Alita: Battle Angel (2019)

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)

Director: Robert Rodriguez 

Cast: Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Conelly, Rosa Salazar, Mahershala Ali, Keean Johnson, Jackie Earle Haley, Michelle Rodriguez, Casper Van Diem, Jeff Fahey and Edward Norton

So after many years in development, Yukito Kishiro’s manga comes to life in an expensive, fx filled film produced and written by the one and only James Cameron and directed by none other than genre favorite Robert Rodriguez. I remember hearing about Cameron’s intent on making this film since his Titanic days. So here we are, Alita has finally seen the light of day. Did the films long gestating period affect it in a positive or negative way? 

Rosa Salazar plays Alita

Alita is your typical big brother is watching, rebels against the evil oppressive elitist government type of thing and that always gets the juices of my juices flowing because, it’s the kind of thing we all deal with on a day to day basis. And though this story might feel ‘old hat’ to some, you know what I always say; it’s how you tell your tale that matters. And in that area Alita Battle Angel exceeds because it takes place in a complex post-apocalyptic world where most of the people live in poverty and garbage while a select few live their lives in an exclusive 1%-only-live-there utopia above the clouds, in a floating city called ‘Zalem’. Alita is a cyborg, who is thrown away like garbage, only to be found by Dr. Dyson, who then decides to give her a new body and bring her back to life. Problem is she’s no ordinary cyborg, and so the film turns into the story of how Alita discovers who she is and what she’s truly capable of. Alita is a fine slice of Cyberpunk Cinema, meaning it's a story about humans, melding with technology...centered on misfits and outcasts who battle against the proverbial system. 

Months before its release, talk of how the film would do in theaters was mostly negative. This is something I have always been against. Saying that a film is projected to do bad even before its release is wrong in my book because you are already setting the film up for failure. You’re marking it for death even before it’s had a chance to show what it’s made of. So I absolutely detest it when websites start defusing articles saying that they “project an abysmal box office” for whatever the film. I say let the audience decide! I say give the film a chance to prove itself! That being said, I wasn’t too excited for Alita Battle Angel because to be honest, the teaser trailer didn’t really do much for me. I was going to see it anyway because as I said, I always like to give films a chance. I like to give them the quintessential benefit of the doubt. Still, Alita wasn’t a priority for me. That all changed as the films premiere date approached. I saw a final trailer…I saw the anime it was based on…I started to read these positive reviews about how mind blowing the film was and suddenly my interest in it sparked. Suddenly I was excited to see it. 

Yukito Kishiro’s Manga on which the film is based on

So why doom a film to failure before it’s released? These cinematic projections are based on a couple of things. For example, a films possible outcome can be determined by how popular the source material is before the film’s release. For example, Harry Potter was a literary phenomenon way before a film was even considered. So of course, the films based on the Harry Potter books were always projected to be a success. I’m willing to bet that in today’s technologically savvy world, clicks on facebook and the times a trailer has been seen and shared on You Tube can also give number crunchers an idea of how a film will do. Reactions to tests screenings also tell producers a lot. Apparently, Alita’s future in the box office wasn’t expected to be so great. In fact, it was expected to bomb big. I’m guessing these fortune tellers were also basing their stats on how other manga film adaptations have done, like for example how Ghost in the Shell (2017) bombed at the box office. Also, expensive films based on obscure books or comics that aren’t that well known have bombed in a big way, the most recent example being Mortal Engines (2019). A great film that bombed because the books weren’t blockbuster hits or whatever. 

Battle Angel Alita isn’t exactly a new property. It is based on a Manga (that’s a Japanese comic book for you non-savvy) which is still being printed today. It was adapted into an anime series...the problem is that Alita is obviously more popular and known in Japan. In the states it is known by lovers of anime, alone, though I’m sure that will change after this film. But, if a film is good, it’s good and good word of mouth should give it life at the box office. And so Alita Battle Angel has achieved what few films marked for death have done, it came out on top. That’s right my friends, inspite of all the negative predictions about it being a box office bomb before it was even seen, the people, the audiences have decided this one is going to be a winner. But why? Well, I attribute various reasons to this success. Number one, the knock out power house combo of James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, both world renown directors. Also, it doesn’t hurt to put the words “from the producers of Avatar” on the promotional material because say what you may about Avatar, it was a groundbreaking film in its time. Also, it was a good move for the producers to promote the film as a “must watch special effects event” that must be seen on the biggest, loudest most 3-D screen you can find in the galaxy. So yeah, all these elements, plus good word of mouth its gotten from people who have actually seen the film, have led to Alita Battle Angel battling the odds so to speak and and winning at the box office. Mind you, as of my writing this the film hasn’t passed the 100 million mark yet, but this Film Connoisseur is willing to bet it will make its money back because of good word of mouth and because of what the film will make overseas, specifically China. 

