"Django Unchained" Review: Mr. Tarantino--You Had My Curiosity. Now You Have My Attention!

God bless Quentin Tarantino. Now this, ladies and gentleman, is a director that's going to do whatever he wants to do, and does not give a crap what other people think every time. And because of that, the state of cinema is much better for it. 

As a hardcore Tarantino-fan, I feel a bit biased reviewing this one, simply because I figured I would like it anyway. But I honestly did not expect to love it as much as I did. Nevertheless, as bias probably comes into the picture, take my opinion here with a grain of salt.

"Django," much like "Inglorious Basterds" and "Kill Bill" is a revenge movie. As a revenge movie, it's a bit of a cross between the gritty tone of "Basterds" and the cartoon-like nature of "Kill Bill."The basic premise is simple: a slave named Django (Jaime Foxx) is recruited by a German bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) to find a gang called the Brittle Brothers, who only Django has personally seen. Once they've killed the Brittle Brothers in a relatively short span of time, Schultz decides (being personally responsible for Django's freedom and feeling a strong opposition to the principles of slavery in general) to help Django rescue his wife from the clutches of nefarious plantation owner Calvin J. Candie (Leo DiCaprio).

The movie belongs to Waltz and DiCaprio. Both are incredibly charming, particularly Waltz, who acts a bit like Django's Obi Wan Kenobi. His earnest nature, and his affection for Django is something admirable in the film. Not to mention that watching how skilled he is as a bounty hunter is pure fun. It's really hard not to root for him, especially as his is the dominant voice of the White abolitionist in the film. Nevertheless the fact that he basically goes after and murders criminals still puts him in enough of a morally grey area, so he does not come off as a complete saint. On the "evil" side, DiCaprio does a magnificent job as the primary antagonist of the film, veering between charming, and completely bat-crap crazy and menacing (particularly during the climactic skull cracking scene). Jamie Foxx is, sadly, the weakest of the leads. That's not to say he isn't good, he's very good, he just loses his luster in the presence of such fantastic actors, like DiCaprio and Waltz. Foxx gets his moment to really shine in the last third of the movie, where his actual revenge is being conducted. But of course by then, Waltz and DiCaprio are out of the picture. Nevertheless, as far as gun-fu is concerned, Foxx's scenes are arguably the coolest, best-choreographed gun-fu scenes in cinema since Rodriguez's "Desperado" way back in 1995. So of course, given the fun action set pieces, you'll be rooting for Django every step of the way. On the supporting front, Kerry Washington plays our resident damsel in distress, which is a bit lacking in terms of character development, overall. But hey, at least she took the initiative to learn German for the role, so props to her on that. We also have a magnificently devilish turn from Samuel L. Jackson, who's role embodies the worst case scenario in a film like this: an African American servant who promotes and condones slavery because he, himself is not a slave, and is a friend and ever loyal ass-kisser to DiCaprio's Calvin Candie. This is no Nick Fury role, I assure you. We also have some fun scenes with Don Johnson and Jonah Hill as a pair of goofy KKK members (yes, ridiculous as that sounds, it actually works in the movie, trust me), and Tarantino himself has a fun little Looney Tunes-esque cameo sort of scene involving dynamite. 

One of the best things about Django is that it's actually a really funny movie. The humor is trademark offbeat dark/racist Tarantino, but there's a lot more of it in this film than a film like "Basterds." Nevertheless, I found myself cracking up out loud at various scenes. In fact, I had the pleasure of seeing the movie at the Tarantino-owned New Beverly. So prior to the film, we were treated to vintage trailers of spaghetti westerns, gladiator grindhouse films, and blaxploitation films, and even an off color Looney Tunes short about Southerners. And while watching the film, it made sense why--there are scenes that approach the realm of Looney Tunes cartoonishness that surprisingly just work in marvelously hilarious ways. But I assure you, as you'd expect from any film about slavery, or any film written by Tarantino, this is no light film. The same warped sense of explicit raw violence and tension filled, absorbing dialogue that we've come to expect in Tarantino films is present. The aforementioned skull cracking scene is the biggest standout for me, reminiscent of the Mexican standoff bar scene in "Basterds"--by the way, this scene belongs to DiCaprio, fully. A few other scenes that stood out were the training montage, where Shultz teaches Django to become "the fastest gun in the South." And the final third of the film where Django comes back to Candyland to take care of some unfinished business.

