donuthaters12 Reviews

Three Colors: White (1994)

Not As Great As Blue But Definitely Still A Strong Piece Of Work

[7/10 · 12 June 2014]

Review In A Nutshell:

White tells the story of a male Polish hairdresser, Karol, who was left by his wife, Dominique, with nothing. He deals with this loss by going back to Poland and rebuilding himself.

The first I noticed when going through this film was how light it all felt, all the weight that I felt on the director's previous film, Blue, were mostly lifted. I wasn't so much disappointed with the change in tone as there are many moments in this film where the plot and narrative benefited from it, but I was underwhelmed by Kieslowski's execution. The director couldn't seem to make me feel comprehensively invested to the protagonist, as I personally felt he wasn't explored enough and the intentions of the character wasn't truly clear to me throughout.

Thankfully I enjoyed the journey that the protagonist has taken, as we get to see him start off on the bottom of the world, figuratively speaking of course, and building himself up slowly to becoming a respectable and "fulfilled" man. He doesn't reach this stage without playing dirty of course, Karol is still a normal human being and would do whatever he can in order to get ahead, but it was handled in such a way that we don't think less of him. I saw this rebuilding as just a constructive coping mechanism towards the tragic loss he just suffered, and I think in a way all of what he has made for himself was all for her or at least something to prove to her. During the film's third act, we can see that he is still in pain and even though he could get anything he wants there is still a void in him that hasn't been filled, and that is love. It was her love that he has always wanted, and he blames himself for not being able to show and prove that to her during their marriage. For Karol, content doesn't come from wealth, respect and fame, it comes from Dominique.

The film's photography was also a major change from the first film of the trilogy. Colors seem to be warmer, and the color seems to dominate a lot of the film's images, possibly enforcing the idea of purity and beauty. It connects really well with the film's plot and narrative, making certain situations coming off as comically charged rather than dire, giving us a glimpse of how the film would feel during its resolution. The score also was change from the previous film, switching from the grand and dramatic tone to something much lighter and sharper. I found the score to be effective, particularly during the moments where the film wants us to feel sorry for Karol or when he examines or thinks about his one true love, Dominique. We are able to understand his fascination with her, and the music helps support that.

Zbigniew Zamachowski plays the film's protagonist, Karol. He was wonderful in the role, though it wasn't at the same level of amazing as Binoche in Blue. The actor was able to manipulate my feelings towards the character, with one moment feeling highly sorry then the next moment feeling proud of what he has become. He was able to change the appearance of his exterior while keeping his internal qualities the same. Julie Delpy was also pretty good in the role, but it would have been better if she was given a bit more screen time; then again this is Karol's story, not hers.

White may not be a step up as I hoped it would be from Blue, but it's still a great piece of work from Kieslowski. Hopefully Red would be at least just as good as this, if not better.

Three Colors: Blue (1993)

Wonderful and Powerful

[9/10 · 11 June 2014]

Review In A Nutshell:

Blue tells the tale of a woman who is trying to cope with a recent car accident that involved the death of her husband and child.

Blue is one of those films where one couldn't predict the ending, as there wasn't a measurable goal established during the first or second act of the film and the director was aiming for a sense of realism when shaping the lead protagonist, therefore the character would not be following the traditional path of absolution and instead making one that is tailored for the character. I truly admired Krzysztof Kieslowski's approach with the film as filmmakers these days seem to try their best to cater towards the audience's expectations and resolve the character's story the way that is acceptable for them, which at times hurt the film's emotional and thematic impact. The film doesn't let us get too close to our protagonist, Julie, we never at any moment get inside her head, we only have her actions and her words to shape our perspective of her and I think this approach kind of left me a tad bit detached at some moments and finding it hard to empathise, but I think the director wanted us to not let the film speak itself too frankly, he wants us to keep coming back and observing her, hoping that each visit would let us become closer to the character and develop a unique understanding of who she is, what she is feeling, and how she would get through it.

The film also explores Julie's coping mechanism of her depression and grief. Julie's way of coping is definitely not something a psychiatrist or counsellor would recommend as her remedy is to isolate herself from the objects that could bring about memories of her loved ones. Julie also engages herself in activities like swimming, which at first I thought was her way of distracting herself from the recurring thoughts of her family, as the film went on I started to see what Kieslowski was trying to create with those scenes, she is swimming in her sadness and at times drowning herself in it. This held me back in thinking she is close to moving on with her life, but since the director is going for something more realistic in dealing with depression, I was more willing to let myself accept the decisions that the characters make. Throughout the late second-third act of the film, we are treated to a side of Julie that wasn't primarily seen at the start of the film. We get to see her immerse herself in the art of music, which I found to be highly entertaining as this gives us a glimpse of what she used to be and how talented she was before the tragic event.

I cannot go into high subjective detail on the film's cinematography as I feel that I need to go through this once more before I could properly criticize the choices that both the director and cinematographer have taken. All I could say for now is that the photography of the film captures that distance between us and the protagonist perfectly, no matter how close the camera is we could never fully penetrate her. There were a couple of times where I did feel the use of the color blue was a bit too emphasised in a couple of shots, but then over time I was able to get through it and appreciate it's usage, particularly the scenes that involves Julie swimming in the large pool. The film at times switches between mounted and stable shots to hand held tracking shots. The director is manipulating how much of the character we see, there are times where the film lets us in and at times we only see partially or are too far away from the character.

The film's score was a definitely one of the film's highlights as the score creates this sense of impact during particular moments in the film, accurately representing how she feels at that given moment. The film was clever enough to have the film's protagonist be aware of the music, as the music seems to play as a reminder of the event and at the same time a sense of inspiration in how his husband's magnum opus composition should turn out. Since both the protagonist and the audience can hear the music, we are able to feel a sense of empathy, which is something of a rarity throughout the film.

The film's acting was mainly anchored by Juliette Binoche and she does a wonderful job here. I have only seen the actress on Abbas Kiarostami's Certified Copy which I thought she did a great job with, but her performance in this film took my perspective of her even further. Binoche is an outstanding actress who definitely deserves more credit than she currently has as when he embodies a role, she does it with such precision that one's previous understanding of the actress would be wiped clean when starting a new film. Just on scenes where the camera captures a close up of her face, she doesn't reveal much but it definitely does not seem hollow, there is something there but one has to look harder in order to obtain it.

Blue is a great film that contains a wonderful and powerful performance from Juliette Binoche and a story that avoids from being predictable. If one places an effort to understand and connect with the character, then one would be left highly rewarded by the end of the film.

Stolen Kisses (1968)

A Great Film From A Great Director

[7/10 · 2 June 2014]

Review In A Nutshell:

Stolen Kisses is about a young man who was discharged from the army due to constantly being absent without permission, and has first taken up a job as a night watchmen before eventually delving into the profession of a private detective.

It was truly stupid of me to start off with this film, as I have found out after watching the film that this is the third film of a trilogy that started with The 400 Blows about the character, Antoine Doinel. This is the main reason why I felt kind of slightly detached with the character and not comprehensively understand the intentions that Truffaut was trying to push with this film. Luckily though, I still was able to enjoy this film as I found the protagonist and the adventures he goes on, to be highly fun and quirky. I loved watching him attempting to succeed in areas that are clearly not meant for him, and at the same time watch him becoming distracted by the women in his life, and how they affect his "career". The most interesting was definitely the relationship between him and Catherine, as they both don't seem to agree on their current feelings for one another that it becomes complicated to have things run smoothly for them. Truffaut doesn't romanticize the relationship though; he keeps it highly respectable but still retains that sense of quirkiness, which I also found in the previous film I have seen from the director, Jules and Jim. As I have said, the film's protagonist came off intriguing as Truffaut handled it in a very interesting way, and definitely someone I would love to explore more deeply.

One can justify that this film is a romantic comedy as those elements are definitely clear when watching this film, but I personally felt like there was more to it than just that. I felt that the film was trying to say something about "useless" men that have been ejected from the army, to show us how difficult it is to make a living for yourself and to feel incompetent to society, but it feels buried deep into the film that could be easily accessed if one has seen the two films that preceded this. The film also explores the idea of obsession, though not as dire as what Hitchcock presented in Vertigo, but in a comedic and slightly more realistic kind of way. I am not sure whether or not Truffaut was conscious when he has made the reference, but I do see some of the resemblance, then again this may just be me. Nevertheless, these themes don't interfere with the tone and style that Truffaut was going for, and can still be enjoyed at a superficial level.

The film's camera work was satisfying, creating that light and comedic mood that makes the film feel easily accessible and digestible. There were times, particularly during the shots that capture Antoine walking around the streets of Paris, where the filmmakers are trying to suggest that sense of monitoring; like as if someone is watching your every move. Even by the end of the film, a character who suddenly reveals he to be a watcher has shown us that one can't truly be safe. The film's score was quite pleasant to listen to, particularly the opening track as it creates this warm, sweet feeling that I haven't felt about in a song played during a film for a very long time. The orchestral score on the other hand plays out the same feelings in me as the opening track, light and sweet, doesn't try to play with your emotions but instead highlights the personality of the characters and the comedic tone of the film. One can't help but grin a little when little moments happen in the film and some of the commendation belongs to the film's music.

