (cast prior to shooting when Raul Julia died) is at least an adequate adversary to shoot for in clear-cut ruthlessness alongside wavering stability (note the sequence where he can't find his phone), at least until the movie makes its one turn of the screw that probably will strain at least one person's doubts. At least the supporting cast comes and goes for a few curious chuckles from Buscemi and the staging for the mayhem is worthy enough to make it look like the fights worth investing time in. Sure, the climax isn't played out to the whole bloody affair (instead having a few dark chuckles with the arrival (and departure of Gallardo and Michel Jr to the fray), but the slap-bang enjoyment of the film as a whole is consistent and kinetic enough to be satisfied with the movie reflecting the way the last one went: on the road but with company to travel this time around. As a whole, it is an improvement on El Mariachi with its general staging of action and all-around charm to ride the storm of doubt made by an up-and-coming director that is worth checking out.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, because he managed to license music from Link Wray (it was cheap at the time), it played a tiny influence on Pulp Fiction (1994), because Quentin Tarantino saw Rodriguez using that music and got the idea to use Wray's "Rumble" for his film. No, really, you can read that and hear about "72 camera setups with a single camera in one day."

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.

From Dusk till Dawn.

Review #1903: From Dusk till Dawn.

Cast: 

Harvey Keitel (Jacob Fuller), George Clooney (Seth Gecko), Quentin Tarantino (Richard 'Richie' Gecko), Juliette Lewis (Katherine 'Kate' Fuller), Ernest Liu (Scott Fuller), Salma Hayek (Santanico Pandemonium), Cheech Marin (Border Guard / Chet Pussy / Carlos), Tom Savini (Sex Machine), Fred Williamson (Frost), Michael Parks (Texas Ranger Earl McGraw), Kelly Preston (Newscaster Kelly Houge), John Saxon (FBI Agent Stanley Chase), Danny Trejo (Razor Charlie), Brenda Hillhouse (Hostage Gloria Hill), and Marc Lawrence (Old Timer Motel Owner) Directed by Robert Rodriguez (#1193 - Alita: Battle Angel)

Review: 

The vampire movie has many forms besides Dracula, but I am sure you already have figured that out. You could look at it from a number of ways, particularly in the 1990s, which saw films by Francis Ford Coppola (you know, that mediocre Dracula adaptation) and John Carpenter (Vampires). So yes, an action horror movie with Robert Rodriguez is certainly an interesting idea. This was the third feature film by Rodriguez as a director, who made his feature debut with El Mariachi (1992) that led into more success with Desperado (1995). The story was done by Robert Kurtzman (a co-creator of the KNB EFX Group, which was behind the effects of this film) while the screenplay was done by Quentin Tarantino (the third and last film he wrote without directing after True Romance (1993) and Natural Born Killers (1994)). Rodriguez and Tarantino, best friends since the 1990s, would collaborate with each other eleven years after the release of this film with the double-feature Grindhouse (Planet Terror / Death Proof). The film was followed by two direct-to-video sequels that were produced by Rodriguez, and he would develop a television series based on the feature in 2014.