Now, surely, we cannot talk Tarantino films without referencing the music and the editing. As only expected, we're treated to an unusual mix of anachronistic musical choices with vintage scores, which perfectly fit key scenes. We get  rap songs like Rick Ross's "100 Black Coffins," and the James Brown/2Pac mashup "Unchained" mixed with traditional spaghetti western scores and original compositions like "Ancora Qui" by Ennio Morricone and Elisa. It's quite a brilliant mix of fresh and existing music tracks--in fact this may be the first time I've seen a Tarantino film with original music. But all of it works brilliantly in the service of the film, it's universe, and it's overall tone. As far as editing is concerned, we do very much miss the work of late, frequent Tarantino collaborator Sally Menke. But the film's editor, Fred Raskin (known for his work on the Fast and Furious franchise), still does a great job of slapping the movie's scenes together with enough explosive kinetic energy, that it honor's Menke's high-energy spirit.

In a nearly 3 hour movie, I was engrossed and engaged the whole time. Tarantino just has a gift for capturing and holding your attention for the entire length of a film, regardless of how long, and Django is surely no exception. I realize this is shorter than my other reviews, but the truth is, I honestly had zero problems with this movie. And the only thing I really had to say is, even though it's not as brilliant as Tarantino's magnum opus ("Pulp Fiction") or as daring as "Inglorious Basterds," it's still great! So much so that this completely belongs in my top 3 of the year. It's Tarantino being Tarantino, and dear god, we never want that to change.

Overall Grade: A

"This is 40" Review: This is 40 Minutes Too Long

While there's nothing horrendously wrong with "This is 40," I couldn't help but find myself wanting to leave the theatre 2/3 through the movie. I'm a huge fan of Judd Apatow, and I very much enjoyed "Knocked Up," so getting a chance to revisit the enjoyable characters from that enjoyable film when this project was announced was welcome news. Having said that, Apatow has missed the mark of the "Knocked Up" and "40-Year Old Virgin" standards. "This is 40" unfortunately skews towards the "Funny People" side of the Apatow spectrum, and that's not a good thing. Luckily, dear readers, it's not as turgid as "Funny People." Granted, I got what Apatow was trying to do with "Funny People," which is mostly NOT what he's trying to do with "This is 40." But it's just not nearly as good as Apatow's best, sadly.

The biggest problem for me with "This is 40" is that, while "Virgin" and "Knocked" had a story and trajectory to follow, "This is 40" just sort of meanders and rambles incoherently. There's a pseudo-story, which I suppose is fitting for a so-called pseudo-sequel, about Pete (Paul Rudd) being in debt after starting his own record company and struggling to promote an aging Graham Parker, while Deb (Leslie Mann) discovers she's pregnant, and the effects of these occurrences on their marriage/family/lifestyle. But for the most part, it's not concerned with really resolving this issue, so much as showcasing several vignettes of random circumstances in this couple's day-to-day lifestyle. The results are often funny, in ways only Apatow really excels at. And as such, it's a plus. Some standout scenes include Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd's hash-brownie-infused mini-break, Rudd asking Mann to basically give him a visual prostate exam, and a montage of Leslie Mann's visits to various doctors (including the really warped OBGYN from "Knocked Up"), and a few others. But it's really not enough to save the movie from completely dawdling on without an objective or real purpose. Funny vignettes are good, but I'd really like it better if the jokes paid service to an actual story.

