the carsploitation movies that raced out of america during the a.i.p. era during the late sixties and early seventies expressed a sense of liberation and rebellion that were prevalent in the counterculture. pictures such as vanishing point and dirty mary, crazy larry reflected the urge for change and escape from a repressed society that was rapidly becoming ever more claustrophobic, pulsing with paranoia. audiences related to the freedom and carefree attitude of putting the pedal to the metal, hitting the open road and leaving their troubles behind.
meanwhile in the land down under, a dark vision was brewing within the mind of george miller, a medical doctor from sydney, who came face to face with death during his stint in the e.r. these horrific images he witnessed, blended with desperate reactions to the oil crisis of 1973 became the recipe for what would become mad max.
miller's vision of the open road didn't correspond with that of previous exploitations. he traded in the optimistic youth, who went searching for america for the nihilistic nomads ravaging a dystopian australia. there was no sense of hope in miller's vision, only darwinian sensibilities among oil hungry tyrants, who roamed the stark highways on motorcycles terrorising anyone or anything that came across their path.
mad max was definitely an interesting premise and ambitious vision, incorporating social and economic issues into an action packed genre piece, but it was the execution of craft and style that propelled the movie in gaining its massive international success. the visceral kinetic action that miller employed in the film, along with violence bordering on the surreal, generated incredible energy on the screen.
the interesting thing about the mad max trilogy is that the three films vary so much, but the intensity remains the same. the genre evolves nearly as much as max rockatansky does. the original merges elements of a hitchcockian thriller, the road warrior gives a nod to the western with its vehicular cattle drive , while beyond the thunderdome is like a philip k. dick/j.m. barrie molotov cocktail. george miller was constantly trying to create new ways to excite audiences through long, orchestrated action or fight sequences as if he was contemplating how to entertain mobs at the colosseum.
the franchise is notorious for its rapid motion and breathtaking stunts that spawn adrenaline soaked entertainment for audiences. the new installment out this week looks like it will enhance this action to the utmost. mad max: fury road has been a long time in the making, bridging a thirty year gap since its predecessor mad max beyond thunderdome. in an industry that has become reliant on big budget remakes and reboots, where does george miller’s new project fit into the scheme of things?
firstly, the fact that george miller is directing will cause fanboys to utter a sigh of relief. there is comfort in knowing that the mad max universe will be looked over by its mastermind, accompanied by the filmmaker’s skill and style, lifelong fans will feel like they are in good hands. secondly, we must take into account the new audience, who have never seen the previous films nor give two happy feet who george miller is. the new audience is essential to fury road’s prominence, so if they swarm like bees to a hive then we might be seeing a lot more of max.
action movies today are in a current state of cgi saturation, leaving audiences docile and immune to stretching their imagination because it has already been done for them by the stretch of a finger. if fury road raises the bar in spectacular stunts and crushes the box office it might lure audiences away from the formulaic, generic blockbusters of today and leave them thirsty for a true cinematic experience. actions speak louder than words and i've got a sneaky suspicion that george miller's latest escapade will leave many speechless.
Sporting the best movie title of 2015, David Robert Mitchell's It Follows fiddles around with the conventions of late 1970's/ early 1980's slashers and turns them upside down on their head, the old switcharoo: if you haven't had it, you've had it! Not only does the movie deliver in terms of horror, but delves deeper into something more poignant.
Set in a timeless Detroit, void of any parental guidance, Jay (Maika Monroe) is a coming of age teen dating a guy named Hugh (Jake Weary). She is surrounded by her two sisters and an old friend Paul (Keir Gilchrist), who is hopelessly in love with her. Inevitably, Jay gets frisky with Hugh one night and after the deed is done she is drugged, brought to one of many of Detroit's abandoned buildings and tied to a chair. Her lover lays down the law of the "Thing" that will now follow her relentlessly due to the fact that she had sex with him. He explains to her the ground rules:
-It follows you
-It can take any form
-It doesn't run, but walks step by step slowly
-The only way to pass it on is to have sex with someone else
-Must now let it kill you or it will re-track its steps to those before her.
Gulp...essentially, fuck the pain away. Obviously nobody believes her after this ordeal, but her friends are willing to help her.
Already Mitchell has scrapped the rule of the virginal heroin, which has been a staple in the slasher genre ever since John Carpenter ended the sexual revolution with his landmark film Halloween. Carpenter's work evidently has a major stylistic influence, visually and sonically. Another clear influence is Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street, whose protagonists also had no real parental support and had to work together in order to survive.
Except for two instances, the movie doesn't rely on cheap scares to make the audience jump, rather it creates a sense of foreboding dread and tension, which seldom results in a big scare. This is demonstrated through the brooding soundtrack and magnificent tracking and pan shots. The fun things about It Follows is the manipulation of the audiences expectations of being scared. As Hugh at the beginning of the movie provides the rules of the antagonist, the audience have to shift gears in order to look out and prepare for the jumpy bits. Since the "evil" follows slowly and from any direction, we find ourselves examining every inch of the screen in the dark attempting to spot the follower. It's the Where's Wally of the slasher film.
Since we are not witnessing big jumps or a bunch of teenagers getting slaughtered every few minutes, we are given time to care for the characters and their relationships, which makes It Follows not one of your run of the mill slasher flicks. We laugh at how pathetic Paul is when he gives Jay those puppy dog eyes and offers to help her with her situation while she's off banging half of Detroit to rid herself of the curse. A few times he insinuates offering his services to help cure her, which is funny at the time, but we later realise there's actually true sincerity underneath the surface.
The most harrowing part of the movie isn't a Saviniesque blood splatter, but a simple sad scene that brilliantly portrays the subtext of the film. Jay, while on the run from her burden is hiding out at the beach. She notices three men oozing with machismo fist pumping to music on a boat. She removes her clothes and walks into the water slowly with a solemn expression on her face.
David Robert Mitchell toyed with the conventions of the slasher without a distaste for the genre, but with an admiration and dedication to the form as we can see from his visual style and countless references throughout the movie. He raised all the sexual and gender themes that where buried underneath all the gore to the surface of the plot and has delivered a very interesting horror that will keep audiences alert and inquisitive throughout.
