Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood (2019)

Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood (2019)

Written and Directed by: Quentin Tarantino 

Cast: Margot Robbie, Leonardo Di Caprio, Brad Pitt, Al Pacino, Michael Madsen, Emil Hirsch, Kurt Russell, Luke Perry 

The god of cinema decided to make another one so of course I had to go see it. Movie buffs like me live for days like this, when a legendary filmmaker releases his new masterpiece upon an unsuspecting universe. As you can see, with every Tarantino film there comes a certain expectation of greatness for me. It goes without saying that I am a full blown Tarantino fan since day one, when I first saw Pulp Fiction back in ‘94 and felt a bucket of cold ice being poured down my cinematic back. But time has passed and as Tarantino himself has said, directors do not make their best movies in their heyday. And Tarantino is close to what he calls his ‘heyday’.  But whatever, I don’t subscribe to that idea, I mean, Scorcese is still amazing and he's close to hitting 80 as I write this. It’s true, that directing a film is a “young person’s game” but Tarantino isn’t that old yet. He still has it in him to hammer out a few good ones. So, was this one of his “good ones”?

 Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is as the title suggest, a huge love letter to Hollywood, filmmaking, actors and life in L.A. during the end of the 60’s. We follow Rick Dalton, an actor who’s afraid of being a has been and his stunt man Cliff Booth. Together they go from gig to gig hoping that it isn’t their last. Somehow, they end up getting entangled with Charles Manson and his gang of zelot followers. The rest is fun times in La La Land, Tarantino style. 

 I’ve noticed this thing Tarantino’s been doing with his films. He takes a moment in history and totally changes it as if saying “this is how I wish it had happened!”. Remember how he burned Hitler and all his cronies in Inglorious Bastards (2009)? Of course we all know that’s not how it happened, but that’s how Tarantino wished it had. Well, Tarantino does the same thing here with Sharon Tate’s murder at the hands of Charles Manson’s followers. It was a crime of pure hate and stupidity. Tate was pregnant and two weeks away from giving birth to her new child when these crazy Manson zombies killed her and her guests. Tarantino feels this was a great wrong, Tate was a beloved actress, she was loved for her looks and her talent and was a star on the rise. Tarantino decides to tell us the events that occurred that night, but in a completely different way, using Poetic Justice as his weapon. 

 Along the way, the film muses on the hardships of being an actor and trying to survive in Hollywood. What’s it like to have that pressure of delivering a great performance? What is the actors duty on a film or a television show? Tarantino also takes us on a stroll down Los Angeles 1969, with all the cinema marquees and automobiles from that era that you’d expect. I thought it was awesome how he brought that era to life, no digital effects to be seen I might add. A lot of scenes in the film are of characters just driving around L.A. streets so we can absorb the era. Granted, this film isn’t as profound as Inglorious Basterds (2009), there’s a decidedly lighter tone to the film, like a fun breezy vibe, a feeling enhanced by Brad Pitt’s character Cliff Booth, always smiling, his character serves as a counter part to the darkness of one of the films themes, Sharon Tate’s murder at the hands of the Manson Family.

 Tarantino, Di Caprio and Pitt get together once again and I have to say the results are fantastic. Di Caprio delivers another amazing performance to his repertoire. I’ve always thought that Di Caprio is one of the best actors of his generation from day one when he blew me away in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? (1993) and to be honest he continues to do so to this day. Love his performance on Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood. A flawed, imperfect character struggling with his craft, worried about becoming useless in life. Brad Pitt turns in another loopy sort of happy go lucky stoner type, where nothing fades him, always the cool dude. His character reminded me of that stoner guy he played in True Romance (1993), it felt as if that character had grown up and become a stunt man in Hollywood. There are lots of cameos sprinkled all through out the film, we get Al Pacino playing a film producer and Kurt Russell as a stunt coordinator, in a way, it felt like he was perhaps playing the same character he played in Tarantino’s Death Proof (2007)? We also get a lot of Tarantino regulars like Zoe Bell, Bruce Dern and Michael Madsen, sorry, no Samuel Jackson this time around. 

 This is Tarantino’s 9^thfilm and there’s been a lot of talk about Tarantino saying that his next one, his tenth film, will be his last. Quite honestly I think they will milk that angle to death for his next film and make a profit out of it being “Tarantino’s 10^thand final film”, but I can almost guarantee that wont be the case. Tarantino’s love for cinema is too strong, a fact that’s evident by what we see in Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood. Tarantino has still got it and I don’t think it’s going anywhere, not even after he makes his 10^thfilm. But that’s just me and I could be horribly wrong so don’t quote me on that. As for Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, it’s a fun ride down the trippy 60’s. It’s a fun time at the movies that explores a dark chapter in Hollywood history while also exploring in a very entertaining way what it means to produce, act and direct films. A film buffs dream this movie is. 