The performances are fantastic overall. Mann and Rudd are game for another go, both keeping consistent with the characters established in "Knocked Up," while showing enough growth to reflect their attempts at making these characters a lot more realistic than your average comedy archetypes. The writing for Deb and Pete is also very real and sobering, so props to Apatow on that. But it wouldn't work out if not for Mann and Rudd. John Lithgow and Albert Brooks are also amazing as the fathers of Deb and Pete, respectively. Brooks really gets a chance to strut his comedic talents in ways we haven't seen in years. And Lithgow does a lot with a fairly limited role (which is the point of his character, as a neglectful father to Deb). Jason Segel and Charlyne Yi also both return as Jason and Jodi from "Knocked Up," but oddly enough, they're a lot less funny this time around. Charlyne honestly gets a little grating at times, doing her best to mug the camera with her "I'm so incoherently hopped up on substances it's supposed to be over-the-top funny" but a lot of her gags fall flat. As does Segel's, who fares better than Charlyne, but this certainly isn't his A-game, sadly. Oddly enough newcomers Megan Fox and Melissa McCarthy end up doing better. This might be Fox's best performance to date (not saying much, but it's like having an F-student son or daughter score a C+, so yay for her!) as Desi, the suspected crooked employee at Deb's boutique, who helps Deb realize her inner-fun side. And McCarthy doesn't have too much screen time as the mother of the teenage boy Deb's daughter has a crush on, but her scene in the principal's office with Mann and Rudd is one of the best written, hilarious scenes of the movie. And of course, one of the highlights of the movie, Apatow's own children, Maud and Iris, reprising their roles as Deb and Pete's daughters, who are quite good for young actors of their age. Iris in particular has some of the more adorable/heartwarming scenes in the movie, while Maud is hilarious, capturing the essence of the crazy, moody teenager, complete with "Lost" obsession and newly dropped F-bombs.

The writing, as stated before, tries to capture reality, and does a good job of it. And when it's funny, which is often, it's very very funny. But the lack of story and the dragging pace really affected my enjoyment so much, that regardless of how funny or real the movie was, I just sort of wanted it to end. I was on board for the first 90 minutes, but then it really just ended up continuing, but, ironically enough, it all led to a very rushed ending that felt like there was no resolution or proper conclusion for all the issues introduced in the film. And perhaps Apatow's point was that there are no easy answers or easy resolutions to things in life--particularly when you're 40. And I'm guessing his intention was to make things as realistic as possible rather than giving us a happy-go-lucky Hollywood ending. But why? Why couldn't we have that? It worked for "Knocked Up" and "40-Year Old Virgin."  So why couldn't we have it here? The movie just ends with Pete and Deb summarizing a game plan to fix their issues, and that's it. A long film with lack of real direction, that leads to nothing satisfying. To me that just wasn't good enough, sadly. And overall that's how I feel about the movie.

Now I can't outright hate the film, considering the movie's humor and great performances, but I think this could have been salvageable with a good, more focused story and a tighter running time. I mean "Virgin" and "Knocked" were long too, but with a real story objective we were invested in the length and the pacing. Since "40" has no real goals or story; we're just going through skit after skit, and all of it feels overly long. It's efforts like "Funny People" and "This is 40" that really make me miss Apatow from the "Freaks and Geeks" to "Knocked Up" days. Let's hope the next project becomes a return to form.

Overall Grade: B-

"Zero Dark Thirty" Review: Good Pseudo-Companion Piece to The Hurt Locker

When The Hurt Locker came out in 2009 and swept the Oscars, I found myself a bit puzzled as to why. I mean don't get me wrong, in its own right, it's a good enough movie. But to me it definitely wasn't deserving of the Best Picture title, and I felt like the praise it was getting was due to post-9/11, anti-terrorism sentiment.  I honestly also believe that this is the same reason ZDT is getting all the praise it's receiving. It's swept the Boston Society of Film Critics awards, the National Board of Review awards, and the New York Film Critics Circle awards so far, and I wouldn't necessarily say it's deserved. That's not to say it's not a good movie. It's perfectly fine. In fact, I'd say I'd place it in my top-5 of the year. But to call it the best movie of a year in which films like Looper and The Perks of Being a Wallflower have come out--well, let's just say I wouldn't honestly. I can give 2 very high forms of praise to ZDT, however--1) that I found it a lot more engaging than the Hurt Locker, and 2) Jessica Chastain gives one of the definitive performances of the year in the film.

