Django Unchained

'Adult supervision is required.'

                               Am I the only person who's thinking gang wars are getting a bit camp?

DIRECTOR: Quentin Tarantino

CAST: Ray Charles, Colonel Hans Landa, J. Edgar Hoover (cross-dresser), Alicia Masters, Nick Fury and lots of racist people...

PLOT: Jamie Foxx's 'Django' (the 'D' is silent) becomes a bounty hunter with everybody's favourite German, Christoph Waltz (playing 'Dr. King Schulz'). They end up shooting a lot of white people in a bid to get back 'Django's' wife (Kerry Washington) who is enslaved by Leonardo DiCaprio's psychotic plantation owner 'Calvin Candie'.

The idea of myself writing a review on a Quentin Tarantino film strikes me as a little one-sided. As a huge Tarantino fan, I go into every one of his eagerly anticipated films expecting to love it. But fuck feeling biased, there's a reason why I and so many others enjoy his work - because it's fucking awesome. And the fact that this latest offering of violent Tarantino goodness is not far off from grossing $200 million worldwide means many others agree. Certainly not bad for a film with an '18' certificate (rated 'R' for you Yankees).

But 'Django' is simply the same case as any Tarantino film - the majority of his fans will undoubtedly love it, he might convert a few haters to fans, he'll definitely win some new one's who are yet to sample any of his previous films and most of his haters will continue to hate.

But people who hate Tarantino's films surely do so because of personal preferences. At the end of the day, nobody can say that he is a bad filmmaker.

Visually, 'Django' is absolutley stunning - often beautiful, completely taking full advantage of the brilliant scenery, and often harrowing, as the themes and events that surround slavery aren't shyed away from. He continues to outdo himself with explosive and stylish soundtracks - utilising songs that should really not work but somehow work like a treat. The dialogue is as good as it gets - very intelligent, and often extremely funny, which is surprising considering the subject matter. Despite all of the terrible things that happens in the film, I dare you to state that it isn't entertaining, or even hilarious at certain moments - a stand out comedy moment is when the fantastic Don Johnson and his mob of pre-KKK racists are arguing about not being able to see out of the shabby hoods. 
   
But Don Johnson isn't the only outstanding performance from the quality cast. In fact, it's simpler to say who's performance was bad - nobody's. Fuck, even Tarantino had a fun cameo as an idiot Aussie who gets tricked. Jamie Foxx is perfect as the titular character. Considering that Will Smith was originally lined up for the role, after the viewing it is deemed positively impossible for anyone else to embrace the character as he does. Foxx is both charismatic and even morally innocent as he shoots anyone who crosses his path. DiCaprio is terrifying as the eccentric 'Calvin Candie', truly inspiring casting as beforehand I would never have been able to imagine him in such a sadistic, but yet hugely entertaining role.

Samuel L. Jackson continues his impressive form of appearing in every movie ever made with more consistency. His character, 'Stephen', is possibly the most intriguing - a black man who is racist to other black people, who pledges his alleigance solely with 'Candie'. He switches back and forth from 'Look! Point and laugh at the funny talking, uneducated ignorant racist' to 'Woah, shit... he's pretty fucking scary'.

But the man who steals the show, much like Tarantino's previous film 'Inglourous Basterds', is and was always going to be... Jonah Hill. I joke of course, Christolph Waltz is your man. He's still just as vicously entertaining, charismatic and enthralling, even though he's not playing a villain, which came as a surprise. He just oozes cool and you are always in safe hands. He definitely deserves another Academy Award.

                                            DiCaprio was unsure as to whether or not it was 'Hammer Time'...

A lot of controversy has surrounded Tarantino's latest film (yeah, because that's new). I can't help but feel the need to weigh in my opinions on the debates that surround 'Django', which might hopefully spark some healthy and insightful debates.

Starting with the ongoing, never-ending debate of violence following the whole hilarious argument that transpired on Channel 4 when QT was interviewed, my opinion is very simple. Violence in cinema is fun when it is presented in this way - over the top ultra-violence that captures every speck of blood flying through the air in a visually beautfil yet horrific way. Anyone who is familiar with Tarantino's work is accustomed to it, you know you'll be getting a lot of blood. I haven't been as excited during a single action sequence in quite some time, but I was literally on the edge of my seat during one of the late action sequences which was shot amazingly. 