Rating: 5 out of 5.  

Dark Phoenix (2019)

Dark Phoenix (2019)

Director/Writer: Simon Kinberg 

Cast: Sophie Turner, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jessica Chastain,  Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, Tye Sheridan, Evan Peters  

Again, another film that’s getting the shaft from audiences because they are being led to believe they shouldn’t see it. Hollywood is notorious when it comes to dealing with left over productions from a previous regime. Case in point, Disney bought Fox and so all films that were in the process of being completed during this period are quietly swept under the rug or treated like crap and left to die a quick death at the box office. For example, The New Mutants was one of the productions to get swept under the rug and forgotten. To be honest, that film looked all types of cool, it even had a horror vibe to it. Mutants in a horror film? Hell yeah I’d like to see that one! But since it was made during the Fox/Disney take over, it’s now in limbo, possibly being unceremoniously dumped on Netflix. And then there’s Dark Phoenix, the last X-Men film that will be produced by 20^thCentury Fox. Well, people already hate it because they just can’t wait for Disney to take over the X-Men and “give them the X-Men film they’ve always wanted”. 

It’s sad too, considering that the X-Men franchise was the one (along with the Spider Man movies) to kick off the currently still going strong super hero craze in cinemas. I remember a time when people just couldn’t believe they were finally getting an X-men film. Now here we are, at a point where people don’t want to back up an X-Men film. And it’s a damn shame too because this is a good one. Dark Phoenix tells the tale of the ‘Dark Phoenix Saga’, one of the most recognized and beloved of the X-men stories. This review comes from a guy who’s just read the Dark Phoenix Saga and has just recently seen Dark Phoenix. So, how did the comic book to film transition fare? Was the film faithful to the comic? For those not in the know the Dark Phoenix Saga is all about Jean Gray and how her powers get out of control and how she likes it. Problem is, absolute power corrupts absolutely and Jean ends up turning so powerful that all she cares about is pleasing her ever growing thirst for power, which includes the ability to devour worlds and everyone in them. She actually rivals Galactus in that sense, and Galactus is one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel universe! But how do the X-Men react to Jean going evil? Can Cyclops stop loving her? Can the X-Men and the rest of the world forgive her for all her evil doings? 

As expected, some changes do occur from comic to silver screen. The biggest one for me is that Jean’s reason for turning evil doesn’t come from within her, but rather from an entity that possesses her body while on a space mission. This point is the one that “bothered” me the most as I actually dug that element of the story, the fact that the evil comes from within,  that idea that we all have a dark side that we have to contend with, that side that we learn to keep in check, to control. The other big change is that they completely eliminated the plot line involving The Hellfire Club and their desire to control Jean and use her for their purposes. Finally, one last change was that the aftermath of Jean going evil and how she is judged by an alien race for having destroyed and entire planet and all the millions of people who lived in it. These changes were probably made for budgetary reasons, to keep the story “smaller”, and I get that. Which is why I’ve always thought this story should have been better suited for a trilogy of films rather than telling the whole story in one film. 

The good news is that the story manages to retain the gist of the Dark Phoenix Saga. Jean is still battling with her inner demons and the fact that she quite enjoys the influx of power. The story is still about her trying to control it. So we get all the important points that the original story hit. What’s good about the film? Is it as bad as the media and mindless movie reviewers would have you think? Hell no. In all honesty, I enjoyed this X-Men film more than I enjoyed parts 3 to 5! It is a very eventful chapter in the X-Men saga. To my surprise it is very well written. Now take in consideration that this film was directed by Simon Kinberg, the same guy who wrote X-Men’s 3 through 5! So he knows the X-men inside and out! Thankfully Kinberg takes the opportunity to fix a lot of the mistakes and quirks that fans haven’t enjoyed from previous entries and even makes fun of his own films. For example, Mystique has a line where she pokes fun at how it’s the women who are always saving the men and how the group should be called X-Women.  Also, just when Xavier is about to go on one of his famous ramblings where he starts to babble people to death Magneto says “save it, nobody is listening”. Poking fun at how sometimes Magneto and Xavier go on these endless rants! 