Spike Jonze's Her disrupts the generic flow of romantic comedies that are recycled through our cinemas every year. It takes a refreshing look at the genre like other standouts such as Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation and Richard Linklater's recent Before Midnight. Her lies in the same breath as the former, with it's portrayal of postmodern isolation, technological advances and visual style. Parallel to its smooth direction and striking set design is Joaquin Phoenix's performance, which really shows his range as an actor. What is intriguing about Her is its depiction of us as a society advancing faster and faster into an overwhelming technological future and how we are going to handle it's moral implications.
Phoenix plays Theodore Twombly (sounds like a fat, waddling character from a British clay animation series), a soon to be divorced man, stuck in a rut. He wanders through the fantastic, futuristic Los Angeles landscape, jacked into his online world oblivious to his physical surroundings. Human contact seems futile in this handsfree society and this is why Theodore decides to download the OS voice operating system to help him organise his life. The system Samantha (Scarlett Johansson) appears to have a mind of her own, with feelings and consciousness. They spark a nice kinship, but as Theodore comes out of his shell so does Samantha. As real as she may seem, the fact remains that she is still a computer program, hence her limitations and lack of physicality. He inspires jealousy in her when he dates a neurotic Olivia Wilde, which leads them to open up more to each other about their feelings.
This results in the film's best scene as a honest conversation transcends to verbal intercourse between the two. Spike Jonze produces an extremely intense sex scene without even showing anything, just words and then a black screen, which forces Theodore, Samantha and the audience to use their imagination. The cut to the following scene of the morning after is terrific as we watch Theodore pacing back and forth awaiting the awkward conversation with his computer.
The second half would play out like your regular romantic comedy scenario if it wasn't so bleak. Complications arise as Theodore and Samantha continue their relationship, primarily with the elephant in the room...she has no body. Samantha suggests a "sex surrogate" to allow their relationship a physical realm. When the surrogate girl comes over to Theodore's apartment and begins seducing him, it feels more like a zombie attack than foreplay. This scene is so unsettling it sort of feels like borderline rape and rightfully so Theodore doesn't go through with it. Theodore is perplexed as to what he actually wants. Nothing in the physical form makes him happy and the relationship with Samantha is too complex. Nothing appears to be real in his life. His job consists of writing affectionate letters for random couples, it appears he only has one real friend (Amy Adams) and he plays video games in his sterile apartment. Is he just a helpless artificial intelligence porn addict?
Although Theodore's plight is tough, attempting to move on from his marriage and find happiness, his predicament isn't really all too bad. He has a great job, which from beginning to end every character compliments him on, seems extremely comfortable financially and though his friends are few, they are genuine and supporting. He is, as his hilarious video game character labels him, a pussy. His wife Catherine (Rooney Mara) appears to be a cold bitch, who he should be thankful to get away from, he is hooked up with a hard body like Amelia (Olivia Wilde) and he is living in an incredibly futuristic Los Angeles that would make Rick Deckard bitter.
As it stands, Her is visually stunning, well written and exciting in regards to the possibilities of future technologies. It is a social commentary on the culture of modern human relationships and where it could lead to. We witness it today without having to go as far as artificial intelligence, via social networking and online dating sites. People are communicating less and less in person and more online, rather than a humane gesture we get an emoji, jokes aren't interpreted properly, our physical appearances are filtered as if we want to masquerade our true identity. Its simulacrum and its progressing at a rapid pace. However, these technological breakthroughs can also bring people closer together if applied properly, it is us who are the problem. There have been a good few movies that have touched on the same themes as Her, but in recent years it is the most believable and accessible film about the distant future to come out of Hollywood. It may not be a great movie, but its an interesting one with an original look to it. I enjoyed Jonze's visual aesthetic of the future and I applaud the unflinching style in which the sex scenes were shot. Alright, I'm off to fuck my I phone, while my Mac plays with herself.
If your Valentines Day consists of gnashing away on chocolate hearts from your mom and having a quiet sob in the tub like mine does, take a deep breath and relax...Cine Mac has a remedy that will help speed up this dreaded holiday. Quit panting over Tinder for a minute and wipe the sweat from your brow. Let us remember what Valentines Day is really about; a bunch of randy American teenagers getting taken out one by one by a masked psychopath, with the obligatory tit shot of course.
George Mihalka's My Bloody Valentine is a prime example of the slasher genre's golden age, a stylish gore fest with an iconic killer. Set in an isolated mining town with a sordid past, the locals decide to throw the Valentine's dance for the first time in twenty years. T.J. (Paul Kelman) has returned home and tension is in the air as his former girlfriend Sarah (Lori Hallier) is now going steady with Axel (Neil Affleck)...Shiiiiiiittttt! And so the slasher conventions unfold. After a grisly murder the dance is cancelled, but a murky murder or two doesn't stop these whacky kids from getting their kicks. Its Valentines and they need to get drunk and laid by any means necessary. They decide to ignore the mayor and sheriff's warnings and have a secret party in the mines. One by one these little fuckers get brutally murdered in the most outrageous and ingenious ways possible.
MBV stands out as one of the better slasher flicks of the 1980s not only because it pushed the envelope with the gory SFX, but because its plot was tight and captivated viewers with its mystery. It follows the rules of the slasher genre with the utmost respect too; you have sex, you die. So if you're home alone this Valentines, wallowing in despair, flaccid as a minutes silence, just remember that you'll definitely be surviving this bloody Valentines.
After witnessing Martin Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street, you'll need to pop a Valium to wind down from it's elevated portrayal of mass excess. A Scorsese picture can be recognised by many factors and one of these defining characteristics is energy. His filmmaking style exhibits an incredible sense of adrenaline, most notably in Goodfellas, Casino and The Departed, and with Wolf he has enhanced this spark to boiling point. With it's lightening speed dialogue and never ending source music audiences are taken on a dark, comedic roller coaster. Wolf pushes the envelope in the depiction of greed and decadence in American culture that would make ancient Rome blush.
There is no real plot, but more a landscape of anecdotes from the life of Jordan Belfort, a real-life, ruthless Wall Street broker played by Di Caprio. This is Di Caprio's strongest leading performance to date. Leo changed his course on his "Titanic" career via collaborations with Scorsese to become one of today's greatest leading male actors. However, because of his youthful appearance he was somewhat limited. He didn't possess the same tough demeanour as De Niro in his heyday. When Di Caprio raised his voice you could hear a boyish squeak. As Belfort, he commands a deep Queen's accent, which strengthens his aura as the megalomanic CEO of his firm, Stratton. He's ferocious. It would appear he has graduated from the boy wonder to a man.