The acting in this film was wonderful, boasting a strong performance from Jean-Pierre Leaud. He played his character with such ease, that I can't help but feel impressed, as other actors who play characters like this try to come off as quirky and funny but end up either overwhelming or underwhelming in their performance. Leaud was able to incorporate comedy in almost all areas of his performance, physical and verbal, with some showing subtlety while others are plain obvious, but the lack of subtlety in some of his physical performance doesn't hurt his performance in the film, at times it actually makes it funnier that he has shown such commitment in making his movements look and feel hilarious. This is primarily Leaud's film so the other actors were only present to support our perceptions of the character, so I would leave my critique for the other actors in my second viewing of the film.

Stolen Kisses is a delightful film from Truffaut that definitely would have benefited me if I have seen the films that preceded it.

The Possession (I) (2012)

Not Worth Your Time

[2/10 · 26 January 2014]

Point Based Review:

• Forced family story

• The climax was not worth the wait

• I do not understand the girl's connection with the box

• I trips off many of the exorcism films that has already been released in the past, feeling very uninspired

• Sudden cuts appear to move the film along, but yet it still feels draggy and slow like it was going through a very viscous surface

• Uses fade outs to close the scene but the scenes don't leave you with anything that keeps the audience engaged or even interested on what might come next

• The photography felt off, with the image feeling overly bright and unnatural, taking a much more artificial look like it was filtered to create a "personality"

• The score was unoriginal and plays at moments where it is meant to scare you but instead comes off as cliché and overly annoying

• It relies so much on it's special effects to try and "scare" you

• Actors may be the best part of the film, with them not feeling over the top or annoying to watch on screen

• The issue instead is mostly found on the very not well thought of writing, with lacking any punch or finesse in it's dialogue or narrative

• Overall, don't bother with this and find The Exorcist or at the very least The Rite instead

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Not Perfect In It's Screenplay But So Much Of It Is Done Right That It Shouldn't Be Missed

[8/10 · 26 January 2014]

Rosemary's Baby wasn't the film that introduced me to the works of Roman Polanski but rather it was Chinatown. So I came into this with very high hopes and thinking it may even top the previous film I have watched, due to the hype and the intriguing subject matter. After watching it twice already, I can clearly say that Rosemary's Baby isn't perfect but it has a lot to offer that proves that it cannot be missed.

Rosemary's Baby was based off the novel by Ira Levin and was adapted to the screen by Roman Polanski. I haven't read the novel so I cannot say whether or not the film drives away from the source material but what Polanski has given us here is quite interesting with only minor trips that prevent this from being a perfect film. The film mainly follows through Rosemary's experience during her pregnancy and as she gets closer to the end, she also gets closer to the truth. As much as I enjoyed seeing this concept being explored, it was dragged down by the lack of incentive to keep us emotionally engaged throughout, instead all that was bottled up for the second half of the film once the tension started to build. This made the first half felt a little stretched out and at times feeling unnecessary. Polanski cleverly avoids giving any confirmation of our suspicions until the last few minutes of the film as throughout the film we follow Rosemary alone, along with her paranoia and stress, and never gives us any moment of peace from it.

Rosemary's Baby is Roman Polanski's fifth film. Polanski creates his first hour of the film to feel like a play, with characters just talking to one another in a confined space and allowing the actors to completely use their surroundings in order to gain a natural performance. The last hour of the film is where things start to pick up and the horrors of the situation emerge and have us feel stressed for Rosemary. Though I thought highly in Polanski's efforts in creating the first half of the film, regardless I felt that it was quite slow and lacked a bit of a visual or mental incentive to keep us completely invested. It becomes much more enjoyable in subsequent viewings when we already know what happens to Rosemary and understand what every character's motives were.

The cinematography of the film was handled by William A. Fraker, who later on in his career will be nominated awards for his work but for Rosemary's Baby it was under-appreciated. Which I found understandable because this film did truly feel take an amateurish style of photography, with shots only showing what it needs to show you in order to move film along. Fraker for the most part has his camera constantly moving, it is not so obvious as it only really moves because the actors are moving or are doing some action and the audience needs to see it in order for us to gain something from it. As we get closer to the end, Polanski and Fraker allows us to get closer and closer to Rosemary emotionally supported with tighter close ups and using the camera as a shadow following her wherever she goes.

Krzysztof Komeda is the film's composer and what he has created is hauntingly beautiful. Komeda's score rarely is in display as the film uses silence to create tension at the start and allows the dialogue more to be in display and not have us be too distracted from the actors. The lullaby chant at the beginning of the film is one of the most frightening things I have heard as it has this undertone of evil under it, but if it is just heard as the lullaby alone without the instrumental or Fraker's photography it would just sound like a mother singing to her child with no dark undertone. I wish that the film did contain more of his score as it was truly well crafted but I guess it would have interfered with Polanski's vision.

The film's actors truly have to work their asses off for this film, as it demands so much from them, Rosemary in particular. Mia Farrow as Rosemary Woodhouse was so great as she portrays this character who is suffering such elevated stress and who feels alone and lonely during her pregnancy even when there are people around her. Farrow makes us feel like we're the only one who is there for her. John Cassavetes was great as Guy Woodhouse. Cassavetes was able to play a man who doesn't come off at all as unlikable, even if certain events and motives may seem to fracture his character. Ruth Gordon has impressed me on a little film called Harold and Maude, and I think for Rosemary's Baby she is playing a less complex and interesting character, Minnie Castevet. Nevertheless, Gordon doesn't disappoint here with her character rambling on and on, never seeming to give Rosemary or Guy a window of opportunity to even react. Though probably faithful to the novel, I felt that her character needed a bit more for me to truly enjoy watching the character.

Rosemary's Baby may not be a perfect film in my eyes but it gets so many things right that I can't help but go back to this when I feel like watching a film that can terrify me and keep me engaged with the technical aspects of the film. The acting is, for the most part, a joy to watch and the film contains patient and subtle cinematography. Polanski has made something wonderful that should at least be given a try even if the subject matter may be too dark for some.

Harold and Maude (1971)

Hilariously Dark

[8/10 · 19 January 2014]

Life and Death are explored in cinema frequently and films have been created juxtaposing the two themes years before this came out but none has had the ability to make the heavy themes be condensed in a neat little story tied by love. I didn't love it the first time I watched it because I felt it lacked a little texture and Harold's attempts seemed more shocking rather than funny. But oh how much a second viewing can change one's point of view.

Colin Higgins wrote the screenplay for this film. Higgins hasn't got a lot of films in his resume but he has written 3 feature films that are decent. Harold and Maude's screenplay does lack an aim and that is one reason why I couldn't really grasp it the first time, but coming back to this I started to understand what Higgins was trying to exhibit. The themes life and death could not be more plainly obvious than it does in this film but the film avoids from being too campy by creating humor and putting these characters in unconventional environments and situations. Harold is a complex character, to truly understand him one must not wait for answers and insight to be given but instead look for it and empathise on his current state. Maude is the complete opposite of Harold and that's the reason that she took an interest in him as if she knew that he was an empty void needing something to cling onto. His 'attempts' may be a bit dark for some people, which was true in my first viewing, but it does come off as hilarious the second time knowing just how far it goes. Harold and his mother is a relationship that always had me thinking, and as more of Harold's layers climb to the surface, the more we understand the decisions of his actions.

This is Hal Ashby's second film and he has definitely did a great job here. Ashby seems to be much more concerned with investigating the themes of the film rather than making the story shine. This prevents the film from feeling campy and predictable, which is probably the reason why people keep coming back to this. Ashby has been known to make more films within the lighter side of the spectrum in terms of it's tone, and this film keeps that but due to it's dark subject matter, it creates an atmosphere that can be seen as darkly hilarious or twistedly sick; also something that is much more risky and unique. The film doesn't move very fast because the film indulges on it's comedic moments, which I like as some directors get too self-conscious and avoids this approach to gain more respect from the casual viewer. The film doesn't feel big and it does seem like it was restricted by it's budget, which turned out as a positive as it gave the film that indie and simple style that it needed in order to keep the film grounded.

John Alonzo is the film's cinematographer for Harold and Maude. Alonzo definitely understands the film's themes as his photography supports it so well. He ensures that the house that Harold lives in feels empty and melancholy. Harold within this household is always hit with dark shadows and colors never seem to pop except for the color red. In Maude's home, it does feel much more upbeat and fun with the background of the shots being subtly filled up with little things from Maude's past. As the film moves back and forth between Harold's life at home and his life with Maude, the photography becomes more of a metaphor of Harold's emotional state when within these domains. The film never looks pretty, and it also doesn't have the benefit of having ambitious locations to shoot in, but Ashby and Alonzo does make the most out of it. This film is only the third feature film that Alonzo has worked on, with many of his previous work being in televisions and documentaries, ergo his lack of experience held the film back from being too pretentious or clever.

