Note: Before anyone
reads, I just want to say, that I send my humble wishes to Paul Walker’s family
and friends, who are still in deep sadness over the loss of someone who meant a
lot to them. If any of them happen to be reading this review, I do apologize if
I offended you in any way for anything I’ve said here. I’m only talking about
the film and the film only.
R.I.P. Paul Walker
x x x x x x x x x
Paul
Walker has been recognized by many as one of the best action stars of our
generation, as proven in films like “Into the Blue,” “Takers,” and the “Fast
and the Furious” franchise. However, the actor sadly passed away back in 2013
in a car accident, leaving behind a legacy that I’m hoping fans will remember
years on. Before he did leave us, he was able to at least finish up today’s
film, “Brick Mansions.”
A
remake of the foreign film “District 13,” this film takes place in the not-so
distant future of Detroit, where crime is at a high (so just basically Detroit),
and the most crime infested part has been barricaded. This sector, under the
name Brick Mansions, has Detective Damien Collier team up with Lino Dupree, a
citizen of the area, so they can find a bomb stolen by Tremaine Alexander
before it blows the whole area to smithereens. Now, let me say I thought the
film was…mediocre at best.
While I
haven’t seen “District 13,” I can assume it made changes that were approved by
both producer/writer and star from the original film, since they took part in
the remake. And let’s go over the list of clichés that are so obvious here: Rebel
cop; father died on big assignment; cop goes to do father’s last job; villain’s
a gangster who runs the turf; cop teams up with resident of area; one of them
has a girlfriend kidnapped; there’s a time limit because of a bomb. Yeah, those
are only HALF of the clichés that describe the movie. It wouldn’t be so bad, if
the clichés used in the film were used to great levels.
Let’s first
talk about the gang leader of the film, Tremaine Alexander, played by RZA. Now
the character he was playing is the typical gang leader archetype, being very
dangerous with a few quirks, but…the way he talked was just so weird.
Throughout the film, it feels like he’s trying to do an impression of Elmer
Fudd, saying his r’s like w’s; I just couldn’t take this guy seriously. Another
problem I had was they don’t have any focus on the people of Brick Mansions,
except for the drug dealers. We don’t see any families that have been
corrupted, we don’t see gang beatings, and we don’t even see how Brick Mansions
came to be. Hell, we don’t even get a simple flashback of Damien’s father on
the job and how it went down for him. It’s a movie! Show, don’t tell!
As much
as I enjoy Paul Walker and his work, I can easily say this was not his best
performance. It’s not that he did a bad job; it’s just that his character was
so generic and so forgettable. And like I said, I wouldn’t mind it, if the
character was interesting or fun. David Belle, who was the star in the original
film (as well as the creator of parcore), was just as un-investing; I mean, with
what they describe this character and his backstory, I would have let this go
if they did show us his life beforehand as well. Again; SHOW, don’t tell! The
rest of these characters are either un-memorable or simply disinteresting, so
there’s no point.
As for
the action scenes, it’s another film that has shaky cam. Granted, it’s not AS
bad as most films have done in the past, but it still gets in the way. To be
honest, I was kind of excited with the opening chase scene, and it was really tense
and blood-pumping. However, it doesn’t go any further from that, with a few
becoming very cartoonish. You know that scene in the trailer, where they fight
the big dude and smash his head with a cinderblock? Yeah, he gets hit and you
hear birds chirping…I’m not kidding when I say that.
Half of
the stuff they do in this movie, I have to ask one thing: why was this a PG-13?
Seriously, if they had made this a hard-R, it would have made this film much
more intense if they showed just how violent this place can get with the people
in there. I mean, there’s a scene where David Belle is locked in a cell, and
pulls a guy’s head through the hole, jumping up to force his weight onto his
neck…and they cut to black! Out of all the things you could have done with this
scene, the least you could do is just not show the head ripped off, but just
the body fall with blood on the bars!
Overall,
“Brick Mansions” is a film that’s not worth the money. If you’re a Paul Walker
fan, and you just want to see this film to show respect and support, I can understand.
However, I’d suggest donating to his charity foundation as a better option, as
that money would be better suited for a proper purpose.
Films
based on artificial intelligence have always sparked interest and thought on
whether or not we a progressing in the way of life, or if the advancements in
technology is corrupting our society, potentially leading to our downfall.
Films like “The Matrix,” “Total Recall,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” and “The Terminator”
films are examples that brought this into speculation. The advantages that we
have today are seen both as a blessing and burden, each way we turn. The
internet is a prime example of that, stating that while it does showcase things
worldwide, it’s only a matter of time before it could lead to our biggest
downfall.
Today,
we have a new film to also focus on this topic, “Transcendence.” The film is
about Will Caster, a scientist who is trying to construct a way for life of any
kind to be reborn, no matter what the damages. However, after being shot, Will
starts to die slowly and his brain is transferred into his computer, thanks to
his wife and friend. However, once Will is inside, his progress starts to
exceed at a tremendous rate, soon becoming more advanced than anything in the
world, even able to manipulate the minds of the ones he’s healed. Is this a
blessing or is it a possible disaster?
