Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
'Django Unchained' is 'Tarantino Unhinged'
7 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is a first impression review, after I've had a few days to think about the movie and work out what I liked and didn't like.

First off, this is a very enjoyable movie and I would highly recommend watching it unless use of the N-word in movies offends you! When off to watch a new movie by a writer/director of Tarantino's reputation and calibre, you're inevitably going to have certain expectations, and I'm pleased to say that Tarantino does not fail to deliver with his use of strong characters, great dialogue and well- placed laughs. If this movie is one thing, it's entertaining.

However, I left the theatre pretty confused, not because I didn't get the plot but because I really didn't get the point. I'm not saying that Tarantino's previous works are defined by some deeper meaning, but before this movie I would have described any of his pictures as being concise and polished, with a strong stylistic theme. 'Django Unchained', as stylish as it is in places, feels like a lot of really good ideas stapled together without much consideration for continuity. This effect was as evident in the music as it was in the cinematography, with very sudden changes from period pieces to contemporary Hip-hop. Although the combination of music and cinematography was largely very good.

The plot seems to be split into individual segments: the creation of Shultz and Django's partnership; the winter of bounty hunting; and then Candieland, with no overlap at all, and some events seem to occur simply for the purpose of a scene, such as when the KKK arrive to lynch the protagonists and have their (very funny) 'bag' scene. Their is no explanation for how Shultz and Django know they are coming, and the scene is of no relevance to plot, character-development, or later events. Additionally, Tarantino has outdone himself with his cameo role in this one. His cameos are typically bad, but this one is horrific! The whole scene with the three Aussies is very poor, made worse only by Tarantino's inability to act.

The other thing that hit me about this movie was the sense of characterture and over-the-top that seems to only grow throughout. Be it the use of a man named 'Candie' as the sugar-cane farming antithesis to the dentist, the amusing but certainly not stylish overuse of blood, to Django's final grin at the camera and ridiculous theme song, the film often feels like a parody, and I wonder if Tarantino just chose the slave-era south to enhance the movie's effect, rather than to make a point.

For all of the things that annoyed me though, DiCaprio and Waltz are fantastic in this movie and I enjoyed every scene which they share. Jamie Foxx was very good too as Django, but perhaps wasn't given enough good dialogue to shine. Samuel L. Jackson was very very funny as Stephen, the black butler who thinks he's white, but was unmistakably himself. At least his role was something new.

Overall it appears there is a lot to be said about this movie, which clearly makes it worth watching again and I imagine I'll appreciate some parts more when I do. I do however feel that with a more refined approach, the loss of some scenes and a greater sense of purpose this could have been quite a lot better. Whilst it's unmistakably Tarantino, 'Django Unchained' feels like 'Tarantino Unhinged'.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
An original, beautifully written, and sensitively acted piece
6 March 2012
I, no doubt like others, discovered this film after seeing Gosling's latest movie 'Drive' that made such an impression recently. I had no particular expectations going into it other than that it would be something quite different (prejudged after reading the synopsis), and while this much is true, I could never be prepared for the impression it would make on me.

From the beginning right through, the story is very well played out by all the lead actors (who were excellently cast), and despite the unusual plot it is very realistically written. Sure there are some brief quirks that seem a little odd, but these are easily subdued by the emotional honesty that underpins the whole movie.

Comparisons can be easily made with Mike Binder's powerful film 'Reign Over Me' which looks at the struggles of helping someone with a mental disorder, but instead of focusing on the battle, the writer of 'Lars' is looking at the solution. It is a story about people, and about the importance of empathy over judgement- not just as an individual but also as a community.

Add to this good cinematography, a soundtrack so subtle you'll seldom notice it's there, and direction that ensures that every scene adds something to the movie, and I can think of no film that delivers its message more effectively. If you're an open-minded person you may be surprised by how much it speaks to you.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great themes and nice visuals, but just not what it could have been
23 January 2012
I don't have any complex insight into the pros and cons of this movie, but as far as I remember I've never had such mixed feelings about a film, so these are my initial reactions.