But the main debate surrounding 'Django' is the alleged racism, and more specifically, the extensive use of the 'N' word. Yes, the word is used a lot throughout the film. But in the context of the film's narrative and setting, plus the fact that the film is a long one, the word doesn't seem used for the sake of it. Back then, the word was used all of the time, and Tarantino is simply representing that terrible time. If the director was black, would anyone bat an eyelid? Nobody accuses John Carpenter or Wes Craven of being serial killers due to the fact that they make slasher films. So because Tarantino has racist characters in his films that use a degrading word, it doesn't make him racist.  

I even read one review earlier that accused Christoph Waltz's character being a subject of 'white guilt' because a white man has to help 'Django' on his quest for revenge. A plausible argument, perhaps, but the fact that Samuel L. Jackson plays a horrible black man wasn't mentioned is telling. The point that is being made is that regardless of skin colour, you can be a wanker. 

But away from all of the debates and controversies, this postmodern homage to the Spaghetti Western genre is a must for all Tarantino fanatics and buffs of the classic genre. Whether or not it's up there with his best, I guess I'm not brave enough to say so. But for me, picking a least favourite film of his is akin to picking the least nicest boob... when you come right down to it, they're all bloody nice.

* * * * *

Les Misérables

Wait a minute... this isn't a film about miserable lesbians!

                                                    'My beard is made of adamantium.'

DIRECTOR: Tom Hooper

CAST: Doctor Cox's most hated actor, Maximus Decimus Meridius, Catwoman, Amanda Seyfried chicken, Marilyn Monroe's piece, Andy Tveit (you what?), Borat Sagdiyev, Bellatrix Lestrange, 'I'd Do Anything' to Samantha Banks and that girl from the poster. 

PLOT: A bunch of depressed French natives (portrayed mainly by actors with strong English accents) sing about how shit life is whilst 'Jean Valjean' (Jackman) is on the run from a man who takes the law to heart a little too much - police inspector 'Javert' (Crowe).

My two favourite film musicals are Tim Burton's 'Sweeney Todd' and Trey Parker's and Matt Stone's 'South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut'. So it's definitely fair to say that I'm not really a huge fan of musicals. But as I found the trailer for 'Les Misérables' very powerful and the fact that it has been nominated for Best Picture at the Oscar's, I thought I'd give this a try.

I knew very little about the narrative before going into this film, and I have no previous experience with the source material, all I know that is was orginally a novel and was then adapted to many much-loved theatre productions. And that seems to be its main issue - it is essentially a play. The only difference is the fact that shots cut, the performers are well-known and the production values make huge and lavish sets. But I can't help but make the preconception that that's where the differences seize to exist. I suppose someone who has experienced a production of the play would have to shed some light as to whether or not the film actually does anything different with the material.

But as a film, it is still quite impressive. The production values, as said, make brilliant sets and locations in which the cinematography often shines (just try and ignore the shots where the green screen is painfully obvious). Technically, the film is well made. However, as far as evaluating a film that screams 'PLAY' at you, there's little else to analyse cinematically - only the story (which has already been written) and the performances (in which the people behind the camera largely have to hope that the actors get right).

Tom 'The King's Annoying Fucking Stutter' Hooper made a brave choice to record all of the actors singing live on set instead of taking the more conventional, safe option of having them sing in a studio. The decision doesn't always hit the mark, but when it does it does so brilliantly. It gives the actors the chance to improvise their movements, to really feel the emotions - when a voice breaks due to the tears, that's for real, and it is often beautiful to see. But the decision doesn't always hit the mark because not all of these actors are amazing singers.

Hugh Jackman, the star of the show and an already proven singer due to his stints on Broadway, is excellent when 'Valjean' evokes pure power and emotion in his voice, but he tends to struggle and keep your attention in the more low-key numbers. Russell Crowe is good when he has to stick to the one tone but is uncomfortable with anything else - the highlight of his performance is a comical sound effect which is made due to his selfishness which won't be discussed any further due to spoilers. But as Crowe's 'Javert' is essentially the villain of the piece, perhaps he can get away with delivering the least amount of emotion in the songs. What's Amanda Seyfried's excuse?

Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter are both welcome comic relief from a story that is so downbeat even setting fire to rabbits would be regarded as comedy in comparison. Their performance of 'Master of the House' will bring some much-needed smiles to your face as they both rob and cheat for money. Marius Pontmercy (Redmayne) and Enjolras (Tviet), the student protestors leading the revolution both sing magnificently. The scenes of revolt are my personal favourites due to the feelings of liberation and defiance as the characters refused to mope around feeling sorry for themselves.

But there are two certain women who are battling it out to steal the show with particular scenes. Hathaway's rendition of 'I Dreamed a Dream' is stunning, she is deserving of the praise heaped onto her and even the coldest hearts will have to try their best not to feel any hint of sadness. It is in her performance where the decision to record the vocals live really comes to fruition, as the shot hardly cuts from her teary face and as she swings from croaky voiced defeat to all out bravery. But the real surprise may have been Samantha Banks in her big screen debut, who's glorious performance of 'On My Own' is truly heartbreaking.