The film has gotten amazing praise for its special effects and I agree, it is an amazing looking film. It has a great cast that counts with the participation of Christophe Waltz, Jennifer Connelly and Rosa Salazar in her break out role as Alita. It also has many fine actors in smaller parts, like for example Edward Norton and Jeff Fahey. But you know, the real stars here are the special effects which are flawless in my book. Having an awesome cast is the icing on the cake. A note on the effects work, James Cameron’s special effects team, who were hard at work on the effects for the new Avatar films, stopped working on those to work on Alita. And if you know anything about James Cameron it’s that the effects in the films he is involved in are flawless, and often times groundbreaking. A special effects heavy stand out scene in Alita involves a sport called ‘Motor Ball’ which is a lot like Roller Ball and Alita loves it so much she signs up for a trial run, to see if she’s got what it takes to be part of Motor Ball. The Motor Ball race sequence could give Episode I’s ‘Pod Racing’ sequence a run for its money. But aside from its effects work, I think ultimately what will win people over with Alita Battle Angel is its heart and characters. For a film dealing with cyborgs, this film has a lot of warmth and humanity to it. It’s a story about a girl who is coming of age, a girl falling in love for the first time. And a girl, standing up to evil! I love that line where Alita says “I will not standby in the presence of evil!” Awesome sauces. Anyhow’s, Alita is awesome, well worth the wait. Amazing effects, a heart of gold and a lovable, strong lead, what’s not to love?

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Spectre (2015)

Spectre (2015)

Director: Sam Mendes

Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Belluci, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Ben Whishaw

So here we are, the 24^th Bond film. Let’s recap: this is Daniel Craig’s fourth run as Bond and in my opinion, the best rendition of Bond ever. Skyfall (2012), directed by Sam Mendes, was without a doubt in my mind one of the best Bond films ever and thankfully, Mendes is back behind the directors chair, closing the chapter on Daniel Craig’s run as Bond. The film does feel like its definitely closing a cycle, it connects all the three previous films. It feels like the next Bond film will go in an entirely new direction for the series. So anyhow, how was Spectre? Does it up the ante and maintain the same level of quality established by Skyfall? I’d say that yes, it does. This is after all the same creative team we had in Skyfall  and we are talking about the most expensive of the Bond films, so yeah, it gives us more of what we like about Bond films. This time around Bond goes up against Spectre, a top secret society of powerful individuals who rule the world. They are hell bent on destroying the 007 program so they can establish a network that will know everything about everybody, everywhere, all the time.

For a while now, these Bond films have been trying to destroy everything that has been established in the Bond universe.I mean, the MI-6 headquarters was blown to smithereens and M died on the previous film! We got a new Q, and now for Spectre even the whole 007 program is now in shambles. So it’s clear to me that filmmakers are trying to destroy everything previously established so they can create again.  New actors, new faces, basically, they’ve been hard at work at giving the whole franchise a face lift, and they are doing this systematically, from film to film. These new movies have a continuity to them that’s working like magic. Yet at the same time, even with all the face-lifts the franchise is getting, this is still the same old Bond. We still get an amazing credit sequence that’s used to give us a glimpse at what we’ll be seeing in the film. We still get Bond asking for his Martini, “shaken but not stirred”. He still says his name is “Bond…James Bond”, and Q still gives him his gadgets. He still gets a cool car in every movie, followed by an awesome chase sequence in said car. So yeah, the series is getting a face lift, but the new films still follow the formula closely. It’s a tried and true and the producers don’t want to mess with it.

Story wise the film is very contemporary, it plays with that idea that the powers that be are gathering data, they are studying our behavior, our interests, where we go and what we buy. Basically, the film is addressing the loss of privacy due to the advancement of technology, which serves as a double edged knife. On the one hand technology makes our lives easier, it entertains us, yet at the same time, it opens a door wide open to whoever wants to scrutinize our lives. Sadly, this is the kind of world we are currently living in. Interesting part about that we cannot put a face to whoever is gathering and analyzing all this data. What the film does is give a face and a name to “them”, to “they”. I loved that Bond manages to infiltrate this powerful secret society and even gets to listen to one of these secret meetings in which “they” decide the fate of the world. Interestingly enough these all powerful individuals are heard talking about pharmaceutical companies, deceases and about how they can sell us the cure; which is another common “conspiracy theory”. The idea that pharmaceutical companies are making us sick so we have to pay for their cure. So yeah, Spectre plays with some heavy themes.

My only gripe with this new film is that it’s not original in the sense that the “Big Brother is Watching You” theme has been played to death, most recently in films like Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), hell, even the idea of eliminating the secret agent program was recently used in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015). Still, Spectre has enough subplots and action to keep you interested all the way through, in fact, it’s the most action packed of the Daniel Craig movies. It opens with this amazing action sequence that takes place in Mexico during the Day of the Dead celebrations. It opens the film with a huge bang! Action wise, you won’t be disappointed. I’m glad about this because I thought the first two Daniel Craig movies Casino Royale (2006) and especially Quantum of Solace (2008) were severely lacking in action scenes. Thankfully Spectre does not disappoint in that department; in fact, the franchise even recovers its sense of humor with this entry, a welcomed element in my book. The previous three films were so serious and solemn, Spectre manages to squeeze in a joke or two which was much appreciated, I always like it when Bond gets cocky and sarcastic. So I'm happy to report that the "fun" element has been brought back to the Bond films with Spectre, albeit in a controlled manner. 