When the end credits rolled, my immediate feeling was 'wow!', not because the film was incredible (it's not) but because it is incredibly diverse. Right up until the last minutes the director switches between happy, melancholy, distressing, and relieving scenes. On the one hand it's impressive that this is done without distracting the viewer from the plot, but on the other it seems as though this is artistically lazy. The same can be said for the voice- overs, which appear too seldom to have anything but superficial meaning, and therefore seem like they were inserted to add the bits that the script missed! Other reviewers have also been spot on about the peripheral nature of all but the main four characters, and the speed at which the story resolves itself.

Yes these are all flaws, but I still really enjoyed 'Little Children' for the unbridled and honest way the main themes of desire and adulthood/childhood are tackled. It's clear that this is where the most attention was placed in creating the film. Also, visually it's actually very good, and I found myself drawn into some scenes just by the visual style.

All in all, not a film that you should expect to blow you away, and its potential was certainly not met fully, but its well worth watching for the different perspective on what people look for in relationships.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Could have been awesome, sadly it just isn't
9 April 2010
Being once again dismayed by the ridiculous polarisation of reviewers' opinions on the IMDb I think this movie at least deserves a fair review, so...

Personally, I was disappointed by this film. It has a pretty high rating on this website and the story could have been absolute gold in the hands of Tarantino, Ritchie or even Scorcese, but to be honest I found the execution to be fairly mediocre- which I attribute to poor directing. The dialogue is quite uninspired, but I suppose all in all it's solid (the odd good line), however the narrative struggles quite a lot. In fact I, someone who watches this type of movie an awful lot, didn't really know where it was going for the first 25 minutes (but then I don't think the director did either)! 'The Boondock Saints' borrows heavily from the styles of Tarantino and Guy Ritchie, and this alone isn't a bad thing. What is a shame is that it often feels borrowed, a bit like it was thought up by a 16 year old A-level student who just saw Pulp Fiction and Lock Stock for the first time. I chuckled two or three times during the movie but on the whole the stuff that was meant to induce laughter was just stupid (i.e. Willem Dafoe's character's oddities).

I guess 7/10 is fairly generous, but the idea of this film is fundamentally good- it brings up lots of interesting ideas and the potential for some good scenes. Sadly, the director's attempts at unique style aren't successful. The good cinematography often feels like a copy, and the unique stuff is generally stilted and doesn't add to the movie. But as I opened by saying, in the right hands this movie could have been 9/10 and awesome. Really, I guess I'm just hoping that I'll appreciate it more with a second watch, but I won't find out for a while!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reign Over Me (2007)
9/10
A remarkable yet powerfully realistic film with a profound story
30 March 2010
This movie is remarkable. It's the first and only Mike Binder film I've seen, and to say I'm impressed would be an understatement. The combination of black comedy elements with what is at times a vigorous and harsh character study of a truly damaged human being is something that is not simply hard to pull off, but nearly impossible to do in a two-hour movie. I feel that if this film were done any differently it simply wouldn't have worked, and even just for this reason it deserves recognition.

But so many things a great about this film- for starters the acting. If someone had told me after watching 'Anger Management' or 'Happy Gilmore' that Adam Sandler would go on to fill this role I would not have believed them. But his performance is nothing short of astonishing and I can't believe he didn't receive an Oscar for it. Furthermore, there isn't a weak link in the casting of this feature. Don Cheadle's performance is more than successful at holding the fabric of the film together, and Liv Tyler, Jada Pinkett Smith and Saffron Burrows all provide excellent supporting roles. Even the most minor roles are very well cast and acted.

The narrative is more good news, as Binder has cleverly sewn together intertwining sub-plots to create the full picture of Charlie Fineman's horrible situation. These sub plots all have special meaning and all have great resolve at the end, which incidentally is very satisfying. I get the impression that Binder put a lot of himself into this movie as it is so powerfully moving- you will laugh and quite possibly cry before it's over. To top it all off, you are constantly reminded of the story's setting- New York City- and the perspective is beautiful: that this heartbreaking tale is so small to the city, yet so important to the individuals. It's something quite unique.

