"My name is Django."
"How do you spell that?"
"D-J-A-N-G-O. The 'D' is silent."
Django Unchained is Quentin Tarantino's latest film, an homage to old school Westerns about a slave who becomes a bounty hunter. Tarantino, if you didn't already know, is one of the most distinctive filmmakers out there. Whenever a Tarantino movie comes on, you just know that it's him. The dialogue, the humor, the over-the-top violence are present in all of his movies. Wes Anderson (Royal Tenenbaums, Fantastic Mr. Fox) and Guy Ritchie (Snatch., Sherlock Holmes) are two more in this rare company. Take any scene from any of his movies, and it wreaks of Tarantino. In his 8th film, Tarantino takes on subject matter that is once again extremely dark. Inglorious Basterds explored WWII-era racism towards Jews; Django deals with pre-Civil War era racism and slavery towards blacks in the American south. Django is much more focused than Basterds. I felt like Basterds would leave its most interesting characters (namely, Brad Pitt), and focus on boring ones for large chunks of time. Django, from start to finish, is a Tarantino fan's dream. The humor, the violence, and the dialogue are all there in top form.
Django Unchained opens with Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) freeing Django (Jamie Foxx) from the bondage of slavery. Schultz needs Django to identify three bandits in order to collect a bounty on their head. The two become quick friends and a deadly team, with Django eventually joining Schultz in the bounty business. Django divulges to Schultz that he was separated from his wife at a plantation, and plans to go look for her. Schultz agrees to help, and their search leads them to "Candieland", the largest plantation in the south. It is run by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), along with his loyal slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), and is the home of Django's wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). The two plan to stage a daring rescue, and escape with Broomhilda.
Tarantino might be the only filmmaker that can effectively make a movie so dark in subject matter so hilarious. Django does not pull punches. There are several scenes of brutal master-on-slave violence that is horrifying. The "n-word" is used flippantly, probably more so than any movie I've ever seen. It's awful to see it used towards black people in such a normal way. The gore level is very high. Yet despite all of this, the movie has laughs almost entirely throughout. In fact, a scene involving some KKK inspired masks might be one of the funniest I've seen in a long time. The line of "dark" to "distasteful" is danced on but never crossed (at least in my mind; apparently Spike Lee doesn't agree with me).
Jamie Foxx shines as the hero. The movie plays as an homage to Sergio Leone spaghetti Westerns such as A Fistful of Dollars and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Foxx is in the Clint Eastwood role, the mysterious and cool good guy. I had heard that the role of Django was originally offered to Will Smith, but he decided to turn it down. It would be interesting to watch Smith tackle something more challenging (just look at his IMDb page, he only acts in sure fire blockbuster smash hits), but ultimately I'm happy it went to Foxx. He just looks and acts like a cowboy. His line, "hey there little trouble maker" gave me goosebumps it was so good. Smith could have been great, but Foxx was exceptional. Having seen it, I'm glad the role went to Foxx. He kills it.
Leonardo DiCaprio is magnificent as the villain, Calvin Candie. His southern charm and undercurrent of evil play out perfectly. DiCaprio is in a league with probably only Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise as far as "everything they are in being really good." Waltz is great once again. He stole the show in Basterds, and while he takes a back seat to Foxx, he's still very good. Kudos to Tarantino for getting this guy out of Germany and into Hollywood. He and Foxx form a strange but great team, and the first hour plays almost like a buddy flick.
At over 2 hours and 40 minutes, Django is long but never drags. It was the total opposite of Lincoln, which made you feel every second of its run time. Tarantino fans will be enthralled by Django. I felt like his previous two efforts, Death Proof and Inglorious Basterds were a step back from the man that brought the absolute classics Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but Django totally redeems him. It's right up there with his best. In a stellar 2012, a top 10 list is going to be very difficult, and Django will be right up there with The Hobbit, Skyfall, and The Dark Knight Rises.