One of
the problems with this film was that the entire description I gave you is the
whole movie. I’m not kidding; every key point in the trailer is what happens in
the movie. Now, there are films that have done this, but still managed to be
very interesting nonetheless…this is not one of them, sadly. The film has a
really interesting premise going for itself, and it really does make the view
think about their output on technology. The film does go into detail on that,
but the execution of how it was done really falls flat, and at times it gave me
a headache throughout the whole movie.
The
acting in the film, while had some big name talent, was pretty flat as well. Rebecca
Hall as Will’s wife was dull and didn’t keep my attention, despite being the
main star of the film the whole way through. She wasn’t investing, and even
when she almost was, it didn’t last that long. Morgan Freeman also appears in
the film as Will’s co-worker, and I can tell he’s trying his best to make this
work. As much as I appreciate this man and his work, I can’t say the same for
this film. Cillian Murphy is also in the film, playing an FBI agent, but he is
so forgettable in this film, I didn’t even bother paying attention to him.
However, in terms of who gave the
weakest performance, Johnny Depp as Will was absolutely BORING. Throughout the
whole movie, whether he was alive or within the computers with just a voice
over, always kept that monotone voice the whole way through. I mean, sure he’s
done that in more movies before hand, but he at least looked like he was
interested in his performance, even in bad films like “Dark Shadows” and “The
Tourist.” Here, it always feels like he’s sleepwalking throughout the whole
film.
Surprisingly, Paul Bettany, playing
the best friend character, was the one giving out the best performance. He was
the one who actually felt like he was invested in his work, trying to do what
seems like the most logical thing to do. I wish the film was more about him
trying to cope with the fact he was losing his friend, and just on his beliefs
in science are questioned in his decision.
The film was directed by Wally
Pfister, better known for being Christopher Nolan’s Oscar winning
cinematographer, and it shows. The film is gorgeously shot, and the visuals are
actually stunningly to look at. I can understand the difficulties one can have,
when it comes to transitioning from a cameraman to an actual director, as very
few have done that successfully, especially when you’ve been under the wing of
someone like Nolan.
Overall, “Transcendence” was…disappointing.
I really wanted to like this film, and I was hoping this would be one of those
timeless gems of science fiction. However, that isn’t the case, as it features
stunning visuals and graceful cinematography, as the icing over a cake that’s
made from dull acting, boring direction, and straight up disappointment.
As the
summer blockbuster season draws nearer and nearer, we have those spring
releases that try to get the big cash in, right before the big ones start to
take in the cake as soon as May comes around. And in that run, Marvel has
decided to take in on the task of raking in some dough, by releasing their
newest film, “Captain America: The Winter Soldier.” But before we get to that,
let’s talk about the first film.
In the
times of World War II, Steve Rogers wants to join up to serve and protect his
country. The only problem is, he’s a complete weakling with asthma, so he’s
turned down time and time again. After finally being recruited by a doctor for
testing, he’s given a super serum that gives him super human strength, under
the name, Captain America. At first, it’s just a promotional act for others to
join the army, but when Steve puts his skills to the test, he manages to lead
the people to victor against HYDRA, the Nazi science division, lead by the Red
Skull. Why? Because he’s from ‘MURICA, bitches!
“Captain
America: The First Avenger” was the first film of “The Avengers” series
that I loved since “Iron Man,” and is still my favorite of “Avengers: Phase 1,”
because it had qualities that clicked in best with me. While it wasn’t as
spectacular as it could have been, it was still a very exciting film, showing
Chris Evans can play a stern leading man, after playing the Human Torch in “Fantastic
Four.” It was so good, I actually bought on Blu-ray, being one of the first
films I bought on that format.
Now
that brings us to “Captain America: The Winter Soldier.” After the events of “The
Avengers,” Steve Rogers has been doing his best to catch up on many things, all
while taking on mission assignments from S.H.I.E.L.D. After one mission
involves saving hostages and recovering data info, Rogers believes there may be
something he hasn’t been informed about, as S.H.I.E.L.D. becomes compromised
after the encounter of the Winter Soldier. Now it’s up Rogers to clear his
name, and find out who’s behind this and the mystery behind the Winter Soldier.
Now here’s
the big question you’re probably ask-oh screw it, I FRIGGIN’ LOVED THIS MOVIE!
No suspense here, this was a very enjoyable film! Just about
everything in this film was so damn exciting to watch, from start to finish.
It has good humor, it has kick-ass action, it has a great story, and it keeps
your attention at full force, without a moment of it getting too boring or disinteresting.
The fact that this film came out on my birthday was an even bigger treat, as if
Marvel decided to give me, and others who were born on that day, a surprise
treat.
Chris
Evans returns as Steve Rogers, and he still does a magnificent job. His
performance in this film is a great step up from his previous appearances in
the first film and “The Avengers.” We see more of his interactions with the
modern world, and just how he’s been able to get used to it within the time he’s
been here. Evans has really stepped up his game, and has become one of my
favorite actors after his previous performances. He IS Captain America! It’s
going to be kind of sad, when he retires from the acting job, but it does give
me interest on how well his directing will turn out. We also see the return of
Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, Cobie Smulders as Agent Maria Hill, and
Samuel L. “Bad Mother Fucker” Jackson as Nick Fury, who also contribute well to
the film, more so than when Jackson and Johansson were in “Iron Man 2.” They
play major parts in the story, and they manage to help push it much further,
showcasing many twists and turns in all places.