Why do I say that I enjoyed this one more than other X-Men films? Well for one, the dialog is straight and to the point which I loved. The film doesn’t feel like it was filmed entirely in a green room; this one feels like they actually shot the film in locations! In terms of action, this one delivers. There’s a moment where all the X-Men get together to gather Jean that’s just wow. There’s another scene on a train that will blow you away! Another plus is that the X-Men don’t hold back on their powers on this one. Remember how in X-Men you were upset because they put Storm to fight against Toad? Well, that doesn’t happen here! On this one all the X-Men go completely ballistic! In fact, they are more violent with their powers on this one than any previous X film, excluding Logan (2017) of course. Also, there are some amazing moments on this one like Magneto vs. Jean!  Anyhow, sadly this one is dying a quick death at the box office. But what can you expect? They were writing bad reviews even before the film was released. Good news is, we will see the X-Men rise from the ashes like the Phoenix by way of Disney/Marvel's take on the franchise, gotta say I’m mighty curious about that iteration of the X-Men. But this last Fox film was a great swan song; I recommend you see it in the theater. 

Rating: 4 out of 5   

Eyes Without a Face (1960)

Eyes Without a Face (1960)

Director:  Georges Franju

I didn’t expect this film to be a horror movie classic, but as it turns out, it is. I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, save for the fact that it’s one of those movies that you have to “see before you die”. I put off watching it because I thought it would be a boring film, but as I began to watch it, I was transfixed by the beauty in the imagery and the fact that it was going down horror movie territory, something totally unexpected for me. 

The story is all about a surgeon who is trying to give his daughter a new face. You see, she was in a terrible car accident and her face was horribly disfigured. Her father, the surgeon, concocts a way to give her a new face. Unfortunately, it involves ripping the face off somebody else! Will this procedure work? Will somebody stop the mad doctor? How far should science go to prove a point? 

First off, this film was beautifully shot. It took advantage, as many European films do of Europe’s beautiful architecture and natural landscapes. A director doesn’t need millions of dollars to make his movie look good, he simply has to have an eye for beautiful locations and the talent to shoot them well. This is what happens with Franju’s Eyes Without a Face, it simply looks amazing because Franju shot in these beautiful locations, this, if you ask me, elevates the material from its B movie roots and takes it into art house territory. Still, at heart, this is you’re a-typical mad doctor on the loose movie, there’s more than a passing resemblance with films like Frankenstein (1931) or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Yes, this is a film is about a mad doctor, going above and beyond to make his theories come true, to make his experiments work. 

The film is most famous for its surgical operation scene, which I imagine must have been quite the show stopper back in the day. Reportedly, people passed out during that sequence. I do remember as I watched the film, I suddenly felt I was watching “the scene”. You know how when you’re watching classic films and see a famous sequence for the first time and you realize you are in the presence of greatness…that’s how I felt with that scene. It’s an art film mixed with a horror film, loved that about this one. 

After watching Eyes Without a Face I realized where Pedro Almodovar’s The Skin I Live In (2011) comes from. Almodovar’s film is extremely similar in premise and visuals so obviously this film was a major influence. The only thing is that Almodovar’s film dives a bit deeper into themes, while Franju’s film is simplistic in nature and almost kind of void of any themes. The film shocks, has an interesting premise and looks amazing, but what is it trying to say? What is its ultimate purpose? It seems to me like Franju’s film only manages to shock and titillate and that it does in a beautiful way, but it doesn’t go beyond that. So in that sense, it’s an exercise in style over matter, poetic/surreal imagery over depth or story. I’m sure back in 1960 this film must’ve shocked audiences, I’m sure it will be considered tame by today’s horror enthusiasts. Still, this is a beautiful looking horror film, a true classic of the genre. Definitely worth a watch! 

Rating: 5 out of 5

John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum (2019)

John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum (2019)

Director: Chad Stahelski 

Cast: Keanu Reeves, Halle Berry, Laurence Fishburne, Mark Dacascos, Angelica Houston, Ian McShane

To be honest, I never understood what was the big deal with these John Wick movies, so this review comes from a viewer who was never a huge fan of the previous two films. I get why people love these movies, Keanu plus dogs = box office gold. Both are lovable, cause Keanu is Keanu and dogs, well, who doesn’t love dogs right? What I didn’t like about the first two movies was that they were R rated action movies, that behaved like they were rated PG-13. By this I mean that the amount of graphic violence and bloodshed felt limited, restrained. This is a problem for me because these are action films and to me action equals, nitty gritty, bloody and graphic. Intensity is of the essence in action films. I come from the 80’s, which means I was raised with action movies like Lethal Weapon (1987), which means I like my action to be graphic. So I never really understood why these films were holding back. It’s not that I didn’t like these movies, because they are super stylish and fun, but they needed a little more oomph to them in my opinion.  So here comes part 3, which had an awesome trailer that got me all convinced this was going to be the one to finally win me over. Did it? 