Then there’s the cast which is beyond amazing, this is Daniel Craig at the top of his game. By now he’s got Bond down flat. Christoph Waltz as the main villain is the icing on the cake. I mean, I love it when they put a great actor to play the Bond villain, I mean, how cool was Javier Bardem in Skyfall? Memorable in deed. On Spectre we get the cool and calculating Christoph Waltz as the all seeing, all knowing Blowfeld. Sadly we see very little of Monica Belucci in Spectre, she’s a cinematic goddess that deserved a better role, she seemed wasted. Finally, Spectre is a great Bond film, with good action, beautiful dames, exotic locales and a fantastic cast. Important things happen to Bond on this film, this could be the last time we see Daniel Craig as James Bond film, but considering how much money Spectre will make at the box office, I don’t doubt he’ll be back for “one last film”. Looking forward to seeing Craig again, but if Craig and Mendes don’t return, it will be interesting to see who they give these roles to. Whoever they end up being, they’ve got big shoes to fill! Spectre, like Skyfall, is a solid entry in a franchise that is enjoying some of its best moments.

Rating: 4 out of 5 

         

The Zero Theorem (2013)

Title: The Zero Theorem (2013)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Cast: Christoph Waltz, Lucas Hedges, David Thewlis, Matt Damon, Tilda Swinton, Peter Stormare

I hold director Terry Gilliam in very high esteem; he has been one my favorite directors since…forever. He and I have a kinship, we are on the same channel, we see the world in the same way, a world  filled with bureaucracy, big corporations and governments trying to feverishly stomp out what’s left of our humanity, our imaginations, our dreams. It’s this particular world view that is always mirrored in his films. There’s this theory in the world of cinema that says that every director keeps making the same film over and over again until he or she dies, this theory holds true for many directors. They don’t always tell the same exact story, but they do play with the same themes over and over again. For example, Gilliam’s films usually deal with characters that escape the horrors of this world by dreaming of a better one. In Gilliam’s films, the great escape is our minds. One of Gilliam’s first films, Time Bandits (1981), is about a little boy who avoids his dismal family life by escaping to the fantastic worlds he finds in his books, in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988) the Baron helps an entire town escape the horrors of war by entertaining them with his tall tales and in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009) Gilliam showed us how our imaginations are really a mirror of ourselves. How what he shows us in his films, is really a reflection of us, of humanity. And now we’ve got The Zero Theorem (2013), does Gilliam play with his favorite themes once again?

The man, The myth, The Legend, Director Terry Gilliam on the set of The Zero Theorem

 In The Zero Theorem we follow the life of Qohen Leth, a computer programmer, who works for a company called ManCom. The problem with Qohen is that he’s tired of the repetitive work; he hates to go out into the world, face the noise. In this way he reminded me of the man who turns into a cockroach because he doesn’t want to leave his home to go to work in Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. In The Zero Theorem, Qohen believes he can be more productive working from his home, so he wants to meet with management to propose the idea to them. To his surprise, management says “yes” but on one condition, that instead of doing the usual work he does, he must instead attempt to solve “The Zero Theorem”. What exactly is the Zero Theorem and can Qohen solve it?

The original title for Terry Gilliam’s Brazil (1985) was ‘1984 ½’, this unused title referenced both George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece ‘1984’ and Federico Fellini’s  8 1/2 (1963), so from very early on in his career Gilliam had an affinity for Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece and Fellini's surreal film. In Orwell's 1984 the government has sucked the wonder out of life and people simply work to produce, to form part of the whole. In this novel, all individuality has been eradicated from society. All these Orwellian themes can be found in The Zero Theorem; for example, when Qohen talks, he refers to himself as “We” never as “I” which lets us see he is so oppressed by ‘the system’ that he has ceased to stop thinking of himself, he only thinks of the group. The Zero Theorem also echoes Federico Fellini’s 8 ½ because it’s a film whose main character is constantly dreaming in an attempt to escape the hectic demands of his life; Qohen escapes to the virtual world, the only place where he can find peace. So yes, this new film has all the usual Gilliam influences, with the added element that Gilliam now comments on the digital age we live in, in The Zero Theorem his characters don’t just escape to their dream worlds, they escape to virtual dream worlds. 