One of
the newest additions here is Sam Wilson, aka the Falcon, played by Anthony
Mackie. Mackie really managed to make this character very likable, by
showcasing his sense of humor and how to get a job done when the time is right.
It’s definitely a step up from how they did Falcon in the “Avengers Assemble”
cartoon, which was just a stupid toy commercial (which by the way…Disney,
please bring back “Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes”). Robert Redford also
joins the cast, playing Alexander Pierce, a senior leader within S.H.I.E.L.D,
and he does a magnificent job. His character manages to pay tribute to some of
his work in the 1970’s, like “Three Days to Condor.” And why wouldn’t he give a
good performance here? It’s Robert Redford, one of the greatest actors working
today and of all time!
Then
there’s the Winter Soldier himself, who is an incredible force of nature. He’s ruthless,
he’s powerful, he’s mysterious, he’s taking names, and he’s kicking ass. While
people complained there wasn’t enough of him to call this film, “The Winter
Soldier,” I was okay with it. I mean, people said the same thing about Tim
Burton’s “Batman,” but it was still awesome regardless. Maybe this film should
have been called “Captain America: Fuck Yeah!” but what can you do.
Screenwriters,
Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, return from the first film and “Thor: The
Dark World” to write this film, but this time around have a new director
controlling here. Anthony and Joe Russo, who are best known for directing
episodes of “Arrested Development” and “Community,” take helm with this film,
as the action scenes are greatly done, with some kick-ass features to look at.
Only gripe I do have is some of the shaky cam, but it didn’t bother me as much
as it could have. It does make up for it, by showing us that Captain America’s
shield is one of the coolest weapon of the Marvel Universe. Iron Man’s suit, Thor’s
hammer, Hawkeye’s bow and arrow, they pale in comparison to Cap’s shield, as
seen in this film. Nothing left to say, except “I want that friggin’ shield!”
Overall,
“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is so far my favorite of the “Avengers”
series, my favorite film of the year,
and I can’t wait for it to come out on Blu-ray. It proves once again, that “Iron
Man” is still the only one to have weak sequels. And it looks like it’ll be in fierce
competition with “Amazing Spiderman 2,” “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” “Guardians
of the Galaxy,” and “Big Hero 6,” for which one will be my favorite Marvel film
of the year.
When it
comes to feature films, WWE studios seems to be much divided in my opinion.
They’ve ranged from making stupid action films featuring their star wrestlers,
or making incredibly dumb thrillers and horror films that are more comedic than
they are suspenseful. So far, the only good film they’ve had on their track
record was “The Rundown,” but that may be due to them having Christopher Walken
doing what he does best. This time around, we get to their newest installment, “Oculus.”
“Oculus”
tells of two siblings, Tim and Kaylie, who lost their parents over a decade
ago, which Tim was framed for. When Tim’s released, Kaylie takes him back to
the house, with the mirror they used to own back in their possession, as she thinks
it’s what made them lose their parents to begin with. Tim, however, has no
belief in it anymore, but Kaylie still tries to persuade him that the mirror is
cursed and that it was what caused their parents’ death. For a horror film
released in the spring, I have to say I was impressed by it. Instead of most
horror films relying on jump-scares, like the typical found-footage movies, it
builds mostly on suspense and atmosphere to do the scaring for us. And for a horror
film in this day and age, especially coming from like this studio, that’s
saying a lot.
The
best part about this film that comes to mind, for me, is the two main leads.
Karen Gillian and Brenton Thwaites as Kaylie and Tim really deliver strong performances
and the chemistry between them is so believable, I completely forgot I was
watching actors, but rather real people dealing with something of the
supernatural. Watching them allows the view to think, was all of the stuff
happening really the work of a cursed mirror, or if it was part of some delusion
that was going around.
What threw me off for a bit, is
that the film jumps between the present and the past, with no indication of it
being the two years before, but thankfully it did manage to pick up after a
while. The biggest complaint that I had with the film was during the
flashbacks, it does indicate that the mirror is cursed, because I liked the
possibility of it being a delusion shadowing their minds. I was kind of hoping
this would be similar to “The Shining,” where instead of making it obvious that
there are ghosts haunting the hotel, Stanley Kubrick made you think if it was
ghosts or Jack’s insanity finally getting to him. However, it is the mirror, as
it does show in flashbacks with the dad dealing with the mirror’s tricks.
Despite this, the film does
showcase some really tense and spooky moments, like the biting of a light bulb,
and Katie Sackhoff as the mother being the subject of torment to the father,
played by Rory Cochrane from “Argo,” who they themselves give good performances
as well.
Overall, “Oculus” is definitely a
horror film worth watching. While nothing special, like “The Conjuring” or “Sinister,”
it still has some strong moments that are worth viewing, especially when the
Halloween time starts to roll around. Even if it wasn’t all that great, it
would still be better than all of those lackluster “Paranomral Activity” movies.
Screw that crap.
Much
like how “Harry Potter” and “Twilight” gained popularity, having studios adapt
another adult book series to gain recognition, it’s now “The Hunger Games” turn
to take over the spotlight. With 2013, we had “Ender’s Game” take a crack at
it, but sadly due to the author’s political views, the film was a bomb at the
box office, so it looks like there won’t be a sequel. Now for this spring, we
have another possible candidate to pass on the torch, Veronica Roth’s
“Divergent.” Now keep in mind, I haven’t read the book, so I’ll only be looking
at this as a standalone film only.
