Review: "Django Unchained"

Bold, irreverent, and badass, for lack of a better word. What do all of these words have in common, you ask? They all describe Quentin Tarantino's latest directorial effort, Django Unchained, starring Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kerry Washington, among many others. Though loosely based on Sergio Corbucci's spaghetti western Django starring Franco Nero, it certainly is a film Tarantino put his trademark seal on, and he even gives the film the more accurate label of a "southern." Rampant pop culture references, profuse profanity, aesthetic violence, and hilarious dialogue are only a sampling what appear in this film. However, I stall; let's get to the important stuff. The film starts focusing on a march of slaves led by two white overseers, the Speck Brothers. In their group is a battered slave named Django, played by Jamie Foxx. They are soon met by a German "dentist," Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz of Inglourious Basterds fame). Schultz buys Django, and quickly dispatches the Specks. He then reveals to Django that he purchased him because Django has seen the Brittle brothers, a gang who Schultz, actually a bounty hunter, seeks to kill and return for an award. If Django helps him, he will win his freedom and Schultz will help him reunite with his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). They find out she is being kept by Calvin Candie, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, at his plantation Candieland, where men are trained to fight and women are quickly turned into either cooks or earn an ill repute, so to speak. The acting is spot-on, and is deserving of awards. Foxx portrays his character in the beginning as fearful and with a bad past, but soon develops a thirst for revenge and displays unrestrained ferocity. Waltz, who made a name for himself in Hollywood as Hans Landa in Basterds and proceeded to destroy that reputation in cinematic flop The Green Hornet regains the audiences' respect as a cool-headed, slick businessman-type bounty hunter. However, the crown jewel of the cast is undoubtedly DiCaprio as Calvin Candie, who is a parody of a Southern Gentleman; while charming and strangely hospitable to his guests, he is actually a ruthless owner and has two major incidents early in his introduction, one in a fight between slaves and the other a particularly gruesome scene involving dogs. I expect an Oscar nod for his portrayal, and if he doesn't earn one, he certainly deserves it. There are also some excellent cameos, one from Don Johnson as a plantation owner (see here) and even one from Franco Nero. The plot itself is a classic revenge story, a formula Tarantino is fond of (Kill Bill, Vols. I and II, and Inglourious Basterds are both revenge stories)  but he always seems to make it interesting and it has not yet fallen flat. Next, we have the necessary Tarantino blood and guts. While devoid of any massacres of tyrannical political leaders,  it is very brutal, with some cotton getting a crimson mist courtesy of our heroes, and several gun battles leading to the climactic fight scene at Candieland, which managed to be entertaining without delving into Michael Bay territory. In addition to gunfights, there are some very disturbing scenes involving the treatment of slaves, and they are nothing short of sobering. This leads to the film's treatment of slavery and how Tarantino perceived it. For starters, the n-word is used, according to one count, 144 times, so don't expect it to be politically correct; Tarantino's movies never are and never will be, and that's fine. Of course, slavery was a dark period in American history, and he makes us confront that fact. This is pretty heavy material, and I may do an analysis on it in the near future. Nonetheless if you can take one thing out of it, it's that slavery is/was evil, and its role in American history is unsavory but we cannot discount it. Of course, the movie has plenty of interesting tidbits, such as some humorous exchanges between the characters, some quotable one-liners, and an eclectic soundtrack featuring Rick Ross, John Legend, Frank Ocean, and Johnny Cash. Also, try counting the references. You'll lose count an eighth in.

Consensus: Django Unchained may not reach the heights of classics like Pulp Fiction, but its story, theme, Tarantino trademarks, and riveting performances by the lead actors make it a award-worthy film and one of his best. 

Rating: 5/5

Upcoming Review

I'm excited to say I'll be posting a review for Django Unchained this evening.

Analysis: "Looper"

