Django Unchained

Django Unchained (2013)

Predicted Rating: 5 Stars

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill). Starring Jamie Foxx (Ray, Horrible Bosses), Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds, The Green Hornet), Leonardo Di Caprio (Inception, What's Eating Gilbert Grape) and Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane, Jurassic Park).

Set three years before the start of the civil war, Django Unchained tell the story of a bounty hunter, Dr. King Shultz (Waltz), who is in the process of tracking down the Speck Brothers. In his travels, he comes across Django (Foxx), a slave who knows the whereabouts of the brothers. After collecting their bounty, Shultz and Django go in search of Django's wife, Broomhilda Von Shaft, who is owned by the ruthless Calvin Candie (Di Caprio).

Now, I am just throwing this out there early, this is going to be a terrible review. Most of my good ones come from movies that are bad, for example Snow White and the Huntsman. For those reviews, I can attack the movie with reckless abandonment, holding nothing back. I assume after reading such review, all those involved in the movie go home, cry in the corner, and make some sort of rash deal with the devil so they never make a bad movie again. With Django Unchained, there is nothing bad I can say about the movie. As a result I will try my best to make a good review.

I suppose we will start with the inevitable, a ranking system comparing this Tarantino movie to all his previous movies. I know most critics will be doing the exact same thing, however, I think it is warranted. Tarantino movies are an enigma in their own and cannot be accurately compared to other movies. They are so different to mainstream movies in their feel, style and themes that they have really created a sub-culture of their own. Many have tried to emulate the originality and genius of Tarantino but failed miserably. This may be because people require the visualisation of the Tarantino name in the credits but never the less he has really created his own genre. In the Tarantino standings this one ranks somewhere in the middle. That is not to say this is a bad movie at all, it is just his other movies are absolutely fantastic. Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill Vol 1. are my number one and two favourite movies of all time respectively. Inglorious Basterds is a favourite among many. So in the end, I think Django comes in number 4 after the three aforementioned films, just ahead of Reservoir  Dogs. It is definitely his funniest movie he's made with a plethora of laughs from the bag scene to the almost comedic violence. However, it seems to lack the originality of say Pulp Fiction and the ingenious of Inglorious Basterds. Also, at 165 minutes, it outstays it's welcome by a tad.

I do love it that, for the majority of Tarantino's movies, he can be ridiculously racist but always come out to appear as the good guy. The use of the N word in this film is rife. I saw a proposal for a drinking game that called for a drink when such word is said, something I believe would kill even the most experienced of drinkers. However, it is used as such a derogatory term in the movie that you associate it's use from anyone as them being the bad guy. Some are saying that the film is even racist against white people. I can agree that all the enemies in the film are white but it is in no way racist. It might be racist against rich white males between 1840 and 1858, they aren't really a race though.

In the end, this is a fantastic film. Not for the faint hearted but definitely worth seeing. It won't go down in history as Tarantino's best effort but it will still live on in pop culture for a long time coming. Bring on the DVD release!

Overall Rating: 5 Stars

Next Time: Most likely Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

Hitchcock

Hitchcock (2013)

Predicted Rating: 4 Stars

Directed by: Sacha Gervasi (Anvil! The Story of Anvil). Starring: Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs), Helen Mirren (The Queen), Scarlett Johansson (The Avengers) and Jessica Biel (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre).

Hitchcock studies the relationship between Alfred Hitchcock (Hopkins) and his wife, Alma Reville (Mirren), during the filming of his most successful, and controversial film, Psycho.

Now being the time of year, the subject matter, and it's cast I'd assume that Hitchcock is a blatant Oscar grab. I held that opinion till about 5 minutes ago when I read the Oscar nominations and realised it didn't receive one nomination, not one! Well that has just blown the first part of my review out of the water. I was going to analyse the performance of the actors and director to underlay my opinion that the Oscars are a farce and how the Oscars these days are never the best movies of the year because the people who select them have the memories of goldfish. Well can I criticize/praise the actors' performances anyway? Yeah why not.

I think the performance of Hopkins at Hitch was quite good. He did an admirable impersonation. At the start I thought, well he is trying too hard and he is playing stereotypical Hitch. More I think about it however, that is what he was really like, and Hopkins nailed it. I do think his performance is worthy of an Oscar nomination, he probably doesn't deserve to win, but the academy should have given him some kind of nod. Now, I don't like Helen Mirren at all, even on the best of days, so she is going to have to do something very special here to change my opinion of her. Unfortunately, she did not. I mean she was solid, but as not holding a high opinion of her to start with, I went in expecting not to like her performance. This means, on more than one occassion, she pissed me off. Finally, there is Scarlett Johansson playing the blonde bombshell Janet Leigh. Now I enjoy her talents as any other man, but in this film she is just plain boring. All she does is follow Hitch around and agree to his every word like she is a little puppy. Leigh might have been like this in real life, but at least add a bit of spice to the role. I did also like the performance of James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins but, just like this sentence, he is not utilized to his full potential. 