                                        The annual fox hunt had gotten a little bit out of hand.

I couldn't help but feel like a heartless bastard at the end though, as almost everyone around me was bawling their eyes out as the tragic ending took place. The reason the melo-drama never touched me is down to the fact that it's relentless. Apart from the fun to be had with Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter, the whole thing is a sordid affair of sadness. It's overwhelming to an extent where the drama no longer feels dramatic, as with an action film with non-stop action is rarely always exciting, or a horror film that tries to scare you every other minute hardly ever succeeds in doing so. 

And as the running time does begin to drag, as the low-key songs are never performed as well as the all out, give-everything-you've-fucking-got songs, you are left waiting for long stints of time to see something worth waiting for - be it a solid performance from Jackman or a gut-wrenching song from Hathaway. 

But perhaps for me on a personal level, a film in which spoken dialogue is at a bare minimum, the musical genre had just become too much for me. This isn't a film that I will be rushing to see again, but you can bet that I will be searching for particular songs - 'I Dreamed a Dream', 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' and 'On My Own' as well as a few others, on Youtube. However, there is something to be had here, not so much fun, maybe excitement, or perhaps it's just a film for people who like to feel. This is a film for a certain type of person, and that type of person isn't difficult to find - not many films, even the best ones, are viewed in the UK and manage to render a round of applause. But for me, I guess that I'm just not that type of person. Yet as a musical, there still was some enjoyment to be found. 

* * * 

Gangster Squad

Yes, you read it correctly... that seriously is the title of the film.

                                                     Sean, there's somthing on your face... never mind.

DIRECTOR: Ruben Fleischer

CAST: Tommy Lee Jones from the past, a potential Backstreet Boy, a glass of Harvey Milk, Gwen Stacy, the freak from 'Ted', typecast Mexican, the soon-to-be The Falcon, Joel Edgerton's and Tom Hardy's dad and the T-1000.

PLOT: A few minutes on Google will show that this film is very, very, very, very, very very loosely based on a true story (to the point that they use the name 'Mickey Cohen' and use the city of Los Angeles). So yeah, it's hardly true at all. But still, 'Gangster Squad' is about a group of cops who set out on using dirty tactics to take down the crime lord Mickey Cohen.

Fun and entertainment are the words of the day and if you're going into 'Gangster Squad' expecting a masterpiece then you're probably best to see some of the other cream of the Academy crop that is available at the beginning of a year. But if you're tiring of the Oscar darlings in which a film must be about US presidents, terrorists or mental illness, then look no further than a welcome break of switching off your brain.

As with any film that opens with a man being torn apart by cars, it's not exactly going to be the most intelligent or experimental experience; instead it's a gangster movie that indulges in over the top violence, corrupt officials and characters that are too cool to ask questions before they pull the trigger. 

Josh Brolin is the grizzled, hard looking, straight edged leader of the squad who cares about nothing but upholding the law by any means neccessary. He's the perfect man for the part, with his chiseled jaw and appearance that hints that he can handle himself in a spot of trouble. But despite the rest of the squad being filled up with quality actors, they are only given simplistic and minor backstory - a family man, an old dog, a protégée, etc. 

Underdeveloped characters still manage to hold charisma though, thanks to the heavily talented and likable cast; especially Ryan Gosling's ladykiller 'Sergeant Jerry Wooters', who underwhelmingly recites intelligent dialogue because he knows his handsome looks are enough to pull Emma Stone, of all people - yet he's still somehow likable. It's just a shame that the romance never amounts to much at an emotional level. Her damsel-in-distress is mainly there to be used as a vital narrative tool, rather than form a well-rounded character. 

Actually, that's where 'Gangster Squad' lets itself down the most, when the tone shifts and the 'Squad' have stopped shooting people. The cast is more than able to deliver emotion, but with an uneven script like this it doesn't prove to be easy. The dialogue is cool and cheesy, always enough to 'woo' and take a woman to bed, but it doesn't go any further than that.  

The stand-out character is arguably Sean Penn's 'Mickey Cohen'. He's an egotistical mob boss who wants it all, so he doesn't exactly need to be well developed. Aside from the heavy make-up which is a little bit distracting, Penn doesn't look as if he's had this fun acting in a long time, as he portrays the sadistic boxer 'Cohen'. He's ruthless and a complete mental-case - a complete joy to watch.