Harold and Maude is a soundtrack driven film, and what a soundtrack list this film has. The songs that come arrive at the perfect moment and they all sound so pessimistically fun, kind of like a balance between the two personalities of the characters. When the songs come on, it had me tapping my feet and tilting my head from side to side along with the beat. I don't think this film feels like it needed a score because that would undercut the humor that this film has to offer.

Bud Cort was superb as Harold as he was able to play a character who was emotionally and psychologically tortured, but also deliver the comedic timing that Ashby wanted from him. Ruth Gordon is a seasoned actress who has worked on many classics, like Rosemary's Baby and Edge of Darkness, and this film belongs with the stature that these classics are currently on. When the film focuses on the titular characters, Maude is the one that is always rambling and Gordon was able to achieve that without having the audience feeling annoyed of her. Vivian Pickles plays as Harold's mother and her character is similar to Maude due to the fact that she rambles on in every scene she is in, but she was able to come off as annoying as intended by the director.

Harold and Maude isn't for everyone but the protagonists are so different from each other that you can't help but be intrigued on how it plays out. Also, Harold's hilarious suicide attempts gives the film that dark edge that it needed in making this film fun to watch over and over.

Brazil (1985)

It Needed A Little Bit More From It's Script But It Has Ambition

[7/10 · 16 January 2014]

Brazil is a film that I had major expectations from due to it's high concept and that I usually expect high ambition and scope from a story set in the future. The hype that I got from this film may be a reason for me that this underwhelmed me but it isn't the only factor.

The film is written by screenwriters, Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard and Charles McKeown. Brazil's screenplay is where my problems are found as it doesn't seem to have the ability to grasp me in Sam Lowry's emotional journey. I can't seem to understand the fascination for this girl, and this is due to the film not really exploring the qualities of Jill Layton. If the film was able to show more shades of this character then I may be sold in the protagonist's adventure. My other issue is much less of a frustration, as it's more of a nitpick, and it is the film's attempt to be humorous. I felt that it doesn't work sometimes and it feels too shoehorned, not to say that the film shouldn't have it as it shapes the tone and feel of the film, and I like the way it feels. What did appeal to me about this film, is the great concept of this world that controls the society's culture to maintain 'discipline'. This hates anarchy, and there is even a conspiracy in there that the government uses it as a justification to find these so-called 'anarchist' themselves. The dream sequences that are sprinkled throughout the film is a great idea of visually showing us the themes and at the same time project an exaggeration of the situation our protagonist is in. The climax in the film was great for me, as it was bombastic and ridiculous, with a pay off that made it all worth it. Though the ending may not suit well with everyone as it may feel a bit of a left turn but I think it was well done.

Brazil would be the first film that I have seen from Terry Gilliam's filmography and expectations were high. Though I was a little disappointed in it's script, I thought the way he handled it was great. Gilliam was able to show the many shades that this world has, and never to a point where it shows off and tries to be noticed. Gilliam visioned for this film to be in science-fiction territory sprinkled with fantasy, comedy and drama. Brazil doesn't can be taken seriously and if you remove the comedic sequences of the film, then Brazil would be a haunting and frightening film but the comedy in this film allows it to become accessible and easy to digest. The dream sequences are definitely a visual delight and feeling so magical that you can't help but be charmed by it. The film does feel a bit slow during the middle but it could have been improved with an improved script to keep me hooked. Gilliam could have trimmed a little of the middle sequences to help the film move along. The film in a way does get better with viewing but at a snail's pace.

Roger Pratt's cinematography is decent here being able to show us the best and worst of the city, shifting from depressing to beautiful back and forth. Pratt was also able to convey the weirdness that Gilliam wanted for this film, which was important in developing the environment's personality. There are moments in Brazil where the image looks a bit odd, maybe due to a manipulation of the lens or using a specific type in order to create that surrealistic look. The colors in the film's photography pops, when it wants to but there are also many moments where the film looks lifeless and dull. I think the dream sequences are the most visually stunning moments in the film. I think this film may have been the reason why Tim Burton uses Pratt to be the DP for Batman.

Michael Kamen has worked on a few notable films to do write the film score, and Brazil was one of his earlier works. Kamen's score here was a delight on most moments, with musical sequences that sounds magical and tracks, like the one used for the title and end, are catchy and sticks with you when the film's over. The film's score does rely on the orchestra approach, which I don't really mind but I felt it could have been more ambitious. There are a few moments that felt melodramatic and doesn't really do the scene justice.

Brazil features one of the best performances from Jonathan Pryce as a regular guy who has ambitions and would do anything to get/protect it. I think if someone else took on Pryce's role then the protagonist wouldn't feel as convincing. The film also features one of the most surprising roles that Robert De Niro has ever played. De Niro doesn't get a lot of screen time but when he does come in, it does bring a grin on my face because of his ability to make us laugh and be so ridiculous without doing a whole lot. Taking a look at Kim Greist's filmography, that she hasn't done a lot of notable films. I thought she did her role here pretty well, even if there wasn't much to her character as I hoped. The rest of the cast like Ian Holm and Katherine Helmond did their parts well and was able to give off great comedic timing.

Brazil felt like a movie that needed more but it's ambition and vision can't stop me from giving it a try again in the future. It has a great cast and a painting of the world that feels so frightening to be in without it trying to actually scare you. Maybe the next film I watch from Gilliam will show me why the director is appreciated by the general public.

Django Unchained (2012)

Slightly Flawed But It's Strong Enough To Be Not Missed

[7/10 · 15 January 2014]

Finally, Tarantino has created a film that he has been paying homage to for so many years. Django Unchained is Tarantino's 7th film and still hasn't lost his touch. Sadly Django Unchained is not perfect, as it has problems.

Django Unchained follows the same approach that was applied to Kill Bill, driven by a clear end goal and uses a linear approach in telling it's story, despite a few flashbacks. Though similar, it is a major improvement from Kill Bill as Tarantino keeps our attention with it's quirky characters. Characters in this film are definitely a much needed depth, with a richer backstory, in comparison to his previous films. The film is definitely a big film, with a story that spans on long periods of time and creating personal growth for the protagonist. It would have been more interesting, if Django Unchained explores more of his personal and physical journey of becoming a bounty hunter. The film's dialogue is quite fun and it plays around with the dialogue found in classic Westerns. I did enjoy the fact that Tarantino has written two characters that clash in personality, Schultz and Candie, as their conversations with one another especially towards the end was thrilling to watch. Great dialogue is being written for Schultz and Candie as they represent the most over the top characters in the film, aside from Samuel L. Jackson's character.

Django Unchained tackles the genre that Tarantino seems to be in love with the most, and it seems like this is a film he has always wanted to tell but because this is a Tarantino film, it doesn't stay on course with the traditional Westerns by exploiting a topic that is barely touched on in the genre or at least not commonplace within the mainstream films, slavery. This does make the film a bit controversial as not everyone can be comfortable with the topic and even to the point of being offended. Both Inglourious Basterds and this film, touch on history but they don't ever become a social commentary or it never places the situation on trial, rather it is just used as a backdrop. Tarantino avoids having his characters become a representation of the cultures within that era. If you want to watch a film that touches on these themes with depth and fueled by a message, then watch Steve McQueen's 12 Years A Slave, but if you want to see a fun film then watch Django Unchained. This film in a way follows Kill Bill's approach in it's story, with a clear end goal, but this film balances the style and substance much better with it being consisted throughout the entire film. Django Unchained strays away from Tarantino's common use of the non-linear narrative and leans on to the conventional 3 act approach but keeping it feeling fresh due to his style. There are 2 scenes that were done so well that they deserve a mention, these scenes are the KKK segment and the Dining Room scene with the principal characters.

Robert Richardson returns to work with Tarantino and their collaboration always seems to give off positive results and this is mainly due to the understanding of each other's vision. Both have created a look that is reminiscent of the classic Westerns, using a warm palette to create the atmosphere and softer shots, in order to have the audience feel immersed to the era. The film also contains the quick zooms and close ups that were found in the films that this is paying homage to. With each subsequent film, Tarantino's budget and trust from the studios seem to rise which allows him to be ambitious in his work using multiple locations to film and build up faithful and detailed production sets. As the characters in this film have much more depth than Tarantino's previous film, the photography was able to convey that depth to these characters which then sells the character's motivations.

Similarly to his previous film, Tarantino has taken a soundtrack approach rather than hiring a composer to create an original score for the film. The tracks he chose though are score driven and again chooses the tracks that are either from Morricone or at least similar. That does allow the film to feel like a Leone film at times. Tarantino interestingly enough has used Hip-Hop/Rap music on certain moments but it comes off more as humorous, which allows the audience to not take the film too seriously and maintaining that fun upbeat tone.

Django Unchained may not be an ensemble film like Inglourious Basterds but this is due to the story being a bit more grounded and personal. Jamie Foxx as Django was a decent choice but he didn't really create something astonishing here with the character or maybe he was severely overshadowed by the acting performances from Waltz and DiCaprio. This is definitely the best that I have seen from Kerry Washington but it doesn't seem to be enough for me to highly appreciate it. Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio on the other hand was a stand out in this film delivering performances that will always be remembered when people look back at their filmography. Waltz was able to come off as charming which makes him so likable and he delivers his lines with amazing grace. DiCaprio creates this menacing character but at the same time able to give off a sense that he is a phony and a bit of a try hard. Samuel L Jackson was great in this, with an introduction to a character that will leave you surprised on how unlikable this person is.