Since it tells the story of one of the most suspenseful, and quite frankly, one of the best films ever made, does this biopic properly encapsulate the epicness of the original. In one word no. Hitchcock, at times, seems to be dull and boring. I don't know, maybe as it was about the making of a horror film, I subconsciously wanted to watch a horror movie. However, I was stuck with a drama film, and to tell you the truth, I am generally not a fan of drama films. As a result, I sat through most of the film thinking I would much rather be watching Psycho right now.

Alright lets talk shower scene. Since it is one of the best scenes, wait change that, the best scene of all time is involved here, it should be the focus of this film. And it is, but does it do the original justice? Well... it does! Horray! Everybody wins! Just like in the original, it really is the highlight of the film. Yes, there is Scarlett with no clothes on, but the real stand-out from Hitchcock, is the performance of Anthony Hopkins during the scene. Here you get to see and feel the raw emotion of Hopkins whilst keeping his flawless impersonation of the great man. Even with the great performance from Hopkins, you still feel like it is still all about the scene, rather than Hitch, because it is built up for such a long time. My criticism is that they should of played the original scene at the end of the movie, over the credits. I mean a scene that scared people out of doing a basic human need for a long time should deserve a significant amount of credit.

It also got me thinking, there are three well known films that are inspired by the murders of serial killer Ed Gein. And I mean these aren't just any three films, these are three of the best movies ever made. They, of course, are Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Silence of the Lambs. There probably aren't too many people, especially outside the US, who would bat an eyelid if you mentioned the name Ed Gein, but a lot of people would have seen, or at least heard of, those three movies. This is probably a good thing, as it is never a good thing to popularize people based on such heinous crimes.

Overall: A reasonable film depicting one of the great directors, however, I couldn't help thinking I'd much prefer to be watching Psycho right now. 2.5 Stars

Next Time: Gangster Squad, yay Emma Stone!




 

2013 Preview

2013 Preview

Here are the 10 movies I am most looking forward to seeing in the upcoming year. In an attempt to create some expense, I will start from 10 and work my way down.

10. The Lone Ranger (4th July)
An adaption of the 1960's western TV series starring Johnny Depp as Tonto. Hi-yo Silver away!

9. World War Z (20th June)
A post apocalyptic zombie thriller that mixes elements of Dawn of the Dead and The Jason Bourne series starring Brad Pit

8. Paranorman (10th Jan)
Cool looking animation that gathered a lot of media with it being too scary for kids and almost given an R rating 

7. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (7th Feb)
Just looks like an awesome concept

6. Pacific Rim (11th July)
A Guillermo del Toro directed film based on big monsters fighting bigger monsters

5. Oz: The Great and Powerful (7th March)
A prequel to the Wizard of Oz directed by Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead series) and starring Rachael Weiz, Mila Kunis and Michelle Williams as the three witches.

4. The Evil Dead (2nd May)
A remake of the first installment of one of the greatest horror series of all time. The trailer looks full on, not for the faint hearted

3. Django Unchained (24th Jan)
Fullfills Tarantino's dream of making a Spaghetti Western. Starring Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio.

2. Star Trek Into Darkness (16th May)
Its a Star Trek movie, do I need to say more

1.  Carrie (14th November)
A remake of the 1976 adaption of the Stephen King classic. Perfectly classed with Chloe Grace Moretz playing Carrie and Julianne Moore as her crazy mother.

Wreck-It Ralph

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Predicted Rating: 2.5 Stars

Directed by: Rich Moore (The Simpsons). With the voicing talent of: John C. Reilly (Step Brothers), Sarah Silverman (The Sarah Silveman Program), Jack McBrayer (30 Rock) and Jane Lynch (Role Models)

After 30 years of playing the bad guy, Wreck-It Ralph (Reilly) is sick of playing second fiddle to the titular character and hero, Fix-It Felix Jr. (McBrayer). To gain the respect of the occupants of the building he constantly destroys, Ralph starts his search for a medal from another game. He finds himself in Hero's Duty, a Halo style first person shooter, where the player fights a swarm of enemy bugs (ala Starship Troopers) to win a medal. Ralph finds the medal but proceeds to crash the escape pod, along with one of the bugs, into the karting game Sugar Rush. Here he runs into Vanellope von Schweetz (Silverman), a glitch in the game who's goal is to win the race that decides the characters for the game the next day. Vanellope enlists the help of Ralph to build her kart and prove to King Candy that she is not just a glitch in the game, but a legitimate racer. Felix and the squad leader in Hero's Duty, Calhoun (Lynch), find that a bug has escaped into Sugar Rush and has the potential to destroy not just that game but the entire arcade and must destroy the bug and rescue Ralph.