Admittedly, the enjoyment of the film will depend on how big one is in a film that tries to blend action and horror with measured patience - it is action all the way, but at least the horror is fun. The first hour is all about the set-up in what you might see coming from the action cliches that Tarantino clearly has an interest in (he likened the film to The Desperate Hours (1955) but with a supernatural twist), complete with having a core group of characters that have useful rapport with each other. Watching a movie with killers that have a bit of charm does seem a bit familiar if you've seen some of Tarantino's work, but of course it also probably goes hand in hand with Rodriguez in terms of kinetic enjoyment (like many of his films, he served as editor). So yes, it is essentially like having a sandwich of two favorable elements packed together (say, peanut butter and jelly), if it works well for you, go right on ahead, because it will satisfy the B-movie dreams one could go for, complete with green blood splatter. It may be a movie of the macabre, but it is one with a good-natured smirk to things, which works just enough in trying to make one believe in the horror of a bar that offers both pretty women and vampires. This was the first major film role for Clooney, previously best known for his run on the TV series ER. He does pretty well here, wrapped in plenty of confidence and devilish charm that is interesting to see play out against both the action element and the eventual horror that clearly would suit him for future films. Tarantino must have been interested in following the tradition of other director-turned-actors like John Huston when it came to playing a role opposite Clooney. They share a decent rapport together in brotherly cohesion that holds enough weight to make him more than just being the lesser of the key quartet. Keitel makes it worth his while in reserved dignity in religious dilemma, but Lewis is the quiet leader in her offbeat charms that proves quite natural for all the turns required. The small moments with others is fun for those who like recognizable faces and names, such as Trejo (Rodriguez's second cousin), Savini & Williamson or with the triple cameos by Marin, which all have charm that invite a bit of imagination of their stories besides this one, and Hayek makes the most of her time on stage with allure - so yes, it is a fun little time for those into its spirit (oh, there are others who come and go like Liu or Saxon, which is whatever, and that is a sad thing from someone who digs Saxon but still thinks the movie is fine). The mayhem is plentiful that makes the 108-minute run-time go with clear enjoyment for making schlock to enjoy taking the cliches from the book and putting them in the grinder. You have a movie where a gun is on a man's crotch to go with brains being stabbed by a pencil and kids getting chomped by vampires - it all works out. As a whole, the action and horror elements done by Rodriguez and company make an interesting result, serving as a slightly more expensive B-movie that could please both genre lovers if in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 8 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.

Jackie Brown.

Review #1307: Jackie Brown.

Cast: 
Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Samuel L. Jackson (Ordell Robbie), Robert Forster (Max Cherry), Bridget Fonda (Melanie Ralston), Michael Keaton (Ray Nicolette), Robert De Niro (Louis Gara), Michael Bowen (Det. Mark Dargus), Chris Tucker (Beaumont Livingston), LisaGay Hamilton (Sheronda), Tom "Tiny" Lister Jr (Winston), Hattie Winston (Simone), and Sid Haig (Judge) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, and #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)

Review: 
For a crime film, a well-detailed story can go a long way to make an experience worth remembering. Quentin Tarantino certainly had plenty of films to showcase interesting people and the environments they inhabit, and Jackie Brown proves no different, showing plenty of wit and charm through a 154 minute leisure that has a solid cast and pretty good execution that leaves one fairly satisfied. This happens to be the only Tarantino film where he adapted a previous work, with the source material being Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard (which Tarantino did over adapting Freaky Deaky or Killshot after re-reading), for which there were a few changes made involving its title character alongside her race that Leonard approved of, reportedly saying that this was the best screenplay he had ever read. For his third directorial effort, Tarantino uses a little less violence and a bit more chronology when it comes to telling his story, which works pretty well within some casual confines, featuring six distinct players in something reminiscent of blaxploitation films (having Grier helps in that regard) without losing itself too much in clear style. The main group of actors do pretty well in that regard, starting with its main lead. Grier, already a trail blazer for female action heroes in the 1970s, proves just as capable in sinking her teeth into a towering presence, capable of holding her own with whoever is on screen without even having to use a gun all too much. Jackson exudes ruthless confidence to a tee here, capable of sticking any kind of line involving unseemly things (such as trying to get someone in a trunk as a favor) without too much reluctance. Forster seems completely in his element here, a world weary straight-laced player with complete professionalism and subtle chemistry with Grier that makes for a well-deserved comeback for the character actor that ended up with an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor - the film's only Oscar nomination. Fonda and De Niro also provide welcome players, casual and raw for the moments that need to happen, which all comes full circle with the parking lot sequence in terms of emotion and payoff (sometimes you just need to see it all play out to make it really count). Keaton doesn't have as much time, but it sure is nice to see him and the rest of the supporting cast in those little moments to surround the environment of the plot. It has its choices when it comes to music or homages, doing so with careful ambition that extends to a plot that plays by the book in gathering these characters to the moments that matter without shortchanging them with cheap gags or rushes. The film has its amusing moments, but it knows when to drive itself with sharp senses of focus with characters who all seem to have been around the block a few times and seem weary for it. It's a nice movie that drags itself with daring regard for plenty to see with its characters and its sudden turns that make it all feel worth it. Sure, it isn't his best film, but it does prove a worthy one to view once if not twice to see how the run plays out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Review #1251: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Rick Dalton), Brad Pitt (Cliff Booth), Margot Robbie (Sharon Tate), Emile Hirsch (Jay Sebring), Margaret Qualley (Pussycat), Timothy Olyphant (James Stacy), Julia Butters (Trudi Fraser), Austin Butler (Charles "Tex" Watson), Dakota Fanning (Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme), Bruce Dern (George Spahn), Mike Moh (Bruce Lee), Luke Perry (Wayne Maunder), Damian Lewis (Steve McQueen), Al Pacino (Marvin Schwarz), Brenda Vaccaro (Mary Alice Schwarz), Kurt Russell (Randy), Zoë Bell (Janet), and Lorenza Izzo (Francesca Cappucci) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, and #1218 - Pulp Fiction)