Parabellum picks up right where the second film left off, with every single hit man in the world looking for John Wick, who has a price of 14 million on his head. That’s about all you have to know about this movie to see it. Basically, these John Wick movies all have one simple excuse for all the mayhem to kick off. On the first one they killed his dog. On the second one they thrashed his car. On this one Mr. Wick doesn’t want to die because he wants to go on living so he can remember the love of his life. So basically, that’s the McGuffin on this movie. It’s the excuse to kick things off. 

And boy do things kick off quickly! In this sense John Wick delivers every step of the way, it is literally non-stop action. It never stops. And the action scenes are intricate, extensive and we can actually see what is happening. For a while there, action films were all about blurry camera movements that only suggested what was happening. This was a technique that got very popular after Ridley Scott used it in Gladiator (2000). For a while there in action films, lots of action was happening, but in reality, we understood very little of what was going on. Not on John Wick Chapter 3, here we can see everything that happens! There’s no unnecessary jerky cam to hide behind; on this film all the action is crystal clear. 

The action is truly awesome here. I’ve always described these films as excuses to show a million entertaining ways to kill people, and trust me, that’s exactly what you are going to get! We got Keanu shooting guns while horse back riding, we got Keanu shooting guns and sword fighting while riding a motorcycle, we got Keanu making the best use of a massive gun arsenal! I mean, if this isn’t the best definition for the quintessential ‘gun ballad’, I don’t know what is! Gun ballads are these usually super stylized action films that are paper thin in plot and everything is resolved with a gun. Examples of these types of films include films like Wanted (2008), Shoot ‘em Up (2007) and El Mariachi (1992). The John Wick films definitely fit this profile. You so much as look at John Wick wrong you’re going to get a bullet in ‘ya. The violence can become numbing after a while, to the point where I was expecting the film to come up with some bat shit insane death to surprise me, and it always did. Just when you think you’re getting bored, John Wick stabs somebody in the eye. Slowly. 

Basically, this is the same exact formula as the previous films, only that much cooler. That much more violent. So yes, this was the one that completely won me over. To me, this third John Wick film truly earned its ‘R’ rating, it is the best of the three. It is a guaranteed fun time at the movies. The deaths are way more graphic, the action is never ending and interesting and the stunts are amazing. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Chad Stahelski, the films director is a stunt man himself. He has doubled for many actors in action films, including Keanu in The Matrix films. What works in favor of these John Wick movies is that Stahelski knows his way around action sequences.  He even trained Brandon Lee in Jeet Kun Do, before Lee’s death in The Crow, hell, Stahelski doubled for Lee in The Crow when they decided to finish the film.  Stahelski also knows how to make a film look good. I mean, everything in John Wick looks like its glowing with neon colors! New York looks amazing on this film! By the way, this film is very New York. 42nd Street, Grand Central Station, The Continental, New York and John Wick are one here. I hear this director has signed up to direct the upcoming Highlander remake. There’s even an inside joke in Parabellum where John Wick walks into an establishment called ‘MacLeod’s’, definitely a hint of things to come, to which I say hell yeah. If the sword play in John Wick 3 is any indication, we’re in for a show.  

Rating: 4 out of 5 

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2019)

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2019)

Director: Terry Gilliam 

Cast: Adam Driver, Jonathan Pryce 

If you look at the repertoire of films in director Terry Gilliam’s career, you’ll see that a lot of his films have a Quixote quality to them. Many of his films deal with a man who escapes to fantasy worlds in order to avoid the harshness of the real one. For example, in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989), the aging Baron Munchausen calms a war torn town with his tall tales of fantasy and mayhem same as Quixote’s tall tales. Like Don Quixote, the Baron rides a horse wields a sword and fights fantastical creatures. Like Quixote, the Baron gets old when life grows stagnant and only adventure brings him to life! The Baron and Quixote are always avoiding death…from old age…or simply having death itself (read: the grim reaper) literally chasing you around. They are both in love with the “beautiful ladies”. And that’s not the only Quixote like example in Gilliam’s career, Jonathan Price’s character in Brazil (1985) is also a man who escapes into fantasy. In his fantasies he sees himself (much like Quixote) as an armor wearing sword wielding warrior, fighting giant buildings that emerge from the ground…similar to how Quixote has to fight windmills who are “giants”. 