'Reign Over Me' is great because of the power of the acting, because of a well crafted story, because it is realistic, and it's because it is beautifully put together. If you get bored quickly and easily when there aren't explosions or hilarious moments then this film would be wasted on you, but if you appreciate a film that is honest, realistic and seeks to go further than to just entertain then this is not something you want to miss.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Juno (2007)
8/10
Really fresh, competent and enjoyable approach to a sensitive subject
29 March 2010
I was reluctant to watch this movie on the basis of some of the reviews given, and I was also reluctant to review it. However I feel that it deserves a balanced review given the mixed opinions that are currently being represented.

'Juno' is a unique film in many respects, but has a feel similar to that of Jason Reitman's previous work, 'Thankyou For Smoking'. This is in no way a bad thing. The movie started of as a quirky (and to me somewhat irritating) indie teen comedy, but I saw it through and discovered it to be a story of profound meaning. The subject matter alone is a brave one, and I felt that a look at the moral issue of abortion and adoption through the eyes of a teenager was a breath of fresh air in an industry that hasn't approached the subject much at all. Juno's character is the centre-point for the film's development and though she started off (as many reviews have focused on) as a human hub of teenage consumerist representation, after the initial 20 minutes you become increasingly drawn into her situation. My experience of this movie was all in all a very good one. I felt emotionally involved, and was forced to confront Juno's situation in my own mind- considering how she and the other characters must feel given a situation of unrivaled complexity.

I'm not surprised that this film has been met with such mixed opinions, because Reitman is a director who likes to take comedic approaches to fresh and unbroached subjects. But this is to his credit because like 'Thankyou For Smoking', 'Juno' is a heartfelt, sensitive, yet somehow light-hearted look at an issue that we've all had to think about. Ignore the reviews that only focus on the quirkiness of the first 20 minutes and you'll appreciate a movie that is undoubtedly deserving of its Oscar.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Home (I) (2009)
9/10
Eye-opening and beautiful- but sadly not perfect
22 March 2010
First of all I am relieved that a movie on this subject has been produced with such a high budget. It's about time someone really tried to sum up what the human condition is, and the relationship between our condition and the condition of our planet.

The visuals for 'Home' are for the most part near perfect- pinpointing the beauties and miracles of this world, whilst also the disgraces and disasters with a total sensitivity and respect for all sides of the issue. The subjects covered are well chosen and diverse, and you really get perspective on how widespread and potentially devastating our manipulation of the natural world has become.

Unfortunately though, what slightly let this movie down for me was its 'matter of fact' approach, and a lack of attention to some important details. In some ways this film avoids a one-sided approach, with interesting stats showing how our attempts at alternative fuels have their own negative effects, but for the first section particularly it felt like some very dated notes on the history of the earth. We know some amazing things about the history of our planet but it's important to recognise that there is far more that we don't. I for one stand firmly on the side of science that can admit to not knowing. The most blatant error, as picked up by IMDb in the 'goofs' section, is the narration that the first towns appeared 600 years ago- how could you get that wrong!!? Apparently they meant to say 6000 years ago, but even this isn't fact as there is evidence of towns up to over 8000 years ago. On top of this it is continually stated that human beings have been around for 200'000 years, a theory that has been far from proved and therefore should be treated as such. I think that in a film that is trying to be scientifically credible, in this case vague/speculative language would possibly be more accurate. At least they managed to avoid a '2001: A Space Odyssey' style chimpanzee scene! Scientific stuff aside though, the most inexcusable error is that in the fairly small amount of on screen text there are numerous spelling mistakes. In most cases that doesn't bother me, but in a high budget film production it does, and it certainly doesn't help the reputation of the Eco-warriors (hippies come to mind!)