Review: 
It is not a surprise to find myself watching a love letter to a time long since past in terms of movies, particularly since it is a Tarantino movie but also because of the intrigue of seeing such an interesting time like 1969 come to life. It attempts to talk a grand tale of fact and fiction with a cavalcade of actors and images that surely make for an ambitious piece of entertainment. The final result is something that will surely work wonders in terms of design and energy, although it holds itself together with a paste that may very well be described as frantic excess. Tarantino clearly wanted to make a great sprawling tale much in the same vein of other films of the 1960s that has its cake and eats plenty of it in a 161 minute run-time that his fans will probably clamor for (while wondering was left on the cutting floor) while others will probably wonder why it wanders for so long on certain aspects while leaving other parts less covered, with the ending being one of those moments ripe for discussion for quite a while, alongside other moments.

In a sea of actors spread out from substantial to one-scene wonder, DiCaprio and Pitt are game to lead the way in delivering plenty of enthusiasm and charm in respective ways that carry the film steady. DiCaprio in particular shines as a falling star pastiche, where one can see his fading attempts at what was and what could be in the changing of the time. Pitt joins that same kind of road with vigor that rolls right along when all is said and done. Robbie, the last of the main trio, doesn't have as much to say but does make a key impression of warmth and charm whenever we see her, such as when she sees herself in The Wrecking Crew in a theater while enjoying what she sees of her fictional comic relief lead. She plays her time for a part that doesn't fall under complete biopic structure - which can either prove fine or a bit disappointing. Others make their mark, some more than others. Qualley and Butters each make their mark count, conveying plenty of conviction in where they stand in the moment, the former being a marker of descent into the other side of 1969 Hollywood and the latter a young (but aspiring) talent firmly in the system in a changing time. Butler, Fanning and Dern also contribute for a scene with wiry impact, and it is sure is nice to see Russell make his mark from time to time. The actors with one-shot moments in the TV scenes (Olyphant and Perry) do fairly well with representing the time in helping making a show as forgotten as Lancer come to life again. Moh and Lewis are fine if not too particularly important in the grand scheme.

Once it garners itself to setting a conclusion (complete with narration that certainly feels a bit wry when coming from Russell), the film has already garnered enough enticement that you don't really want it to ever come crashing down (to say nothing of the request from Tarantino to avoid spoiling the film before release, which is a bit strange to say in a quasi fact/fiction film). It fights against the dawn of a different kind of Hollywood and the sign of the times itself that surely can resonate with those who seek the resonance that was a decade such as the 1960s without devolving too much into an old man argument. It aspires to have its cake and eat it too, doing plenty of both with no shame. It is a film that certainly will have fans who will find joy with its decisions (such as its visual and musical choices), but it isn't impossible to find aspects that test the grounds of patience if not in the mood for all the roads wanting to be covered by Tarantino. I enjoyed a good chunk of what I saw, and it could either teeter at the high or low end of his directorial efforts when all is said and done, which is a pretty good testament to his craft. After one views a tale like this, they will likely leave their theater with acceptance with what they saw - the times of big stars and big sights like drive-in theaters and the like may not resonate as much as they did before, but there sure is still something to enjoy then as in now when it comes to the movies and showmanship. It is a bittersweet tribute that succeeds more often than not with plenty of charm and entertainment value to go around that surely will endure just as much as the people that came from it did.
Any movie where a bunch of hippies are beaten to hell does tend to win praise from me, too.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Pulp Fiction.

Review #1218: Pulp Fiction.

