Django Unchained

Not everyone is a fan of director Quentin Tarantino. I understand that. He tends to rub people the wrong way at times in his verbosity and lack of filter. Within each of his movies, there are even moments I want to slap him, tell him to tone things down. But the best part? When he gets something right, he does it so ridiculously well it makes you appreciate how good a feature film can be. Enter 2012's Django Unchained.

Being transported following a slave auction in 1858 Texas, slave Django (Jamie Foxx) is rescued by a dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). The good doctor has a proposal; Django knows what the Brittle brothers, three notorious outlaws, look like while Schultz cannot identify them. If Django travels with him and identifies him, Schultz will give him his freedom. Django agrees but with a caveat, he wants Schultz's help getting his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), also sold at an auction, back. The duo forms an unlikely partnership, the bounty hunter teaching the slave the ways of the business. The Brittle brothers await somewhere at a southern plantation, but Django and Schultz also find out that Broomhilda was purchased by Monsieur Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), owner of one of the biggest plantations in the South. What awaits the bounty hunter dentist and his slave apprentice?

Above all else, Quentin Tarantino (directing and writing the script here) loves movies. He truly loves them. His movies always reflect that. He grew up watching all sorts of movies -- spaghetti westerns, blaxploitation flicks, countless others -- and his movies typically work as a quasi-tribute to those movies he loves. When things are going well, it is going really well. As a viewer, I watch certain scenes and just inherently know 'This is what movies should be.' His movies are done on an epic scope, blending an incredible visual with drama and humor, performances that can shock and surprise whether they be workmanlike or highly memorable, a style in story and camerawork that sets it apart from the rest. Because Tarantino can get far too indulgent at times, it's easy to look past his freakish talent, but it's there just the same. If only there was a way to calm him down....just a little.

For a director with less than 10 feature films to his name, Tarantino has created an impressive, eclectic variety of movies. Not surprisingly, 'Django' defies any specific description. Is it a western? Yeah, sort of, but that's limiting. It takes place almost entirely in the deep South in 1858, long before our concept of the wild west ever began. This is a movie that in its rather verbose 165 minutes covers a whole lot of ground. It is at times incredibly difficult to watch, especially considering its rather blunt portrayal of slavery and violence. Whippings, dog attacks, the ever-present and constant use of the 'N-word,' it's all there, including a brutal fighting style called Mandingo, slaves fighting to the death with their bare hands for the enjoyment and entertainment of their masters. But ultimately, a movie that defies description is not a bad thing, not by a long shot. While it refers and pays tribute to countless other movies, it is most definitely its own movie.

The best thing going for 'Django' is the casting of Foxx and Waltz and the relationship that develops between the two men. The casting of the Django character was tricky, attracting names from Will Smith to Tyrese Gibson to Terrence Howard, but Foxx is a great choice. His character is likable and sympathetic while also giving a hard edge that shows how driven he is. Playing a part not dissimilar to his part in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, Waltz is again a scene-stealer. Foxx is the anti-hero, Waltz the showier part as Dr. King Schultz. Tarantino's script does a fine job developing both men, especially Dr. Schultz as the movie delves deeper and deeper into their mission. It is the unlikeliest of pairings, but it is beyond perfect. Schultz takes him along purely for financial reasons (the badder the man, the bigger the bounty) but ends up looking to Django as an equal he insists on sticking with. I loved the two performances and hope both actors are rewarded with some award nominations in the coming weeks.

Actors and actresses want to work with Tarantino, and the biggest surprise in casting was Leonard DiCaprio as Southern plantation owner Calvin Candie. It is a gem of a performance. Like Waltz, it is big and showy and aggressive, but it never feels forced. DiCaprio takes the chance to work with a Tarantino script and runs with it. Seeing him in such an obvious but racially-charged role as a bad guy isn't a bad thing either. The real villain though? In my estimation, Samuel L. Jackson in a scene-stealing part as Stephen, Candie's head slave who looks out for himself, screw black, white and any other skin color. Washington too does a fine job in a not so great part as Broomhilda, the damsel in distress waiting for her true love to rescue her.