The theme of Wolf is very serious, but the manner in which it is expressed is extremely funny and extravagant. It's by far the funniest movie of the year, yet it's based on the most immoral individuals. Scorsese has made a career out of presenting audiences with a glimpse into the lives of mobsters, crooks, pimps, sociopaths and their violent lifestyles, yet this comedy conveys his most deplorable characters yet. They possess no redeeming qualities. They are anti-social, ruthless, misogynist, greedy bullies is what they are and its hilarious. This is due to the pace of Scorsese's filmmaking and the wit of Terrence Winter's screenplay.
There is a masterful sequence involving Di Caprio, Jonah Hill, a phone call, a car, Popeye and an old batch of Quaaludes that places Di Caprio's physical comedy up there with Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Jackie Chan. What is so remarkable about Scorsese's work is that although he is known for making some of Hollywood's darkest and grittiest films, he also is capable of stirring some great comedy within these nihilistic tales.
Wolf also contains a great supporting cast, most notably Jonah Hill as Donnie Azoff, Belfort's partner in crime. Taste clearly matters for Hill when it comes to directors as he has seemed to take the same stance as Warren Beatty did in the 60s/70s "I only wanna work with the good directors". He also seemed to be endowed with (no, that was a prosthetic) telekineses because as soon as he saw the Duchess of Bay Ridge, Naomi (Margot Robbie) he did what every man in the cinema wanted to do. Margot Robbie will be huge after this, not only is she an incredible hard body, but as the movie unfolds we can see that she is a fine actor, capable of both comedic and dramatic roles. Director Rob Reiner plays the hot tempered father of Jordan Belfort and also acts as his good conscience. Matthew McConaughey is Mark Hanna, Belfort's charming mentor, who gives him a great lecture about the benefits of "feeding the geese". Kyle Chandler plays the straight arrow Agent Patrick Denham on the hunt for Belfort and his company. In addition to these great roles there are a hundred secondary characters and extras with great faces that will stick in the viewers memory.
There are also the other performances that play an intrinsic role in an underlying theme throughout the movie. The animals. We see lions, fish, monkeys and dogs among the chaos, supporting the theory that Wall Street is like a jungle or as Belfort describes it; a wolf pit. There is a surreal sequence in which a marching bad and stampede of hookers invade the Stratton offices in a celebration of money making. Carnage occurs in a dreamlike state when Belfort's employees attack each other and harass the hookers as if they were animals themselves. This is Scorsese's way of showing us the primitive nature of capitalism within American society, it's a survival of the fittest mentality that illustrates the ugliness of greed and human nature. There is a fetishism with money and power that not just upper class aspire to, but all classes. This is brilliantly demonstrated with the closing shot of the film as a crowd of onlookers at a Belfort seminar in New Zealand gaze upon him and catch his every word with infatuation, all wanting, all eager to learn his secret to becoming rich.
Scorsese could possibly be the best to ever do it. Wolf of Wall Street is no way as daring or as ambitious as Taxi Driver or as fascinating as Goodfellas, but it shows a director who is always in touch with audiences, old and young. He adapts to the contemporary pop culture and humour as he adapts great scripts or books, and truly makes it his own. Some filmmakers of his vintage have lost touch (De Palma, Lucas, Coppola), some have grown with him (Woody Allen, Spielberg), but none of them have stayed as sharp.
Sorry to lighten the mood, but after a viewing of Steve McQueen's 12 Years a Slave, I think we all could to with a chuckle or a stiff drink. It is a brutal, powerful and unflinching portrayal of slavery during America's darkest period. Wonderfully acted and beautifully shot, without cutting scenes short in order to please censors or allow audiences take a breath. Viewers do no get off easily. 12 Years a Slave is so perfectly directed and true to the original book, but it doesn't provide us with anything else. Hope? Nah...maybe luck, and directly a year after the highly original Django Unchained was released, we are essentially flung back to the age old story of the powerless black slave. That isn't taking a pop at this movie, which is brilliant and based on a true story, hence can't stretch our imagination like Django Unchained did. It's a movie about human suffering and the evil men do, not a glimpse, but a long hard stare.
Based on a true story, we follow Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) as he is deceived and abducted, thrown into the world of the slave trade down south where he is treated like an animal. He is sold to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), a sympathetic plantation owner who was just born in the wrong century. Northup survives and keeps his sanity by doing the best he can in plantation activities such as carpentry, construction and other slave pass times such as whippings, taunts and listening to a ridiculous sing along Run, Nigger, Run'. The tension between Northup and an ignorant overseer played by Paul Dano, who is actually threatening here (unlike There Will be Blood), eventually explodes into a great scene of catharsis. Northup, frustrated by this man's stupidity and abuse, fights back by lashing him with his own whip. However, the punishment for this outburst is severe and snaps the audience right back to the heinous reality. This punishment unfolds slowly in a great scene as Northup is lynched, but survives only by pushing himself up on the mud with his tippy toes. This scene plays out for what seems like eternity, from day till dusk we witness him struggle until he is cut down.
This extension of scenes and refusal to cut away or even enhance it with music is the true achievement of McQueen's film. He lets his movie breath, allowing the fierce emotion and atrocities resonate with the spectator. After Northup is transferred to Master Edwin Epps' (Michael Fassbender) land, our young protagonist's health doesn't improve much. Like Di Caprio's Calvin Candie in Django Unchained, Epps looks for an excuse that allows him to continue this savagery. Epps' reasoning is religion rather than science and phrenology, but just as incorrect. His character is closer to Amon Goeth then Candie though. As he, like Ralph Fiennes terrifying character in Schindler's List (1993) is smitten by one of his victims. Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o) is Epps' Kryptonite when it comes to his cruelty. This adds layers to his character and the class system among the slaves that was previously explored in Django Unchained.
Another scene in which McQueen lets play out, and the movies most violent, is when Patsey takes a lashing, many lashings, so much so that you can feel the audience in the theatre getting angrier and angrier to the brink of fury. It's an extremely unsettling sequence. However, not all of these extended scenes are for the purpose to display violent acts. At some stage, the camera has a close up on Solomon as he stands alone in the muggy, swampy woods of Louisiana and takes in all the natural surroundings. We see exotic trees, hear birds and flies as if we were standing right there with him. Which brings me to the cinematography by Sean Bobbitt, who makes the antebellum south look like it could be a Butlin's family holiday package deal, if weren't home to all the horrendous evil shit. The camera glides through cotton and cane fields as if it were Huck Finn running amuck again. Sunsets, stars and moonlight are all captured beautifully looking over the racism below on Edwin Epps plantation.