Django Unchained is a fun Western film that I have been waiting for him to make since he started his film career. It contains amazing performances and great direction from Quentin Tarantino. Yes, Django Unchained could have been better but it has enough great moments for this to be in the stronger side in the director's filmography.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Risky, Unique, Fresh, And Fun

[10/10 · 14 January 2014]

Many people regarded Death Proof as a disappointment and they were all hoping that Tarantino will come back to his best form in his next film, though I did think highly of Death Proof, and what a come back he did. Inglourious Basterds is his 6th film and it shows Tarantino going back to the things that made his film great whilst doing something unique.

Inglourious Basterds is written by Quentin Tarantino, and he has definitely made something fantastic here. Tarantino here has brought back the non-linear approach to his storytelling. He dedicates the first three chapters of the film as an introduction to the key players of the last chapter, and having the 4th Chapter 'Operation Kino' as the driving plot point. It kept me hooked because with each chapter, as he adds on more information that we didn't know which builds it all up for the last two chapters of the film. The film shows off entertaining and quirky characters, which hasn't been found in his films since his 90's flicks. Tarantino has given his characters much more depth here than most of his previous films would give, and he continuous it with his next film, and it does allow me to connect with these characters more and understand their inner workings due to their given back-stories. The dialogue in this film is top notch, at times very reminiscent of the style that was used for Pulp Fiction, as it kept me more interested as more words come out from these characters. To some people, they may see it as a return to Tarantino's indulgent style of dialogue but that's what makes his films special in the first place, so the more the better.

Not at all did the film bore me, this is because Tarantino is in love with his own dialogue and he makes it the star of the scene. Tarantino fills the scene with dialogue, as a build up of sorts towards the violent and explosive ending that the scene needs in order to be relieved and pumped for what comes next. As I said before the non-linear storytelling of the film and using the bulk of the film to create and introduce it's characters, it doesn't get boring as it doesn't repeat itself and always give off something new. Some people find a lot of Tarantino's films to have a pacing problem and I can understand where they are coming from, but Inglourious Basterds is one of those films that felt like it moves forwards all the time regardless how still a scene may seem because it keeps throwing interesting things your way and in a lot of scenes, Tarantino was able to convey tension that keeps you on the edge of your seat thinking something might happen. Tarantino has used non-English dialogue with subtitles in his previous films, Kill Bill, and now he has put that up front with this film, using it as a style in making this film unique and allowing the film to feel more genuine.

Robert Richardson is back to do another of Tarantino's film and with each film I start to see a connection and understanding of each other's visions. Richardson understands what the film needs to create that homage atmosphere that Tarantino intends his films to look like. Richardson and Tarantino has brought back their trademark shots like long takes and the trunk shot. Because this film is a dialogue driven film, Richardson contains a lot more closeups than his previous films and this does allow us to get in touch with these characters and see the emotional rumblings that they hide behind the facade due to the current situation, especially Melanie Laurent's character. The film's photography seems to strip away the over saturation of it's colors, like Kill Bill and Death Proof, and takes a more darker and grimier look for the film.

The film doesn't contain a composer writing an original score, instead it uses soundtracks that are more score driven. The tracks that are chosen are Sergio Leone/Ennio Morricone inspired, which on paper would be an odd choice as it suits more of the Western era but after seeing this film, you hardly even notice it and at the end you realize that it actually works. There are specific moments that are supported by a track that makes the moment seem perfect but Tarantino has the habit of cutting it off and not giving the scene a proper conclusion, which gives off a comedic feel and prevents it from being too melodramatic.

Brad Pitt may be seen as the frontrunner of the film but the film is more of an ensemble piece. The first three chapters are dedicated to a certain character(s), and this allows these actor(s) to shine in their segments. Brad Pitt definitely brings a surge of energy in this film, working with a character that feels almost specifically written for him. The other standout was Christoph Waltz, playing a character that has a personality that I have haven't seen before. Waltz brings such charm and personality to a character that is regarded by most people as the ultimate Jew killer. Tarantino has used an international cast before but not as diverse as this film. Inglourious Basterds has made a star and showcased the talents of actors like Melanie Laurent and Daniel Bruhl. Though Michael Fassbender has been on films before this like 300 but this film put him on the map, the bar scene segment was tense and thrilling and a part of it is due to Fassbender's performance.

Inglourious Basterds is a remarkable film and a demonstration of Tarantino's ability to take something that has been used a billion times in films and make it feel fresh and unique. The film boasts wonderful dialogue, amazing sequences, fantastic performances front actors, smart choice of music, and excellent photography. Inglourious Basterds is a rival for the number one spot for my favorite Tarantino films.

Death Proof (2007)

Reviving A Forgotten Genre

[9/10 · 10 January 2014]

Death Proof is part of Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse, which is a double feature from both directors and it tackles the exploitation films of the 60's and early 70s. I have yet to see Planet Terror but I hear great things about it. Death Proof has been considered a lot by many as the director's weakest film, he also stated that in interviews as well, but I consider it as one of his best.

Death Proof is from an original screenplay from Quentin Tarantino. The film doesn't really have a conventional plot which I enjoyed a lot because it follows the tradition of the genre that it takes homage to. The first half of the film is more of a horror slasher film, containing very sexy women under the prey of Stuntman Mike. Though for the bulk of the first story doesn't include a lot of action, instead it takes the rambling and banter from Pulp Fiction and writing interesting dialogue filled with personality. People probably didn't like the dialogue in this film due to the fact that characters in this film feel underdeveloped. I felt that it was important for us to know less about these characters, in order for us to not completely too attached to these characters and feel expendable. The second half of the film on the other hand started off similar to the first half but after a few scenes it does start to pick up and becomes this revenge flick. The second half takes homage to the iconic car films of the 60s and 70s. The ending is quite satisfying leaving the audience off with a smile in their face, it cannot be helped when the scene is so thrilling and at the same time fun and hilarious. The lack of story is not really a big deal to me, because it was something I never expected from the film. The dialogue on the other hand is quite entertaining to listen to because it seems to be inspired by real words that come out from women that may be part of his life.

Quentin Tarantino directs this film with such passion and at times very pretentious. I admire the balls that he has to make two 40 minute segments of these characters that interacts with Stuntman Mike's life. Pulp Fiction has much shorter segments sprinkled throughout the film told in a non-linear order. Death Proof is much more chronological which may feel draggy for some people but it wasn't too much of a bothersome for me. I love the homage to a lost genre that he has demonstrated here, as it feels like a breath of fresh air after watching so many films that are too safe and conventional. Tarantino also has created, probably the most iconic car chases of the decade and did not rely on CGI to show it.

Quentin Tarantino is credited as the director of photography of this film. Tarantino does a decent job here but it does feel a bit amateurish in comparison to his previous films, though that kind of goes with the genre of the film. In homage with the genre, he manipulates the image by having scratches and dirt littering the frame, which what makes the film unique. It's also supported with sudden jump cuts that ruins the flow of the film, but respecting the genre. This gritty style ends with the second half of the film, starting off with a black and white image as a sort of transition to a contemporary look, saturated colors and a clean sharp image. Tarantino chooses great shots for the climax showing the most frightening of moments to create the tension of the film. It may not be perfect but it does it's job well in service to drive the film forward.

Tarantino comes back to a complete soundtrack driven film, picking songs that are reminiscent of the grindhouse films of the past and applied at the right moment gaining a response from us. The bulk of the tracks are found in the first half of the film, with the second half relying more of the action in keeping our attention.

The actors in this film are mostly women, with Kurt Russell as the antagonist and the only prominent male of the film. Tarantino has casted beautiful women to play his main characters and their looks do prove a distraction of the dialogue, but if it doesn't have unbelievably attractive women to play this role then it kind of takes a left turn of the homage that it is paying tribute to. Films like Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! primarily have women leading the film and these films usually give off sexuality as a way of keeping our attention. This isn't the best example of brilliant acting from Tarantino's film but the actresses do their job well, spitting out rambling dialogue like it came from their heads. The standout actresses here are Rosario Dawson, Zoe Bell, Rose McGowan and Sydney Poitier. Kurt Russell as a man who has a major fetish for murdering sexy women with his car, plays it so well that it's hard to picture someone else to play the role, though I do wish that he got a little bit more screen time on the second half of the film.

Death Proof may not be the perfect film but it is the film that demonstrates the most balls from Tarantino, reviving a genre that is under-appreciated or forgotten today. Death Proof brings back the great dialogue and the experimentation that defines his films. This is definitely a personal favorite of mine.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

Needs A Rewrite To Correct It's Shortcomings

[5/10 · 9 January 2014]

Kill Bill Volume 2 is the continuation of The Bride's story in getting her revenge against Bill. I consider Kill Bill as one of Tarantino's weaker films, and Volume 2 is definitely a big reason why it's a letdown.

