It's pronounced Jango, The D is silent!

 

 

     Quentin Tarantino, is viewed by many as the finest director of his generation.  I think his latest installment, Django Unchained,  will go a long way in solidifying his position among the great American film makers. Tarantino, the former video store employee, has never made it a secret that he is is a huge fan of

B movies especially spaghetti westerns and kung fu films.  So much of his body of work pays homage to these two genres, often times mixing these two together with uncanny effect.  For the baby boomer, which I am one, I always find a wry smile creeping across my face or a little chuckle welling up under my breath when I am confronted with one of Tarantino's references to movies from days gone by.  There is nothing like nostalgia to warm the heart of a film goer.  And so, to begin with, does the name Django, ring a bell?  With more than sixty films having a character with the name Django, since the first one in 1966, it rightly should.  Yet the details are elusive.  Such are the elements of a B movie.  A really cool title with a forgettable storyline.  So you tell me what could be cooler that Django?  (the D is silent).  I digress, so for now, let's get on with the review.

     The film pays homage to spaghetti westerns of the sixties and seventies in awesome detail.  Especially the opening credits and theme song, which could easily have been lifted right from the era.  It totally created an unbelievable  sense of excitement for me.  I found I could hardly wait to see what was next for these two protagonists.  Let me tell you, for a jaded old cinemaphile such as myself, that is saying a lot. 

     The pacing of the film I must say is perfect.  The unfolding of the story in such a logical and straight forward fashion not all that common in a Tarantino film.  The title role of Django is played by Jamie Fox, who gives one of his best performances to date with a great balance of drama and humor.  It was such a perfect match for this film.  Even more astonishing was the performance of Christpher Waltz, a one time Dentist, and now, presently, a bounty hunter.  As with any film by Tarantino, the story takes more twists and turns than Lombard street in San Francisco.  Suffice it to say things never become predictable or boring.  Instead I found myself loving just about every minute of this joyride. 

     So to quickly sum up the plot, if that is even possible.  Dr. King, played by Waltz, saves Django by purchasing him from his cruel slavers in order to have Django identify three particular fugitives that King needs to get, dead or alive, for the bounty each has on his head.  I think that dead is the preferable state he wants them in.  It  HAS to be, after all this IS a Tarantino film, is it not?  And Dr. King, is it possible his name is a mere coincidence?  I think not!  When the job is finally done, he pays Django his share of the reward, and offers him this proposition.  That they partner up in the bounty hunting business through the winter.  Come spring he will help Django locate his wife and also buy her freedom.  I mean what self respecting slave, or any man for that matter, would turn down a deal like that?  So what seemingly begins as a western in actuality becomes a buddy picture.  Waltz and Fox have real on screen chemistry, a Bromance if you will.  There is nothing like two men bringing death and mayhem upon some of the most deserving people in movie history to get one's adrenaline pumping.  Yet the gore and violence seem a bit restrained for a Tarantino film.  Just as well, because in the final reel all hell breaks loose  and so does the blood and gore.  But it all is justified and never seems out of place.  Over the top for sure but not even close to the goriest scenes from Scarface. (the Al Pachino version)  This film has it all and then some.  As I write this review I realize that I like this film even more in retrospect than while I was actually viewing it.  I could go on about the plot and different devices but why ruin the ride for you?  I will say that Leonardo Di Caprio is deliciously evil as Calvin J. Candie, owner of the plantation Candyland.  One of his more curious passions is to engage his more athletic slaves in death match fights with other slaves from neighboring plantations.  All on a wager, of course.  The lengths the wealthy of the antebellum south will go to for entertainment.  Kind of like MMA without the killing.  If viewed too literally this film could seem silly.  But then these kinds of films were always for pure entertainment and this is where Django Unchained succeeds.  Can you say the Legend of Billy Jack?  If you have a cool girl friend then this would be a good date movie.  If you want to get rid of your chick flick watching girlfriend then this is a good date movie. 

I give this move a grade of A-,  mark downs for songs on the soundtrack that just don't' belong.  Oh c'mon Quentin,  Jim Croce?