A lot of folks are referring to The Zero Theorem as the last chapter in Gilliam’s ‘satirical dystopian trilogy’ a trio of films consisting of The Zero Theorem, 12 Monkeys (1995) and Brazil (1985). The reason being that these films all share the same idea of man trying to survive in a crazy, out of control future where a totalitarian government has brought humanity to a horrible, lifeless end. For example, the main character in Brazil was Sam Lowry, an office dweller who works in a small cubicle, crunching numbers, not at all that different from Qohen, who feverishly works on his computer, without a second to blink. There’s a moment in which Qohen (brilliantly played by Christoph Waltz) is trying to solve the Zero Theorem and as he is almost there, he’s face lights up in ecstasy, like he was high on some drug, not all that different from when we plug into a video game and solve it. I’m sure Gilliam was commenting on this as well, we work hours in an office only to come home and unwind in front of a television screen, trying to solve a meaningless puzzle, called a video game. Every time we pass to the next level, we get this little rush, this feeling of achievement which amounts to nothing? This reminds me of how the film constantly reminds us that 100% = 0.

The Zero Theorem also explores the idea of religion and the existence of God; yes my friends, on this film Gilliam ponders the big questions. Why are we here? What does it all mean? Is God real? You see, throughout the film Qohen is always waiting for a phone call, a mysterious phone call that will give him an answer to a question that even Qohen doesn’t fully understand, yet he’s waiting for it. Kind of like those people waiting for God to talk to them, they spend their entire lives waiting to hear that voice. In the film, it is understood that Qohen is suffering from some type of insanity because of this illusion he lives under, not unlike your typical Jesus Freak, always expecting for God to talk to them, always waiting for God to solve their lives, to tell them what to do, to answer the big questions for them. Even though the film alludes to Qohen being insane, I wouldn’t say he is. He’s simply living a lie, slowly uncovering the truth, learning that he’s been taken for a fool. The truth is ‘the call’ is a delusion. No one is going to call you. You gotta take the reins of your life. It is sad to see Qohen under such mental stress over these matters, which is probably what the filmmakers want us to notice, the unnecessary mental struggle that religion puts you through. But still, those big questions remain unanswered. Who will answer them? Will they ever get answered?  

There’s so much more to The Zero Theorem than what I’ve mentioned here, it’s the kind of film that begs to be seen more than once. I for one need to give it a re-watch, I love it when a film does that to me. It compels me to watch it again, almost immediately. Last time this happened to me was with David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2001). So yeah, this movie is like a puzzle, it’s a brainy film. It’s made for those of us who like to get all existential and philosophical, all others will probably end up scratching their heads, asking themselves what the hell this movie is about. Is it Gilliam’s best film? Not if you ask this Terry Gilliam fan, but I don’t blame Gilliam himself. The man is working with micro budgets when compared to the gazillion dollar movies he used to make during the 80’s and 90’s. Sadly, this is an ailment that many an auteur suffers from.  Big studios won’t give directors such as Gilliam the big bucks to make the big movies they could be making because artful films are risky, and studios hate to lose money on a film. So this is why we’re getting this ‘low budget’ version of Terry Gilliam, which as it turns out, is still amazing. Because it’s not the money behind the movie, it’s the imagination and creativity behind the camera that brings a film to life. And to be honest, films like this mean a whole lot more to me then the latest, brainless Hollywood blockbuster. Terry Gilliam remains the soul of true dreamers, fantasists and artists out there, a director who makes films against all odds, my hats down to you sir. You’ve won yet another battle and have given us another soul searching film.

Rating: 4 out of 5    

Django Unchained (2012)

Title: Django Unchained (2012)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington, Don Johnson

Review:

There’s a group of filmmakers out there that use their clout in Hollywood, their power as icons of filmmaking to truly say something about humanity with their films. These directors grow conscious of the power they have as storytellers and so, instead of making empty Hollywood spectacles with no meat to them, they opt to make films that actually say something, films that not only entertain us, but also enlighten us at the same time. Take for example Steven Spielberg who’s been doing it for years with films like Empire of the Sun (1987), Amistad (1997), Saving Private Ryan (1998), Schindlers List (1993) and most recently Lincoln (2012); all films that pin point a dark time in human history. Through these films Spielberg speaks of the horrors of war and the inhumanity of slavery. With Inglorious Basterds (2009) and now, Django Unchained Tarantino has graduated into this group of filmmakers who use their careers and films to comment on the evils of society. Yes sir ladies and gents, Django Unchained serves up a hefty helping of Tarantino hatred aimed at the white supremacist boneheads who think that white is more than black. Once again Tarantino zeroes in and aims his guns at the evils of racism. 

In Django Unchained  we meet Dr. King Schultz, a mercenary disguised as a dentist. He goes around killing criminals for bounty. He needs to kill this gang of murderers, but he doesn’t know what they look like, so he searches for a slave that used to work in the same plantation where these three criminals are currently hiding out. Enter Django, the slave who can help Dr. Schultz out. It isn’t long before both Django and Dr. Schultz team up and decide to work together as bounty hunters, erradicating the world of bad guys for the right price. But Django can never forget his true love, a beautiful slave girl by the name of Broomhilda. Can Dr. Schultz and Django free Broomhilda From the clutches of an evil slave driver named Calvin Candie?