The film is written by Quentin Tarantino and what he has written here is much more dialogue and story heavy than the first volume. I enjoyed the first volume a lot more because it is much more fun and stylish, this second volume holds back much more of that in service to the story which wasn't all that great to begin with. Normally heading towards the end, a film with this story should be much more intense than the first half but that's not the case. The bulk of the build up of the climax is dull due to the underwhelming dialogue, though the pregnancy test sequence was hilarious. The climax itself would have been a great opportunity for Tarantino to write something spectacular and thrilling, yet it felt like Tarantino couldn't find some sort of vision of it and just wrote something that can be done swiftly. I know Tarantino can write because he has proved it with great dialogue-driven films like Pulp Fiction and Death Proof or mainstream action driven films like Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Kill Bill combines both aspects together and proved to be ineffective. The film's story isn't all bad with an interesting burial segment and a throwback to the old Kung-Fu Chinese films that had me smiling throughout.

Tarantino directs this film with a much more slower pace, in order to flesh out the story and gain more insight to it's characters. This film at times feels too safe for me, with moments that have characters just talking, which I don't mind if the dialogue was written better, leaving me feeling underwhelmed. Kill Bill as a whole's best moments are the segments that are over the top, violent and experimental. These experimental moments include the Pai Mei chapter, feeling like it was from a 1980's cheesy Kung Fu film. If Tarantino treated this half of the film like the first half then Kill Bill as a whole would have been an instant favorite of mine.

Robert Richardson comes back as the director of photography for this film and this time the scenes don't look as hyper stylised and overly saturated as the first volume. I do admire the fact that this film doesn't look the same the entire run of the film, with moments in black and white, changing the aspect ratio of the film, and using split screen to show two things at once. The Pai Mei sequence was shot in such a way that is similar to the old Asian Kung Fu films, with grainy photography and lacking in vibrancy in it's color. Though there are great moments in this volume's photography, I much prefer the style that was applied for the first volume.

RZA didn't come back to do the score for this film, which is odd as I liked what he did for the first volume. Instead Robert Rodriguez is credited for the music of the film, I am sure that he did the final song but I am not aware of any other moments in where he might have contributed. The film's music still follows that inspiration of Ennio Morricone, with some tracks actually written from him, and gives the film this Western feel to it. There are also moments where it uses Asian inspired music which works well with the tone of the film. The sound effects of this film is hilarious as they use the cheesy effects that are found on the films that this was inspired by. I wish that this film does retain that upbeat and fun soundtrack that fueled the first volume, but I guess that would be inappropriate judging by the events that unfolds during this film.

Uma Thurman as The Bride is still great but this time it seems the film demands more from her and she does a great job. She may seem less bad-ass here because vulnerabilities arise and there are times where she is outmatched by her opponent which we didn't see a lot from the first volume. I felt that Bill was a little dull because of the way Tarantino has written him, but David Carradine does the most he can with the character. Daryl Hannah and Michael Madsen as Elle and Budd were fun to watch as they play characters that are classic Tarantino; fun, hilarious, and unpredictable. I wish Madsen were in much more entertaining films because he is a wonderful actor to watch. Gordon Liu as Pai Mei was definitely hilarious and written with such absurdity that anything that comes out his mouth is pure comedic gold or bad-ass.

Kill Bill Volume 2 is a bit of a disappointment in comparison to the first volume and the other films in the director's catalogue. If the film was fun like the first one, or at least written better then I would have liked this film a lot.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Style Over Substance

[6/10 · 8 January 2014]

Kill Bill is an epic film that is split into two volumes, though one story, the two volumes cannot be more different in it's execution. Kill Bill, when I first watched it as a whole, was definitely entertaining but as time went on I have watched Tarantino's films over and over again, I started to lose that feeling that I had with this film and changed my perception of it. Kill Bill may be epic but it lacks something that keeps it from being his best work.

Kill Bill: Volume 1 is written by Quentin Tarantino and what he has written here is simply a revenge-action story. This approach is not a problem for me because it allows me to digest it simply and avoid ambiguity in it's storytelling. Jackie Brown was an example of Tarantino taking a conventional 3 act structure and making it his own. Kill Bill: Vol 1 follows that approach but making it much more epic and somewhat adventurous. The thing about Tarantino's writing here is that he has written something that is much more mainstream friendly than compared to his previous work, which in a way is great because I think that's what he really wants, is to exploit these dying genres and styles to his films for the mainstream audience. Tarantino has written a protagonist that we know very little about, yet we enjoy seeing her kick-ass and reaching closer to her goal. The film is full of dialogue, though not as punchy and indulgent as his previous films as the dialogue here is more reliant on it's attitude and delivery. The most enjoyable part of the film is truly the last half of the film where she is up against O-Ren Ishii, and honestly it is so interesting to see these two battle it out because of all the backstory and hype that is being given to us of O-Ren Ishii, it makes her seem like such a challenging opponent.

This is the 4th film by Quentin Tarantino and between the two volumes, I can definitely say that this first volume is much more fun and entertaining to watch. The reason this film is so appealing is that it is enforced with such style mainly influenced by the Asian cinema, particularly in the 70-80s. I don't mind that the film is stylish but it can only do so much. I am more disappointed with the film's screenplay rather than Tarantino's vision and direction. Kill Bill is the mark for Tarantino, when he started paying homages to his personal attachments in films, and he continues to do so in his latter films. The first three of his films has this technique in delaying action and giving us more of the characters in their most normal moments, but Kill Bill strays away from that by upping the violence and action almost to the point unbelievability. Also, the audience must lower their rational thinking when watching this as the film doesn't take itself too seriously, which is a reason why this is viewed over and over again by it's fans.

Kill Bill is also the start of Robert Richardson's collaboration with Tarantino as his cinematographer. Richardson has worked on prestigious films for most of his career, and worked with prestigious directors like Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese, and Rob Reiner. Out of all of those directors, I think working with Tarantino allows him to experiment more with the camera and create something more unique. Kill Bill may not look like a unique film as the way it looks feels more like something you have seen before and that is the response that it's supposed to get from us. Kill Bill's photography pays tribute to the shots found on Sergio Leone's films, or the clichés that are found in Asian action films. Kill Bill's image looks colorful and at times being so saturated it loses the sense of naturalism.

Kill Bill is also the start of Tarantino relying on a film score in driving the musical side of the film. His previous films were full of soundtracks that go exquisitely well with the scene, it's the same outcome here but just replacing it with a score from RZA. The score for this film isn't cutting edge or the best I have heard from a Tarantino film but it is stylish enough that it goes with the director's vision. There are spots in the film where you can hear musical segments either made by Ennio Morricone or inspired by it.

This film is primarily driven by Uma Thurman's performance as The Bride and she does a great job, though this isn't my favorite role from her. Thurman has to play this character who is clearly emotionally and physically traumatized by Bill's actions but at the same time project a shade of a bad-ass assassin who is fueled by anger. I don't think anybody else could have accomplished this role physically. As the film doesn't take it's self seriously, it does hold Thurman back from showing her range in acting. Lucy Liu as O-Ren Ishii was great; she was fun, exciting, dangerous, and bitchin'. Liu stand out scene was when she was at the table with a group of Japanese gang leaders, as she managed to come off as frightening but at the same time give off a comedic under tone in her acting. The bulk of the villains are not seen until the second volume, so for the most part it pretty much covers both of these actresses.

Kill Bill is definitely an example of style over substance but it does well enough with the former that it doesn't lead off as such a terrible movie. Do I wish the script was better, yeah maybe it needed a bit more, but that isn't enough for me to dislike it. Give it a try but I suggest lowering one's expectations and rationality before heading in.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

The Writers Are Too In Love With Their Work

[6/10 · 8 January 2014]

Will Ferrell is part of a group of comedians that include Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, and Ben Stiller, and each have their own comedy films where they shine. I have yet to see all of Will Ferrell's films, but from the ones I have seen, it is either Anchorman or Blades of Glory where he shines. Though it's his best, it isn't a perfect film.

The film is written by Adam McKay and Will Ferrell. Anchorman's issues derives from the lack of a great story. The complications of the film doesn't really arise until halfway through the film. So the first half of the film introduces it's characters and the atmosphere of the working environment, which would be fine if the script has funnier lines and much more interesting moments. The film also relies on improvisations from actors, in particular Will Ferrell, and sometimes they just don't land. The film does improve during the second half with segments that are exciting and crazy. I did also enjoy the film's shine on the social balance of the era, with the battle against women and men in the workplace, and the film also gives off a message on the importance of acceptance and respect of diversity in the workplace and community.