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

     The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opens today, December 14th, at theaters all around the country.  Set sixty years prior to the beginning of the Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit chronicles the initial story of how Bilbo Baggins came in possession of the "precious" ring, central to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Directed by Peter Jackson, The Hobbit proves once again that he's got "it".  Spielberg, used to have "it" and so did George Lucas.  Now it's Jackson who has the ability to present films that have beautiful locations, eye popping special effects, and a story that creates a mythology all it's own.  Of course working with classic stories that are written by J.R. Tolkien helps too. 
     Jackson has a hard act to follow with his Lord of the Rings trilogy which is considered by many, including myself, to be the best fantasy series ever committed to film.  With his final film, The Return of the King, taking the Oscar for Best Picture for 2003.  Being the only sci fi/fantasy film ever to do so.  But does anyone actually expect him to surpass Lord of the Rings?  I would think that a foolhardy proposition and yet I keep seeing this film being compared to his previous work. Of course it is going to fall short!  However, judged on it's own merits, The Hobbit, is a great movie.  And as I was watching that is exactly what I kept saying to myself.  "Wow this is a great movie."  Although I can't understand why Jackson is turning The Hobbit into a trilogy.  Can't the guy tell a story in one outing?  At 2 hours 45 minutes the film is runs little long in the tooth.  This film suffers from one too many battle sequences or chase scenes that go on for much too long.  So yes,  perhaps less is more but for me the film never gets draggy.  I also feel the 3D effects filmed at 48 frames per second gives the picture a crisp, clean look.  Perhaps the best 3D film I have ever seen.  I do recommend that this film be viewed in the 3D / 48 fps process.  It adds a great deal to the composition and scope of the film which I would liken to the difference between mono and stereo audio recording.  Martin Freeman is perfect as the young Bilbo Baggins and Ian McKellan reprises his role as Gandalf the Grey.  Of course this prequal takes place sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, so a younger Gandalf is running around kicking butt all on his own.  It's really fun to see.  I don't know what more I can say regarding this film.  It would be a good date film if both people like fantasy/sci fi/ action films.  The Hobbit has a beauty all it's own.  Just don't go expecting the Lord of the Rings.  For those of us who love the mythology surrounding Middle Earth, The Hobbit will not disappoint.  It is by far one of the most enjoyable films I have seen in 2012. 
I give The Hobbit a grade of: A-

Ben Affleck delivers with Argo.

     Ben Affleck finally delivers an Oscar contender with Argo, a true life story about six Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy during the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979.  It is hard to describe to someone too young to remember the era but I will try to very briefly and succinctly.  The seventies could be compared to the roaring twenties some fifty years before hand (ninety now).  Instead of flappers dancing the Charleston we had chicks in mini skirts disco dancing.  It was a decade long party that bordered on the hedonistic.  In my view the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, along with double digit inflation, interest rates over 10 % and an economy in free fall were the factors that ended the party.  Of course nothing that our President, Jimmy Carter tried,  seemed to help.  In all fairness to Jimmy, after we suffered two oil embargo's, it became painfully clear that economics in this country depend on gas prices.  I don't want to sound like a old fart but I can remember gas prices of 35 cents a gallon.  Can you possibly imagine how strong our economy would be if gas prices were that low right now?
     OK, enough of the history lesson, now on to the movie.  Released on October 12 Argo has what they call in the industry as "legs". In an age where films stay in theaters only a month at best, Argo still seems to be going strong after nearly two months.  Kind of like a certain bunny.  And for good reason.  Argo is a tight historical thriller that occurred not so long ago. 
     In 1979, my attention, along with the rest of the nation, was focused on the 52 hostages being held in the U.S. embassy.  Little did we know, six Americans escaped capture, and eventually made their way to the Canadian embassy.  There they hid out while somehow trying to figure out what the next move would be.  Of course the wrong move would mean certain execution.  Literally.  Ben Affleck the actor portrays the CIA operative given the mission of coming up with a plan the rescue the six.  The plan that was finally used was to "pretend" a film crew, scouting out locations, would go to Iran and exit the country with the six would be hostages posing as the film crew.  Affleck, the director, uses tension tempered with sporadic interjections of humor in a way which is reminiscent of, dare I say, Alfred Hitchcock.  Bold praise to be sure but well earned in my estimation.  The acting is very natural in it's execution to the point of being almost banal.  My son commented that the people seemed kind of boring and I had to remind him that Argo is based on real people and real events.  Let's face it, most real people are kind of boring.  Since Argo is only based on real events,  interesting characters had to be invented and interjected to make the film more interesting.  After all this is Hollywood.  The funniest and most interesting non-real character is Lester Siegel, played by Alan Arkin.  He is a light touch in what is a very dark movie, and having this character provides the film much needed balance.  Partnered with the irascible John Goodman, playing real life make up artist John Chamber, the pair provide the film with many chuckles.  I predict that Arkin will earn an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor, and may even win, with sympathy votes so common in the category.  As long as I am in a predicting mood I think Argo will also be nominated for Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay.  I'm not going to predict any winners at this point.  Too many more films to come out yet. 
     Back to the review.  The unfolding of the story takes a natural pace, which almost feels like you are watching things as they happen.  Any person who was an adult during then remembers how dangerous Iran was at the time, especially if you were an American.  Of course to ratchet up the tension, extra devices are used to keep us on the edge of our seats, but are totally unnecessary.  Especially a foot chase through an airport.  I mean how many times have we seen that?  Still Argo is a very, very good film.  I recommend it and think that it would make a good date movie or maybe take a break from holiday shopping and take in a matinee.  If nothing else rent the dvd when it comes out.  It is really worthwhile.
It will remind you of all the blessings you enjoy.
I give this movie a grade of: solid A