That should be enough for any movie, but it is a Tarantino movie so....yeah, it isn't enough. In varying roles look for Walt Goggins, Dennis Christopher, Don Johnson, Jonah Hill, James Remar, James Russo, Bruce Dern, Russ Tamblyn, Amber Tamblyn, Don Stroud, Michael Parks, Tom Savini, and M.C. Gainey. The coolest appearance goes to the original Django himself, Franco Nero, appearing in a quick scene with Foxx that any fan of the 1966 spaghetti western should appreciate. They have a quick exchange and share a knowing look in a very cool scene.  

Another fixture in a Tarantino movie is the musical score, and he doesn't disappoint here. The actual Django theme from 1966 (Listen HERE) plays over the opening credits with composer Luis Bacalov's scores from several other movies used throughout the story. Other samples include Ennio Morricone's scores from Two Mules for Sister Sara, Violent City, Hornets' Nest, Hellbenders and others mixed in with Bacalov scores, and several rap songs (out of place to me). For the most part, the soundtrack fits well without being as aggressively blaring as certain Tarantino soundtracks.

How about another Tarantino fixture? Yep, it took me awhile, but here we are talking about on-screen violence, a staple in Tarantino films. For the most part, the director uses violence to shock and surprise, disgust and enthrall at the same time. It's quick and shocking and graphic. That's fine, the violence even played for some incredibly dark humor at times. For me though, even Tarantino goes too far in a late shootout that pushes the bounds I have for violence. Graphic and gratuitous is one thing, but it's such a ridiculously over the top sequence -- slow motion galore, blood squibs and clouds of bloody mist on steroids -- that it becomes disgusting. The violence is at its best in quick bursts, but when it lingers, it starts to become too much.

For a movie I liked a lot (maybe even loved, give me a couple days to think about it), it may sound like I'm too negative. 'Django' certainly has some negatives. It has some pacing problems just past the halfway point of the movie that it struggles to overcome. The first 110 minutes or so are nearly perfect while the second half of the story is still impressive but just not on the same level. The ending -- not surprisingly -- does not disappoint. It is a funny, impressive, moving, incredibly dark, smart, vicious, honest and highly entertaining movie. I could do whole reviews about single scenes, performances and countless other little things from this movie. It has flaws (don't be confused there), but when it works, I loved this movie, even enough to give it a four-star rating. Say what you want about Quentin Tarantino, but the man knows how to make a film that can bring together and/or divide an audience like nobody's business. Definitely check this one out.

Django Unchained (2012): ****/**** 

Jackie Brown

One of the breakout stars of 1970s movies, Pam Grier shot to fame in blaxploitation movies like Coffy and Foxy Brown. She was tough, sassy and sexy, and not surprisingly became a fan favorite. Her best performance though is an easy one to peg, Quentin Tarantino's 1997 film Jackie Brown. 

After being busted years before for transporting drugs, stewardess Jackie Brown (Grier) again finds herself in trouble with the authorities. Working for a low-level airline, Jackie is transporting large shipments of cash for an arms dealer, Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), stationed out of Los Angeles. Not looking to do jail time and avoid probation at all costs, Jackie has to figure out what to do. The authorities (including ATF agent Michael Keaton) are pressing her, but with some help from a friendly bail bondsman, Max Cherry (Robert Forster), Jackie comes up with a complicated if hopefully successful plan to get out clean....and with a boatload of money too.

As I've mentioned before, Tarantino as a director can be a tad bit polarizing among fans. Watching his movies, I've come to be a huge fan, enjoying some movies and loving others. It's a given going in. You can expect a hip soundtrack, style in general to burn, some characters and acting you might not expect, lots, lots of dialogue and some startling violence. For Tarantino haters, this might be a good intro. At 154 minutes, it is a little long in the tooth. The dialogue is a little self-indulgent and too much, but because of the immense talents involved you go along with it. The violence is probably at an all-time low for Quentin with a story focusing more on the characters, the betrayals and the double crosses. So if you despise Tarantino, give this one a try.