The film is directed by Adam McKay. This is McKay's first film, and I think he did a decent job for a comedic director. Using the era of the 70s allowed him to create a beautiful design of the era with costumes and production design that has the audience believe that these people are within the decade. Though McKay captures the 70s workplace well, he doesn't seem to have a complete vision of how the screenplay would unfold, with the first half being draggy and tiresome and the second half fueled by immaturity and physical comedy. The second half is miles funnier than the first half, as I have a tendency to appreciate childish humor. There are segments of the film where McKay keeps the camera too long on Ferrell and he just rambles on, giving me the impression that both McKay and Ferrell are too in love with their own work that everything that comes out of them are pure gold. If only the film is consistent and gives a bit more of characters like Brian Fantana and Brick Tamland screen time, then the film would be almost perfect.

Thomas E. Ackerman is the film's cinematographer and he does a decent job in capturing the characters doing their funny moments. There isn't really a lot about the Anchorman's photography that makes it stand out but it does capture the image of the 1970's very well with saturated colors that pop off with each shot.

Alex Wurman did the musical score for the film and it is quite effective. Wurman's score does make you feel like that Ferrell and Co. are a legit news team, and the score hits the spots it wants to get a reaction from us. The use of Afternoon Delight is amazing, and it became something that is stapled on the film when people reminisce about the film. Though I do wish that there was something more from the score, but that's just me nitpicking.

The film is led by Will Ferrell and I think he did a so-so job in the role, though I do enjoy his commitment to the role as you can really tell that he is in character. Ferrell tends to ramble on improvised lines and at most times it gets a bit tiresome and needed more from it to be funny. Ferrell does improve in the second half as he gets placed in situations where he ends up acting petty and childish, which had me cracking up a few times. David Koechner is a bit of a let down, who is given lines that are not hilarious and felt over done. The gems of the film are Paul Rudd as Brian Fantana and Steve Carell as Brick Tamland, as they play characters that are random, inappropriate and at times flamboyant. Christina Applegate was good as Veronica Corningstone but it sometimes feels that Ferrell and McKay didn't write enough great lines and funny scenarios for her. Though she is attractive, it doesn't distract the audience and it has concentrating on her intentions in the film. The film does include a number of cameos that had me laughing and without them, a certain fight scene would not be as effective if it weren't for these appearances.

Anchorman does have funny moments and it does have a great view of the workplace of the decade, but the film does take a while to kick in and the writers are to precious of their own work that they find it hard to let go of scenes that just seem unnecessary or at least needs another rewrite. I would still watch this film again though, due to it's extremely funny moments that flows well in the second half.

Jackie Brown (1997)

A Great Heist Film That Is Currently Under-Appreciated

[10/10 · 7 January 2014]

I see Tarantino's three films in the 90's, not including Four Rooms, as a crime trilogy of sorts, and Jackie Brown is the one that is considered to be the most underrated or by others as the weakest of Tarantino's catalog. I never really had high hopes for this film, because for one it just doesn't have that wit and charm that Pulp Fiction has or the unique style that was demonstrated with Reservoir Dogs. I have now seen this film a couple of times and even from my first viewing I thought this film was great and got even better the subsequent times I came around to it.

Jackie Brown is definitely a left turn from Tarantino's films as it wasn't an original idea but rather he adapted Elmore Leonard's novel, other notable work include Out Of Sight and 3:10 To Yuma. This choice of not adapting an original story is strange but it doesn't matter anymore after you have seen it, because it's still an entertaining film. I haven't read the source material but I have read reports that this film adapts the novel accurately and that Leonard's novel is filled with dialogue. This film indeed has that element, which works in favor of Tarantino as he has a complete understanding of how to make dialogue look and sound interesting. This may be dismissed by many due to the fact that it lacks the style and charm that was found on his previous two films, the film instead takes a conventional approach to it's storytelling but personally this isn't really an issue for me as the story is still entertaining to watch unfold and Tarantino doesn't completely lose his touch with this film. True, the film relies on the story in developing it's characters rather than having them spill out words that collectively will shape their personalities, but Tarantino's dialogue and style isn't the star of the film but rather the motivations and intentions of the characters.

Looking at Quentin Tarantino's career, his films differ from one another and the director is starting to walk the same lines as Kubrick in not repeating oneself. Jackie Brown is the director's heist film and he has achieved in not grounding the film on the same style and level as the other heist films it is now compared to. The film may not scream out Tarantino but it does at the very least experiment. The heist itself was a genius in execution, how difficult it must be to have us see the same heist and not feel repetitive and tiresome. There are also moments in the film where it uses a split screen showing two moments at the same time, and the film also has unusual choices of transitions. This is the first time we get to see Tarantino's ability to let the audience gain introspection of the characters.

In order to get that dark and gritty style that the film needed, Tarantino opted for a change in cinematographer and hired Guillermo Navarro. Navarro is now known as a frequent collaborator with Guillermo Del Toro and those films usually have this murky black tone to it and the credit goes to Navarro's photography. This is also one of the main reasons that it doesn't have that look that is prevalent on the director's previous two films. Jackie Brown's look is definitely one of the reasons that the film has personality and it does allow us to perceive the story with seriousness that it demands. The film's dark tone does lose that humor that Tarantino was known for but that aspect isn't truly necessary here to engage the audience, though there are moments where it does get you laughing.

Again, Tarantino stays away from the traditional film score and fills the film up with musical nuggets that works perfectly with the scene. The previous two films touches on tracks within the Rock N' Roll and Pop genre, while here he chooses tracks within R&B genre. These tracks have so much soul in them and it does in a way throwback to the classic films that Pam Grier was in. Though I do wonder if the film would be improved using an original score, even if it retains that quality that the soundtracks give but I guess we'll never know.

The film's cast includes a return of Samuel L. Jackson and a number of stars who are known to have lost their touch, in particular Pam Grier. Honestly, I have yet to see a film that Grier is in but after this film, it proves that she has acting chops and that she brings great personality in a role that it's hard to not keep your eyes off her. Grier should have been nominated for Best Leading Actress at the Oscars that year but that is just my personal opinion. The rest of the cast were great with notable stand outs like Robert Forster and Bridget Fonda. Forster plays it more casually but not being near the borderline of laziness, while Fonda brings the sex to the role and she was able to bring the immaturity and bratiness that the role needed. Keaton and De Niro are a bit underused and their characters doesn't really have more to them that I could grasp on to. Jackson on the other hand still brings his usual style that was also found on Pulp Fiction but he changes it enough that it doesn't feel like he is repeating himself.

Jackie Brown is an entertaining crime-heist film that definitely needs much more attention. I personally felt that this film is much stronger than Reservoir Dogs but it doesn't capture the greatness that Pulp Fiction was able to give off, regardless of it's stellar cast, amazing music, excellent cinematography, and a story that had me locked on to until the end of the film.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Pulp Fiction Is A Triumph In Contemporary Cinema

[10/10 · 7 January 2014]

Pulp Fiction is the film that put Tarantino on the map, and this film is regarded as many as his magnum opus. At first, I didn't agree to this acclaim and it did had me confused a bit due to it's lack of driving plot and seriousness that I expect from crime films. After subsequent viewings, I understood that I came into this with the wrong mindset and that I did not appreciate the boldness that Tarantino demonstrated with this film. Pulp Fiction is Quentin Tarantino's best film and arguably, the best film of that decade.

The film is written by Quentin Tarantino and his screenplay here is like a collection of his best stories sewed together. The highlight of this film is his use of pop culture, hilarious, and naturalistic dialogue. In Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino's dialogue in that film did contain that style that is found here but it does from time to time fall unto the conventional dialogue that is found many crime films but in Pulp Fiction, the lack of plot allows him to focus on it's characters and therefore write dialogue that is not boxed in by the story. Though the film is not tied down by it's story, it does include it to have a conclusion of sorts in the end of each segment. The characters in the film are one of the main reasons that this film is enjoyable because they are all so unique and different from one another and they never feel like they are common archetypes, and one of the main reasons are the delivery of the actors and the smart quirky dialogue from Tarantino.

Quentin Tarantino's sophomore film is a major improvement over his previous film, in terms of style, dialogue, and photography. Tarantino was able to maintain the tone of dark humor, and the grit of a crime/gangster film. Without the humor, I think may be suffered by characters just having a regular conversation just before a very brief burst of action. One of the main points that made this film appealing is the jumbling of the storyline, and having each storyline having some sort of throwback to the other. Pulp Fiction is an execution of style but not sacrificing an inch of substance.

Andrzej Sekula comes back to handle the photography of this film, and it is an improvement over the previous film that felt rushed and amateurish. Sekula and Tarantino have taken the things that worked on Reservoir Dogs and improved upon it here. Pulp Fiction contains multiple shots that felt precisely placed and takes away the hand held style that was found on the previous film, except for heated moments in the film. The film contains long takes of the actors just spitting out his dialogue and delaying the action of the film, which at times is not as fun as the moments that precedes it, and it also allows the camera to explore the environment these characters are confined in.

Pulp Fiction lacks the musical score that most films succumb to and is primarily a soundtrack driven film, similar to the first film. The film contains excellent songs from multiple decades, and these tracks at most times defines the scene. These tracks are now much more abundant here in comparison to his previous film therefore the film doesn't feel quiet and rarely contains a moment that felt slow or didn't feel cinematic.