 So yeah, Quixote has always been very close to Gilliam’s heart. And it makes all the sense in the world, because after all, isn’t Gilliam like Quixote himself? A man avoiding the horrors of boring old reality by escaping into his fantasy films? Fighting the giant windmills of Hollywood and life to make his films? I’ve always appreciated Gilliam’s defense of the great escape, the importance in our lives for storytelling, the beauty of theater, the comedic tragedy that is life. It’s one of the reasons I personally connect with director Terry Gilliam’s films and the overall message of his films. They are against reality and all for high adventure and bewilderment! His films are for the zany, crazy part of life as well, how we shouldn’t take things so damn seriously. His films have a feel of someone who wants to amaze and entertain you with the many possibilities of pure fantasy. Of escapism of the highest caliber. 

 Which is why I appreciate The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2019) and how it got made. I mean, here’s a film that Gilliam at one point attempted to make but failed. It’s such a sad tale, yet such an amazing one at the same time. A documentary was shot of the whole thing called Lost in La Mancha (2002) and it’s just mind-blowing. Here’s my review for it, read it and find out why it’s such an amazing experience to see. But in a nutshell, everything went wrong that first time Gilliam attempted to make this film in Spain back in 2000. The actor who was going to play Don Quixote got a back pain and couldn’t ride his horse, a storm destroyed all the sets, millions were lost and all for nothing because quite literally, Gilliam pulled the plug on the film. He gave up on it. Or did he? Thanks to the folks at Amazon, he finally got the chance to make the film. It’s been 25 years in the making so this film is kind of a miracle! 

Here's a picture of Gilliam, on location with Jean Rochefort; Gilliam's choice for Quixote in the first attempt at making this film. Gilliam's face on this pic says a thing or two about what a grueling experience that first attempt was. 

 Was it worth all the pain? The answer is a resounding yes! It’s Gilliam going back to his roots, to that pure fantasy escape, but told in a closer way to Gilliam’s true inspiration in his career: Cervante’s Don Quixote. Of course, this isn’t the Gilliam of the 80’s who would get 60 million dollars to make The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989), this is Gilliam on a tight budget. I’m sure this film could have been made with more special effects…to bring that fantasy to life, but it’s not.  This is a slightly restrained Gilliam in terms of going nuts with special effects. We do get one fun moment in which ‘Quixote’ fights with three giants which is gloriously good, it reminded me of what Gilliam loved to do in the 80’s, it brought to mind that giant that comes out of the ocean with a pirate ship on his head from Time Bandits (1981). And there’s little things here and there throughout the whole film that will remind you of previous Gilliam films, loved that about it. 

 When directors hit their mature years, they tend to make films that are deeper and more profound and not so focused on pure spectacle, and this is that type of film. It’s not special effects left and right, it’s a more character driven tale about this self-centered film director that reconnects with an actor he made his first film with, the film he made is called The Man Who Killed Do Quixote. The actor believes he is Don Quixote and at times, you believe it. Maybe he is? Who knows. That’s for you to decide. But the film once again hits one Gilliam’s favorite themes, fantasy vs. reality. The fear of death and the wanting to live life with an adventurous spirit or die trying. It’s all told from a very meta perspective in the sense that it is a film about filmmaking, the frustrations and the pleasures of being a creative mind. How making a film is a true struggle. 

 I loved this movie for many things, among them that shift between fantasy, memory and dream world, then back to reality. That code switching between worlds is excellent and vintage Terry Gilliam territory. So this is basically like Gilliam’s life thesis, encapsulating everything his learned about life and filmmaking and giving it to us. It’s such a pity that the film is actually going through legal issues (the struggle continues!) and it could only be shown one day in a few theaters…I was lucky to see it on the 42^ndStreet Regal Theater in New York. I was kind of hoping he was in the audience…because it’s a one-night event and it was New York. I could have sworn I heard his peculiar Terry Gilliam laugh at one point...I swear he was watching it with the audience. Or was it a fantasy in my mind? I’ll never really know. Final take on Gilliam’s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is that its Gilliam going back to his roots. It has a lot of what made Brazil and Adventures of Baron Munchausen great, but on a smaller budget and more focused on story and performances. Adam Driver and Jonathan Pryce deliver amazing performances and make the film that much more pleasurable. Glad to see Gilliam is still making great films. Through Gilliam, Cervante’s heart and spirit beat fierce and free still!  

Rating: 4 out of 5