More of a sex symbol in the 1970s than an actress, Grier shows that without a doubt, no question about it, she can act and do it well. Part of it is the script (based off an Elmore Leonard novel), but this is a great character. Grier puts her own spin on it. Jackie is backed into a corner with nothing left to lose at this point. She's looking at minimum at probation, more likely serving jail time. With no ace up her sleeve, she plays everyone around her -- except for one person -- to her own benefit. The catch? We're rooting for her. She's likable (okay, I thought so). We want her to succeed. Oh, and just an FYI, at 48 years old....still sexy.  Just saying.

What I don't understand with Tarantino haters is that whatever you dislike about him personally or his style as a director, he consistently gets original, unique, and entertaining performances from his cast. You know what's a good sign of a deep cast? Read the plot synopsis, and it doesn't even mention Robert De Niro. Not bad when a movie uses De Niro as a supporting part, involved but not essential to the story. He plays Louis Gara, an ex-con working with Jackson's Ordell, underplaying his part to the point you question if he's acting. Bridget Fonda plays Melanie, one of Ordell's girlfriends, spending most of her screentime in a bikini and stoned out of her mind. Keaton plays Keaton, a kinda finicky, eccentric ATF agent while Chris Tucker has a small part as  Beaumont, one of Ordell's "associates."

Right up there with Grier though, I thought the best performance was from Robert Forster as Max Cherry, a bail bondsman with 20 years of experience and some 15,000 bonds written. When he meets Grier's Jackie, he's instantly drawn to her and ends up getting involved in her scheme like he never planned. I don't know what it was about the performance, but I liked it. Like most of the acting here, it's underplayed and subtle. Max has a bright spot in his life when Jackie enters. His voice mail message checking in with her says it all, a rambling stream of thought providing every single one of his contact numbers. It's a human part amidst all the quick, fast-paced dialogue, just one aging guy looking for something in his life. Oh, and Samuel L. Jackson is intimidating and an all-around great bad guy.

Add another win for Tarantino with this one. Similar in some ways to his other films, it is also very different. However you feel about him though, it is well-written and the performances keep you interested from beginning to end. Not a bad follow-up to Pulp Fiction at all.

Jackie Brown <---trailer (1997): ***/****

Pulp Fiction

When I reviewed Inglorious Basterds over a year ago, I said that there isn't as divisive a director as Quentin Tarantino currently working in Hollywood.  I stand by that statement still.  Is he immensely talented, an eccentric movie lover? Or is he a hack, taking here and there from previously successful movies and making them his own?  Is it a bad thing that it seems he falls somewhere in between?  I think he's both. Of course, if you're not a fan of his, it's going to take more than that to appreciate the man's films.  To each his own.  Like anything with movies, it comes down to personal preference.

What's impressive about Tarantino and the love-hate relationship moviegoers have with him is that the man just doesn't have a lot of films to his name.  He picks projects that appeal to him, not just taking anything that comes down the road.  Of the 15 directorial claims IMDB makes, only eight are feature length projects.  In their own right, each can be called in a classic (okay, a minor classic in some cases), and fans have their own individual favorites.  For many, it's an easy decision, and the movie that always seems to come up is 1994's Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's first movie after the surprising success of 1992's Reservoir Dogs.

I don't put much stock in the IMDB's fan rating system which allows fan voting to show how good/bad a movie is.  Pulp Fiction currently sits at No. 5 all-time.  I don't think it's close to being one of the top five greatest movies of all-time, but then again, IMDB voters have The Shawshank Redemption as No. 1 so take that for what's it worth.  This is a good intro to Tarantino for fans not familiar with him.  Long scenes of uninterrupted dialogue broken up by brief but extreme moments of graphic violence, style to spare, and a cast that any movie fan should be able to appreciate.  Here goes an attempt to give some sort of plot synopsis, however muddled it may be. Interweaving storylines, characters in and out of the story, and a non-linear plot certainly keep you on your toes.