Straight to the point, Zero Dark Thirty is essentially a revenge film--on a nationwide standpoint and on a personal level. On a national level, obviously, the movie is about Seal Team Six and the CIA's initiative to go after Osama Bin Laden. The film explicitly begins with pure audio--real calls made on September 11th, 2001, reminding the audience of our nation's greatest tragedy, and why this mission within the narrative matters. It's a nice artistic touch on Bigelow's part, if not a bit on the nose. However, as Americans, we understand why this was so important for us; why we needed to spend all this time, money, and resources on to find Bin Laden--essentially, revenge and closure for the world's biggest terrorist attack. This is the mission Maya is on for half the movie. However, the other half of the movie takes a very personal turn for Maya, as their mission ends up getting a few close people to her killed. From then, we understand completely, that Maya's motivations, as well as the film's tone, shifts to become a personal revenge story. From there we are completely with Maya, engrossed in her mission to find and kill Bin Laden, one part because of Maya's personal story, and the other because of Chastain's commanding tenacity on screen. Here is a character with one motive on her mind, but a million and a half emotions and internal conflicts. She's devoting several years of her life for this manhunt, to the point where at the end she doesn't know what to do with herself when the job is done--actually similar to Jeremy Renner's compelling character Sergeant James from The Hurt Locker. At this final moment, this is where the movie becomes a perfect companion piece to Hurt Locker. And Chastain pulls all of this off so well. We get the eager rookie. We get the obsessed professional. And we get the determined, damaged point person of the mission, fighting tooth and nail for what she believes in. The movie is driven by Maya's character. And it's benefited by Chastain's powerful performance embodying this character.

As for the story, overall the entire exercise is engaging, but there are serious moments where Kathryn Bigelow tends to dawdle. Yes, many of these scenes are necessary for the overall plot and the execution of the mission from this team led by Maya, but you can't help but want her to get to the point at times--much like The Hurt Locker as well. We get many scenes and are engaged with the detective work the team is doing to find all every single lead to Bin Laden. But a lot of times, some of these scenes tend to go nowhere or tend to go somewhere ridiculously slowly. However, when it all pays off, and when we finally get to the climax of the film, the full raid on the facility where the team believes Bin Laden is hiding at, the movie sucks you in completely. The tension is so high, your mouth drops. And Bigelow films all of this with stunning expertise. It's as if she logged in a million hours of Call of Duty, just to suck you into the action of the events taking place. It's tense, it's fun, it's poignant. Mark Boal's screenplay also never forgets to show the grittier, more despicable sides to this manhunt, as the first quarter of the film focuses exclusively on the "detain and torture" side of the mission. These scenes are incredibly realistic and conflicted, in some ways, both supporting and opposing the position of torturing prisoners to get results. However, per Boal during the post-screening interview, it was never his intention to insert his or Bigelow's personal opinions on the topic, but rather expose the intensity and desperation required to get this job done by all parties involved. And it's because of this that the conflicted nature of the scenes works so well. As stated before though, it's something of a chore to get from the torture scenes to the raid at the end. We get a lot of great acting, a lot of great strategizing, and a lot of emotion, which is fantastic, but it's on such a slow-burn kind of pace, that you get a bit impatient. However, again, it's fascinating and involving to watch as a whole, as the entire thing pays off gracefully and intensely.