4.5/5
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Lincoln
Steven Spielberg's Lincoln starring Daniel Day-Lewis as our 16th president is a decent at best historical bio-pic, never fully engaging the audience past the interest of its source material. A movie I reviewed earlier this week, Argo, was a great example of how to make a film about historical events where the audience already knows the outcome. Even Spielberg's own Munich does a fine job of this. But Lincoln never feels like more than watching a documentary about the passing of the thirteenth amendment; and if it were going to pass at that, I feel like PBS or the History Channel could do a much better job. There are still some great acting performances, most notably from Tommy Lee Jones, as well as the patented over-acting of Day-Lewis, but Lincoln mainly disappoints.
During the American Civil War, much of the debate between the Union and the Confederacy was over the provision of slavery. The South's economy was based upon slavery, and felt it should not be abolished, while leaders from the north, for one reason or another, were for a ban on slavery. Before his second term, President Lincoln did everything he could to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and outlaw slavery. He needed to do this before the southern states were re-admitted to the union in order to avoid their votes being counted. The story of Lincoln is of our President's attempt to pass this amendment, and what it took to do this. Along the way we get glimpses of Lincoln's family life, from his wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) to his sons Tad and Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in what seems like his 10th blockbuster role of the year). Lincoln needs to get this amendment passed before there is peace, and he will not stop until he passes it.
The first 30 minutes of Lincoln seemed to drag on, much like I was tuning in to C-SPAN. Politicians, including Lincoln, would give in depth political reasoning for and against the Thirteenth Amendment. This is fascinating at first, but after a while it begins to tire. The most interesting character in the movie is Tommy Lee Jones' Thaddeus Stevens, a member of the House of Representatives who is for the amendment. He entertains just as much as any, and I loved every moment of his on screen. Further entertaining were the three "lobbyists", or party men who tried to sway votes, as played by James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, and John Hawkes. These three offer some funny moments, and Spader shines. He definitely needed to make up for his dreadful role on "The Office" last year, playing the worst TV character ever, Robert California.
After these characters, everyone else chugs along at a snails pace. Day-Lewis immerses himself as Lincoln and it shows, but I still get the feeling that he is overacting like he always does. Ditto for Sally Field as Mary Todd. One of my biggest complaints was the sheer VOLUME of Abraham Lincoln monologues. Understandably a movie about one of our nation's most fabled speech makers would have some monologues, but it seems like Abe has one every 15 minutes. After a while I stopped looking for meaning in all of them. Unlike Argo, Spielberg fails to capture the tension of portraying a scene where the outcome is already decided. The vote to enact the Thirteenth Amendment should be an intense scene, but it fails to capture anything magical.
Lincoln is extremely well made, just a tad on the boring side. If you want to learn about the passage of the thirteenth amendment, scour Netflix for a documentary about it, it will be much more informative than Lincoln.
2.5/5
During the American Civil War, much of the debate between the Union and the Confederacy was over the provision of slavery. The South's economy was based upon slavery, and felt it should not be abolished, while leaders from the north, for one reason or another, were for a ban on slavery. Before his second term, President Lincoln did everything he could to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and outlaw slavery. He needed to do this before the southern states were re-admitted to the union in order to avoid their votes being counted. The story of Lincoln is of our President's attempt to pass this amendment, and what it took to do this. Along the way we get glimpses of Lincoln's family life, from his wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) to his sons Tad and Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in what seems like his 10th blockbuster role of the year). Lincoln needs to get this amendment passed before there is peace, and he will not stop until he passes it.
The first 30 minutes of Lincoln seemed to drag on, much like I was tuning in to C-SPAN. Politicians, including Lincoln, would give in depth political reasoning for and against the Thirteenth Amendment. This is fascinating at first, but after a while it begins to tire. The most interesting character in the movie is Tommy Lee Jones' Thaddeus Stevens, a member of the House of Representatives who is for the amendment. He entertains just as much as any, and I loved every moment of his on screen. Further entertaining were the three "lobbyists", or party men who tried to sway votes, as played by James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, and John Hawkes. These three offer some funny moments, and Spader shines. He definitely needed to make up for his dreadful role on "The Office" last year, playing the worst TV character ever, Robert California.