Two low-level enforcer/hit men, Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), have been dispatched on a mission from their boss, Marsellus Graham (Ving Rhames). Someone owes him money, and Vincent and Jules intend to get it back.  Vincent's also been assigned an unusual task, go on a date with Marsellus' wife, Mia (Uma Thurman) while the boss is out of town. Also going on, Marsellus has arranged for aging boxer, Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), to throw a fight for big money, but Butch has other plans that only he knows about.  On top of that, two bottom-tier thieves (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) are planning their next job, and everyone is involved whether they know it or not.

Where to start, where to start? Tarantino uses his usual chapters storytelling device, breaking up the 153-minute movie into smaller segments that aren't told in chronological order. For example, we see someone get killed in one chapter, but they're alive in the next.  Gimmicky, yes, but when handled right, it's a home run, and Tarantino brings it full circle, ending the movie exactly where it started. The soundtrack is full of classic rock songs, and really runs the gamut across genres.  Style-wise, Tarantino tells a story with his camera, blending long unedited takes with quick in your face editing at other times.  Question if you will what the director is showing, but just in terms of pure movie-making skill, it's hard to beat this guy.

By 1994, John Travolta's career was all but mainlining when he accepted this part to play hitman Vincent Vega.  It was the part that put him back in the limelight and earned him an Oscar nomination in the process.  For me personally, Travolta (and his interactions with Jackson) are what makes this movie special.  It's the little things that make it work.  I couldn't place Vince's accent if I tried, but it adds something to the character.  He's a little off, maybe a little crazy, but at the same time perfectly sane.  His dance scene with Uma Thurman (watch it HERE) is about as iconic, as memorable as anything to hit theaters in the last 20 years and is so sublimely perfect it's not even worth trying to explain. I loved this character and wish there was more of him.

With a story that bounces around as much as Pulp Fiction does, some characters/storylines get more in-depth than others.  On top of all those names mentioned above, there's also parts for Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Steve Buscemi as a smarmy waiter, Tarantino stepping in front of the camera for a quick appearance, and two perfect parts for Christopher Walken and Harvey Keitel. Walken is on-screen for no more than two minutes but delivers one of the most movingly effective and equally funny monologues I've ever seen (watch it HERE).  Keitel nails his part as 'the Wolf,' a cleaner who fixes other people's messes.  Check out Keitel's entrance HERE. These are two small parts that Tarantino clearly loved writing, stylish and unnecessary but nonetheless giving a movie those little touches that can bring it up a notch.

As much as I loved certain parts of the movie, others just fell flat.  The Bruce Willis boxer subplot didn't work as well for me as the rest of the movie -- with the exception of the Walken scene -- and I found myself fast-forwarding through it.  Tarantino can be too self-indulgent at times, and the dialogue goes on too long at times.  That said, the positives make the negatives a minor problem.  Travolta, Jackson, Rhames, Walken, Keitel, Thurman, deliver amazingly memorable performances.  For all the dialogue that never stops, there's monologues (like Jackson's in the finale SPOILERS, HERE) that make you appreciate what good writing really is.  Flawed as a movie overall, yes, but one of the best flawed movies I've seen in awhile.

Pulp Fiction <---trailer (1994): *** 1/2 /****   

Inglourious Basterds

Is there a more polarizing personality in Hollywood than Quentin Tarantino? People hate him or love him with little middle ground. He's such an eccentric guy, both in his movies and in real life, that it's almost hard to believe he is for real. But say what you want about him, Tarantino knows, respects and loves movies. His newest, Inglourious Basterds, is one of his best with his own unique take on WWII.

Before you go and plop $10 to see this movie, there's some things you should know. Tarantino loves dialogue, lllllloves it, and with a running time of 153 minutes he really gets to delve into dialogue. The good thing to come of it? The dialogue scenes are top-notch with an intensity, a tension that would be hard to duplicate any other way. Other things, the violence can be a little extreme with several graphic, detailed scalpings, a German soldier is beaten to death with a baseball hat, that sort of thing. The other and maybe most important thing; don't go in expecting non-stop action. The movie really has very little action at all until the last 30 minutes or so.