Cast: 
John Travolta (Vincent Vega), Samuel L. Jackson (Jules Winnfield), Uma Thurman (Mia Wallace), Harvey Keitel (Winston Wolfe), Tim Roth (Ringo/"Pumpkin"), Amanda Plummer (Yolanda/"Honey Bunny"), Maria de Medeiros (Fabienne), Ving Rhames (Marsellus Wallace), Eric Stoltz (Lance), Rosanna Arquette (Jody), Christopher Walken (Captain Koons), Bruce Willis (Butch Coolidge), Bronagh Gallagher (Trudi) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, and #1180 - Reservoir Dogs)

Review: 
It isn't hard to say that this is a wonderful film. 25 years since its release, Pulp Fiction is a wonderful exercise in film-making and storytelling, managing to be entertaining from start to finish with the stories and characters weaved through the story work of Tarantino and Roger Avary. It has its share of violence and vulgarity, but it is a fun kind of movie that also has its share of humor and people that roll with what is going on that seem like it is culled from an older time without choking on its own homages and references. In an interview talking about inspiration for the idea in the film, Tarantino stated that these were "...ones you’ve seen a zillion times—the boxer who’s supposed to throw a fight and doesn’t, the Mob guy who’s supposed to take the boss’s wife out for the evening, the two hit men who come and kill these guys.” Tarantino knows where to go with his movie in part because of his love for them, knowing the best way to go isn't so much a straight line but a circle. This love is pretty apparent with the scene in the restaurant, having people dressed up as film stars and others and having plenty of posters around (such as Attack of the 50 Foot Woman). Travolta and Jackson shine brightest whenever on screen, eliciting plenty of interest and chuckles when in conversation, such as when talking about the way they survived as a sort of miracle or about Royales with cheese. Travolta in particular is wonderful, casual yet inviting - highlighted when he dances with Thurman, for example. Jackson isn't hard to forget, however, and it's the closing sequence involving him trying to make a way out of his current path and onto something else that makes the whole film complete, selling the whole exchange with Roth without hesitation. Thurman plays well with her gun moll type character, having plenty of spry charm with her time on screen. Keitel is efficient in his brief time on screen, controlling the room with intimidation that fits just right for his scene. Roth and Plummer are quite effective with their roles when needed. Rhames does quite well with his role, rough and compelling even when just shown with just the back of his head. Walken has one scene in the film, but he sure makes it one worth viewing, telling his story without fail. Willis plays a familiar character type with raw charm and effectiveness one would expect from him without having to say too much. With a run-time of 154 minutes, it never proves to be overlong or plodding in one story too much without purpose. Even when it makes references, it never feels like it is being done just because one could, and there's plenty of depth to go around. It is quite the accomplishment for a film made on a budget of $8 million and a quality cast to go with it. At the Academy Awards ceremony months after release, the film recieved plenty of nominations to go around, three of them for its leads alongside Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture. While the film lost in six of its categories (most notably losing to Forest Gump for the latter category), Tarantino and Avary received an Oscar for their screenplay, which is certainly well warranted by the film's result - a modern masterpiece for the ages. You could highlight at least five scenes to show someone how the film is and still wonder if you could add another to say how much fun it can be.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Reservoir Dogs.

Review #1180: Reservoir Dogs.

Cast: 
Harvey Keitel (Mr. White/Larry), Tim Roth (Mr. Orange/Freddy), Michael Madsen (Mr. Blonde/Vic Vega), Chris Penn ("Nice Guy" Eddie Cabot), Steve Buscemi (Mr. Pink), Lawrence Tierney (Joe Cabot), Randy Brooks (Holdaway), Kirk Baltz (Marvin Nash), Edward Bunker (Mr. Blue), Quentin Tarantino (Mr. Brown), and Steven Wright (K-Billy DJ) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1 and #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2)