The conclusion of 12 Years a Slave comes as no surprise as it is based on the memoirs written by Solomon Northup, who we know escaped this living hell in order to write the book. We are left with no satisfying catharsis like the explosive shootout at the end of Django Unchained, but we let out a mere sigh of relief. Northup was one of the very, very lucky individuals who escaped. This is a hard study of humanity and human bondage. It would be completely idiotic to compare 12 Years a Slave and Django Unchained as they are completely different forms of film genre so I'll do so, because even though I have no problem with either films, there seems be a lingering aura with audience and critical reactions. I'm beginning to gather that many believe 12 Years is a more powerful and artistic film, "a real film". I don't buy that shit. Of course, McQueen's vision and portrayal of Solomon Northup's tremendous and harrowing story is courageous in terms of showing the extent of violence and trauma unleashed during this period, but it leaves nothing to the imagination. Tarantino's approach was subtle, delivered through a genre piece with an original story, a modern day fairytale that gave the black man and black audiences a sense of power and freedom. Obviously it was sensationalised for entertainment purposes, but it gave hope and propelled our imagination. If slavery were to occur again, which movie would you use as a guideline? As great and emotionally stirring as 12 Years a Slave is, it is a film for the past. Django Unchained is one for the future.
Ridley Scott's The Counsellor is one of his bravest films, a bleak look into the crime underworld without any moral filter. Is it a great film? No, but it's daring in ways that many Hollywood movies aren't. We finally get Cormac McCarthy's first original screenplay, if you can even call it that, onto the big screen and it plays out more like a novel than a film. The movie doesn't so much focus on plot as much as it does on story. What's the story? Well it's complex, but at the end of the day it is basically your generic movie criminal characters in way over their way, except here they all get what's coming to them, whether they are protagonists or not. No matter how pretty or likeable they are, they're gonna get it, and they're gonna get it rough. The Counsellor does not flinch away from the true brutality of the underworld. There is a harrowing scene involving a DVD, which portrays no on screen violence that will make audiences stomach churn.
Where the movie falls short is McCarthy's screenplay, which doesn't do the audience any favours in helping them follow any form of narrative. The dialogue is too cryptic and winding for the viewer to fathom while being entertained at the same time. Might make sense on paper, but not on the big screen. The plot doesn't really begin until an unfortunate bike ride. This little mess helps propel the film and forces it's characters to act. Until this moment there is a tedious and complex build up, which is only satisfactory because of Bardem's charming charisma. I enjoyed all of the performances for the most part, but spewing out McCarthy's long-winded dialogue didn't help them. Cameron Diaz was ice cold as Malkina and looked great, reminding me of Linda Fiorentino in The Last Seduction (1994), but seemed to be confused speaking the words, coming off like a Beverly Hills bimbo attempting to read Shakespeare, or in this case Dr. Seuss.
This movie has been blasted on all fronts, and a many of it's criticisms may be correct, but I admire it's boldness and Scott's and the actors' willingness to take a chance. In conclusion, I found The Counsellor to be a very interesting movie, a dark morality play that takes a risk in conveying audiences the stark reality of the cartel business.
First things first, if you havn't already seen Alfonso Cuaron's space epic, Gravity, it is mandatory that you experience it in its intended format at the IMAX in 3D. And that's exactly what it is, an experience. So many movies nowadays are sensationalised in the media, seems like almost every opening weekend produces a "masterpiece" and so many of these movies fall short of their critical acclaim. Gravity isn't one of those movies. The ecstatic critical praise and box office success completely coincide with the actual film. I honestly believe it is a landmark in cinema history. Whether a fan of the movie or not no one can deny it's cinematic achievement. Personally, I've never seen anything like it before and I came to this conclusion in the opening 12 minutes. We thought the potential of 3D was penetrated perfectly with Avatar, but Gravity is on a whole other level here. The real question is how is anybody ever going to top it?
The plot is basic, but the special effects are complex. It stars Sandra Bullock as Dr Ryan Stone and George Clooney as Matt Kowalski, two astronauts on a routine mission, working on the Hubble Space Telescope. Due to the technical accomplishments of this film we might as well include ourselves in the cast. We float side to side and upside down with them while the enormous scope of the earth engulfs the background. "Terrifyingly beautiful" Dr Stone describes the breathtaking view at some stage and we can empathise with her. The vast landscape of space is overwhelming and it has never been visualised on such a large scale as this. You might not want to watch this if you are hungover or you might go ahead and give yourself an anxiety attack.
After having our mind blown in the first scene, Steven Price's brooding score washes over the theatre and the thrilling rollercoaster ride begins as debris comes darting at high speed towards our protagonists and their ship. The next 78 minutes is a paramount of almost unbearable suspense and tension. Bullock is the centre of our attention during this ordeal. At times our point of view transcends to her point of view as the camera, without a cut mind you, enters her space helmet so we can see the vast destruction through her eyes. We follow her as she attempts to survive by any means necessary, trying to grab onto anything to keep her from been pushed into outer space. We are hurdled around in zero gravity with her and I found myself constantly twisting and turning my head in order to keep up, dodging debris along the way.
As pure cinema goes, Gravity clearly excels because of its filmmaking technique and groundbreaking special effects. The film's themes might not be as cryptic as say Kubrick's 2001, they are universal and will relate to viewers on a more general level. It's a spiritual film and deals with human endurance. We learn that Ryan is haunted by the death of her daughter and goes through life merely existing. Kowalski on the other hand, finds hope and promise in the good and bad. He acts as Ryan's guardian angel in a way. Ryan's struggle through this tremendous turmoil in space slowly becomes not just the fight for survival, but the fight to truly live again.
Some say the conclusion of Gravity may be cheesy or unrealistic, but by this stage we are so invested into this experience and filled with awe that any other conclusion would be incredibly cynical. Gravity nods its head to the Sci-Fi genre, but this is no Star Wars. It is the Jaws of the 21st century because it touches on one of mankind's primal fears. In 1975 it was the ocean and what lies below, in 2013 its deep space. We are all afraid of the unknown and there is so much we don't know about the universe. In terms of a Hollywood production, Gravity has given us the closest glimpse of the horror and beauty of it.
I have never seen Richard Linklater's first two installments of his romantic trilogy. Even though I admire the director's other work, particularly the cult, coming of age Dazed and Confused (1993), it seemed a tall order to get me to see a romantic drama. However, Before Midnight is far from romantic even if it wants to be. It is a realistic and rational look at a longterm relationship between two middle aged characters. It's also funnier than most romantic comedies without trying to.
I can understand why most, especially men, wouldn't want to see this even if they had a gun to their head, but if you take it for what it is and are willing to just go with it you might be pleasantly surprised. If you choose not to go with the flow you will hate it as it would appear incredibly tedious. We get scenes that go on for twenty minutes with one camera, two people, walking and talking. The talking is great and is what propels the film, while the performances enhance it. Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy and Linklater, clearly well acquainted from the previous Before flicks, share the writing credits and they'd have to. It is genuinely impressive to see these two actors carry out a dialogue rally for twenty minutes without a break.
Although a Texas native, it is evident that Linklater is world travelled and possesses a universal outlook. You can see the influences from French New Wave filmmakers such as Jean Luc Godard and Eric Rohmer, who also took the theme of love and beat it around, released it from its imprisonment within the Hollywood narrative formula in order to question and philosophise it. Shot on location in Greece, the foundation of western philosophy, we witness the couple discuss their past, future and present while incorporating debate on the social and cultural history of men and women. They are not naive chislers anymore, they are sober and uncertain about the huge gamble to spend the rest of their lives together.
Before Midnight is a film about people, about their aspirations and anxieties. It's about wanting to get everything out of life, but unfortunately the time given to us cannot accommodate it all. The running time of Before Midnight is 109 minutes. Try to fit it in.
The Israeli thriller, Big Bad Wolves, really pushes the bar. Not in terms of on screen violence, but in regards to taking a huge leap in the balance of humour and horror, and in my opinion they landed it. This movie isn't for everyone, but the more audiences it connects with the greater its accomplishment will become. Living in the nauseating era of political correctness I'd like to see Hollywood try to recycle this delicious dark nugget with Will Smith.
The plot involves a suspected child murderer, a ruthless cop, who plays by his own rules and an unsettling father of one of the murdered girls. Our allegiance is bounced off each one of these characters as the plot unfolds. The casting of the suspected child murderer is excellent as we feel both empathy and apathy for him at various times by his face alone. The audience is genuinely in a state of conflict in their attempt to figure out if he committed these heinous acts or not.
Following some humorous and coincidental circumstances, the three men end up in a basement in the middle of nowhere within an Arab region. An interrogation pursues for the majority of the movies with plot twists and turns Nostradamus couldn't predict. Apart from the flawless plot, which constantly keeps you on your toes, the real achievement lies in directors Aharon Keshales and Navot Papushado's orchestration of the film's audience. Essentially, this is a movie about a suspected sadistic child rapist and murderer and the torture and intimidation carried out on him. So why do we laugh? The subject matter contains the most depraved and horrifying acts in society, yet at certain moments we have a good old laugh.
An example of this awkward transcendence between shock and laughter comes in a scene where the father describes to the suspected killer, the disgusting, graphic details of the torture taken out on his deceased girl. His little tale is disrupted by humorous back and forth banter between himself and the cop. The audience is snapped directly out from disgust to a chuckle, albeit at times a nervous chuckle, possibly one of guilt.
Another example arises during an intense torture scene. The suspect is about to have his toenail ripped off with a pair of pliers, musical score is to the max, viewers on the edge of their seats squirming when suddenly the phone rings. It's the father's mother berating him with maternal questions. We let out a sigh of relief, but Big Bad Wolves means business. It does not shy away from the violence, it simply uses comedy to prolong it.
There is Jewish humour sprawled all over this flick, specifically between family. Sort of like if Eli Roth made an episode of Seinfeld or if Wes Craven and Woody Allen had a baby. It also contains subtle, but very affective political and religious satire between Jews and Muslims in Israel. There are similarities between Big Bad Wolves and Bong Joon-ho's masterpiece Memories of Murder (2003) in terms of deploying unpretentious social commentary within the story and the fusion of humour with serious subject matter.
Big Bad Wolves is possibly the year's best movie and without a doubt it's most daring in terms of theme and content. It aspires to the true originality of storytelling that Hollywood once delivered during the movie brat era of the 1970s, unapologetic, unafraid and knocking down the doors of political correctness. It would appear that the torch has been passed.
In recent years movie-goers have been possessed by shoddy horror films, more specifically that of the sub-genre of the supernatural movies. James Wan's The Conjuring is the liberating exorcism of these demonic, mundane, pieces of trash from our consciousness as it delivers us with something fresh from an old batch. It is a movie that will evoke all your childhood fears and let them resurface for a chilling two hours. The Conjuring is a great movie going experience and I contend it's the best Hollywood produced supernatural-thriller of the past twenty years and arguably since its grandaddy-The Exorcist (1973).
Director, James Wan (Saw, Death Sentence), has been working up to this his entire career and he has finally achieved it by throwing the sadism and gore out the window and beginning fresh with traditional horror storytelling. In no way am I condemning the gore of the new breed of splat-pack horror directors, that stuff is great. However, I do believe that audiences have become savvy to the blood and guts today just as they did for the supernatural at the turn of the century...or so we thought.
There have been a few commercial gems along the way, most notably the Paranormal Activity franchise. However, in cinematic terms it is far inferior to The Conjuring. With Paranormal Activity you have a film made with homemade footage and unknown actors to convey a more realistic environment, sort of like the reality television we are fed every day. Might be entertaining for a minute, but at the end of the day it is disposable trash. The series delivered on the "jump" scares, but without any true cinematic skill or illusion. It all seems to easy and in a way aren't they kind of cheating? On the other hand, we have The Conjuring, with well known stars in a stylised Hollywood setting convincing the audience of the horror that they are witnessing. In my eyes that is far more impressive.
The Conjuring is based on true events that occurred at an old farmhouse in Harrisville, Rhode Island in 1971. Carolyn and Roger Perron (Lili Taylor & Ron Livingston) have moved from New Jersey with their five daughters. As the family begin to settle in, the suspicion, tension and suspense slowly builds up. The first major scare comes in a scene where Christine (Joey King) is awoken by her feet being pulled in bed. She wakes up startled and becomes terrified when she realises that it wasn't her sister Nancy (Hayley McFarland), who is seen fast asleep. Christine suddenly reaches the conclusion that we have known all along, that there is another presence within the house and it is very real. This is the best piece of acting in the film, her transcendence from regular life into the world of the unknown. Her body language and facial expressions are excellent.