“Divergent”
tells the story of Tris Prior, a girl who lives in a post-apocalyptic world, where
humans are tested to be part of a certain district in life. Those districts are
Abnegation
(selfless), Amity (peaceful), Candor (truthful), Erudite (intelligent) and
Dauntless (brave). Tris comes from a family in the Abnegation district, but has
had interest in what goes on with the Dauntless. Because of this, when she
takes the test, she comes out as inconclusive, meaning she’s a Divergent, one
that refuses the system. However, nobody knows about this, except for her
tester, and decides to choose Dauntless as her path. Now she goes on to prove
she can be a Dauntless, or she’ll be left to the slums with no redeems.
Now, the big question is did I
like this movie? Well…surprisingly, yes. Is a masterpiece? Hell no, but we’ll
get to that soon. What really works for the film here, much like “Ender’s Game,”
is her trying to fit in with the other Dauntless member rookies, which is
something that we don’t really get that much from these kinds of stories. We
tend to see films where a protagonist is a special force that exists in this
world and then do the whole “savior is powerful” cliché many times over; but
here, we see her just trying to fit in, just so she can live a life she chose
on her own free will. She could have easily picked out a simple life with her
parents, but her choice of going as a warrior, despite not having any fighting
knowledge, added to the investment of the film, as we see Tris turn into this
calculative fighter. It actually felt like I was watching “Captain America”
which had similar elements to it. In fact, the Divergent plot doesn’t really
come into true play until the third act, so there’s time to develop the
characters, rather than just one idea.
Shailene Woodley plays Tris, and
she does a great job in this film. Her reactions and determination in the film
really set the mood and tone for the kind of character she was playing. Not
only that, but she actually does well for someone in an action film for the
first time. Woodley has really proven herself as a great young actress,
especially in her previous performances in “The Spectacular Now” and “The
Descendents.” I really do wish they kept her as Mary Jane Watson in “The
Amazing Spiderman” series, even though she won’t be in the second film. We also
Theo James as Four, a Dauntless veteran and Tris’s mentor/possible lover; while
there is a romance between the two, it doesn’t really come into play until the
near end, but it only happens because they’re chemistry and that they’re both
Divergent hiding. He does add to the film, unlike how most romances between
student and mentor are just tacked on without much reason. I actually did have
some investment in the two, and I really wanted to see much more of it. We also
get some good supporting from other cast members, such as Tony Goldwyn as
Tris’s father, Ray Stevenson as the president of the city, Kate Winslet as a
business organizer and villain, and even from up-and-coming actors like Miles
Teller, Zoe Kravits, and Ben Lloyd-Hughes.
The one actor I wasn’t 100% about was Jai
Courtney as the head of Dauntless. For one, he’s the clichéd dick leader (named
Eric), and his performance is just SO WOODEN. I mean, if you thought he was
pathetic in “A Good Day to Die Hard,” just take a look at the guy here.
Whenever he was onscreen, he really brought the film down. Not only that, the
biggest problem I have with the film is that the third act was a DRAG to get
through, and it got really boring. For a film that’s two hours and twenty
minutes, you could have easily cut a half hour from the film, and it would have
been fine. It made the film which was good, to being less than what it could
have been. But does that make the film bad? No, just not as good as it could
have been.
The film was directed by Neil Burger, who also
directed “Limitless” with Bradley Cooper and Robert de Niro. That film
showcased his talents to a strong extent, with its action, story, and
characters. I can see bits and pieces of it in this film, here and there, but
not too much. I do want to see this film get a sequel though, so I can see much
more of this world and its characters.
Overall, “Divergent” is an okay film to watch.
It’s not the best, but I do wish to see more of it, if they know how to improve
some of the little details. It has a good cast, some entertaining action, and
doesn’t go to some of the old clichés we’ve seen time and time again.
About
two and a half years ago, the Muppets made a MASSIVE comeback, with a film that
showed a lot of heart, dedication, and passion for what made them good, back in
the days of Jim Henson. Director James Bobin, and co-writer and star Jason
Segal showed how big fans they were of these iconic characters, and brought
forth a new light for them, with children of this generation finally getting to
experience what their parents grew up with at the time.
Thankfully,
the film did well enough to warrant a sequel, under the title “Muppets Most
Wanted.” This time around, Kermit and friends sign on to do a world tour with
an agent named Dominic. What they don’t know is that this is all a plan to lure
Kermit closer to a criminal doppelganger, named Constantine, and take his place
to steal the crowned jewels of England. With Kermit behind bars, and
Constantine in his place, it’s now up to Walter and a few others to find
Kermit, and stop Constantine from his dastardly plans. Yeah, it’s another one
of those movies, only it’s with the Muppets this time. But despite being a
cliché plot, it still manages to keep its audience’s attention with great humor
and songs.