                                          'No ma'am, I didn't like 'The Amazing Spider-Man'.

'Gangster Squad' may have worked better if it was presented in a grittier fashion, with less slow-motion and polished visuals - especially a sequence of shots in which Sean Penn and Josh Brolin manage to get their hands on shotguns in the thrilling climatic scene. But the glossy style of the cinematography is much like the narrative - unsubtle with all guns blazing. And if you're happy with that sort of thing now and then, 'Gangster Squad' will prove to be a favourite with many.

You might be tempted to suggest that Fleischer should stick to comedy, but even his first follow-up to ‘Zombieland’, ’30 Minutes or Less’ failed to live up to its potential. Maybe with the below positive welcome to ‘Gangster Squad’ from critics, it might be time to treat us to a second delicious helping of ‘Zombieland’.

But any film with the title 'Gangster Squad' isn't trying to fool you. It's not out to win awards, it's not trying to impress the niche markets. At the end of the day it’s cheesy, clichéd and in many ways style over substance, but you can tell that’s how it’s supposed to be as it proudly wears its heart on its sleeve. It’s not trying to be the next ‘Goodfellas’ or ‘LA Confidential’. It’s trying, and succeeding, to be good old fashioned popcorn fodder fun.

* * * ½







 

Life of Pi (3D)

What's wrong with the title 'Life of Piscine'?

                                Tag-team inter-species wrestling matches are all the rave on international waters

DIRECTOR: Ang Lee

CAST: Pi (who isn't actually the tiger!), Richard Parker (is the bloody tiger?), the police officer from 'Slumdog Millionaire' (that's where he's from!), Tabu (not really a swear word), French guy (do you mean Russian?) and the really stupid character from 'Prometheus' (no, they're not all stupid!)

PLOT: Pi (full name Piscine Molitor) is travelling to Canada on a ship with a fucking zoo. Well the ship gets wrecked (and it's already a better film than 'Titanic') and Pi gets stranded on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. Because y'know, cats hate the water.

'Life of Pi' has a lot of religious subtext and relies on it heavily at the beginning to add meaning to an already amazing story. But even this won't piss off the most devout Atheist (me, then) because it is used so well that it thematically adds a sense of wonder and spirit to the film (like it ever needed anymore of that). It's heart-warming to see the young 'Pi' lap all the different religions that he can, so innocent that he doesn't lap up the reason why so many of them struggle to respect one another. With that in mind, this isn't just for religious people.

'Life of Pi' begins in a zoo with a brilliant opening credits sequence in which we see many of the doomed animals before travelling to Canada is even a thought in 'Pi's' father's head. I would have happily watched the animals do their thing for two hours in 3D. So, with the wide range of creatures that feature in the film, animal-lovers will surely get a kick from this; as also, the animals are regarded to with such love and admiration. They're just important as the human characters. But likable newcomer Suraj Sharma, having to act on his own for a fair chunk of the film, as obviously having the tiger actors on a boat with him would have been unethical (pussies) is so amazing as 'Pi' that the film isn't only relying on our four legged friends. With that in mind, this isn't just for animal lovers and tree huggers.

It's easier to say that anyone who isn't a bastard will enjoy this film. It's such a journey that will take you through so many emotions - as it's never boring, sometimes funny, often dramatic, occasionally sad, extremely tense and always beautiful. 

Much of the beauty comes from the themes explored, but what is most notable is the aesthetic quality, especially from Ang Lee's use of 3D - the moment we discover that the 'Richard Parker' is on the lifeboat is one of the best uses of 3D that I have ever seen in a cinema. You must see it in 3D! (Never thought I'd be saying that). 

The whole thing seems like fantasy, and unbelievable to the extent that you're thinking that the screening should be full of children (it was me and four old ladies in the whole room). However, what really struck me afterwards is that everything that happens is very unlikely, but nonetheless still possible. Quite frankly, you'd have to see it to believe it.

                   The tag-team duo lost their championship and subsequently faced off for a grudge match

Suraj Sharma is the main target for critical bumming, and rightly so, he's brilliant. But Irrfan Khan as the older 'Pi' also gives a strong performance as he tells his incredible tale to a writer. However, where his voiceover usually works with the feeling of the film, it does unfortunately take away a lot of the drama and emotion from an ending that could have been much more. Voiceover didn't work on that occasion, the visuals would have been enough to express the heartbreak and emotion on its own.

Other than that 'Life of Pi' is an exceptional feat of both filmmaking and storytelling. Ang Lee has made a film that many believed to be impossible. But like the story - even though it was very unlikely, it was nonetheless possible. Quite frankly, you'd have to see it to believe it.  