Looper, directed by Rian Johnson and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, and Emily Blunt, is a pulpy sci-fi story about time-traveling assassins called "loopers," and it is one of my absolute favorite films of the year. The acting was spot-on, the plot was unparalleled, and the makeup to make Gordon-Levitt look like a younger Willis was amazing. This said, there is a number of deeper aspects that can be analyzed and accounted for by critics and your average film blogger. In this analysis, I will cut to the bone on some of the most interesting aspects of the film: its intended theme, and the interesting way that theme was expressed. The theme, in my opinion, revoles around the fact that even the smallest changes can have a massive ripple effect on their life. Of course, this can apply to a lot of things. There is the ubiquitous "Butterfly Effect," which states that a butterfly flapping its wings in Peking can affect the weather in New York. This is a very well-known concept, and it has been mentioned in Jurassic Park, and parodied in Simpsons comics. This is exploited well in Looper, and the it is shown in the timeline within the film. (Warning: Spoilers Ahead) Joe, (Gordon-Levitt) actually closes his loop in the first timeline, and takes Abe's (Jeff Daniels) advice and goes to China, though he  has planned to go to France. As he arrives in Neo-Shanghai, he squanders his money on drugs and lechery. Then he must return to a life of crime to pay off debts, at which point he meets a wife. As Joe transitions into Old Joe (Willis), they live together, and he is finally happy. Of course, things go south, and he his kidnapped by the Rainmaker's henchmen, and his new wife dies. He is sent back in time to close the loop, and he survives the killing, only to run off, setting up the plot. Fast-forward to the end, and we see what a difference one thing can do to an entire life. Old Joe aims to kill Cid, the future Rainmaker, and set his life back on track. At this point, Joe realizes the effect: Old Joe would accidentally shoot Sara (Emily Blunt), traumatizing Cid to the point where he would close all future loops, and become the Rainmaker. Then the film is resolved when yet another small event has an effect disproportionate to its size: Joe shoots himself, causing both him and Old Joe to die, letting Sara and Cid live a happy life with Joe's stocked silver from his previous jobs. Now, we know the first two scenarios: either Sara dies, and Cid becomes the Rainmaker, or Joe kills himself, preventing Sara and Cid from dying and therefore stopping the Rainmaker from existing. I can think of at least two more scenarios that could result: Joe shoots Old Joe, closing the loop and leading him on a new path of life, or Old Joe succeeds in killing Cid, which would set Sara on a new path and Young Joe as well. Of course, I am sure there could be even more scenarios, based on something as arbitrary as tripping over a stalk of corn. All in all, Rian Johnson's theme was one that is well-known, but he put a great spin on it, and it is ripe for discussion and dissection across the board.

Review: "Killing Them Softly"

Killing Them Softly is the latest crime film from director Andrew Dominik, starring Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins, James Gandolfini, and Ray Liotta. The film is based on the 1974 novel Cogan's Trade by George V. Higgins. The plot is an interesting set-up: three dimwitted criminals decide to rob a poker game, protected by Markie Trattman (Liotta). Trattman had robbed his own game years ago, but was forgiven by his cohorts. These thieves believe that the local mob will suspect Trattman as the orchestrator, and let the real thieves get away. After the success of the robbery, a mob emissary named Driver (Richard Jenkins) meets with Pitt's character, Jackie Cogan, to discuss solutions as the local criminal economy sinks. Things take a turn for the violent, and Cogan brings in fellow hitman Mickey (James Gandolfini) as extra help. The characters are well-executed, and crime acting veteran Gandolfini does an excellent job as washed-up hitman Mickey. Pitt also does well as Jackie Cogan, whom I would describe as a darkly comedic, no-remorse hitman, in a similar vein to Vincent Vega of Pulp Fiction. One of our would-be criminal masterminds, Russell, portrayed by Ben Mendelsohn, is a crook struggling with drug addiction and is remarkably stupid, but is a dangerously violent mind, and one of the best characters in the entire film. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I found Jenkins' performance to be boring and unispired as Driver, despite his previous success this year in The Cabin in the Woods. Liotta, on the other hand, left me wanting more. He's an fantastic actor, but I felt that he underacted and could have done more in this role. As for the story, it's an interesting enough idea, but the ending is very anticlimactic, and leaves something to be desired. One of my favorite aspects, however, was the cinematography and neo-noir nature of the film. There is an excellent bullet-time like sequence in one scene, and the angles are excellent throughout. While not reaching the heights of modern classics like Brick or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, also deals well in gritty violence and language that makes a good neo-noir film. Another interesting aspect is the social commentary I noticed Dominik added that was not present in the novel it was adapted from. Set against the backdrop of the 2008 Presidential Election, themes of the economic collapse are alluded to with the robbery and the subsequent collapse of the Mafia's business. Cogan even talks about how he goes against Obama's speeches and beliefs, which is interesting considering his reelection this year.

Consensus: Killing Them Softly is a decent modern crime film with an interesting social commentary, but leaves the audience wanting more in ways of acting and plot/climax.

Rating: 3.5/5

Upcoming Review

I'll be posting a review for Killing Them Softly sometime this evening.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Delay

Unfortunately, the cinema where I planned to see The Hobbit had an unexpected power outage. I'll post a review as soon as I actually get to see the film. My apologies.

Hobbit Preview

I'm preparing to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey tonight. For an avid geek like me, I'm very excited. I'll be sharing a full review once I see the movie.