The
cast members that are in most of the movie are Ricky Gervais, Ty Burrell, and
Tina Fey. Ricky Gervais plays Dominic Badguy, also known as ‘The Lemur’ and ‘Number
Two,’ because he’s the 2nd best criminal mastermind. It’s the
typical “right-hand man wanting to step out his boss’s shadow,” but at least
Gervais manages to keep the character funny and investing enough, especially at
the end. Ty Burrell plays a European detective who’s working with Sam Eagle,
searching for ‘the Lemur,’ and putting the Muppets as prime suspects. To me,
these two were the best part of the whole film, as their chemistry was
absolutely brilliant and chaotic, that I couldn’t get enough of them. While
there is the joke about Gervais trying to outdo Constantine, Burrell’s
laid-back personality, clashing with Sam’s constant determination is brilliant,
as both are trying to outdo each other, just to see who is more professional for
the job, leading into some really great jokes. Then we have Tina Fey, as the
Russian prison warden that’s keeping Kermit locked up. She’s pretty much the
stern warden character, but she knows every escape in the book to keep her
criminals locked up. Even though she knows that Kermit isn’t Constantine, she
still keeps him locked up, which you need to see the movie if you want to know
the joke. The only problem with her is that, if she’s running the most secure
prison in the world, then how could she not see Kermit’s successful escape,
when she knew every other one of them. We also get great cameos from Chloe Grace Moretz, Christoph Waltz, Tom Hiddleston, Ray Liotta, Danny Trejo, James McAvoy, and Jermaine Clement, which are all very funny appearances.
As for
the Muppets, they still keep in the good spirit they’re in, especially with
Walter as the newest member. I do get the fact that Walter already had his
story arc in the first film, but I think it still would have been nice to see a
bit more of him work off of the other characters. There were some bits that
didn’t seem to click in as well as they did, but I didn’t think it got to me as
much as it could have.
Overall,
“Muppets Most Wanted” is…well, a good Muppet movie. If you like the Muppets,
then you’ll like this film. It’s not quite as good as the last film, but it’s
still to watch.
WARNING: The following contains mature language and
descriptions of imagery not suitable for sensitive ones. If you're under the
age of 17 or uneasy about said imagery or language, then I suggest you click
back to a different page.
Oh who am I kidding,
you'll read this anyway.
Quentin
Tarantino is hands down my favorite filmmaker. Ever since the early 90's he's
become the only director today that still makes original films, as well as
adding his personal blend of hardcore violence and twisted black comedy. Some
say he's a sick motherfucker, but I say he's a sick motherfucker with TALENT.
He knows how to get the right shots, create such quirky and well developed
characters, and have a story that adds a lot of suspense, drama, and comedy in
one film alone. I could go on for hours explaining why guys like me appreciate
him as the definitive worker in Hollywood, and the kind of person only hacks
like John Moore and Paul W.S. Anderson wish they could be him, but I feel I
should do something that isn’t AS straining. So to celebrate the birthday of
Mr. Tarantino himself, it’s time I finally talk about which of his films I find
to be least good to his absolute best. Depending on how these films are ranked,
here are the following rules:
#1: Story - While all his films have great stories, not all
of them have a strong pulling sensation that gets me into it immediately. They
do show much interesting details to them, and it’s only through how well it’s
told that it gets us sucked in.
#2: Characters – Tarantino has made some really memorable
characters since day one, having dialogue that’s just as memorable as they were
since. Depending on how memorable they are and how they contribute to
the story will determine where the film stands as a whole.
#3: Keep in mind that this is all MY opinion. If you have
different selections, then that’s fine, but don’t go and trash me, just because
there’s one film lower than the other. Besides, it doesn’t take away from the
fact this man is a genius. Why would you want to
complain about that?
#4: I'm only counting films he's written…and DIRECTED. If I
include films he had ANY involvement in, then I'd have some mean things to say
in a list that's positive (I'm looking at you Hostel!). Sadly, that means I'm
not going to be talking about “From Dusk 'Till Dawn,” “Four Rooms,” “Sin City,”
and “True Romance.”
But without
further ado, let's count down the Top 7 Films of Quentin “Motherfucker”
Tarantino!
X X X X X X X X X X
#7: Death Proof – Back in the 60’s and 70’s, there was a
subgenre of films, called exploitation films, that were incredibly infamous for
their amount of violence and sex, and usually shown as midnight screenings in
theaters called “Grindhouses.” And what better way to pay tribute to it, than
with a double feature of modern day Grindhouse flicks; one of them, was “Death
Proof,” a slasher film that features a stuntman killing people in and out of
his car. And let me just say, it sounds better than it really is. This is the
film that Tarantino admits to being his worst film, and it really does show. I
know that’s the intention of a Grindhouse flick, that it’s suppose to be
bad…but the main problem is it's BORING. That’s the best way I can describe most of
the movie. The conversations that go on between characters aren’t
the least bit interesting, half of the time I left to get something, there
wasn’t anything that I missed that was important.
There’s also a point in the film where it doesn’t feel
consistent with the film format; it starts out looking grainy as hell, like a
typical Grindhouse flick, but then it switches that for a black & white
look, only for them to switch to the typical look of today just five minutes
after. It really does get distracting, and I wished they had just stuck to the
grainy format, if it wants to keep being a Grindhouse tribute. It also feels like two separate films, with one side being a slasher film, and the other being about strong female characters, but doesn't know which side to truly stick with.