A Bond for the 21st Century

                 

     This latest installment in the James Bond franchise marks the 23rd film since Dr. No debuted fifty years ago in 1962.  And right from the get go we were riveted by the suave British spy with a licence to kill who always got the girl.  Let's face it....any girl.  Introducing American audiences to a potent mix of international intrigue, heart pounding action sequences, and a plethora of sexy women with sexually suggestive names (who will ever forget Pussy Galore?), Bond became an instant icon to millions of Boomer generation boys throughout the sixties.  It was an age where sex had to be suggested more covertly and Bond films perfected the technique. 
     So how does Skyfall stack up and more importantly, Daniel Craig as James Bond?  Very favorably I do say.  There have been five actors to take on the James Bond mantle and with Craig being number six comparisons are inevitable.  Most go with Sean Connery as the best of the bunch in the role that he originated.  But if he is number one then Craig gets my vote as number two and may actually be the best of all.  I think he brings a lot more depth to the character.  Instead of being the wise cracking spy, dropping one liners, he is a man that is haunted.  He has been affected by the stresses of his job: in which he can go from hunter to hunted at any given moment. In Casino Royale he showed us that having a licence to kill is not all it's cracked up to be.  Especially when you actually have to use it.
     Skyfall takes Bond to another level and updates and freshens the franchise for the new millennia.  This film begins with an exhilarating action sequence filmed in Istanbul.  When I go to a Bond film and see exotic locations, mixed with dangerous situations I feel a certain comfort level that seems very familiar.  As in You Only Live Twice, Bond is presumed dead  after he is shot, falls off a train trestle about a mile over a rushing river; body MIA.  Cue music, and Adele sings the beautiful theme to Skyfall which I think tops all the themes songs for all the Bond films.  I predict it will win her an academy award next year.  I could go on and on about the film and plot, but why would I ruin the experience for you?  I will just say all the usual players are being updated.  The humor is there in just the right amounts and nods to past films give the movie an air of nostalgia.  Even the Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger turns up in the film.  Of course what really makes a good Bond film is the villain.  Blofeld and Jaws were memorable antagonists for Bond to battle. Now we have another top notch villain in cyberterrorist Raul Silva played by academy award winner Javiar Bardem of No Country for Old Men fame.  I mean cyberterrorism?  The bad guys used to just want an atom bomb or a laser in outer space.  Cyberterrorism can be devastating and all you need is a lap top.  I guess this really is a new century.  Skyfall is a great film.  I highly recommend it and would say this would also make a good date movie. 
I give Skyfall a solid grade of A-, not quite perfect, but close to it.

Lincoln: A man for the ages.