So the pleasures of watching a Tarantino film are many in my book. First off, let’s talk about how Tarantino is finally making a western, a genre of films that he was obviously going to end up working on at some point in his career. It is almost a given that whoever loves Kung Fu movies as much as Tarantino does, will also love westerns, because both of these genres are very similar. This is probably the reason why Tarantino agreed to appear in Takashi Miike's Sukijaki Western Django (2007), a film that effectively mixed the asian film with the western, I recommend that one if you feel like seeing a stylish and offbeat western, in it Tarantino cameos as a cowboy. Tarantino's love for westerns is very evident in Django Unchained, for example his appreciation for Sergio Corbucci's original Django (1966) can be heard as soon as the film starts; it opens with the original Django theme song from Corbucci's film playing through out the entire opening credit sequence, the credits in the film where done using the same striking red font used in Corbucci's film. Django Unchained has shoot outs, taverns, characters riding horses in the sunset, a little town in the middle of nowhere, sherriffs, marshalls, male bonding, all elements we've come to expect from the western; but what makes this one different is the issue of slavery. Django Unchained goes into the whole 'Mandigo Fighting' scene, which was all about white slavers pitting their strongest slaves against each other to the death.  

Now if you've seen Tarantino's previous films then you know that he sympathizes with black people and all the suffering they've gone through across history, one could almost say that Tarantino wishes he was black himself. While he has been known to love all types of films from different genres, he's always had a fondness for blaxsploitation films like Coffy (1973), Superfly (1972), The Mack (1973) Foxy Brown (1974) and Shaft (1971). Tarantino is constantly inspired by these films. His love for them always shows up in his work; Pulp Fiction (1994) and Jackie Brown (1997) both have a whole lot of black in them and so does Django Unchained. Black is beautiful and Tarantino knows it; and he wants to make damn sure you know it as well. Black characters have always formed a part of Tarantino's cinematic heroes, so when Tarantino decided to make his Django black as opposed to all previous cinematic incarnations of the character, it didn't suprise me one bit. And when the film ended up criticizing slavery and the Ku Klux Klan, it made all the sense in the world. The white slavers of those days, along with the members of the Ku Klux Klan aren't all that different from Hitler's Nazi's, which Tarantino also criticized with Inglorious Basterds; I think it's safe to say that  Tarantino is concerned with making films that put a magnifying glass on humanities greatest mistakes, a practice that some of the best directors do.          

Same as Spielberg graduated from making Summer Blockbusters to making more serious, socially conscious films with The Color Purple (1985), so has Tarantino. Once upon a time, Tarantino was a filmmaker  more concerned with shock value then anything else. I'm not saying that films like Reservoir Dogs (1992) or Pulp Fiction are empty films, these are some of his best films, truly entertaining. And there's no doubt that they are glorified b-movies, films that sulk in their low brow entertainment roots. But now, it feels to me that with his two previous efforts he's decided to speak his mind against on important issues, things that truly matter in the world. With Django Unchained  Tarantino makes the black man, a slave, the hero of the film. He gives a slave, the power to strike back at those who would treat him as less. In Inglorious Basterds Tarantino changed history and rewrote it in his own way; in Tarantino's universe Hitler and his cronies die burned alive inside of a movie theater, while a Jew laughs maniacally from the afterlife. We all know that's not the way it happened, but symbolically, Tarantino is showing how much he hates antisemitism by burning these truly evil individuals inside of a theater. In this way, he gets a cinematic revenge for all of us, for all the victims and for himself. Django Unchained functions the same way, but with white supremacists, slavers, and the members of the Ku Klux Klan. There is one scene in Django Unchained where Django practically  whips a white racist to death, then shoots him dead. There's such hatred in Jamie Foxx's eyes during that scene, it's as if he was whipping this racist individual for all those who have suffered through out history, an awesome scene! With this film Tarantino is saying "you're wrong and have always been wrong about this, let's whip some sense into ya!" 

But aside from racial issues, the film has some amazing performances all around. I have loved Christoph Waltz performances from the very first time I saw him in Inglorious Basterds (and who didnt right?) but on Django Unchained he doesn't play a villain, instead he plays an extremely likable character, that of Dr. King Schultz, Django's liberator and mentor, what a great character! He is very articulate, very intelligent, very civil, but he wont have a problem blowing your head off if the law permits him to. Jamie Foxx totally commands his character as Django, loved every second of him on screen. He has this attitude to him, first his this angry, scared slave, but slowly he turns into this cocky, black avenger who soon realizes his worth and will take no crap from anybody. And yet another plus this film has going for it is DiCaprio's Calvin Candie. Holy moly what a great character. I've always loved DiCaprio's performances, he has a level of intensity he can reach which is fantastic, and he really channells that anger into this character, so much so that DiCaprio cut himself while filming an angry scene and Tarantino, bless his soul, used that very take. There's a duality to Calvin Candie that I enjoyed, he's a villain, but a nice guy at the same time. Samuel L. Jackson plays an old slave who basically kisses Calvin Candies ass all the time, you'll grow to hate him, but he will also make you laugh. All in all, an excellent cast that makes the film a true pleasure to watch. 