* * * * ½




  
 

Jack Reacher

Tom Cruise playing a character that is written as 6' 5"... what could go wrong?

                                                                   Jack Reacher - all 250 lbs worth?

DIRECTOR: Christopher McQuarrie

CAST: The third gayest vampire in cinema, cleavage, John McClane's son, black King Henry VI, John C. Reilly's dad, Werner fucking Herzog (I've got nothing)...

PLOT: Some nutcase goes on a seemingly random killing spree with a sniper (arguably not the best time to feature something like that in a film after last year). Man the fuck up anyway, just as Jack Reacher does. He comes to investigate why an old army acquaintance would do such a thing, and in the process uncovers something much more sinister.

I don't like 'Top Gun'. I don't like 'War of the Worlds'. I don't like 'Rock of Ages'. I fucking hate 'Interview with the Vampire'. In short, despite always respecting him for his enthusiasm, especially when it comes to stunts - I didn't like Tom Cruise as an actor.
 
But I'm willing to admit when I've been a prejudgemental twat. I was wrong, this man can act. Still not my favourite actor, but thanks to his performances in 'Collateral', 'Valkyrie', 'Tropic Thunder' and now this, 'Jack Reacher', I admire his acting talent. I'm a stubborn bastard, so kudos, Mr. Cruise. You'll never win an Oscar, but my blessing is far more valuable.

So, despite my jokes aimed at Tom Cruises' stature, you may think that I'm a fan of the 16 'Reacher' novels and that I'm disgusted by his casting. Well I've never read any of the books (although, I do now mean to seek them out) so I've no issue with Cruise playing the eponymous anti-hero; and his class when it comes down to handling action sequences speaks for itself. Pretty good for a 50 year old man.

Plus, any film title that is simply the name of the protagonist rests heavily on the lead actor's shoulders. Cruise not only holds it, he carries it to the finish line with ease.

This question is to those that have already seen the film - do you want to be 'Jack Reacher'? If you're answer is 'no' then you're a pussy, liar or both. You're a pussy-liar.

Because 'Reacher' is one of the coolest characters unleashed on the screen. He's effortlessly charismatic, uncontrollably handsome, annoyingly intelligent and surprisingly funny. Plus, he can kick sixteen shades of shit out of you. All of the fight scenes are realistic, but they're performed by a man who has been trained to not only hurt, but to kill - so you never know what might happen in a game of fisticuffs. He even goes as far as beating a criminal with another criminal. Yet, it's still realistic. 

This is down to McQuarrie's shooting style, which is strong and assured. He doesn't go all Greengrass on you, but the pacing of the action and the timing of the cuts will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Also, get ready to witness one of the best car chase scenes in recent memory. It is shot with such confidence and skill, you will be fooled to think that throughout the entire sunday drive that the actors are always behind the wheel. But with Cruise on set, you never really know. The sequence is also boosted because of the inspired choice not to include music for the scene. You just hear the heavy sound of Cruises' illegally obtained muscle-car engine, the burning of rubber and the determined faces of all of the characters involved will have you believing that you're sat in the passenger seats along for the ride.

McQuarrie has been given a gift of an adaptation though, that's for sure. Some may argue that it would have been more difficult to screw the film up. The original material involves such an interesting character with morally ambiguous intentions (as far as authority sees it, anyway) where he'd sooner kill criminals then hand them into the police, a fantastic storyline that won't necessarily keep you guessing to the end but will keep you engaged and snappy dialogue that rattles around the cast brilliantly (cashier regarding ID - "Well I need to see something"; 'Reacher' - "How about the inside of an ambulance?").

The majority of the support give strong performances, although Herzog is laughably underused, as he is supposed to be the main antagonist. Instead realtive newcomers Jai Courtney and David Oyelowo (you what?!) impress more so. Look out for Courtney in the next 'Die Hard' instalment, sure to be a reliable leading action hero in the near future.   

Some may think it starts a little slowly, but it soon speeds up. Some of the same may also be expecting a no-holds barred action thrill-ride (they can't be blamed due to the trailer). Instead, which will come as a surprise, we get something more intelligent and grounded with a great detective story. 

This is the first film that I have properly sat down to watch a film all year (I blame 'Homeland' series 2 and university work). They say start the year as you mean to go on, so if films that I view for the first time this year continue in a similar fashion, I will certainly have no arguments.    

The books keep being churned out by Lee Child only to be greeted by success. The film has already made double back from what it cost. Cruise and McQuarrie have spoken about the possibilities of a sequel. I cannot wait to see where the inevitable film series will take us.

* * * *