With the story, I don't want to give too much away so here's a real brief summary of the several interweaving storylines. One, Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) puts together a special team of Jewish-American soldiers who will be dropped behind enemy lines and basically kill, maim and torture any Nazi they can get their hands on. Two, Parisian cinema owner Shoshana Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) finds out the German High Command intends to screen a new propaganda movie at her theater. The catch? Shoshana was the lone survivor of her Jewish family's massacre at the hands of SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) and now she's looking for revenge by taking out the Third Reich's highest figures.

That's it in a nutshell, but anyone who has ever seen a Tarantino movie knows there's much more going on. The stories cross paths repeatedly as Aldo's Basterds become involved with the plot to take out Hitler, and Landa is always seemingly waiting in the background to strike. With some nice stylistic touches, Tarantino leaves his imprint on the movie, breaking the story into 5 chapters with title cards and everything. The opening sequence is almost 20 minutes of the most nerve-wracking dialogue you'll ever see as Landa interrogates a French dairy farmer hiding Shoshana's family in his cellar. It's the perfect game of cat and mouse as Landa toys with the farmer, and a perfect example of what Tarantino is capable of with strong dialogue.

My one disappointment is that the Basterds were underused. Aldo's hit squad is only in the movie for about 45 minutes or so as the story bounces between the Basterds, Landa and Shoshana's interaction with German war hero Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl) as she prepares for her big debut. The ensemble cast, and that's what it is, no two ways about it, carries this movie. Would I have liked some more background, more explanation? Of course, but what's there with the Basterds is quality stuff, especially an interrogation of German prisoners in the woods. You will be disappointed if you think Brad Pitt is in the movie the whole 150 minutes, but his character is so perfect you'll come away very pleased with the character, especially the ending. His scowling, squinting drawling Tennessean is just more proof that Pitt should do more comedic roles.

As good as Pitt is, and his name will certainly bring audiences in, it's Laurent's and Waltz's movie. Tarantino shoots French actress Laurent like a movie idol, and her plot for revenge sets the whole movie in motion. She's so natural in her scenes, so believable, and you're rooting for her to pull it off, and her scenes late in the movie are haunting and not easily forgettable. Waltz as SS Colonel Landa will get an Oscar nom for his supporting role. Landa is one of the best villains in recent movie history, a charming, intelligent detective labeled the Jew Hunter who crosses paths with all the characters and serves as the link among all the stories.

The rest of the casting has some interesting choices but I can't think of one that doesn't work as I write this. Of the Basterds, there's director Eli Roth as Sgt. Donny Donowitz, the Bear Jew who beats Germans with his baseball bat, Til Schweiger as Hugo Stiglitz, a German soldier who killed 13 Gestapo officers and is recruited by the Basterds, and then Gedeon Burkhard, Samm Levine, Omar Doom, and B.J. Novak. Other strong parts include Michael Fassbender as Lt. Archie Hicox, a British agent assigned to work with the Basterds, Diane Kruger looking like a 1930s/40s movie star as Bridget von Hammersmark, a German movie star and double agent working with the Allies, and even Mike Myers as a British general briefing Hicox. Classic Hollywood fans should look for Rod Taylor in a small part as Winston Churchill too.

This is a movie that at 153 minutes or so could have been much longer as odd as that sounds. Rumors abounded since its showing at Cannes that the Weinstein Company cut 40 minutes from the run time. As good as it is now, it feels like there's much more there, more background, more explanations including one deleted scene with Donny backing in Boston getting his baseball bat and having Jewish families write names of lost loved ones on the bat. Are there flaws? Sure, but nothing that takes away from the experience overall.

It all comes together so nicely here from Tarantino's direction and unique style to the casting, especially Pitt, Laurent and Waltz, the musical soundtrack choices, to the snappy dialogue and visceral violence, and even some rewriting of history. I know I was wavering some going in to see this movie so hopefully something I've written convinces you to go see this in theaters. The movie's last line may be a hint as to what Tarantino thinks of his movie, and I wholeheartedly agree, but I ain't spoiling it here.

Inglourious Basterds (2009): ****/****