     Opening today in select theaters around the country is a Steven Spielberg film about one of the most beloved U.S. Presidents in the history of our country.  Entitled (what else?) Lincoln, it stars the incomparable Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role, with Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln, with Tommy Lee Jones rounding out the starring cast as Thaddeus Stevens, a radical republican congressional leader and committed abolitionist.  Other noteworthy players include David Strathairn as Secretary of State William Seward, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who bears and uncanny resemblance to their oldest son Robert Todd Lincoln, and Gulliver McGrath as youngest son, 12 year old Tad Lincoln .  This film goes into wide release on November 16.  I attended a midnight showing last night so I could give my fifteen or so readers a jump on the buzz about Lincoln.
     It seems a little strange that this is the third film released this year with Abraham Lincoln as the title character.  Although the other two films are stupid-silly treatments.  One has the bearded one killing vampires and the other has him battling zombies with a sling blade!  Only Hollywood can come up with such preposterous ideas for films by combining two popular subjects, mixing genres, and?  I don't know what they really expect.  But Spielbergs' Lincoln is true to it's subject and really bears no relationship to those other two bombs.  So I digress.  What is next year going to bring?  Gerorge Washington being abducted by aliens?
     Sorry, back to the task at hand which is to review this brand new film directed by Steven Spielberg who in my opinion is the greatest director of his generation.  I know some of you may be wondering about George Lucas, Brian de Palma, among others.  I feel that Speilberg has a mastery to use cinema, to tell the story, across many genres, and when he wants to, is genius in doing so.  And as long as I am handing out accolades, 55 year old Daniel Day-Lewis is the finest actor of his generation.  Yes, Tom Hanks has won more awards but when I see Tom Hanks in a film I see Tom Hanks, doing a great job no doubt.  But Day-Lewis actually becomes the characters in his films.  He never seems to be the same in anything and once again in this film the BECOMES Abraham Lincoln.  In his portrayal he does not disspiont.
     With the set design, lighting, camera angles, composition, and I can't stress enough the lighting, one feels like they are transported back to 1864-65.  Peering with a historical perspective that no other film I recall can match.  You can feel the chill in the White House,  which of course is heated with wood burning fireplaces.  The only lighting available at the time was candle light or oil burning lamps.  Thus all the night scenes are dimly lit and must reflect what it was like back in those days.  The interiors of the White House are decorated in period and it is striking at how this film has a look like no other set in the same time frame.  All of the actors,  are on their A game. As far as Day-Lewis?  He is other worldly, not only capturing the look, but the vocal inflection, movement, and body language of the 16th president.
     OK, that is what is great about this film.  But I also found this film lacking in many ways.  For starters I am a history buff and have done a lot of reading about the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln.
When I saw the first trailer for Lincoln I became very excited to see this film given that it's directed by Spielberg.  In U.S. history Lincoln is a mythical figure who is on a par with George Washington.  There is such a plethora of information "out there" about Lincoln and his life that I was expecting a sweeping epic worthy of such a man.  This is really where I was let down.  Instead, we are given a plot that is totally focused on the last four months of Lincoln's life.  During this time everyone realizes the war is probably winding down and he becomes obsessed with the passage and enactment of the 13th Amendent to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.  The film shows Lincoln as a master politician working behind the scenes with his cadre of supporters to acquire the votes in congress to achieve his goal.  I don't think congress has of the mid 1800's has ever been this accurately depicted in film  Congressmen not only openly fight and argue, they resort to insults and name calling.  Sort of reminded me of our congress today. All this is interesting enough but I just felt like I was short changed.
     As with all historical films, nothing is going to really be a surprise.  We all know how the movie ends.  We just don't know how it's going to be shown.  I don't like to give details of any film away in a review but I will say that Spielberg has done a masterful job in putting this film together.  I read that the original script dealt with the entire Presidency but Spielberg felt that was an impossibility and decided to focus on the final four months of Lincolns life instead of the final four years.  I think this may be nit picking but this could have been a GREAT film from Spielberg but instead it is a very good film.  With a running time of nearly two and a half hours I certainly think with some creativity he could have shown the evolution of Lincoln through out his Presidency.  This would be a great film by almost any other director  But Steven,  we expect so much more from you.  And rightly so.
I give this film a grade of B+

click on link below to see the trailer for Lincoln, sorry about the ad

http://youtu.be/VWpMt2-Z-fc

Seven Psychopaths a journey into quirkiness.

     If you like quirky, off beat, humorous, and just plain fun things well, you would like me.  But you will love the British comedy Seven Psychopaths.  This second release from director/playwright Martin McDonagh, stars Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Tom Waites, and the indominable Christopher Walken.  This is the second collaboration from McDonagh/Farrell, the first being 2008's  "In Bruges".  Sam may Rockwell; but Walken in Rockin, in this film.
     The film is set in Hollywood with Farrell playing Marty Faranan, a screenwriter suffering from writers block and and the early stages of alcoholism.  His friend, Billy Bickle (Rockwell), is an out of work actor with anger management problems.  To make ends meet Billy and his much older friend Hans (Walken) team up to make extra money by kidnapping dogs, maybe I should say dognapping, for the reward money the owners offer for the safe return of their pets.  Not a bad scam when you really think about it.  But all goes wrong when they steal a beloved Shih Tzu belonging to sociopathic Charlie Costello (Woody Harrelson), a manically crazy and funny head of some sort of criminal crime gang.  The stage is set, the players are cast, let the mayhem begin!
     The film begins with Marty trying to work on a screenplay but he just can't get past the the title, Seven Psychopaths. (it would probably help if he would lighten up on the drinking)   The first psychopath on his list?  A Buddhist monk, but his friend keeps telling him that idea sucks.  No, "I want this film to be non-violent and uplifting".  That does sounds like a suck butt movie but viewer need not despair,  psychopaths doesn't sink into that mire.  It's rather a recurring and funny underlying theme in this move within a movie.  The real fun happens when each psychopath is revealed one by one.  Or I should say one through seven.  Marty, Billy, and Hans do a lot of drinking and sitting around talking about the different paths the script can take.  Finally Walken's character comments on one plot line by saying "I like it, it has lots of layers".  Bickle adds,  "yeah like a cake".  :p)  The best thing about Seven Psychopaths is the how unpredictable the story is as it unfolds.  Taking more twists and turns than a mountain road.  In a day when film has become so derivative I found this very refreshing. One note, watch the credits, a little extra scene is spliced in.    I think this is a good date movie but be warned that there is a LOT of blood and violence presented both realistically and surrealistically.  But would you expect anything less from seven psychopaths?
I give this movie a grade of: A-