After these characters, everyone else chugs along at a snails pace. Day-Lewis immerses himself as Lincoln and it shows, but I still get the feeling that he is overacting like he always does. Ditto for Sally Field as Mary Todd. One of my biggest complaints was the sheer VOLUME of Abraham Lincoln monologues. Understandably a movie about one of our nation's most fabled speech makers would have some monologues, but it seems like Abe has one every 15 minutes. After a while I stopped looking for meaning in all of them. Unlike Argo, Spielberg fails to capture the tension of portraying a scene where the outcome is already decided. The vote to enact the Thirteenth Amendment should be an intense scene, but it fails to capture anything magical.
Lincoln is extremely well made, just a tad on the boring side. If you want to learn about the passage of the thirteenth amendment, scour Netflix for a documentary about it, it will be much more informative than Lincoln.
2.5/5
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Argo
Ben Affleck has solidified himself as an impressive Hollywood director. Gone are the days when he was acting in trash like Gigli (I have never seen it, but a quick Google search should tell you that the civilized world considers Gigli to be one of the worst films ever made), cavorting around town with Jennifer Lopez and on the cover of every entertainment magazine. Affleck's career has had somewhat of a strange arc. He and Matt Damon burst on to the scene in a huge way with Good Will Hunting, a film in which they co-starred and co-wrote the screenplay. At some point in the mid-2000's he decided to become Hollywood's most obnoxious face. He and Lopez generally made everyone sick with the attention they got, and along with Gigli, he made crappers like Daredevil, Pearl Harbor, and Jersey Girl (a movie that originally had Jennifer Lopez in a bigger role, but after the public was so outwardly nauseous towards the couple, her part was scaled back and she was removed from all promotional material). Then in 2008, Affleck made is directorial debut with Gone Baby Gone, a thriller starring his brother Casey, and it was critically very well received. 2010's The Town, starring himself and Jeremy Renner, was an even bigger hit. Argo, Affleck's third directorial effort, continues his comeback, and his total reinvention.
Argo is based on the true story of the Iranian Hostage Crisis in late 1979 and early 1980. Iranian revolutionists, furious over the United States government's decision to allow asylum to the deposed Iranian dictator, storm the American Embassy in Tehran and take everyone inside hostage. A group of 6 working at the Embassy manage to escape, and find refuge in the Canadian embassy. As the weeks go on and the Americans still stay in captivity, the CIA learns of the 6 escapees, and devise a plan to bring them home. Tony Mendez (Affleck) teams with two from the movie industry, John Chambers (John Goodman) and Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to create a fake movie called "Argo". "Argo" would serve as the cover for the 6 Americans, that they are there scouting locations in Iran for the film. Mendez would go to Iran, get the Americans on a commercial flight, and bring them to the United States.
Argo's pacing and editing is impressive. Affleck had the difficult task of bringing tension to a plot that the audience already knows. It is well known that the 6 Americans returned safely. President Clinton declassified the information surrounding their escape in 1997, and Mendez was recognized as a hero. But the film does a great job of making you feel like they could get caught. The last 45 minutes had me on the edge of my seat, even though I knew full well what the outcome was. This is owed very much in part to the way the film was edited. It's extremely intense. A lot of movies have a hard time keeping the audience to feel like the heroes are in any sort of danger at the end of a movie. 98% of movies end with the good guys triumphant and having learned a lesson, so moviegoers are generally expecting the norm to happen. Argo keeps you guessing, the intensity high, and it doesn't detract from the experience to know the outcome in advance.
For such a serious subject matter, there was still some very light moments that fit very well. Arkin and Goodman have some hilarious lines when they are producing the fake movie. The motto that they adopt using the films title is a classic line, and I laughed every time. Goodman could be in the most serious movie possible and I would still find him funny; the Coen brothers made sure of that in Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, and O Brother Where Art Thou. His comedic talents are not wasted here.
The six American hostages are integral parts to the story, but their characters are mostly uninteresting. You care about their survival because of Mendez and America, not because of them. Likewise, Mendez's relationship with his wife and son is extremely rushed. Granted that is not the purpose of the film, but it seemed a little thrown together to help endear you towards Mendez more, and I felt like the subplot added nothing to his character.