This being a Tarantino film, the high levels of violence displayed here shouldn't surprise anyone. Here the blood flies like there's no tomorrow. This is a revenge film after all, so when the blood must flow, it will, without mercy. The word 'nigger' is also used profusely, an issue that has become something of a controversy, but in Tarantino's defense I will say that the white people of those days probably used the word as much. You can also expect a film that has a well thought out story, with some incredibly good character development; this film takes its time so you can get to know these characters, the dialog will keep you glued to that screen; it's no secret Tarantino has a talent for writing dialog thats just a pleasure to hear, these characters can be so freaking funny at times. Plus, there's cameos galore here! Keep your eyes peeled for Bruce Dern, Tom Savini, Michael Parks, the original Django Franco Nero, Don Johnson, Jonah Hill and Zoe Bell. For lovers of westerns and Tarantino films, this film has tons of treats, you just gotta keep your eyes and ears open. All in all, one of the best films I've seen in 2012, one that's sure to make my top ten of 2012. By the time the film ends, you will have a huge smile on your face and love Django; Jamie Foxx really earned his actors badge with this one. I rarely go see a movie twice the same weekend, but this was one of them. Highly recommended my friends, fun and enlightening at the same time.

Rating: 5 out of 5   

The Green Hornet (2011)

Title: The Green Hornet (2011)

Director: Michel Gondry

Cast: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Christoph Waltz

So Gondry doing a commercial film, that’s what really called my attention towards this film. It wasn’t Seth Rogen or even The Green Hornet character because I was never that much into the character. I’d read a comic book or two, but basically all I knew about The Green Hornet was that Bruce Lee had been in the 1966 television show, that’s it. It was only later that I found out it had been a radio show in the 30’s. But Michel Gondry directing a commercial film? That was the real grabber for me because Gondry has never done what we would call a commercial film. Most of his films are always artsy films like Human Nature (2001), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), The Science of Sleep (2006), and Be Kind Rewind (2008) all awesome movies on their own right, but big summer blockbusters they were not. So how did Gondry’s trip down Hollywood lane turn out?

Thats Gondry to the left. The Green Hornet and Kato from the 1966 television show on the right

I’d say it went pretty damn good. I mean, I was really curious about this film because it had many strange things going for it. Gondry directing a big budget flick like this one was a first, but that was something I was definitely willing to give a try. What caught me off guard was Seth Rogen playing the hero. In previous attempts at bringing The Green Hornet to cinematic life, actors like Mark Wahlberg, Vince Vaugh, George Clooney and Jake Gyllenhaal were considered for the role. Hell, even Eddie Murphy tried to play Britt at one point. Eventually, years and years passed and Rogen took an interest in the film and decided to write it and produce it himself. He also put himself in the lead role as the films hero. To me, that also went against type because what Hollywood normally does in superhero films is place a buffed up dude in the role of the hero, and Rogen is everything but that. Reportedly, Rogen lost 30 pounds to be on this movie, but he still didn’t come off as a muscle bound superhero. I don’t care about that though, I think he did just fine the way he is. Who says all heroes have to be muscle bound? And finally, another strange thing about the film was its tone, apparently according to the trailers; this was going to be a comedy. So The Green Hornet was definitely shaping up to be a film that was playing with our expectations of a comic book film. But what the hell, it looked like a fun time at the movies so I gave it a shot.

I’m glad I did. I mean, it delivered exactly what I was expecting: a fun lighthearted superhero film. Rogen plays Britt Reid. A millionaire, son to the head honcho of the local newspaper, ‘The Daily Sentinel’. When his father dies, suddenly Britt is faced with the responsibility of running the local newspaper. Problem is that Britt isn’t a very responsible person. He likes to party like its 1999, all the time! He doesn’t give a damn about the newspaper or how it is run. But that all changes one night when he and his trusty driver Kato manage to stop a robbery. It is then that he realizes that he has the power and the means with which to fight crime, so suddenly he has a change of heart and decides to do something worthwhile with his life. He will fight crime with his side kick Kato as the masked avenger known as The Green Hornet!

There’s a lot of good things I can say about this movie, number one, having Gondry as the director is major asset. Gondry was supposed to direct this film as his first feature film way back in 1997, when this film was first attempted. So in a way, Gondry had always been involved with this picture. The cool thing about Gondry is that he has always been known for using lots of visual gags on his films, and on this one he goes all out with this. Whenever The Green Hornet and Kato go out to kick some ass, there’s some sort of visual effect to keep things interesting, especially in the fight sequences. His visual trickery makes the film that much cooler to watch. In the film, Kato serves as the gadget maker for Britt. I mean, essentially, Kato is this genius inventor who can make anything! He turns Britt’s car into a mean crime fighting machine, equipped with machine guns and everything. He makes all the gadgets and the cars, plus he is a Kung Fu expert! And he can make a mean cup of coffee! So all of Kato’s gadgets (brought to life by Gondry’s visual trickery) make the film fun to watch. It was interesting seeing Gondry taking full advantage of CGI and 3-D as well. Speaking of the 3-D, I gots no complaints about that either.