After watching this movie though, I'll admit that I had mostly forgotten the flaws because it really forces you to think about the issues. This is a good thing, and for the most part it is done with beauty, sensitivity and grace, which is why I've given it such a high rating. Watch this movie- the cinematography and well crafted narrative will open your eyes to the fragile state of our planet and cause you to appreciate your place in it more. Just don't be a sucker for the slightly anti-human philosophy.
20 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Awesome bit of classic cinema- not on TV nearly enough
26 March 2009
I recently watched this movie for the first time after finally finding somewhere to rent it from (thankyou Lovefilm). My first impression was simply thinking wow, why haven't I heard more about this movie?

I understand the fame of it's trilogy partners, as A Fistful Of Dollars was Eastwood's debut western and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was the first Leone film to be widely advertised at it's release, but For A Few Dollars More breaks the pattern of the middle film in the trilogy being the poorest, as it is genuinely the most enjoyable watch of the three. I think that the feel of the movie is about as close as Leone could have got to perfection. Perhaps the most obvious reason for this is that the plot is based on bounty hunting, which just works so well. It's a storyline that you feel like you've seen a thousand times (probably on Warner Bros cartoons), but pulled off in the most satisfying way imaginable.

I honestly can't sing this film's praises enough. Agreed, the whole trilogy is a masterpiece, but this one has the balance between a great music score, involving plot lines, superb one-liners, inspiring acting, exciting shootouts and memorable characters down to an absolute fine art. All I can say is well done Leone, you outdid yourself on this one. It's rekindled my love for the Spaghetti Western.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oldboy (2003)
7/10
A fest of excesses- certainly not for everyone
5 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Where to begin...? I place myself neither with the 1 & 2 star raters, or the 9 & 10s on this. I personally didn't much enjoy Oldboy as a 2-hour experience, but that said, I can see where those who praise this film are coming from. It's a truly mesmerising film in places, mainly because you can't believe what's happening on the screen, and those who love melodrama and totally unexpected (even if ridiculous) plot lines will love this movie.

Oldboy is, put simply, an absolute fest of excesses, and the violence, sex, extreme plot twists, and overacting like nothing else you'll see make it a truly unique bit of Asian cinema. There's everything from live-octopus eating and dental torture, to deliberate- and then oblivious- incest!

I'm a big fan of Chinese, Japanese and Thai cinema, but admittedly I'm quite inexperienced in S.Korean. The only other Korean movie I've seen is Brotherhood (Taegukgi)- which greatly impressed me- but sadly I can't say the same about Oldboy.

The base plot really attracted me to this movie (along with the IMDb rating). The idea of a normal man being kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years, and then released without warning to discover the truth seemed like it would make a gripping movie. But I found myself drifting out of the plot as it progressed into more and more unusual and far-fetched directions towards the end.

You will no doubt notice that this film is very highly rated on the IMDb, and has made it a fair way up the top-250 list. If I'm honest though, I don't have the slightest idea whether it should be there or not! I think a reasonable conclusion about Oldboy would be that it isn't to be approached as another piece of Asian cinema, or even as a westernised one, but as a modern experiment in cinematic extremes. It will affect you strongly one way or the other, and you'll have to watch it to find out!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lord of War (2005)
8/10
'Lord Of War has much more to offer than many other conflict-based Hollywood productions'
8 October 2006
In Lord Of War, Andrew Niccol is superbly artistic in his presentation of the international arms trade. He combines clever personalities and a witty script with a number of deeply gripping and powerfully realistic scenes. In watching the movie I was entertained, educated, shocked, and above all, drawn in. Because of this, I feel that the movie has much more to offer than many other conflict-based Hollywood productions, many of which provide only a non-controversial piece of historical escapism that has little to do with current issues.

One of my favourite aspects of Lord of War is that, although effective simply as a good bit of entertainment, it does demand a certain element of thought to fully understand the point that the director- Niccol- tries to put across about the state of the modern arms trade and the lives of both those who live off its profits, and those who are dedicated to stopping it. On top of this it, he effectively explores the moral dilemmas experienced by Nicolas Cage's character (Yuri Orliv) and his wife and brother.

Overall, this is a movie that provides everything needed to create excellent entertainment, whilst exploring real-to-life moral issues in such a way as to make the audience think more about the world in which we live and why these things are allowed to exist.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed