Kong: Skull Island (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 118 minutes
Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Writers: John Gatins (story), Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein and Derek Connolly (screenplay)
Cast: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Corey Hawkins, John Ortiz

Kong: Skull Island is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Roadshow Films.

King Kong gets yet another turn on the remake wheel with Kong: Skull Island- an alternate story with astounding special effects and impressive cast who are let down by the mediocracy of it's unintentionally comedic screenplay.

Set in 1971 with a striking visual resemblance and hero-worship of Apocalypse Now, Kong: Skull Island  sees a group of scientists and soldiers make their way into uncharted territory in the South Pacific where several planes have gone missing. It does not take long for the group to realise that they have been fooled and instead sent on a deadly mission to a place where prehistoric terrors rule the roost and the giant Kong is the king.  

It is impossible to make a King Kong film in this day and age on a minimal scale. With the advances that are continuously being made in CGI in cinema, we must accept the inevitable, which is that we are going to see more and more remade action films, particularly ones involving giant monsters such as Kong and Godzilla. So it really isn't a surprise that another reimagining of King Kong has been produced whether it was actually needed or not.

Therefore, with the days of making B grade action films or monster story sequels on a shoe string budget gone, Kong: Skull Island has not surprisingly been blessed with a $185 million budget and done wonders with it. The film is a spectacular visual extravaganza which features a larger Kong than we have ever seen before and he is an extremely impressive creation. Kong's island is inhabited by a number of primeval creatures who are all lifelike and terrifying thanks to the fantastic CGI employed in this film. The action sequences which feature these monsters are especially awe-inspiring visually, yet a little lack-lustre when slotted into the story.

Visually, Kong: Skull Island is everything a blockbuster should be. It's an incredible shame that it's screenplay cannot support it's weight. Unlike it's exterior, the script is of B-grade quality. The dialogue is clunky, predictable and, for the most part, unintentionally funny, as is the case with many of the events in the film. When you are not belly laughing at the lunacy of some of the scenes in the film (such as the Skull Crawlers and the camera flash), complete boredom sets in. Unfortunately this plagues Kong: Skull Island right from the very beginning when you are hoping that things will become more exciting once they actually reach the island. But no.

The screenplay does however, pay homage to the original King Kong story with such inclusions as Kong being restrained by chains and Brie Larson's Mason Weaver being the beauty who tames the beast. Yet, this is the only similarity the female heroine shares with Fay Wray's Ann Darrow in 1933 and again when Naomi Watts played her in the Peter Jackson remake in 2005. Mason is a stronger female character than her predecessors and Larson brings to her a raw, but spellbinding quality with her natural wit and charisma. However, the film as a whole is a waste of her talents, as it is for Tom Hiddleston also. Considering Hiddleston is given top-billing, he is actually given very little to do and a terrible lack of character and character development.

And it's an action movie....needs a bit more sass, wit and entertainment...of course Samuel L. Jackson MUST be part of the cast! In recent times, Jackson has just became a caricature of himself and his mutters of "mother f**ker" and "bitch please" are so sub-standard for any film that he is in that it does not have the desired impact in Kong: Skull Island nor makes him seem as bad-ass as he once did. His performance is just so over the top Jackson-esque that it just encourages one massive eye-roll.

Despite the overwhelming temptation the filmmakers must have felt to use the CGI now available to us, Kong: Skull Island really did not need to be made and it's mediocrity says this loud and clear.

4.5/10

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 127 minutes
Director: Tim Burton
Writers: Jane Goldman (screenplay), Ransom Riggs (based on the book written by)
Cast: Asa Butterfield, Eva Green, Terence Stamp, Chris O'Dowd, Samuel L. Jackson, Judi Dench, Allison Janney, Rupert Everett, Ella Purnell, Lauren McCrostie

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by 20th Century Fox.

With a title that deceives you into believing that it is just another film based on a piece of young adult fiction inspired by Harry Potter, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is deliciously dark and twisted while at the same time being stunningly atmospheric.