Again though, as engrossing a film as it can be, it also feels as if the sole intention of the movie is to promote patriotism. I haven't seen a film with so much "Go America" sentimentality since Team America World Police (which I know was ironic--as is my comment obviously). Yeah we root for the good old U.S. of A, but does that mean this deserves to be the Best Picture of the year because of it? I somewhat think not. I simply can't get behind the idea of ZDT as the BEST picture of the year if the only thing driving that sentiment is in fact an overwhelming sense of patriotism. However, for its own merits as an engaging fact-based story, as well as Chastain's performance and her amazing character that drives the movie, I think I could definitely get behind it as ONE of the better films of the year.

Overall Grade: B+

"The Hobbit" Review: (Been) There, And (Glad to Be) Back Again

It feels good to be back in Middle Earth. It really does. 9 years ago, 2003's "Return of the King" was the last visit we took, and to this day, all of us still remember the trilogy with fond thoughts of sweeping landscapes, epic battles, out-of-this-world effects, and most of all amazing storytelling. I'm happy to say this "return" feels very welcome. 

To address the elephant in the room, I initially saw this movie at Hi-Def IMAX 3D at 48 FPS. For me, it sucked. It made the make up look hokey and obvious and the CG look like a PS3 version of Skyrim. To the movie (and Peter Jackson's) credit, it didn't kill the story for me as it did for more obsessed critics. However, it did prove to be distracting, rendering everything as if it were a PBS documentary (terrible). Nevertheless I enjoyed the movie overall--in spite of 48FPS. So much so that I felt the need to see it again in regular blurry 3D at 24 FPS. Much better. Some things still looked less convincing than they did with the original trilogy, but overall, it was much less obvious than when I saw the movie at 48FPS. Therefore, moral of that rant (at least my humble opinion): save your money, see it the way you saw the original trilogy. 

Now that that's out of the way, let's get to the fun part: the actual movie.

Jackson does what he does best--brings the world of Middle Earth to life. These settings and the feel of it all is familiar, but again, welcome. Visually, this is the same world we saw 9 years ago (albeit on perhaps a slightly smaller scale since this admittedly is a smaller story than the original), so we essentially keep consistent with the world we already know. This is very comforting since that's exactly what we expected when these movies were announced. It's a universe we love, one we're comfortable with, and one we always wanted to revisit since the credits rolled on the final film. 

Now the story. There's hardly enough material in the actual source material to fill 2 movies (at least as far as the 100+ page version I read in middle school goes), much less 3, as Jackson is intending to do. So naturally he padded it. Of course we get the "Dwarfs take back the Mountain from Smaug" central storyline from the book (complete with fun scenes like the troll BBQ, goblin battles, etc), but we also get a few new plotlines, such as the introduction of a Necromancer that ties heavily and cleverly into the original trilogy, and the less interesting introduction of an albino orc and his grudge-match with Thorin Oakenshield. These additions are actually good enough to watch, and never seemed forced in the context of their integration to the overall story established in the novel, even if the albino orc one is still a bit unnecessary and not as well established as the Necromancer plot. Additionally, the film takes its time getting to the better scenes, but it rarely ever feels dull or draggy. The overall romp still feels exciting enough--sweeping, and fun, with entertaining battles, action sequences, and Jackson's ability to immerse viewers into the story. Ironically enough, the 2 standout scenes for me were non-action sequences: The Necromancer council scene featuring old favorites, Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman that establishes the potential connection to the original trilogy (one which I can't wait to see how it pans out in future movies), and, of course, the tense, funny, and fascinating Riddles in the Dark sequence (Andy Serkis is truly such a gem. Welcome back Smeagol). I think fans will get as much of a kick out of those scenes as I did. Granted the movie's not without flaws. More times than necessary we've had to follow the pattern of "new location, dwarfs battle random creatures, get captured, get saved in a deus-ex-machina fashion by Gandalf." It gets a bit repetitive and groan-inducing at times. I suppose that's more or less the flaw of The Hobbit as a story rather than the movie, considering that this is basically the pattern the book follows.