Review: 
Reservoir Dogs is the first major motion picture directed by Quentin Tarantino, who also wrote and co-starred in it. Tarantino had done a select amount of jobs beforehand, such as working at a video store or production assistant for an Dolph Lundgren exercise video. It was his meeting with producer Lawrence Bender in 1990 that helped elevate Tarantino to making this film on a much higher scale; Bender gave the script to his acting teacher, whose wife was a friend of Harvey Keitel. The signing of Keitel (who also serves as co-producer) helped in raising the budget for the film from the original intended amount of $30,000 to $1.5 million. There were a few films that influenced Tarantino, such as The Killing (1956) and Kansas City Confidental (1952), and it's not hard to see his love of films, which certainly comes through in a heist movie that is fairly entertaining in how it conducts itself, holding itself well enough through its dynamite cast. Keitel, Roth, Madsen & Buscemi are the main group that we follow throughout a film that utilizes plenty of snappy dialogue and choice use of violence that sprinkles itself throughout its 99 minute run-time, conducting itself out of order (without showing the heist itself) without feeling disjointed or too much like a chore to reach, never really having a period of sluggishness. It doesn't ever feel like a movie bogged down by heist cliches, but rather one that rolls with what it is without focusing too hard on falling in line with expectations. It may be a bit much for some with its style/violence, but there is still a valid amount of substance involved to make it work. Keitel shines the best, having a hard-edge to his character of a career criminal that is instantly one we can follow without reluctance, and he has some entertaining moments with the other members of the group. Roth finds time to shine with ease, and Buscemi is snappy but worthwhile when on screen. Madsen plays his role with a fine bit of ruthlessness and unpredictability that sticks out in various ways. Penn and Tierney (known for his previous portrayal of mobsters and tough guys in films prior) round out the main cast, and each play their respective parts handily without trouble. The film clicks itself pretty early with its opening sequence, inviting you into a look of these folks through an amusing conversation and music choices that work to give the movie some flavor. The film works out enough to not go off the rails in its climax because it keeps a fine level of thrills and tension going that make for a worthwhile debut for Tarantino.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Kill Bill Volume 2.

Review #639: Kill Bill: Volume 2.

Cast
Uma Thurman (The Bride/Beatrix Kiddo), David Carradine (Bill), Michael Madsen (Budd), Daryl Hannah (Elle Driver), Gordon Liu (Pai Mei), and Perla Haney-Jardine (B.B) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1)

Review
The first film mainly set up the premise of revenge with loads of bloods. The second movie sets up the back story and gives the main character more depth. It's a good thing to have some story that helps develop the mythology, for one thing we actually get to know her name, which helps (unless you're the Doctor), I suppose. The action is still good, though it never hurts to have some dialogue for once. To decide which Kill Bill film is better depends on what you want the most, action or back story/emphasis on dialogue. For me, I like the scenes with Gordon Liu, there's just something so amusing about his scenes, or maybe it's his beard. Liu is such a random character who makes an impression with only flashback scenes, it's stuff like that which make this film not weaker than the first film but at the same level. These are movies chock full of influences from other forms of cinema, with sprinkles of pop culture references and chock full of bloody action. This is at heart a mostly fun movie that manages to be what it wants to be, entertainment. This movie still makes an impact after 10 years, and I imagine that we'll remember this as a classic even 60 years from now.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Kill Bill: Volume 1.

Review #638: Kill Bill: Volume 1.

Cast
Uma Thurman (The Bride), Lucy Liu (O-Ren Ishii), Vivica A. Fox (Vernita Green), Daryl Hannah (Elle Driver), Julie Dreyfus (Sofie Fatale), Chiaki Kuriyama (Gogo Yubari), David Carradine (Bill), Michael Madsen (Budd), and Sonny Chiba (Hattori Hanzo) Directed by Quentin Tarantino.

Review
I knew that eventually I would have to review a Quentin Tarantino film, and I had a feeling it would be this film. So how is this film? Is it a masterpiece, a great film, or something possibly overrated and slightly over hyped? In a way, it could be all four answers. The movie manages to be very stylish and memorable with the fight scenes, somehow you can make blood squirts look new, that or I'm just not used to so much blood. Does it need to be realistic to be better? No, I guess not, when we want a film to be more realistic or sillier really varies depending on the film (Best example I can think is the James Bond franchise, does it make sense to love all the eras despite their flaws? Yea, they all have their own qualities and flaws, some more than others, but you get the idea.), and in this case I can forgive it. The cast seem to flow well with each other, Thurman's character is a cool assassin, and that's all you need to know, her swordplay is great to watch. The movie is heart a tribute to 70's cinema films, such as martial arts and kung-fu films along with various others, and in the end this is a movie that is well made, it's a movie that doesn't require much story to work, it's just a film with a lot of determination...and blood, but there you go. Is it a great movie? It might just be one, ask yourself this question: Did you like The Wild Bunch? If you did, there's your answer.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.