Pulp Fiction contains a stellar cast with standouts that include Uma Thurman, John Travolta, Samuel Jackson, Tim Roth and Bruce Willis. When these actors come on screen, they bring their A game. The chemistry between John Travolta and Samuel Jackson or Uma Thurman is fun to watch and did allow me to get sucked in with their words and their relationship. These actors gave these parts with seriousness to a story that is ridiculous, that it allows the film to attain that dark humor that made this film so appealing. The actors I did not mention were not as much of a standout as the other actors but they do their part well enough that none of them felt boring or underwhelming.

Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece that contains hilarious dialogue, outrageous story lines, precise photography, stellar soundtrack, and great acting. The film is a milestone in cinema history and has been looked upon to in future films as inspiration. Pulp Fiction is Quentin Tarantino's best film and arguably, the best film of that decade.

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Despite It's Slick Style And Unique Take, It Leaves You Underwhelmed

[7/10 · 6 January 2014]

Reservoir Dogs is the debut film from Quentin Tarantino and I can definitely say that he is definitely a dime a dozen. Tarantino was bold with making his debut film so unique from the it's competitors at the time.

Reservoir Dogs is written by Tarantino and Roger Avary contributing some dialogue for the film. What Tarantino has written is a twist of a staple story in the crime genre, where the events of the actual robbery is not seen but rather shine a light the events after the robbery. Tarantino could have kept it with that road but instead the film flips back and forth between origin/specific robbery stories and the post-robbery events. The film is driven by dialogue, which is now considered a principle in his films, and the dialogue is definitely different from crime films that preceded this film. Instead of physical actions and deep insight of the character's emotional core, characters are instead shaped by Tarantino's dialogue with characters speaking about themselves or others which in turn shapes our perception of these characters, which I think is important in order to view the plot objectively and not gain a deep attachment to these characters. The issues I had with his script is the underwhelming origin stories that doesn't really show off the wildness and absurdity that is found with many of his future films. The screenplay also felt a little held back on pushing the boundaries of the dialogue when compared to his succeeding films. The dialogue also from time to time jump from being a natural and organic conversation, regardless if they are in a crisis situation, to basic plot driving dialogue.

Quentin Tarantino is an amazing director and even though all of his films are not always in excellent condition, though his worst are miles better than most films it competes with, he still brings a sense of style that defines the film and it's fresh unique take allows us to be curious on what could come on the next scene. Reservoir Dogs is his first film which is the main reason why this film felt a bit rushed or amateurish, not in a bad way but rather in an inexperienced way. The film definitely is limited by a budget and that in a way restricted Tarantino, as he seems to show more crazy and fun sequences when he has the budget for it. The film for the most part keeps me interested with it's great pace and it's characters play with his dialogue, though Mr Orange's backstory did feel tiresome and did feel like walking through a mountain after the swift two thirds of the film. The film's non-linear approach does kind of play off the style that Kubrick applied for The Killing.

Andrzej Sekula is the cinematographer for this film and he returns again in Tarantino's sophomore film. Sekula and Tarantino felt like they were held back in this film due to the budget therefore the film felt like it has this rushed hand held style that a lot of the moments of the film contains but this film does show hints of the photography style that Tarantino employs in his future films, with crooked angles, long takes and long shots of dialogue-full moments allowing the film to feel like a play, which is obvious in this film due to it's budget and boxed story.

This film doesn't include a score and this does in a way allow the film to suffer with moments that felt overstretched and needed that cinematic flair. Pulp Fiction also has these features but it makes up for it by having a sufficient amount of musical nuggets throughout the film that keep it from being stale. Though the musical moments that do cameo in this film are top notch with moments that actually feel more gruesome and horrific than what it already is.

Reservoir Dogs' cast is confined to 10 people and they are given the majority of the screen time, and it most cases it is shared. The actors do play off well with each other and along with the strong dialogue it makes the film entertaining. The standout actors in this film is Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi, and Michael Madsen, when they are bantering they all just bring the intensity that the scene required and are able to stay strong and fresh in long takes that includes monologues and subtle physical acting. Tim Roth was a bit of a distraction though, his American accent and the slight over the top acting did have me cringing.

Tarantino's debut does bring something unique and fresh to the crime genre but with an underwhelming screenplay and the inexperience and budget constriction does bring the film down.

Terms of Endearment (1983)

Sweet And Humorous

[8/10 · 18 December 2013]

Terms of Endearment is a film that I had no clue on whether or not it would appeal to me. After seeing it twice I can safely say that for the most part, the film made an impression and it is hard to nitpick on a film that is directed so well that seeing it's flaws did make me feel awful. Objectively, the film does have it's flaws but it's a flaw that I felt that was only raised due to my personal tastes.

The film is based on a book by Larry McMurtry and the screenplay was written by James L. Brooks. The film travels through the moments of these characters lives whether they are positive or negative, and the timeline span is quite huge. The film jumps from year to year, which felt spontaneously but that could have resolved if the film spends more time at that moment, but running the risk of feeling to overbloated and long. This does end up making the film feel very episodic and it may not be an approach that would appeal to everyone as some would prefer a flowing experience of these people's lives. Brooks wants us to experience the lives of both Aurora and Emma and not have us be focused on a plot in driving the film forward. This episodic approach does at times do make the film feel draggy and honestly a certain time period could have been a film on it's own if explored long enough. The highlight of the film is the relationship between Aurora and Garrett as the clashing of both personalities just brings out moments of humor and surprisingly at times warmth and happiness.

James L. Brooks also directed this film and I must say that he has done a magnificent job. Brooks' direction is the reason that the film doesn't feel like going through the same motions again and again because he doesn't fill the film entirely with one note. There are times where you may feel like you are about to shed a tear and there are moments that would make you laugh, and because the film allows us to look into their lives in a natural and lengthy approach, it doesn't let the moments of humor and melodrama feel forced. There were moments where it might land on heavy sentimental territory but Brooks' balance with humor buffers that tone. This was Brooks' first film and what a great way to start off his directorial career by winning Best Picture and Best Director at the Oscars.

The film's director of photography was Aandrzej Bartkowiak and he has worked on some notable films later on like Falling Down and Speed. Terms of Endearment was one of his early films and what he has done for Brooks' film is that he gave the picture a warm tone and has a soft look to it. The film's warm tone definitely a major apparatus in conveying the light heartedness that drives the film and it also allows the film to feel accessible. Brooks and Bartkowiak has opted to use an abundance of close-ups as the film is drama centered and the film primarily focuses on the characters reactions and feelings towards certain things, the expressions on the actor's faces makes this film feel wonderful and most importantly natural.

The film's score is composed by Michael Gore and if I had to describe his work for this film in a nutshell, it would be beautiful. The score is driven with this light piano sound and it goes back and forth to being sad and cheerful, which kind of a great representation of life. Michael Gore doesn't seem to be working lately but he has worked on notable films like Fame and, a personal favorite of mine, Pretty In Pink. Gore's work here is definitely a standout and is a central key in having us laugh or cry throughout this film.

This film has a stellar cast with almost all of the key players being nominated for their performances. Debra Winger was fantastic who starts off as being young, quirky and adorable to a matured, experienced and endearing person. The evolution of her character is amazing and that I really believed that she went through everything that was shown on screen. Shirley MacLaine won Best Actress for this film and it was well deserved though competing against her co-star was a tough one. MacLaine was able to shine throughout the entire film as she is at her best when she has someone to challenge with in a scene, so all of the moments where she is with Debra Winger or Jack Nicholson, it brought out the best of her. Jack Nicholson is not the focus of this film but he does make quite an impression in this film and I was also surprised he was able to come off as sweet and likable as my experience with his films are usually him playing someone frightening or intimidating. Jeff Daniels was not given the attention he deserved for this film, in my opinion he gave an award winning performance and he was able to come off as likable and sympathetic even after everything he has caused. This film is a type of film that challenges and brings out the capabilities of an actor and each cast member have shown off their most outstanding of performances here in this film.

Terms of Endearment is not perfect in my eyes but it gets a lot of things right that it would be horrible decision to pass it up. James L. Brooks' wonderful direction and Michael Gore's score will have you laughing and crying from start to finish, and acting performances that will have you caring for the characters and the troubles and joys that they go through.

When Harry Met Sally... (1989)

One Of The Greatest In It's Genre

[10/10 · 10 December 2013]

At one point in everyone's life, they are able to show some sort of soft spot for films like these. When Harry Met Sally is the film that stand out against it's competitors and was able to stick with me with multiple viewings. I adore this film and the film was able to draw out certain emotions from me, which is rare in romantic comedies, that it blinds me from watching this film objectively. This is a prime example of a film that defines the genre it belongs to.

Nora Ephron is regarded by some as the greatest writer for romantic-comedy/drama films. I have not seen all of her films but so far I hold When Harry Met Sally as her magnum opus. Ephron has written a story that explores the concept of friendship between man and woman, the role of sex in relationships, and the basic construct of a man and a woman. The film examines the role of fate in love, showing that people self sabotages or be in situations that destroys relationships in order to be with the love of their life at the end of the story. The choice of having New York was a great choice as it allowed the theme of fated love to be much more effective. Dialogue in this film is a stand out because it's what drives the characters in this film, because neither characters have any strong intentions to be with the other for the bulk of the film. The dialogue, and also the strength of the actors, deliver the comedy of the film and it gets me every time because it felt natural and was also able to come off as sweet and endearing.