Oooooh a kids movie. It has been a very long time since I have watched a new kid's movie at the cinema. I mean I have undertaken some nostalgia lately by watching Home Alone and The Labyrinth but I think the last new kid's movie I saw was Monsters vs. Aliens, which I believe is the culprit for bringing back the 3D craze. Kid's movies have changed a lot since my glory days of the early nineties. Since Toy Story and Shrek, these movies have massive budgets (Tangled is the second most expensive movie ever made at $260 million, with this movie at number 45 at $165 million), and a big name voice cast. They also have to be both entertaining for the kids as well as the adults that take them along. As a result I will conduct this review in two parts, one as if I was a kid watching, and the other part as the adult. I will start as the kid...

Wow, look at all the pretty colours. The animation style in this movie is fairly unique, and downright awesome. There is a vast abundance of vibrant colours, which will mezmorise the kids. Obviously you aren't going to walk out of the cinema, ask your kid "what did you like the most" and they say "Well Geeves, the clever use of the colour scheme was something that appealed to me vastly." However it will keep them occupied for a significant period of time without them knowing. There were also some cool animation techniques, such as the glitch and mixing up the styles depending on what game you were in. 

Oh no she said a naughty word. Now the character that appeals most to the kids is Vanellope von Schweetz, mainly due to her potty mouth. Now as an adult, this is fairly annoying at the start, but the kids will love it with words the consider risque like doddie and stinkbrain. But, I may be completely wrong as when I was 8 I would find this hilarious, but kids these days are a lot different. I was going to make the joke to show the kids Silverman's most famous work, I'm Fucking Matt Damon, but they have probably already seen it. Anyway, she plays the role of the down and out kid that rises to triumph at them end. Oh no spoiler alert, wait no, there is a character like that in every kids movie.

Now to review it as an adult. I thoroughly enjoyed this film, mainly due to the nostalgia factor. There was the introduction of a few characters where I went yes! Like having Bowser and Diablo at the bad guy convention, as well as having the ghost from Pac-Man as their leader. Mainly it appealed to the nerd gamer inside me. However, the aim of these movies is to entertain the parents that take their kids along. I am not sure whether Wreck-It Ralph fails at this because gamer nerds and fathers of children don't really go hand in hand. However there are a vast abundance of jokes (mainly puns) that will keep the adults entertained.

Like I do most of the time, I went and watched this movie by myself. Before anyone pikes up and says that I am weird for doing so, I have a theory. You sit in a dark room where you are not allowed to talk so why would you bother going to a movie with anyone else. Anyway, being a kids movie, there were a shit load of kids there. As a result I felt fairly awkward sitting there by my lonesome. I was trying to make my presence as inconspicuous as possible, something that was blown almost immediately when I woman proceeded to knock over my frozen coke and make a huge scene of it. My presence was also made obvious several times when I laughed at several jokes that no-one else got, such as comparing Fix-It Felix Jr. to contractors and Skrillex as the DJ at their party.

Also as a result of there being heaps of kids there and their extremely short attention spans, they began to get extremely restless after about an hour. I am not saying my cinematic experience was ruined as extensively as the Paranormal Activity movies, but I would have felt a lot more comfortable watching it from home. There was also something cool I saw walking in, they provided booster seats for the younger kids so they could see. I am thinking I could steal one next time, and being 6 foot 2, piss off who is ever sitting behind me.

In summary, Wreck-It Ralph is a great movie for both adults and kids. There is a solid story without it being too outrageous that you become confused. It is also perfectly casted with the stars chosen because they are suited for the roles as opposed to being there to have their name on the credits. All I can say is I am looking forward to watching this again when it comes out on DVD.

Overall: A thoroughly entertaining movie for all ages, 4.5 Stars

Next Time: Off to watch Hitchcock tonight in my "I am shunning Life of Pi evening"


How do you like them apples?