The first time we actually see the demonic spirit in the physical is above a wardrobe in one of the girl's rooms. We know it is coming, but the way Wan delivers its presence still has us out of our seats. It is at this time in which the Perron family seek help from the practical and confident Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson & Vera Farmiga), he a demonologist and her a clairvoyant. In order to save the Perron's they must investigate the house and give proof in order to have the Vatican abide an exorcism. This investigation eases up the suspense somewhat because now the family have support, but the history of the house that is uncovered is disturbing enough to keep the audience unsettled. The first half of the movie conjure up (shut up) great tension and suspense, but the last twenty minutes is a pure adrenaline rush in order to save this family. We get a storm, a creepy doll on the loose, a nod to Hitchcock's The Birds (1963), gunshots, and all the while delivered at a perfected pace. It was exhilarating to watch amongst a full theatre with people jumping, screaming, laughing and on the edge of their seats. There are few energetic horror experiences like it in recent years.
Wan doesn't bring anything new to the supernatural genre except for his perfected technique. The direction and camera movement here show a master at work. It is pure cinema where the camera gives us all we need to know, it creeps around the house up creaky stairs and down into pitch black basements, which helps create a heightened degree of suspense. I'm pretty sure I even jumped at the fucking thunder and lightening in this movie. The production design, costume and cinematography portray a great 1970s look. More then being a flawless horror movie in narrative and impeccable technique, The Conjuring has shown us something a lot more important. It has proven that we, the audience, are still capable of been scared and entertained through traditional cinematic attributes such as a strong story, great acting, depth in character, atmosphere and suspense. This is the real accomplishment of The Conjuring.
Tips
*See it in a packed theatre.
*Preferably with a girl because she won't want to spend the night alone after.
I sunk my fucking face into my palms during the first few minutes of Noam Baumbach's new black and white feature, Frances Ha. I thought I was in store for a 90 minute chick-buddy-indie flick, but as soon as Frances' best friend/roommate, Sophie (Mickey Sumner), moves out, I let out a sigh of relief. From then on the film focuses on Frances (Greta Gerwig), a social leper with too much pride to admit her failures.
This movie contains no plot, but this is done intentionally. It jumps from scene to scene in Frances' life, a girl in her late twenties, stuck between the liberation of college and the responsibility of adult life. Her story is portrayed in the way we all see this period of life ; segments of nights out, domestic disputes, all the little anecdotes we tell our friends. This is not a precise narrative with a specific aim, its a portrayal of day to day life.
Because I'm at the same period of my life as Frances, I could relate to Frances' story, but the film need not rely on that. The style is that of a Bohemian Woody Allen with obvious nods to the French New Wave. One negative aspect, which even the lead star Gerwig questioned was the fact that, although the film looks great with its black and white format and attempts to sell itself as a Manhattan (1979), the reality is that it was shot digitally. This confession makes the aesthetic null and void, its just a digital copy and isn't exactly what it says on the tin.
There are genuine funny scenes here, mainly delivered through great conversation dialogue with perfect timing. The prime example of this lies in the scene where one of Frances male roommates has brought back a girl from the night before. Frances and her other male roommate join them at the breakfast table and the four of them just waffle on, speaking over each other in a realistic manner. It's like watching a tennis rally with the ball boy taking a swing now and again.
The soundtrack is upbeat with songs from David Bowie, Harry Nilsson and Hot Chocolate, even though Frances' world constantly disintegrates in front of her as all her friends advance in life she remains trapped financially, socially and motivationally. The film's ending is positive, but not compromising in the way that the character Frances actually does compromise with adult life. Her dreams of becoming a professional dancer are trampled on and she must settle as a dance choreographer. However, she discovers that this job actually makes her happy and content. It would appear that she has advanced onto adulthood. Life doesn't necessarily work out the way you wish and that brings an element of surprise.
Again, there is an obvious homage to Woody Allen's New York in style and character. Frances is neurotic and socially awkward. She is does not follow the general conventions in which the majority do. She surrounds herself with hipsters in Brooklyn, which I thought would make me cringe, but they are funny and true in character. This film had the strong potential of coming off as a pretentious rip off, but the procrastination and indecisive nature of Frances makes it relatable to many.
Oscar Pistorius was granted bail today in Pretoria. Under the condition of his release he must pay one million rand, hand over guns, passport, prosthetic legs, pogo sticks and any other instruments of transport or violence. He has also been instructed to go to bed with a night light on in case the darkness causes Mr Pistorius to panic. Pistorius' defence claimed that the terrifying Nickelodeon series Are You Afraid of the Dark? sparked Oscar's phobia of dark rooms and was an undeniable factor that set him off.
Furthermore, a petition has been put forward to the South African government in order to place mandatory night lights throughout the country in the hope that an incident like this will never occur again. Never before has South Africa had such an infiltration of white light come in and push out the darkness of the country.
In relation to Are You Afraid of the Dark?, the defence has argued that this is not the first time fictional violence has influenced a shooting. "Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza was clearly influenced by Kindergarden Cop" contended Barry Roux, Mr Pistorius' lawyer. The prosecution actually agreed with the Roux's accusation of film and television have had a definite affect on Pistorius. However, they focused this argument on Pistorius' account of what happened that fateful night, labelling it under the genre of comedy and claiming that Mr Pistorius has a very creative imagination.
There has been an overwhelming support for the Olympic medalist as fellow paraplegic athletes have hopped to his aid, along with school children, who's homework has been eaten by their dogs. Pistorius said he is relieved with the court's decision and is going to spend the weekend relaxing with his family, while watching his all time favourite actor O.J. Simpson in a Naked Gun marathon.
Today I woke up, relieved myself in the bathroom, looked at my ugly mug in the mirror, washed every inch of my body in the shower before scrambling my eggs. You want to see that? I don't blame you. Also, sang a little jingle, which resembled the sound of a cat getting ravaged by a giraffe. You like my crooning? Hell I can understand that. If it were sensationalised you might take a peek though since people across the world do so every night when they groove into that spot on their couch and click POWER. 80% of our creative soul has been compromised through the genre of reality television. We've allowed the birth of the antichrist and it comes to us in the chameleon like face of grease ball guidos, botoxed housewives/socialites and one-dimensional smiling characters.