But despite it being boring, is there anything enjoyable
about it? Luckily, there is. We do occasionally get some funny lines from the cast, who they themselves give good performances. One of those
people happens to be the killer, Stuntman Mike; and let me just say, Kurt
Russell owns this role. His charm, demeanor, and everything about him spells out that he’s having fun with this character with every second. Originally,
Sylvester Stallone was consulted for the role, but Russell got it and made the role work
at its finest. That, and the car chases in this film are absolutely stunning.
These scenes really make up for most of the pointless dialogue. The way
characters are killed, and the fact that Zoe Bell is actually hanging for dear
life on that car, make the scenes all the more tense as it goes on. It really
does stand as the best movie car chase in a long time.
If you plan on watching this movie, I recommend getting it on
either the “Grindhouse: Double Feature” blu-ray, or the “Tarantino 20 Years of
Filmmaking Celebration” box-set. Trust me, either one is worth having as part
of your collection…at least for the good parts.
#6: Inglorious Basterds – A film about American Jews hunting
down Nazis? Yeah, that sounds awesome! And that’s how I’d describe “Inglorious
Basterds,” because it’s the fantasy that many Jewish people dream of doing, if
time travel became possible. What makes this film work is just how much the
people are having fun with this film. It’s basically Tarantino’s way of saying
“Fuck history, I can have Hitler shot by Eli Roth if I want!” The attitude and
sheer joy that these people have in their eyes is simply great; or should I say
it’s…GLORIOUS?
There are some really memorable scenes to pick out from this
film, and it has a great ensemble cast to perform it in. You got Michael
Fassbender, Diane Krueger, Mike Myers, and Til Schweiger, all giving
performances that really shine through, adding more to how insane some of these
situations can get. Not to mention, Brad Pitt plays a lead in the movie that I
DON’T hate.
There are about three characters in this movie that stand
out the most here: One is Eli Roth as “the Bear Jew,” and boy does he have fun
here. I find it weird, because this character was originally written for Adam
Sandler, which to be honest, I’m glad he turned it down. Mostly for one reason:
if you’re going to have a psycho Jew beating the shit out of Nazis, you can’t
think of anyone who enjoys torturing people, better than Eli Roth. Another
character that stands out is Melanie Laurent, who plays a surviving Jew that
plans to wipeout the heads of the Third Reich in one go. How does she do it?
Burn them alive in a movie theater, that’s how. With how she handles her
character, it shows different sides of the battle. However, the role that
steals it all is Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa, the Jew Hunter. Where do I even
begin with this guy? He’s slimy, he’s crooked, he’s polite, and he enjoys the
game that he’s in. He’s a character that is aware he’s a scumbag, but has fun
with it, each passing second. I completely understand why this guy was given
the Oscar for this role, and there was no one else who was just as good that
year.
My only complaint with the film is amount of foreign
speaking. Don’t get me wrong, that’s not a bad thing at all, in fact it does
make me want to go study German, French, and Italian; the problem I have is
that for most of the film I’m reading the subtitles. I know it’s a bit of nitpicking,
but when you have scenes of the actors suddenly switched over to English
without notice, it gets distracting, especially when some of the scenes drag on
too long. Aside from that, nothing else is that bad about the film, as it still
has some of the classic trademarks of Tarantino. The witty dialogue, the
violence, and the feet of women…oh yes…the feet.
#5: Jackie Brown – In 1997, Tarantino unleashed something
that will seem rare to his audiences later on: the only film he’s
made that’s an adapted screenplay. Based on Elmore Leonard’s “Rum Punch,” this
film is a tribute to black-sploitation films of the 70’s, as well as giving it
a modern feel to it. “Jackie Brown” is a really slick film that showcases how
good a writer Tarantino can be when it comes to adapting novels to the big
screen. Out of all the films that he’s made, it may in fact be the least bloody, as half of the kills are off screen, off in a distance, or has something blocking the body. When you
look at Tarantino’s filmography today, there’s always a great body count and
maximum carnage there, except for this one. But when you start to think about
it that may be the film’s strong point. It’s a film that focuses more on the
reality of situations such as these, instead of making a big Hollywood
spectacle climax that everyone is used to. It uses its dialogue and characters
to move the story, rather than graphic imagery and violence, and we wonder why
he hasn’t attempted to do that again. Not only that, but the soundtrack is
simply a sugar rush through your ears, with the song “Across 110th
Street” opening and closing the film.
The casting is incredible, as they really delivered some
very heartfelt and entertaining performances. Pam Grier as Jackie Brown does a
magnificent job, and she steals the show with her attitude, the way she handles
the situations around her, and just how she always knows how to get through
really enduring problems when given the right chance. The fact that Tarantino
specifically wrote the screenplay just to work with her, along with the fact
that it revived her career into many other things since then, just shows you
how much passion someone will go just to work with you. Robert Forster as Max
Cherry delivers a performance that was most definitely worth the Oscar
nomination, as the film shows that he’s capable of helping his clients if he
feels that it works the best way. In fact, the best part about this film is the
on-screen chemistry between Grier and Forster, as the two work off each other,
line after line, seeing the development build. I have to give credit to
Tarantino for making the ending so mixed, but at the same time incredibly
satisfying. Now, we can’t have a great Tarantino film without our main man,
Samuel L. Jackson. He plays Ordell, the black market gun salesman, and he
delivers a great performance as always, giving out a really antagonistic
performance, which we don’t see too often from him. To see BMF Jackson take on
the role of a sort of bad-guy is as enjoyable as it can get, showing no mercy
to whoever tries to weasel him out.
We also get to have some great moments, featuring Bridget
Fonda and Robert DeNiro’s characters, as it ranges from them either smoking
weed to kitchen sex, and just waiting for DeNiro to reach that breaking point in
the third-act. Not to mention, we also get Michael Bowen and Batman himself,
Michael Keaton, as they play the duo of cops that tend to harass Jackie on
whether or not she’ll help them on catching Ordell red-handed.
So after I’ve said this film has many elements that do work
from Tarantino’s excellent film-making to the on-par cast, what didn’t I like
about the film? Just one thing: the pacing. The pacing in this film feels
unbalanced, making it feel slow and dragging on for far too long. It’s
disappointing, since the film does have genuinely memorable moments that stick
out strongly, but for a film that’s two and a half hours long, it feels like this could have done better if it was shorter. Now don’t get me wrong,
this doesn’t make the film bad, far from it; it just means it’s not as great as
I expected it to be. I haven’t read “Rum Punch” and I hear it’s an excellent
book, so maybe my opinion might change after I do, as it’ll give me a better
standard of how well the film stayed true to the source material. But even
then, it’s still amazing, no matter the flaws.
#4: Kill Bill – After the hiatus he took when he finished
Jackie Brown, Tarantino's return became a 6-month long event that could not be
missed, featuring not one but TWO films. It is the same movie, but split into
two separate volumes, hence the titles of “Volume’s 1 & 2.” But when you
put the two together, or you prefer one volume over the other, you can’t deny
that “Kill Bill” is one of the biggest homage films you will ever see in your
life. The reason for it is that it pays tribute to almost everything, from
martial arts movies, to anime, even to old western flicks.
The saga is all about revenge…pure, sweet, agonizing,
revenge. After being gunned down by her former boss and partners, Beatrix Kiddo
re-awakens from her four year coma, and goes on a journey to hunt the people
who took away her baby. And soon after, it’s great scene after another. One of
the biggest complaints I’ve heard about this film was that it feels out of
order, as they throw you into the story without explanation, only to have the
blanks filled in at Vol. 2. While that is true, I feel like it fits for what
they were going for. Remember, Tarantino IS the man who started out the trend
of taking turns and twists with formulas, so I just go with the decisions made.
What really makes it interesting is that this is the only
film that has no true connection to the Tarantino universe, other than being a
movie. In fact, this is rumored to be the pilot that Uma Therman’s character in
“Pulp Fiction” worked on. And that’s what really pulls this story to its
fullest, being Uma Therman as Beatrix Kiddo. For most of the film, she has this
stone-cold look on her face and a deadly stare, to where if she looks at you,
you’re already dead. Then there’s David Carradine as Bill, who really showcases
his talents here, without doing much until the end. It really is a shame he
left us, because I could have seen him do so much other work with not just
Tarantino, but films in general. There’s also great work from Michael Madsen,
Daryl Hannah, and Lucy Liu as well. The only one I didn’t get much out of was
Vivica A. Fox, who was good as well, but I would have loved to have seen more
of her.
Other than that, the saga is still a blast. From what I’ve
heard, there are no plans for a “Kill Bill Vol. 3,” which to some is a
disappointment. Honestly, I’m okay with the decision, since it’ll allow
Tarantino to give out much more original work in the future.
#3: Reservoir Dogs – That’s right, the film that started off
the Tarantino generation had to be at least in the top 3. “Reservoir Dogs” is a
film that shows no restraints, as it starts off the trends of disregard for
simple storytelling, and has the film in an order that may seem a little
disjointed at first, really kick in once you reach the thirty-minute mark. And
it’s a very small premise too: a mobster wants to pull a heist, he hires some
men, and then shit hits the fan.
For the most part, this film really only focuses on three
guys, as their given the most descriptive stuff to them. For example, Orange is
a cop, White’s an old friend, and Blonde’s a jail bird. Other than that, we’ve
also got some intriguing mystery to other characters as well, particularly Mr.
Pink, played by Steve Buscemi. You never find out his name, or any of that kind
of stuff; all you know is that he does his job the way it needs to be done, and
that his book reads “survival” every stretch of the way. Let’s not forget, we
also have Mr. Blonde, better known as Victor Vega, played by Michael Madsen.
Dear God, this guy is psychotic; by that, I mean he goes the extra mile just to
get someone out of the picture, even if it means burning them alive or cutting
off their ears. It’s brutal, but just how it’s performed is unintentionally
hilarious. For a film that started out the trend of Tarantino’s traits of
memorable dialogue and characters, it set off the future for what will soon be
an Oscar winning writer. Speaking of which…
#2: Pulp Fiction – Yeah, you knew this was coming, and how
could you not? This film became a landmark for all things that cinema will be
willing to follow for the rest of the time past this film. Let’s go over the
list: Memorable characters? Check. Scene after scene of fascination? Check.
Quotable dialogue that almost everyone would get in almost any conversation? Was
there any doubt? “Pulp Fiction” is a film that has an aura of amazement and
ground-breaking achievement that up until then hasn’t been seen in films.
The cast in the film is one of the best ensembles I’ve seen,
as they showcase their talents at their fullest. The biggest surprise to me in
that regard was John Travolta as Vincent Vega, the brother of Vic Vega in
“Reservoir Dogs.” This film gave me a second glance at Travolta as an actor,
and is one of the few times I feel he deserved the award nominations he got…the
good ones that is. However, it’s not just he who does extremely well in the
film, but everyone else. We all know this is the film that really defined Sam
Jackson’s career, despite appearing in a few Spike Lee films and “Jurassic
Park”; the Bible preaching, the philosophy talks, and the amount of “fucks”
that come out of his mouth is all in glorious Sam Jackson magnificence. It’s
too bad he hasn’t received an Oscar yet, because he has showcased how talented
he can be aside from the big budget blockbusters. Not to mention, Uma Therman
also had a big jumpstart for her career as well, getting both Oscar praise and
roles in future films, such as the Bride in “Kill Bill.” There’s also Ving
Rhames, Eric Stotz, Bruce Willis, Christopher Walken, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer,
and at one point, Phil LaMarr.
Now some may argue that Tarantino didn’t necessarily direct
this film, as he just let the actors just do their shtick without that much
restriction. In that regard…you’d be right. But my response is, “is it really
that bad thing?” When you look at it, it’s not that often you get to see a film
where you see actors really calm with what they do, and just feel free to let
the moment direct itself. The main purpose of “Pulp Fiction” is its dialogue,
as it’s what really makes a Tarantino film, which is why that might be the
reason he got the Best Screenplay Oscar and not one for directing. For some of
his other films, that’s where I think he should have gotten more recognition
for it. However, whatever way you look at it, it doesn’t take away the fact
that the film is an instant classic that’ll go down in history with greats,
such as “Citizen Kane,” “Casablanca,” and “Vertigo.”
Now I know what some of you are thinking: If neither “Pulp
Fiction” or “Reservoir Dogs” is #1, then does that mean...? And the answer is “yes.”
#1: Django Unchained – While some you might be outraged on why this
is at the top, here's my response:
How could this NOT be number one?! This film just brings out almost everything that makes it an entertaining,
tense, and well-developed story that makes it irresistible and exciting to watch. Even
though I'm a person whose not to fond of the subject of slavery and usage of
the 'n' word, Tarantino found a way to make it
work for such a film as this. His style of film making shows the best written characters that he could possible write, especially for a story like this. It’s a revenge
story, plain and simple, and we’re taken on the journey that Django and Dr.
King Schultz travel along, killing some of the most ruthless of wanted men.
Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leon DiCaprio, Kerry Washington,
and Samuel L. Jackson really give it their all here, being either smart
3-Dimensional heroes, or just the most evil sons of bitches you'll ever see on
film. Foxx has really evolved as an actor, showcasing he can do more than just
impersonate Ray Charles. He’s cold, blood hungry, and the type of guy who will
take advantage of his freedom to kill the men that wronged him in every
possible way. Waltz also returns after winning his Oscar in “Basterds,” and
honestly, I don’t think he’ll be able to top this performance. He always has
words of wisdom about bounty hunting, and manages to always have an ace, or in
this case a gun, under his sleeve in many situations. Not only that, but I’m
really jealous of his beard; I mean, LOOK at that thing. While Kerry Washington
isn’t in the film as much, she still manages to leave an impression on us,
simply through her expressions than dialogue. We see the torment she goes
through in her eyes, and it leaves us to the imagination of what torment she’s
been put through off screen. Then there’s Leo; oh god, this performance he
gives is quite possibly his best. He chews the scenery so much, that I couldn’t
believe there was any of it left. This is also one of the few times that he’s
given a performance that actually scared me out of my seat; I mean, the guy slams
his hand onto a glass, it’s bleeding all over, and he STILL goes on his rant.
That’s what I call dedication. Then we got Samuel L. Jackson once again, and he
really brings up his a-game here. Honestly, since he’s in his 60’s, some
actually figured this is what his age is supposed to make him look like. And
that’s what really makes him intimidating, is that even though he’s an old man,
he can really get under your skin and bring up the worst of fears in you, just
from that cold-blooded stare of his. It really makes you think who the true
villain is, DiCaprio or Jackson, and I was really disappointed none of them
were nominated for an Oscar for these performances. Then again, it was a tough
year, so I can’t blame them.
There's also the fantastic soundtrack, which out of all of
the others on this list, this one fits the mark the best. It's a mix of old
Western themes, two-in-one remix, and much more. This is the Tarantino film
where I can’t find any scene in it that’s the least bit boring, and I feel that
future viewings will prove the same.
In fact, all these films that he’s made prove that to me,
even if there are some complaints that I have with them. I hope people can see
why guys like me enjoy directors like him, and how much of an influence he can
have on people.
Also, Mr. Tarantino, if you’re reading this, I hope these
words will let you change your mind about “The Hateful Eight.” Even if the
first draft was leaked, you can still change it around and still surprise
people. If not, then I do hope that whatever you do next turns out as
spectacular as ever.
I’m Eric Turpel, and my favorite Western of all time, is
“Django Unchained.”