2012 In Review

Every Movie, Every Rating

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey:  Not a good as it should have been and just a money maker. 3.5 Stars

Red Dawn: Pitiful excuse for an action film, gets its stars purely based on Chris Hemsworth's manliness. 1.5 Stars

Skyfall: Typical Bond film. 3.5 Stars

Dredd: Surprisingly good and simply badass. I am the law! 3.5 Stars

Paranormal Activity 4: I love these movies too much to give it any other rating. 5 stars

Bait: Terrible, terrible film. 0.5 Stars

The Watch: An all star cast couldn't make the weak plot shine. 1.5 Stars

The Expendables 2: 102 minutes of testosterone. 3.5 Stars

Total Recall: No where near as good as the original but still gives it a red hot crack. 3.5 stars

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter: Poor attempt at what could have been a really exciting film with an original concept. 2 stars

The Amazing Spiderman: Haven't I seen this recently somewhere before? 3 Stars

The Dark Knight Rises: A perfect ending to the fantastic Christopher Nolan Trilogy looking at the dark side of the legend. Top 100 Movies of All Time

Ted: Just like a good episode of Family Guy, inappropriately awesome. 4 Stars

Snow White and the Huntsman: How does Kristen Stewart have a career in acting? 2 Stars

Rock of Ages: Awesome soundtrack, weak story. 2.5 Stars

Prometheus: Not many people liked this film but I loved it! 5 Stars

The Dictator: Better than Bruno, but light years away from Borat. 2.5 Stars

Men in Black 3: Solid effort, better than the second but not as good as the first. 3 Stars

The Avengers: Box office winner for the year, appeals to everyone. I thought it lacked one or two things so I couldn't give it a perfect rating but it was close. 4.75 stars

Battleship: Surprisingly good mainly because Rhianna keeps her mouth shut and the sound is awesome, needs to be watched on a massive screen with awesome surround sound. 4 Stars

Chronicle: Tries to squeeze the last little bit of life out of the found footage genre. 2.5 Stars

Mission Impossible 4: Tom Cruise taking a beating for 2 hours so if you like that kind of thing... 3 Stars

The Hunger Games: Way better than I expected due to it's target audience but I am still unsure whether I am cool with kids killing each other for entertainment. 4 Stars

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Great take on the now infamous millennium trilogy with a distinctly Se7en feel. Performance of a lifetime by Rooney Mara. 4.5 Stars

21 Jump Street: Massive surprise. Jonah Hill is at his hilarious best and who thought Channing Tatum could be funny. 4 Stars

John Carter: Box Office Bomb of the year and deservedly so. Just like the date I was on at the time of viewing, dull and boring. 1.5 Stars

Underworld: Awakening: Underworld movies are never good, but hey Kate Beckinsale in leather. 2 Stars

The Devil Inside: One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Exemplified by the fact there was only two of us in the cinema and the old lady sitting infront of me after the movie turned around and said worst ending ever. 0 Stars

Iron Sky: As with Lincoln, fantastic concept but not well executed. 1.5 Stars

Piranha 3DD: Tries to be one of those movies that are so bad they are good but fails miserably. 0.5 Stars

Cabin in the Woods: Unique take on the traditional horror movie format. 4 Stars

Awards
Now, lets dish out some awards. There are you standard ones but I will see if I can come up with some unique ones

Best Movie: The Dark Knight Rises
Worst Movie: The Devil Inside
Best Male Performance: Mark Whalberg and Seth MacFarlane in Ted
Worst Male Performance: The Hoff in Piranha 3DD
Best Female Performance: Rooney Mara in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Worst Female Performance: Kristen Stewart in Snow White and the Huntsman
Best Director: Joss Wheedon for The Avengers
Surprise: 21 Jump Street
Disappointment: The Watch
OMG Marry Me Now: Emma Stone in The Amazing Spiderman
This is Fucking Awesome: The anticipation for the Merman in Cabin in the Woods  
And Now Make-Out: Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel in Total Recall
Brown Pants Time: The ending to Paranormal Activity 4
Oh He is Actually Funny: Channing Tatem in 21 Jump Street
I'd Consider Switching Teams: Chris Hemsworth in Cabin in the Woods, The Avengers and Red Dawn  
   

Jack Reacher

Jack Reacher (2013)

Predicted Rating: 3 Stars

Directed by: Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects, Valkyrie). Starring: Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Mission: Impossible), Rosamund Pike (Wrath of the Titans) and Robert Duvall (The Godfather, Apocalypse Now).