For those who have not read the novel or are yet to see the film, a little about the origins of Ransom Riggs' twisted world. Author Riggs found his inspiration when collecting vintage photographs and he discovered that the most intriguing and bizarre photos he came across were usually those of children. Among these photos included a levitating girl, a boy lifting a rock larger than himself, twin's identically dressed in disturbing clown-like costumes, a department store Santa Claus with white for eyes and a suit that seems as though it is being worn by an invisible boy. Although these are all probably achieved using photography tricks, the unsettling nature of them allowed Riggs' mind to wonder and they each became inspiration for characters in his novel.

Screenwriter Jane Goldman has taken a number a creative liberties which make the Tim Burton directed film different in many ways to the novel and many of these changes will not sit well with fans of the book. Several characters have been omitted from the film and other key scenarios, which would have been beneficial for the film's flow and depth, have been discarded. One could guess that come time for the DVD or Blu-Ray release we may see some of these scenes appear in the special features or as an extended edition, and if so, the editing leaves the screenplay feeling somewhat sluggish and badly edited. However, despite these unfortunate and needless changes, it's intriguing and odd heart remains consistent.

Jake (portrayed by Asa Butterfield) is a seemingly average Floridian teenager who begrudgingly works at his local Smart Aid store, which is where he is when he is one day instructed to leave and check on his slightly mad grandfather (Terence Stamp). He arrives at his house to find his grandfather has been murdered in an incredibly gruesome fashion and briefly lays eyes on the horrific creature that murdered him. Jake is then swept into a world he dismissed as a figment of his grandfather's imagination where there is an orphanage of sorts filled with extraordinary children with uncanny abilities run by the enigmatic Miss Peregrine (Eva Green). As is the case with all things unusual, there are those who live in pursuit of the children...an unimaginable and for most people besides Jake, an unforeseeable horror.

The story of Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children has found it's kindred spirit in Tim Burton. He is absolutely in his element making this film and his direction is perfection. Although it does not reach the heights of his acknowledged best films, it is a story that was just screaming for him to place his stamp on it. Despite the screenplay not being as strong as it should have been, Burton does wonders with everything he can control with his superb direction and gives the film the dark and twisted, but beautiful edge it deserves.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children has a slightly X-Men-ish motto behind it that declares different as being a blessing rather than a burden, but it doesn't shout this loud and clear. The film focuses more on the power of narrative and just like Abe's stories to a young Jake, it allows a swift suspension of disbelief as you become engrossed in this fantasy world. It is extremely atmospheric at all times with the sterile Smart Aid, the worn down feel of Jake's Florida hometown, the tiny Welsh fishing village and, of course, Miss Peregrine's home. The second half of the film is a great deal darker than the first, but still maintains a colourful façade which is particularly Burton-esque. The production design by Gavin Bocquet is sublime and the costume design by the ever impressive Colleen Atwood for the children of the 1940's is wonderful.

In a role that could well have been exaggerated and overplayed, Eva Green is absolutely superb as Miss Peregrine. She performs the role with complete dignity and poise and manages to maintain the balance of harsh, but maternal. Her scene with Victor is particularly touching. Asa Butterfield is perfectly cast as Jake with his scenes involving Terence Stamp incredibly moving and sweet as they highlight the strong bond between grandparent and grandchil. Ella Purnell as Emma is also a stand out, who's role is a great deal more physical than the others. Although her peculiarity is flying, the hard part of her role is when she is walking and wearing heavy shoes to keep her on the ground, which she is continuously convincing of by way of her gait throughout the film. Samuel L. Jackson is also at his most terrifying as the evil Barron.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is a return to form for Tim Burton with a story that seemas as though it was made for him to put to screen. It exists in an incredibly colourful imaginative and intriguing world, which is twisted and unsettling in a welcomed way.

7/10

The Legend of Tarzan (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 110 minutes
Director: David Yates
Writers: Edgar Rice Burroughs (based on the 'Tarzan' stories created by), Craig Brewer and Adam Cozad (screenplay)
Cast: Alexander Skarsgard, Margot Robbie, Christoph Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson, Djimon Hounsou

The Legend of Tarzan is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Roadshow Films.

Bringing 'Tarzan' back to the realm of live action in 2016 is not even half a bad idea. It is actually a concept that is easy to get excited about when you consider how much could be done with it. However, it takes only five minutes to realise that that is all The Legend of Tarzan is and is instead exceptionally dull, flawed and overly cliché.

In what is an attempt to be unique and original with a story that has been told many times, The Legend of Tarzan is essentially a sequel to the more traditional Tarzan tale and takes place in the years following the "Tarzan meets Jane" fiasco. Tarzan (as played by Alexander Skarsgard), now known as John Clayton, has brushed up to become quite the civilised English gentleman with his American bride, Jane (Margot Robbie) at his side. He is coaxed back to Africa under the instruction of Belgian King Leopold to see what he has done for the countey and is accompanied by both Jane and American, George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson). When they arrive, they find a new enemy in Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) who is ruthlessly ripping through tribal villages with no guilt and has his eye set firmly on Tarzan.

While it is admirable that screenwriters Craig Brewer and Adam Cozad have tried to do an original take on Tarzan, there is nothing unique in the fact that it is merely a sequel being released at a time when cinemas are literally flooded with origin stories and sequels. It has been a significant amount of time since the last live-action Tarzan film so it can be presumed that the idea for the film came from that lightbulb moment of "Imagine what we could do with that story now!"

Visually, yes. There was a lot that could be done with The Legend of Tarzan and it does not disappoint in this department. The production design is very impressive and the CGI of the African animals and scenery is superb. This is where the excitement and intrigue exists with the film as the story is hardly suspenseful nor action-packed and very predictable. Of course the argument is that Tarzan films and television shows are supposed to have an acceptable level of tackiness and are not supposed to be taken too seriously, but with anything that isn't supposed to be taken too seriously you expect a level of enjoyment and a bit of fun. The Legend of Tarzan doesn't have any of this. It is a Tarzan film that is perfect in so far as capturing the atmosphere of the Congo, but doesn't succeed in capturing the sense of adventure in the way a Tarzan adaptation should.

The Legend of Tarzan is not just a new story about Tarzan, but the revealing of Tarzan as a new man. Alexander Skarsgard's Tarzan is a lot more civilised than the jungle man of old and the animalistic side of his personality is barely existant. He is a man caught between two worlds, but in the situation he finds himself in in this film, you would expect fragments of the man he used to be to come through in his behavior. Physically is a different matter. This isn't just in relation to his physique and his unnatural male model poses that were undoubtedly the basis for him being cast in the role, but he progresses in stature from a very well-to-do man to the King of the Jungle just fine,

It is Margot Robbie's Jane who has a bigger personality than Tarzan himself and has the fire that you would hope her husband would have. As well as Robbie does do performance wise, Jane is a little too contemporary for the film's time period. She is being presented as a cross between a strong woman and a damsel in distress, but with a less than refined accent and vocabulary that was not typical of the time. The fact that in her final close up you can see that Jane has pierced ears, when ear piercing did not come into fashion until the 1920's does not help this case either.

Samuel L. Jackson adds some humour to the film in a role that is again very contemporary, but probably more accepted than Jane. His addition to the cast makes things a bit more entertaining and animated, even if his character is quite Tarantino-esque minus the swearing. Christoph Waltz is fine as the villain Leon Rom, but sadly isn't too much of a stretch from the characters he has been playing of late.

The Legend of Tarzan proves to be nothing more than an exciting idea that cannot carry the excitement through to it's execution.

4/10

The Hateful Eight (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 187 minutes
Director/ Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Demian Bichir, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen,. Bruce Dern, James Parks, Dana Gourrier, Zoe Bell, Gene Jones, Channing Tatum

The Hateful Eight is now showing in selected Australian cinemas in 70mm and will have a wider release on January 21, and is distributed by Roadshow Films. Now showing in the United States and United Kingdom.

The Hateful Eight has the unmistakable imprint of Quentin Tarantino's masterful film making with it's cleverly crafted screenplay and stunning, stylish cinematography married with unapologetic, intense violence.

In post Civil War Wyoming, a coach makes it's way across the snowy mountain range with the intended destination of Red Rock while a blizzard is hot on it's tail. The four passengers are bounty hunters Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and John Ruth (Kurt Russell), Ruth's prisoner and wanted murderess Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), who is to be sworn in as sheriff of Red Rock upon arrival. As the blizzard closes in, they decide to wait in Minnies Haberdashery till the storm passes to continue their journey.  They do not find Minnie, but instead find a full house with Red Rock's hangman Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth), Mexican caretaker Bob (Demian Bichir), cowpuncher Joe Gage (Michael Madsen) and General Sanford Smithers (Bruce Dern) all waiting out the storm. The eight are all suspicious of each other and not one will hesitate to pull the trigger if need be.

As the eighth film from the mind of the charismatic Quentin Tarantino, The Hateful Eight's screenplay is a thing of wonder with it's unique and original tale that combines the traditional western with a whodunit thriller. Like all good mysteries, it is completely unpredictable and suspenseful. The film builds suspense and intrigue over it's three hour and 7 minute running time (with overture and intermission included), as it is in the first half that the colourful characters are introduced in great detail and placed in Minnie's Haberdashery. After the intermission, tension is significantly heightened as this is when most of the action takes place and one gets a greater sense of where the story is going. The dialogue is particularly brilliant as it is incredibly well written, witty and rather hilarious at times. With the help of Tarantino's direction, the cast deliver this dialogue with conviction and character.

As can only be expected from a Tarantino cast, each and every one of the featured actors gives a great deal of life to their character and makes them incredibly interesting and enjoyable to watch. Each of the eight who assemble in Minnie's Haberdashery has a great deal of character and although none are particularly likable or attractive characters, they are all terribly intriguing. Each actor gives their all to the character they portray and they all give fine performances. Jennifer Jason Leigh as Daisy Domergue is particularly a stand out. Daisy is absolutely repulsive and perhaps one of the most unladylike females to appear on the screen in recent years, but she is brilliant. The fact that she makes one feel so much disgust at her performance is a credit to her acting and Tarantino's direction. Walton Goggins gives an extremely interesting performance as Chris Mannix with his intriguing delivery of dialogue, as does Tim Roth as Oswaldo Mobray. Both characters are rather hilarious, but are subtly so and in a way that appears non-intentional.

Set in freezing cold conditions, The Hateful Eight is visually exquisite as well as visually graphic and gruesome. The opening shot of a snow covered statue of Jesus on the cross is a sign of the blood shed to come and is rather unsettling for an opening scene, but turns into something beautiful as the camera pans across and then out to reveal the coach making it's way through the snow. These scenes in the snow are absolutely beautiful and are a contrast to the confronting visuals yet to come. The cinematography by Robert Richardson makes the film incredibly atmospheric and is supported by Ennio Morricone's superb score.

However, like the Tarantino films which have come before it, The Hateful Eight will not appeal to those who are not fans of his mode of film making. As much as Tarantino is continuously praised for his stunning direction and wonderful screenplays in each of his films, his body of work is also notorious for it's graphic violence and explicit language. The Hateful Eight is absolutely no exception to this and is perhaps the most violent of his films thus far. Conservative group, the Media Research Centre tallied up 49 acts of violence during the film which include but are not limited to shooting, stabbing and torture. With the first half of the film being dedicated to character development and building the scene, the large majority of these acts occur in the second half. Some of these are rather unnecessary, but are so over the top that if they do not make one feel repulsion, they will make them laugh. Needless to say that those who go queasy at the sight of blood will not enjoy The Hateful Eight, but one does not expect a Tarantino film to be void of blood and gore and to expect it to be so is rather ignorant.

The Hateful Eight is Quentin Tarantino once again pushing the limits of what some may perceive as shock tactics, but is really just what he enjoys building into his storytelling. Once one see's past the intense violence that takes place in the second half of the film, The Hateful Eight is an intriguing piece of cinema which is brilliantly written with superb cinematography and incredibly well-rounded, interesting characters.

8.5/10

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Year: 2014
Running Time: 136 minutes
Director: Anthony Russo and Joe Russo
Writers: Joe Simon and Jack Kirby (comic book), Ed Brubaker (concept and story), Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (screenplay)
Cast: Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Mackie, Robert Redford, Sebastian Stan, Cobie Smulders, Emily VanCamp

Every once in a while a film comes along which defies the ideology of a sequel. It's a sequel's job to try and be as good as the first, but we all know the inevitability of the pitfalls of this ambition. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a particular rarity as it is not only a sequel which measures up to the first, but is in many ways better than the first. It has all the excitement of the modern day Marvel hero, but an added historical backstory that gives it a point of difference. There is plenty of action and a well written screenplay brought to life by convincing performances by it's impressive cast.

Steve Rogers AKA Captain America (Chris Evans) is starting to adapt to life in the present day, but still keeps one eye in a past which is hard to forget. When SHIELD is compromised, Rogers finds Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) in his apartment after he has been attacked by a mysterious enemy, who Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) believes to be the Winter Soldier. The Winter Soldier is a ghost-like force who has been appearing in attacks since the war and has superhuman strength, much like Rogers himself. Rogers finds that he has to once again don Captain America's suit and armour and save humankind from a greater evil.

Captain America: The First Avenger and Captain America: The Winter Soldier are really two very different films. This goes without saying really as one is set in the 1940's while the other is set in present day and this means that they have two completely different atmospheres. Captain America: The First Avenger was very much a historical film and very nostalgic. It played on the reception of the 1940's superhero in society and it's nostalgia for this hero came across at times as slightly comical rather than patriotic. The newer film has a completely different feel to it. It has the historical aspect which is seen through darker lenses than it's processor, but it is also very much a present day Marvel film. Captain America: The Winter Soldier also borders on being a political thriller with the inclusion of Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford). It is a different superhero film than we are used to seeing as a result of a wonderfully written screenplay by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely.

With the inclusion of new characters in a sequel, it is often a challenge not to make the film seem too busy and have too much going on at once, but Captain America: The Winter Soldier flows perfectly and everything and everyone included as crucial to the film as a whole. The dialogue is also very good. One of the problems of the first film was that the dialogue was very cheesy, yet not so in this film. The large majority of it is very natural and when funny, not forcefully funny or over the top.

One of the reasons one goes to see a Marvel superhero film is to watch something action packed. There is absolutely no lack of action here. The film explodes into it's first action scene within the first few minutes, and although some of the camera shots are very shaky and fast paced, they are very entertaining and extremely well choreographed. Directors, Anthony and Joe Russo relied on minimal CGI in the film so to make everything look substantially more realistic, and it absolutely does.

Chris Evans is very, very good as Steve Rogers/Captain America. As this is his third film in the role, it is obvious that he is now so comfortable in the role and has really settled into the character. He is so natural in his dialogue and exceptionally likable. Scarlett Johansson here has her second outing as Natasha Romanoff/ The Black Widow and she is another who has really settled into her role. She has the right charm for the character and although she is clearly a stunning woman, it is great to see a female action character not mention a thing about her physical appearance and rather just rely on her ability. She is also incredibly likeable and has some moments of wonderful acting. Her and Evans work very well together and have a wonderful platonic chemistry on screen. Another refreshing thing about this film is that there is no romantic chemistry between the lead male and female characters. Of course if you have seen Captain America: The First Avenger and The Avengers, you will know that Rogers' heart belongs to Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) and Romanoff's to Clint Barton/ Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), but is still nice to see a film which doesn't fall into stereotypical conventions.

Samuel L. Jackson is Nick Fury and there is no way around it. He is always a terrific character on screen. Anthony Mackie is a wonderful addition to the Marvel superhero family as Sam Wilson/ Falcon. He is fun, lively and full of character. Robert Redford also does well in his role and is a particularly interesting character. Emily VanCamp's Kate/ Agent 13 doesn't have a great deal to do in the film and it would have been nice for her character to have a bit more of a role in the film as there was potential to do so.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is completely different to it's processor and even if you didn't like the first film, there is a good chance you will prefer and enjoy the second film a great deal more.

8/10

Adventures in Zambezia (2012)

Year: 2012

Director: Wayne Thornley

Cast: Jeremy Suarez, Leonard Nimoy, Abigail Breslin, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeff Goldblum

Before I begin my review…

My thoughts on Adventures in Zambezia as I watching it was that maybe, just possibly, I am being harder critically on this film because it isn’t Disney.

 Disney may have just ruined my perception of every other animated film I will ever see. Actually, that isn’t true. Dreamworks have had a part in that as well lately. Disney though, I’ve been watching my whole life and the animation just keeps getting better and better. You think about animated movies chances are you will think of Disney…or a Dreamworks film such as Shrek or Kung Fu Panda.

 I was watching Adventures in Zambezia and thinking “Well, it isn’t up to the same quality of the animated films I usually see”…and then I think “It’s not Disney! That’s not fair! Stop comparing it to Disney!”

Disney is amazing, it rules the child within me and my 10 month old son already recognises the tune that plays at the beginning of Disney films when the castle appears, but that and now Dreamworks have ruined the way I see animation. I have to try and tear myself away from those two production companies when I set expectations about animation. I feel bad being an animation snob.

 Not saying that the movie Adventures in Zambezia and its animation is bad. If it was I doubt they would have made the movie if it looked like a load of scribble. Sorry for comparing you to Disney, Triggerfish Animation.

Review

 Adventures in Zambezia is quite a simple film, which makes it great for younger audiences.

With school holidays just around the corner in Australia, this is one film which families will be heading out to see. It won’t appeal to the older audiences as much as there isn’t much depth to it, but it is a very light and easy watch with some fun moments throughout.

Kai (voiced by Jeremy Suarez) is a young falcon who longs to see the world beyond the boundaries that he and his over-protective father, Tendai (Samuel L. Jackson in his first G rated film!) patrol. After an argument with his father, Kai takes flight to the bird paradise on the edge of Victora Falls, Zambezia. He arrives to find a place that is unlike anything he has ever dreamt about. When he meets Sekhuru (Leonard Nimoy) and his adopted daughter, Zoe (Abigail Breslin), Kai finds out that he has a connection to Zambezia that stems right back to his birth. Zambezia is also under the threat from Budzo (Jim Cummings) and his Marabou stork followers and Kai may just be the help Zambezia needs.

Adventures in Zambezia is very easy to follow with a simple plot and simple script. It is perhaps too simple for a wide audience to enjoy. It’s very predictable and there really is a lack of emotion. For an animation to stretch its audience, there typically needs to be a little depth there and maybe even a little tear shed along the way. However, Adventures in Zambezia is very much a surface film, there isn’t much below it. This is a great film for children, and at 83 minutes it is also the perfect length.

The animation has some great moments which are typically of the African landscape. Victoria Falls are recreated in spectacular fashion and the jungle is pretty impressive. There is also a great use of colour throughout the film.

Zambezia itself is actually quite fun whether you are a child or an adult. Zambezia, which is a bird paradise, is based on what an adult’s perception of paradise is. It is just like a 5 star resort on some tropical island. There is accommodation that is labelled as if it is a hotel room, an international touch down pad made out like an airport, tour guides and those gossipy hairdressers who want to make you beautiful for your stay. The paradise is actually very well constructed and creative.

The characters are fine enough, but again, they aren’t particularly in depth characters or ones that will stay with you for too long. The Marabou storks provide the majority of the comic relief and have some cracker conversations between them.

There is one question. Kai tells his father that he was in the zone, which his father replies “Which zone is that, the twilight zone?”  How does a bird who has probably never seen a human before know what the Twilight zone is? Did they show that TV show in Zambezia? Or is there another twilight zone which isn’t related to pop culture?

A great school holiday film and a very, very easy watch.

5.5/10

Django Unchained

Year: 2012

Director: Quentin Tarantino

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

Before I begin my review….

Tarantino.

Where do you go from that name? His directorial style is one of the most recognisable in this day and age. He is one of a kind. He is able to do things in his movies that if other people attempted to do, they would be criticised till the cows come home. Yet, when Quentin Tarantino does it, it is considered genius.

Tarantino’s last two films, Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained have taken him in a new direction with his film making. He does historical films in such a unique way. He doesn’t neglect what makes his film making style recognisable and remembers that making a film is about entertaining as well as informing. Both of the mentioned films are quirky in the Tarantino way, but quirky when you are Tarantino means brilliant.

Honestly, this is one film I would love to see win Best Picture at the Academy Awards.  I think it has everything it takes to win. So it aches to say that I don’t think it is the winner, even though I would love it to be. It may just still be a little too extreme to win. However, it definitely is one of the best films of the year and there are no complaints about it being one of the nine films nominated.

This being said, I think it is a certainty to win Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly For Screen. Yes, Tarantino did win this award at the Golden Globes so chances are good for him, but it is an amazing script. Brilliantly written and a verbal dream.

Another name which is right up there is an Oscar contender is Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor.  His main competition it would seem is Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln, but as Lincoln has yet to be released in Australia, I can’t make an informed decision as of yet. I will say that Waltz’s performance in Django Unchained is Oscar worthy. We’ve seen Waltz play the bad guy on a few occasions now, but here he shows his versatility playing the good guy and does so with so much character and charisma that when you leave the cinema, you feel like you want to go and visit him to spend more time with that character.

26 days till the 85^th Academy Awards, five more Best Picture nominees to review.

Review

American history gets the Quentin Tarantino treatment in Django Unchained and for that we are thankful.

Django Unchained is thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable. It has heroes to root for and villains to hate, a gripping story and killer script. Like any other Tarantino film, nothing is done with subtlety. Yet, like other Tarantino films, this lack of subtlety is what makes his films so entertaining and the art of film is not lost on his visual extremes.

The year is 1858 and slave, Django (Jamie Foxx)is about to become a free man. German bounty hunter, Dr King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) takes Django under his wing to help him find a set of wanted men, but then seeing promise in him makes him his partner for the winter. As a condition, Dr Schultz will help Django find and free his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Before Django and Broomhilda can be together, they have some life-threatening hurdles they must face all in the form of plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

The Tarantino technique of film making makes viewing a historical film unlike any other film in the same category. The way he combines, in this case, brilliant dialogue by colourful characters with amazing cinematography, crazy images and a unique musical score is an absolute winner.

It is not often you watch a historical film that has music which is associated with the present time accompanying it and it actually works for it. Images of slaves heading towards a plantation with rap music playing in the background is something you know isn’t right, but it seems perfect.

The script is just brilliant. The dialogue used throughout the film is perfect for each of the characters and very interesting to listen to. There are some very funny lines in the film, and one scene in particular involving cutting holes in sheets is hilarious.

The characters created by Tarantino, who also wrote Django Unchained as well as directed, are just fantastic. All the main characters have a background and their development is fantastic. You love the good guys and hate the bad guys. The good guys become your friends and the bad guys your evil enemies.

Jamie Foxx is very good as lead, Django (the “D” is silent). He is the perfect example of wonderful character development. He starts off at the bottom of the food chain and you see him change and become arrogant, and then changes again to ensure survival. Django becomes like a rock star who deserves applause and cheering.

However, Christoph Waltz is in a class of his own here. Even though he is being categorised as being in a supporting role, he outshines Foxx in every scene he is in. He has so much charisma and is such an interesting character. Dr Schultz was written so well by Tarantino and brought to life by Waltz in spectacular fashion. This is one director/actor team that can do no wrong, considering this is the second time Tarantino has directed Waltz and could well be the second Oscar win form this partnership.

Django Unchained is the first film in which Leonardo DiCaprio has taken on a villainous character and proved that…yes….this man can do anything. He is terrifying. There is nothing better than when a character is terrifying without needing a scary physical appearance to add to this perception.

Samuel L. Jackson is one that tends to flourish under Tarantino’s light as well. Here he is another great character. Playing Candie’s butler, Stephen, he has hints of being a good guy, but is ultimately evil. He is quite evil, but also provides a few giggles.

Don’t be fooled, this is Tarantino film so there is violence. If you didn’t his earlier films because of the violence and language, don’t think that he has changed this. There is lots of blood spilt and F-bombs dropped, but they aren’t the centrepiece of the film and there is a great movie around it.

Django Unchained is Tarantino’s best film to date (which is no light comment). A quirky film in which everything is exaggerated, but done in the most brilliant way possible.

9.5/10

The Avengers (2012)

The Avengers

Year: 2012

Director: Joss Whedon

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston

Before I begin my review….

                How cool is the idea behind The Avengers?

                It’s absolutely no wonder that the movie created so much interest and had so many fans even before it premiered. How often is it these days that you throw all these movie characters into one film? OK…yes I know. There is the horror film trend of such films as Freddy vs Jason and Alien vs Predator which has its fans and haters.  I remember when I was about 8 there was a cartoon special where all these cartoon characters were put into one show to help the fight against kids taking drugs, but these are the only instances I can think of with the throwing of characters usually not related into one show.

                But The Avengers? It is an action film fans dream! Even if you are not huge on the superhero genre, you can’t help but be interested by this prospect of placing Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and The Hulk in one film.

                And you know what one of the coolest things is? The Avengers is actually better than some of the films which are solely about its characters.  So if you didn’t like the film originally about one of these characters, it’s definitely not a sure thing that you are going to feel the same way about The Avengers. Of course having a different director is a good start for that.

                Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t someone make a film with super bitches from films all in one? I’d love to see Meryl Streep’s Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada take on Faye Dunaway’s Joan Crawford from Mommie Dearest and we would just chuck in there Bette Davis’s Baby Jane Hudson from What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?

                That will never happen…..because Davis is no longer with us, but I am sure we can think of some other movie bitches we can throw in there to watch a massive war of words cat fight on the big screen!

Review

                It’s the film superhero fans have been hanging out for and it does not disappoint.

                The Avengers is a whole lot of fun for anyone whether you are a superhero fan or not. It is a concept that could have been just a big cheese ball, but it surprisingly is not.

                For those of you who saw the 2011 Thor, you will be familiar with Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor’s (Chris Hemsworth) brother who has an evil streak. Loki has made his way to Earth with plans to take over the world. The ever present Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) assembles a group of superheros consisting of Tony Stark/ Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers/ Captain America (Chris Evans), Natasha Romanoff/ The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Bruce Banner/ The Hulk ( Mark Ruffalo). It isn’t long before Thor also joins the quest on Earth to ensure his brother doesn’t destroy mankind on this planet.

                Superhero movies have a reputation of being extremely cheesy, so you could expect a film with four well known superheroes in it to be so. However, although predictable, there really isn’t much to roll your eyes at in The Avengers. This is a result of a cleverly written script by director, Joss Whedon. The script just makes the whole concept come together and achieves the optimum result. It is still a superhero action film which isn’t realistic at all, but doesn’t seem completely over the top and the way it is presented to you actually does make you believe that what you are seeing could maybe happen (even though common sense tells you it won’t).

                Another good thing about this film is that you would also expect that with so many big characters thrown into one movie it could become messy and have too much going on. Again, this is not the case. Each character holds their own and you know a bit about every character, but Whedon hasn’t written the script so that one superhero gets more screen time than another or that there are too many stories going on at once. The film sticks to its path and each character adds to outcome in their own way. It is easy to understand and not messy at all.

                The only problem one may have is that if you haven’t seen the other films which these characters are in, you may feel a bit lost. It does help to have prior knowledge of who Loki and Thor are (as not everyone studied Norse mythology at school), why Captain America is the way he is and who is Tony Stark. Otherwise the characters may be slightly lost on you.

                The script also has some very funny moments. Of course, being a superhero action film, its main focus is the special effects and action sequences. These are very impressive as one may expect and spending the extra to see The Avengers in 3D wouldn’t be a waste of money.

                The acting isn’t the main focus of the film, but there isn’t really a bad performance in the film. Robert Downey Jr. is at his witty and comedic best as Tony Stark/ Iron Man and is always great fun to watch. Mark Ruffalo is also very good as Bruce Banner/ The Hulk, giving a performance as the man who battles his inner demons, or inner big green monster.

                However, it is Tom Hiddleston who is the stand out in this film. Hiddleston is one of those actors who has been in the business for a long time, but seems like he has just come out of nowhere with how many films he has been in as of late. He does evil well and is a pleasure to watch.

                The Avengers, although having much hype, is not a let down. It is one of the best action blockbusters you will see this season and just a whole load of fun.

7.5/10