Television shows with no creative merit have charmed us through sensationalism and buffoonery. We are all guiltier than Simpson, Casey Anthony and Nasty Nick. We've watched with a glazed look as the devil squirted out spawns such as Jersey Whore, Come and Defile with me, My Super Greed Material Fiend and Ireland's got Flatulence. The sensationalised wool of banality has been pulled over our eyes!
Real life is bland enough without turning on the television and revising the sheer excitement of going to the bathroom or waiting for the fucking toast to pop. If it isn't the supposed "edginess" of fornication within a sea of fake tan and hair products, then its nauseating spectacle of talentless cretins pouring out their emotions in a cringing fashion. If we aren't watching an Oompa Loompa looking creature throwing tampons at her roommate or washed up brown-nosing, has-been sucking ass (metaphorically speaking of course, I'm not too proud to say I wouldn't watch that) then, heck!, that's just not good television.
This sad state of affairs brings democracy into question. Should we be subjected to this excess of banal trash week in and week out? For now unfortunately yes, but it makes baby Jesus cry, and by God if he saw this act of crumbling civilisation now, he'd be spinning on his cross faster than the Wheel of Fortune.
True originality and creativity, which help evolve our brains are being overlooked for reality television. In Ireland, The Rubberbandits are the only true original creativity to be produced in this country since Father Ted. The Roman Empire fell due to the apex of self indulgence, what's more self indulgent than watching ourselves eat, sleep and shit.
Kathryn Bigelow has a wide-on for war-time. She portrays the mechanical complexities of modern day warfare better than anyone else, unfortunately so much so that it kind of becomes harder to enjoy. She conveys a very realistic look into the process of capturing Osama Bin Laden and since we all know the outcome, she still possesses the power to make us look on in suspense. However, as tense as Zero Dark Thirty can get, we aren't taken on an un-predictable journey. We know the outcome too well because we just dealt with it last year constantly on the news. It is interesting to see the process they had to go through in order to find him, but thats all we really get. Ben Affleck's Argo, another true political thriller this year, gave us more. The fact that the operation in Argo occurred in 1979 helps because it isn't tattooed in the common consciousness. Also, it is simply more fun and energetic than this movie, we care more for its humanistic characters.
What we are dealing with in Zero Dark Thirty is dramatised news coverage and it feels like it. And it works well, but isn't it just more fun to be told a story than to be given fact after fact. The force that holds are attention is Jessica Chastain's performance as CIA agent Maya. Her intrigue and dedication to finding Bin Laden strengthens throughout the movie. It begins as a procedural duty for her, but soon becomes a personal vendetta due to losing friends by the hands of terrorists. Like her, we become frustrated with the formalities and slow reaction by the operation's leaders.
The opening of the movie is the torture routine carried out by CIA officer Dan (Jason Clarke). He subjects a prisoner to waterboarding, beatings and humiliation. In the most excruciating torture sequence he places the prisoner in a small box. As horrible as it is, we understand Dan's motive for doing so. What is hard to understand is why he places a dog collar around the prisoner's neck and walks him like a dog. Is it just to de-humanise him? Wouldn't the little box be enough Dan? Does it help objectively or is this a power rush for him? Dan appears to be a nice, normal fellow, which interestingly raises the question; Who wants this job? Can one switch on and off that work mentality just like that? (my thumb just rubbed off my middle finger).
Bigelow has brought this notion of questionable professions up before with her last movie The Hurt Locker (2009). That followed a bomb disposal team on their missions in Iraq, this time round we follow CIA agents interrogating and torturing affiliates of al-Quada. She seems to be attracted and intrigued by these mortal jobs, and appears to argue that the torture can be excused because of the bravery and patriotism of her protagonists.
Bigelow has proved to be an expert in the war-thriller genre, but from a complex newsworthy perspective. It will be interesting to see what she tackles next. The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty have catapulted Bigelow into one of Hollywood's most respected directors' list. I still feel that these two films are not in the same league as her cult classic Strange Days (1995), but who's gonna listen.
In my last post about Sergio Leone, I discussed the theory of his whole oeuvre of work being fairytales, with titles such as Once Upon a Time in the West/America. In Quentin Tarantino's latest film, Django Unchained, that is exactly what we get; a fairytale. Naturally, this doesn't fall into the good old wholesome Disney fairytale, but nonetheless it does possess all the characteristics and traits of a fairytale, and the characters even allude to the fact that their journey does share resemblance to the old German folklore of Brynhildr. The motive of the hero within that legend and our hero, Django (Jamie Foxx), is to rescue and free his love from the depths of hell, more or less. We have seen it a hundred times before, maybe not in Tarantino's style, but we are stepping on familiar territory here.
Returning back to these fairytale characteristics I spoke of. The opening scene begins in a deep, dark forest "somewhere in Texas", kind of like "in a land far far away" type scenario and already we are dropped into a common staple in the fairytale motif. We are not dropped in there all alone though, by our side is the eccentric Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). In all fairytales, there's an overlooking presence, a guardian angel if you will, that we the audience and our protagonist (Django) can place our complete confidence upon. Schultz is that presence. Tarantino has mentioned before that Samuel L. Jackson and Waltz are the only two that don't just say his dialogue, but sing it and that is exactly what Waltz does here. He is one of today's finest actors, but not in the style of a Daniel Day Lewis or Robert De Niro method acting. Waltz's acting style is more modest and polite. Just like with Col. Hans Landa, King Schultz has a way with words and pronunciation that wash over the audience allowing them to feel that they are in good hands.
However, from a subtextual point of view, who exactly is Dr. King Schultz? That he is a guardian angel from a fairytale perspective is certainly already imposed, but allowing to brush away that notion for a moment, we may propose the theory that Schultz is in fact us, the 21st century audience. We are not all too familiar with slavery besides from the few historical bullet-points. All we really know is that it was bad and not to say the N-Word; end of story. We live in a completely different world far away from the antebellum south of 1858. Schultz is also not from this culture, being German and all. We see the atrocities of slavery through his eyes and it is shocking. Django is used to this treatment and way of life because he was born into it and knows no better. This is a whole new experience and incomprehension for Schultz/audience.
However, before we reach the heart of slavery in Mississippi, our protagonists Django and Schultz begin their relationship by King releasing Django from the chain-gang and teaching him the ways of a bounty hunter. This answers the question of "who is Schultz?" with a different outcome as we may recognise him as a father figure for Django. He teaches him to read, feeds him, dresses him and gives him his humanity. He admits to Django that he has never given anyone their freedom before and feels responsible for him. Since Tarantino himself had no solid father figure, can we interpret this as a childhood fantasy for the director? At the end of the day these are theories, but when it comes down to the basics it is evidently clear that Schultz is the teacher and Django is the student during that cold winter in the bounty hunting business.
However, after Django proves himself as a valid and talented gunslinger it is time for the two to travel to Mississippi to rescue Django's wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from the Francophile and infantile, Calvin Candie (Leo Di Caprio). They masquerade as buyers and experts in the vicious sport of mandingo fighting. We soon begin to see Django become the teacher as we delve deeper into the sadistic conditions of slavery. He invites us and Schultz into his world and we are exposed to the brutal realities of the slave trade. I suppose this is where I should discuss controversy surrounding the violence and language of the film. In my view the display of violence is completely sensationalised by the media and this isn't to say that is easy to watch, but there has been a lot worse. I admit that the idea is placed in our minds during dreaded scenes such as the mandingo fighting and the dog attack, but Tarantino sets it up, we finish it in our heads. There is the cathartic shoot out scenes, which are drenched in blood, however, I believe this to be aesthetically wonderful. If this is what critics are wailing about then they aren't watching enough movies. At the end of the day people in the audience are going to have different thresholds when it comes to viewing violence, but when you are dealing with a Tarantino flick and slavery I think its pretty safe to assume that this ain't nofucking High School Musical (2006).
Slavery is the unabashedly central theme that will have audiences debating. The discussion of controversy was desensitised best by the director himself, claiming that this movie is just the flavour or talk of the month and that something new will come along that everybody will deem reprehensible.
I don't see Tarantino's ambition to portray American slavery as taboo, what he did that was audacious was to portray the hierarchy amongst black males e.g. the Uncle Tom, the slaver, the field nigger. We can see hierarchy like this reflected within the black community in America today and that was a ballsy decision on his part, but he seemed to make it work. The word "nigger" is thrown around constantly throughout the film and people have spoke out about it. Spike Lee, who I see as a talented director gave his two cents for what it's worth, claiming that this movie is disrespectful to his ancestors (without actually seeing it mind you). This is coming from a man, who a few years back called Sam Jackson a "house nigger" and confesses that he uses the word himself? Give me a four fingered Kit-Kat now. You want the tension of racism to continue within America, then go to a Knicks game with Lee and bash whites, Jews and Clint Eastwood.
Anyway, I digress. Back to the nice fairytale. So if Schultz in essence is us, the modern day audience, who or what does Django represent? Reminiscing to the idea of fairytale and folklore, surely Django is portrayed as this mythological superhero for black people during that period. This superhero idea came to me when Schultz and Django are in search for the Brittle Brothers at Big Daddy's (Don Johnson) plantation in Tennessee. After an emotional flashback of Broomhilda taking a whipping from the brothers, Django confronts them in this masterfully cathartic scene of revenge and retribution. While he shoots and whips the brothers, the slave onlookers gaze in awe, kids mouths drop as if they are watching Superman. We can picture the story been told throughout the south by slaves like a game of Chinese Whispers, giving them a sense of hope. In the reality of the story though, Django is only a man that would go to hell and back for his wife, but simplicities have always influenced greater causes. Rosa Parks wasn't trying to change things in any social manner, she just wanted to sit at the front of the bus and her persistence led to the Civil Rights Movement.
As the mission continues through Mississippi towards Candyland, we enter the gates of hell where Broomhilda is trapped. Her owner is Calvin Candie, an ignorant bourgeois, who clings onto his theories of phrenology in order to justify slavery. This is the first time in a very long time that Di Caprio hasn't played a leading man, he is in the mode of character actor here and his first time playing an antagonist too. Sam Jackson plays his accomplice as the O.G. of Uncle Toms, Stephen. Stephen is much smarter than Candie, older and wiser, but just as malicious. Possibly even more so as he betrays his own people and considers himself to be white. From the moment Django first sets foot on Candyland, Stephen sees him as a threat, jealousy arises and he lies in wait for just one slip up. Rest assured there is when he notices eye contact between Django and Broomhilda. After a terrifying ordeal after a dinner, our heros and Broomhilda are free to leave, due to a purchase of $12,000 for Django's wife.
It would appear they are free, but images of a slave being ripped apart by dogs haunt Schultz as the transaction is underway. He cannot comprehend this heinous culture and realises that by purchasing Broomhilda he is partaking. As Beethoven wafts over the room he is sickened by the entire event and must leave the room. Soon after he humiliates Candie by bringing it to his attention that the author Alexandre Duma, who Candie admires, is in fact from African descent. Candie returns the embarrassment by attempting to get Schultz to shake his hand to close Broomhilda's deal. To our satisfaction Schultz doesn't oblige. Thus, resulting in one of the bloodiest shoot outs in cinema history. Although we recognise Django as the hero within the boundaries of the spaghetti western and black folklore, Dr. King Schultz is the real hero in terms of fighting slavery by not giving into Calvin Candie.
Django Unchained is not flawless by any means, it's predecessor Inglorious Basterds (2009) stretched much closer to that feat with its three dimensional characters, moments of genuine suspense and it's solid, yet complex plot. Note the climax duel between Django and Stephen within this movie. Now we understand that Stephen is no real threat at this stage, but I thought the dialogue could have stretched out longer and been more potent. Django's most obvious loss are the hands of the late editor Sally Menke, who was Tarantino's greatest collaborator. It is only after her unfortunate passing that we can come to terms with how good she really was and clearly how essential she was to QT's process. Also, it was a mistake for Tarantino to put himself in the movie. He is a character himself in real life so during a scene of genuine hopelessness we do not want to see his mug in the shot as it removes the sense of impending doom.
All that been said, this is great entertainment that sets out exactly what it was aiming for. It's a genuine spaghetti western, from the high speed, zooming close-ups to the blood splatter to the beautiful photography of landscape done by Robert Richardson. Since his debut Quentin Tarantino's work has evolved, but from the same heart of Resevoir Dogs (1992). A true American storyteller, who juggles both the mainstream Hollywood system and the independent circle in his hands with perfect balance. If he is not the greatest living director, he is the luckiest. He has lived his life in celluloid, discussing cinema for kicks rather than profit, taking the past and remixing it to produce his own future.