The film kicks off with a lone sniper gunning down 5 seemingly innocent, unrelated people in broad daylight.Whilst allegedly in protective custody, the accused shooter, James Barr, is brutally bashed into a coma, however beforehand he asks for one thing, Jack Reacher (Cruise). Reacher is an ex army officer who has been drifting around the country essentially unsighted for years. Upon his arrival, the defense lawyer of Barr, Helen Rodan, enlists the help of Reacher to help her acquit her client.

This movie seemed really confused. Not sexually, but with it's feel, what it was all about. It was violent, but not really that violent, funny but not really that funny. The violence factor is a defining moment for the movie. There are a lot of people drawing comparisons with the sniper scene to the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook, something that is hurting the credibility of the production. That scene is really not that violent and I have seen much more up front similar scenes. Another scene that reiterated the violence shambles was a scene where, to show his dedication to his life, the fallen gangster had to chew his own fingers off, just as the main villain had done in the past, or be killed. Now in my personal opinion, the impact of the scene would have been far greater if he did chew off his fingers, and then get shot anyway. Instead he just gets shot. With the humour, the writer threw in a few funny jokes but they seemed to be hidden and skipped over. I will use an analogy I experienced recently to emphasize my point. I was giving a presentation at work where I threw a few jokes in. Halfway through I realised the mood of the audience was not as free wheeling as I anticipated. As a result I skipped over a joke. At the end of the presentation, one of the audience members asked me why I decided to exclude the joke because he thought it was quite funny and appropriate. So I learned a valuable lesson that day, the same which can be applied for this movie, if you have a good joke, make sure you accentuate it.

Despite it's fast paced, forever changing plot, the thing that confused me the most was the status of some of the characters. I am not sure if it was the performance of Cruise, who was quite good I thought, but Reacher just seemed too Bond like. He was trying to be too suave but not really pulling it off. Everything he did seemed to be perfect, even down to his attackers completely missing him with crowbars and baseball bats on numerous occasions. Then there was the lawyer. She seemed to normal, and quite frankly boring. She needed to be the stereotypical character, with Reacher being unique, in order to distinguish this film from series like Bond and Bourne. Either have her as the ditsy damsel in distress that needs to be rescued all of the time, or the head strong mature girl that fixes all of Reacher's mistakes. Unfortunately she was a bit of both and a bit of neither. Finally, and most importantly, she needed to fall head over heals in love with Reacher. There are inklings of this occurring but in the end she forgets all about this and he goes on his merry ways whilst she is left to clean up the mess

Speaking of the plot, it was fairly solid. There was a good starting point, plenty of twists of turns and an ending that leaves you wanting more. One criticism was that every thing seemed to perfect. There was not one mistake made my anyone, and as Homer once quoted when he was made aware of the whereabouts of a once missing Maude Flanders "Well everything is wrapped up in a neat little package." One thing I really liked was the car chase. Not because it was unbelievably epic, but the cars handled like they would handle in real life. The Audi, driven by the enemy, moved around the corners with relative ease, whilst the Camaro, driven by Reacher, handled like an American muscle cars, powersliding around every corner and seemingly moments from spinning out. 

I am not sure if it was on purpose, or anyone else noticed, but I saw something that was a massive gaff on the part of the editors. District Attorney Alex Rodan (Richard Jenkins) was discussing the case with his daughter, Helen Rodan. Half way through a sentence, you hear a car drive by in the background. Jenkins pauses, seems to lose his place, then resume with the conversation. Now, here you would expect this to be a plot device with the car coming into play and say, attempting to gun down either of the characters. However nothing. What the hell. If I picked this up, surely you would have at the time and yelled cut and restart the scene. If not it would have been picked up in the editing room and cut out. Who knows, maybe the car was part of the scene but it was cut for one reason or another. Look out for it if you watch it and let me know if you saw the same to make sure I am not going crazy.

The big question is, as there is an extensive series of books, will there be an extensive film series. The short answer is no, the long answer is I doubt we will even see one sequel. I was predicting this movie to be the first box office flop of the year, with comparisons drawn to Sandy Hook and other big draw cards such as Les Mis and The Hobbit, people might be reluctant to see it. However I have just looked it up and it seems to have made it's money back, just though. Still, this is a decent film but I would probably wait to see it on DVD, it would make a good I can't be bothered doing anything else Saturday night movie

Overall Rating: Confused not confusing 3 Stars

Next Time; Ah the choices. Three fantastic movies out Thursday, Paranorman, Hitchcock and Gangster Squad. I also haven't seen Les Mis or Wreck it Ralph either so it all depends what mood I am in.


By the way, a perfect candidate for Rule 34 called Jack Reaches Around