Minor side note to those who live in Northwest Arkansas. I saw this movie at AMC Fiesta Square, my first visit there in quite a long while. Fiesta Square used to be the place to see movies in Fayetteville, but after the Malco Razorback opened my freshman year of college, it now looks like a dump in comparison. Case in point: the theater I was in had scratches all over the film that was present the entire movie. It didn't annoy that much, but come on Fiesta. It was nice to pay $4, but that price is only available to one showing a day in the afternoon, Monday-Thursday. When I was in college, the $4 deal was available at all times during the weekdays. I went all the time when this was the deal, watching everything I possibly could. To me, it seems like this is the only way for Fiesta to get customers from Razorback. There's no way I'm going to pay $8 there when I could go to Razorback for the same price, which is far superior. Fiesta needs to bring back the $4 weekday deal!
Argo will most certainly be a contender in the Oscar hunt, and will be a heavy favorite to make my personal top 10.
4/5
Argo is based on the true story of the Iranian Hostage Crisis in late 1979 and early 1980. Iranian revolutionists, furious over the United States government's decision to allow asylum to the deposed Iranian dictator, storm the American Embassy in Tehran and take everyone inside hostage. A group of 6 working at the Embassy manage to escape, and find refuge in the Canadian embassy. As the weeks go on and the Americans still stay in captivity, the CIA learns of the 6 escapees, and devise a plan to bring them home. Tony Mendez (Affleck) teams with two from the movie industry, John Chambers (John Goodman) and Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to create a fake movie called "Argo". "Argo" would serve as the cover for the 6 Americans, that they are there scouting locations in Iran for the film. Mendez would go to Iran, get the Americans on a commercial flight, and bring them to the United States.
Argo's pacing and editing is impressive. Affleck had the difficult task of bringing tension to a plot that the audience already knows. It is well known that the 6 Americans returned safely. President Clinton declassified the information surrounding their escape in 1997, and Mendez was recognized as a hero. But the film does a great job of making you feel like they could get caught. The last 45 minutes had me on the edge of my seat, even though I knew full well what the outcome was. This is owed very much in part to the way the film was edited. It's extremely intense. A lot of movies have a hard time keeping the audience to feel like the heroes are in any sort of danger at the end of a movie. 98% of movies end with the good guys triumphant and having learned a lesson, so moviegoers are generally expecting the norm to happen. Argo keeps you guessing, the intensity high, and it doesn't detract from the experience to know the outcome in advance.
For such a serious subject matter, there was still some very light moments that fit very well. Arkin and Goodman have some hilarious lines when they are producing the fake movie. The motto that they adopt using the films title is a classic line, and I laughed every time. Goodman could be in the most serious movie possible and I would still find him funny; the Coen brothers made sure of that in Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, and O Brother Where Art Thou. His comedic talents are not wasted here.
The six American hostages are integral parts to the story, but their characters are mostly uninteresting. You care about their survival because of Mendez and America, not because of them. Likewise, Mendez's relationship with his wife and son is extremely rushed. Granted that is not the purpose of the film, but it seemed a little thrown together to help endear you towards Mendez more, and I felt like the subplot added nothing to his character.
Minor side note to those who live in Northwest Arkansas. I saw this movie at AMC Fiesta Square, my first visit there in quite a long while. Fiesta Square used to be the place to see movies in Fayetteville, but after the Malco Razorback opened my freshman year of college, it now looks like a dump in comparison. Case in point: the theater I was in had scratches all over the film that was present the entire movie. It didn't annoy that much, but come on Fiesta. It was nice to pay $4, but that price is only available to one showing a day in the afternoon, Monday-Thursday. When I was in college, the $4 deal was available at all times during the weekdays. I went all the time when this was the deal, watching everything I possibly could. To me, it seems like this is the only way for Fiesta to get customers from Razorback. There's no way I'm going to pay $8 there when I could go to Razorback for the same price, which is far superior. Fiesta needs to bring back the $4 weekday deal!
Argo will most certainly be a contender in the Oscar hunt, and will be a heavy favorite to make my personal top 10.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)