The film’s themes are against political corruption, it deals with a politician who wants to use the local newspaper to boost his image in the publics’ eye by printing bullshit stories that make him look good. In this way increasing his chances of becoming President of the United States. The film has a very subversive nature to it because it addresses the power that the media has to manipulate how the masses perceive the world. I liked that about it. They really go into how a newspaper headline can change peoples perceptions of things. Put this or that in the headline and poof! that’s how people will see things. The Green Hornet is perceived as a villain, a vigilante out to take justice into his own hands. So the film also addresses how the media will often times portray the bad guys as the good guys, and the heroes as the villains, all to fit the political scheme of things. A bold statement for what is essentially a very lighthearted film.

And trust me, the film is lighthearted. It never gets too violent or graphic or anything. It keeps a fun vibe all through out. The dialog had me cracking up all the time. There is something about the characters, they come off as extremely likable. Rogen plays his character the way many of Gondry’s characters are portrayed in his films, like grown men with 12 year old sensibilities. Think about it, Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine and Gael Garcia Bernal in The Science of Sleep where grown men acting like children. Same thing happens here. Rogen sounds like a little kid most of the time. I’ve always liked that about Gondry’s films, his characters never loose that sense of child like amazement and wonderment. Kato comes off as a father figure to Britt, the big kid with the expensive toys. And speaking of Kato, he totally dominates this movie and often times comes off as more of a hero then Britt does. So this is the kind of movie where the hero isn’t all that perfect and awesome, he is flawed. Most of the time he ends up getting his ass saved by Kato, his sidekick. Kind of like how you felt that Kick-Ass (2010) was more about Hit Girl then Kick-Ass himself, that’s how this movie plays out.

But considering how much money The Green Hornet is making, we might get to see the character grow into a full blown hero in future films. I’m thinking the purposely made him out to be a goof ball, because like Kick-Ass, he is just learning how to become a hero. The Green Hornet aint gonna change your life or nothing, but it will entertain ya pretty well for an hour and a half!

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5

Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Title: Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Comments:

Every Tarantino movie is a special treat for me. His films dont come out every year, he takes his damn good time to start working on a new project, but more often then not, that 'in between film time' is well worth the wait. Tarantino films are films for people who really enjoy a good movie. He really takes that extra time and effort to set up a sequence, to write the pitch perfect dialog, to escalate the suspense in a sequence to brilliant heights. Inglorious Basterds was a project which he had been wanting to do for some time now, and its finally come to fruition. Its based on an Italian film made in 1978 dealing with similar subject matter (Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato a.k.a. Deadly Mission) but ultimately, Tarantino's film is a whole other thing. So whats the veredict for his latest nazi hating opus?

Story concerns a group of dudes known as "The Basterds" who go around doing nothing more then killing Nazi soldiers. This is one part of the story, where we follow these guys capturing, questioning, torturing and finally killing nazis all around France. But theres another story in which we follow a woman whos whole family was killed by Nazi scumbags. She escapes, tries to live a normal life...until the moment for her pitch perfect revenge practically falls on her lap. Both stories collide in the third act of the film to offer us one glorious revenge filled moment of triumph!

So basically, it appears as if Tarantino had to blow off his hatred for Nazi's. It happens to directors every now and again, hell, it happens to anybody every time they read the history books. Cant say I blame 'em. Hitler and his pack of dogs were some of the slimiest group of people to ever walk the face of the planet. Who the hell were they to say they were the best, and the only ones deserving to walk on this planet? I say, to hell with those Nazi bastards, and lets all make sure nothing like that ever happens again in history! Ever! Steven Spielberg released his hatred for the Nazi party when he made Schindlers List back in 1993, hell, the Nazi's were the villains in two of the four Indiana Jones films. Many more films have shown their hatred towards the Nazi's: The Pianist, Life is Beautiful, Sophies Choice, to name but a few. So now its Tarantino's turn to spew some intense hatred towards them.

Most films dealing with history try to be as historically accurate as possible. They gotta stick to the way things happened. Heres were Tarantinos Inglorious Basterds takes a bit of a turn from your usual Nazi film. Basically what Tarantino did was he developed this story around people who are suffering over the Nazi's occupation of France. But he takes the story his own way and shows us how he would have wanted to get Hitler and his closest buddies all in the same room at the same time to wipe them off the face of the earth. Im not going to go into details as to how he does this, but its one of the coolest revenge stories Ive seen. The last moments of this film are truly awesome, makes you wish it had really happened that way. But it didnt, so dont expect this movie to stick to history and the way things happened cause thats not what your going to see. This is a "what if" sort of story.