Now for performances. The movie hands down belongs to Martin Freeman. He is funny and charming as Bilbo. He gives us a lead that we easily have no problems rooting for. And that's difficult to do considering Ian Holmes' original performance was actually pretty creepy. Bilbo is adventurous, clumsy, self-conscious, unsure of himself, and determined to prove he belongs with this company. And Freeman pulls all of this off with complete ease. Next to that, of course, Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf. It's a performance we know, and one that's endearing to us. It's especially nice to see him reprise the humble charm of Gandalf the Grey, considering we really only had 1 movie with Gandalf the Grey prior to this (Remember, he becomes Gandalf the White for the remaining 2 movies in the LOTR trilogy--a character we can argue is completely different--almost godlike-- as he's been instilled with so much more power). McKellen probably gets the best and most quotable lines in the film--in an Obi-Wan/Yoda sort of way. Richard Armitage gives a good performance as Thorin Oakenshield, but it's really a difficult character to like overall, considering we only see the embittered side of Thorin. As a character, at least in this first part of The Hobbit trilogy, all Armitage is really allowed to do is act bossy and spit insults. It's a difficult, one-note character to like so far, especially considering he spends most of the movie resentful and rude to all races and Bilbo. And you get why he's this way, and you try to sympathize with the character, but at the end of it all, you're not much closer to warming up to him, which is a bit of a pity, because he's the man driving this quest.The pity of it all however is that out of a company of 13 dwarfs, Gandalf, and Bilbo, we really only get to know Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin. We barely get to know the other dwarfs, much less learn anyone's names. They're essentially accessories to the 3 leads--unlike the original Fellowship, where all 9 members were known, had specific roles, and were appreciated for their own merits. Such a waste. However, on a more positive note, of course, the notable who's who of familiar faces is fantastic. It's good to see Hugo Weaving back as Elrond, in a happier mode than in the original trilogy (given that this is peace time). Blanchett is radient in all her 10 minutes as Galadriel. And of course, as I stated before, Andy Serkis is a gem. As Gollum, he's funnier, scarrier, and still every bit as sympathetic as he was in the original trilogy. His 20 minute performance on screen is better than the entirety of Armitage's complete 3 hours as Thorin, honestly. 

On a technical level, sadly the make up and VFX jobs are slightly underwhelming. On a lower budget and older tech, the original trilogy wipes the floor with the hokier FX we're seeing in Unexpected Journey. It sort of makes me question the technical decisions Jackson and team made for this project. We can see bald-cap makeup, contact lenses, and Hobbit feet prosthetics a lot more obviously this time around. And some of the CG orcs looked a lot worse than the big guys in full body makeup from the first trilogy. It really made things less intimidating sadly. 

Switching gears, the screenplay, at least, is fantastic--filled with lines that serve as a loving kiss to Tolkein's written text, and quotable words of wisdom at every scene. And again, the ties that Jackson forms with the original trilogy are pretty clever. The only downside is this one can be a bit sillier at times than the original (it's a children's story after all).

The sweeping score by Howard Shore uses familiar themes but introduces several new ones to add to the LOTR music cannon. My only gripes were some of the silly songs they had to include--yes they are in the text, and reveal how playful or reverent our dwarf-company can be, but from a filmmaking standpoint, it wouldn't have killed them to cut them out of the movie and save us some time. They honestly didn't serve any purpose to the story.

Overall, again, it feels good to be back in Middle Earth, even if this quest isn't as thrilling as the first 3 visits. This is a movie that by all means could have pulled a "Phantom Menace" but didn't, because Jackson (and Tolkein of course) is arguably a better storyteller than George Lucas. It's lighter in tone, yes, simply because the novel itself is for children, but we still get a poignant, heartwarming, and fun story out of it all, even if it's not as deep or intense. For my money, I'm hoping for more pleasant surprises in the final 2 visits to Middle Earth with The Desolation of Smaug next year, and There and Back Again in 2014. 

Overall Rating: B