This movie is 100% a Tarantino film. How do we know this? Well, for starters, its a revenge story. We all know how much Tarantino loves those! One of its main characters is a woman, which goes right in line with most of Tarantino's films, which most of the time end up giving women the power to overcome their troubles on their own. See both Kill Bill films, Jackie Brown and Deathproof for examples of this. The film is divided into chapters, which is a very common Tarantino landmark. We have a scene where everybody in the room just whips out their gun and shoots the hell out of each other, which is something we've seen in many a Tarantino film, even as far back as his True Romance days. So be ready for a film thats purely and undoubtedly a Quentin Tarantino film.

Another thing that distinguishes a Tarantino film from all others is the excellent choice in actors. Many might view Brad Pitt as nothing more then a pretty face, but I beg to differ. Ive always thought he was one of the finest actors from his generation. Sure, he's just as guilty as the next hollywood actor for making crap (Mr. and Mrs. Smith for example) but you need only to look through his resume to see some excellent performances. My favorite of the bunch is Early Grayce in Dominic Sena's Kalifornia. Where Pitt plays this hill billy white thrash whacko with some serious psychological issues. Highly recommend you check that movie out if you doubt Pitts acting skills. Other films Id recommend as examples of Pitts excellent acting skills are 12 Monkeys, Seven, and now I'll add Inglorious Basterds to his list of excellent performances. Here he plays Lieutenant Aldo Raine, a guy who wants nothing more then to kill Nazi Basterds and collect their scalps! He plays that country boy accent from Tenesse very well! His character is the one responsible for some of the more comedic moments in the film.

What actor doesnt want to jump at the opportunity to be in a Tarantino movie? We get an excellent cast here of great actors that you've probably never seen or heard of before, but probably will see and hear a lot of from now on because they were in this film. Example: Christoph Waltz the actor who plays the most hateful of the Nazis in this film (Col. Hans Landa) is already lined up to star in next summers comic book flick The Green Hornet. But I have to say, he deserves his upcoming success, on this film he plays a truly hateful Nazi commander! The kind of Nazi that will question you and question you and question you until he finally discovers you are hiding something, or being unfaithful to the Fuhrer and then he will make you pay for it! Great character! Very versatile, Waltz character demanded that he speak four languages! French, Italian, English and German! A memorable villain played by a very experienced actor, he has not made many American films, but you should see all the movies this actor has made all over the world! Same thing with the beautiful Melanie Laurent, who has an impressive resume of French films, but had never made an American one. She plays the rebel who got away, the vengeful woman in Tarantinos Nazi universe. We also get a great supporting cast, among them Eli Roth (director of Hostel I and II and Cabin Fever testing his acting chops) playing the "Bear Jew", a member of the Basterds who is famous for smashing Nazi skulls with a baseball bat! We get Mike Myers playing a cameo as an American col. Though I have to admit, I found Mike Myers role to be very unnecesary. His performances is a simple cameo, nothing truly relevant. Or maybe I just couldnt get past the fact that its Dr. Evil trying to play a "dramatic role".

But aside from the excellent actors and production values, this film portrays once again Tarantinos ability to whip up some great dialog and suspense. The dialog on this film is plentiful (something Tarantino is very well known for as well) but its not your usal "Tarantino Bullshit". Often times in Tarantino movies characters will start talking about the most mundane things, and go on and on about them for minutes on end. On example of this is in Reservoir Dogs when the characters start talking about the true meaning behind Maddonas "Like a Virgin" or in Pulp Fiction when Vincent talks about what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France. In Inglorious Basterds characters do have extended conversations, but to my surprise, they were all pertinent to the story. The lengthy dialog simply served the purpose of enhancing the supense or the drama in the scenes which I thought was a step up for Tarantino. Everything the characters said needed to be said and only enhanced the story as if the dialog though plentiful was distilled of any unnecesary words. Speaking of suspense, there are many scenes which start out ever so slowly, and before you know it they build up to a great climax. These Nazi bastards can really get to you even in film, when you know they arent real. Tarantino really constructed some fearful Nazi soldiers, characters that act and think like cold robots without any feelings or sympathy.

Do not expect a film that sticks to historically acquarate facts. This film takes place on its own Tarantino Nazi Universe, things dont happen the way they did. But youll wish they happened the way Tarantino portrays them on this picture. The film is very violent and graphic at times, be ready for just the right amount of gore and graphic mayhem. But you can also expect lots of comedy, some of the situations end up being quite funny, like the moment in which Pitt is trying to pass himself as an Italian film crew so he could get close to Hitler, and one of the Nazi officers starts questioning his Italian accent and he tries his best to speak Italian, though its obvious his Italian doesnt go any further then saying "arrivederci!" Hilarious.

All in all, a great Tarantino film. Well worth all the wait. Highly recommend you check it out at the theater. Its the kind of movie thats made for people who truly appreciate a good film. Great script, great performances, fun times. Tarantino's still got it.

Rating: 5 out of 5