Rob Reiner, from his first feature film "This is Spinal Tap" and to "A Few Good Men", has made a string of very well made films and sometimes it's hard to choose which one is his best of the bunch. Reiner wanted the film to be very optimistic, which made it so accessible, and he has made something that is so natural and relatable. The film can appeal to people searching for love, allowing us to understand or think that there is a much larger work going on in finding it, or to people who have already found it. Reiner did not allow the film to really show the other people that Harry or Sally have dated and how these people are not for them, instead the director just has these characters talk to each other about it allowing the film to spend more time with these characters together. The film has the ability to have us be attached to these characters. I love that the film takes it's time with the characters', allowing them to grow and allow us to see the growth of the maturity of the relationship/friendship and the personal maturity of these characters. I was very glad that Reiner didn't congest the film in humor and allowed it to feel organic instead, like it could come out of our own mouths too. I also adore that the film's humor is driven more by the characters and the conversations that takes place rather than the story or the use of physical humor, aside from the diner scene. The film, even in multiple viewings, doesn't lose it's genuine touch which is why it is one of my favorite films of all time.

Barry Sonnenfeld as the director of photography for the film was a good choice by Reiner. Sonnenfeld was able to connect with Reiner's vision for the film capturing the relationship between these characters through a long period of time with such accessibility and optimism. Sonnenfeld wants shots to be a bit stretched out in order to get the most out of the scene and allowing the actors to feel more natural and not just act in service to the story. Because the film is focused more on it's characters rather than the environment they are in, preventing the film from feeling like flashy and pretty though at times there are a few beautiful wide shots of New York like on the winter and autumn seasons.

The film is soundtrack driven rather than a score driven film and I thought this was a great decision because Reiner chose songs that keep in tone with one another and the tone of the film. The songs are usually big band type of songs which was able to project a sort of class that other films lack. This though has made a big impact on future films/TV shows set in New York.

Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal demonstrated amazing chemistry as they both look and play roles that clearly show in paper that they are meant to be together. Both actors deliver their lines so naturally that certain moments can allow us to really relate to conversations and events in our own lives. Crystal's humor may not appeal to everyone but in my opinion it really worked here, he wasn't too over the top and instead of being the center of attention on screen, he was able to share it with Ryan which supports in making the film amazing. It's nice to see Carrie Fisher do something great instead of the Star Wars franchise. Fisher has amazing comedic timing and she doesn't try to distract us from the lead characters. This also applies to Bruno Kirby who has moments that just has you laughing.

When Harry Met Sally is one of the greatest of it's genre and it contains such likable leads and played by actors that are able to drive the film forward. Ephron has written an accessible and relatable script and Reiner has crafted a brilliant film that enhances the themes that drives Ephron's script. This is a film that I would recommend to everyone due to it's universal themes.

Back to the Future (1985)

Zemeckis' Film Is Ambitious And Multi-Generationally Approachable

[9/10 · 8 December 2013]

Back To The Future is one of those films that is universally loved and is one of the most referenced contemporary films of all time. Has there been any other time travel film that has created such an impact as this film? Not that I have seen, but it is arguable as I have not seen many time traveling films.

Back To The Future is written by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale. I am just get this out of the way and say that both are not the greatest of writers but they did have created an a concept that is so ambitious and at the same time so accessible that it is hard to not appreciate their writing contributions. Back To The Future's premise is the reason we watch this film and it's the reason that we keep getting hooked to it. Back To The Future's plot is ambitious, at times too ambitious that certain plot holes may be present in relation to the impact of Marty's influence, and the film also has an abundance of humor scattered throughout the film. The humor is one of the main reason that the film is so accessible and beloved, the jokes can be related to both the younger generation and the previous generation even if either generation is from the 50-80s era. The story of just having Marty's mother be infatuated with him, and lightly touches on Freud's Oedipal Complex, is hilarious and ridiculous that it still has it's effect with every viewing. Back To The Future also manages to create the most unique of friendships, a high school student and a slightly off scientist, because these characters are so well written that I didn't really mind the unbelievability of their friendship. Both writers have created a protagonist that is very close to a real teenager during the 80's and made him so appealing that every adolescent males want to be him and all teenage girls want him.

Robert Zemeckis now is regarded as one of the greatest contemporary directors and Back To The Future is one of the reasons why that is so. Zemeckis was able to execute a film that has such an ambitious plot while maintaining a campy coming of age tone that can appeal to a multi-generational audience. Back To The Future and Romancing The Stone definitely made Zemeckis an important director and those become a stepping stone for him to create films with more artistic license. Back To The Future was able to create this sense of nostalgia and walk a tightrope between two generations of adolescence. Zemeckis was able to project that ability to recreate a time of adolescent youth that is relatable and fueled by references that defined that time period; Zemeckis has definitely created something that was similar to what George Lucas did for American Graffiti.

Dean Cundey started off as a cinematographer of the most popular Horror films of all time, including Halloween and The Thing. After working with Zemeckis on Romancing With The Stone, he did a complete turn around working in much more light-hearted and optimistic films. Cundey did a decent job here and was able to juxtapose two different looks for the film, the dark and dirty look for the 80s and the warm and colorful look of the 50's. Cundey's photography isn't as in your face with nostalgia, like The Godfather, as it consistently takes a more contemporary style throughout the film. Cundey shoots this film to serve the plot and maintaining that accessibility and light hearted tone that Zemeckis wanted instead of drawing attention to itself. The cinematography for this film may not be as loved as the film's writing or musical score but Cundey doesn't slouch with this film.

Alan Silvestri was brought in to compose the score for Back To The Future and what a wonderful job he has done here. Silvestri's score here is one of the most memorable film scores that competes with other films like Star Wars and Indiana Jones. It has the ability to stick under your skin and will have you bobbing your head when it comes on. Huey Lewis' "Power of Love" is so catchy that it just stands out and had me singing the lyrics every time it comes on. The song is able to blend in with Silvestri's score which prevents me from drawing too much attention to it and feeling like it's out of place.

Michael J. Fox is the star of this film, embodying this character who is a product of a rebellious and erratic generation. Fox brings personality to McFly by acting like how cool teenage adolescents were like in his time period. When he is sent back in time, Fox was able to portray this fish out of water kind of personality and emotion that makes his entrapment believable. Christopher Lloyd plays the slightly intense scientist who has created time traveling. Lloyd definitely has given such a memorable performance and nobody else was able to capture his performance in any other film. Lloyd was able to balance humor and the seriousness with such flourish that he was to place weight in the story of the scene. Lea Thompson and Crispin Glover play Marty's parents and both do a very good job and was able to embody both their young and older self, though at times Glover at the start of the film was quite over the top and had me cringing a couple of times. Thomas F. Wilson was good as a cliché looking bully "Biff". He was able to give off this toughness quality that is able to make the McFly's feel inferior.

Back To The Future by now is regarded as a classic and I can see why. This film will appeal to every generation and it's legacy will continue to grow as time passes. Back To The Future is still Zemeckis' best film and will forever remain as a timeless piece of cinema.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Another Great Film Under David O. Russell's Direction

[9/10 · 6 December 2013]

After The Fighter, Hollywood and the general public has restored their faith on David O. Russell and this allowed him to have more choices in his projects. Silver Linings Playbook is definitely a film he wanted to make, as he wrote the screenplay and the plot and premise is quite risky in comparison to his previous film, The Fighter.

Silver Linings Playbook is written by David O. Russell. Russell mostly writes the screenplays of his films and when a director also writes the film, it also allows the director to have a connection to the script that the actors or anybody else in the production may not have. Russell has simply written a dramedy, if you look at the big picture but what makes it so unique and interesting is the fact that it touches on the topic of mental illness and explores beyond what has already been covered in mainstream film of mental illness.When I first watched this film, I thought the dialogue between characters and the personalities they project were hard to empathise and sympathise with but as with each viewing, and an increase awareness in mental illness during my degree, allowed me to realise that Russell has written a script that is so faithful to reality and that people who suffer mental illness have sometimes a complete different perception of oneself and his or her surroundings. The characters are very self-centered and only cater to themselves but this just adds on to the sense of reality with these characters allowing it to feel natural. The film explores the themes of mental illness, love, commitment, and relationships. The film at times also touches on the social stigma on mental illness.

David O. Russell has proved to be one of the great directors in this decade with two films gaining critical acclaim, with his next film being much more ambitious than the previous two (American Hustle). Russell clearly wanted to make a dramedy but due to its subject matter, it makes the film feel fresh and stand out from other films in the same pile. I am so happy that Russell has taken a positive approach to this film as films touching mental illness, in most cases, is seen in a negative light and it isn't fair as many people who are "diagnosed" with mental illness has lived a happy and successful life. Russell during the third act does dip into a cliché territory but with everything that has happened throughout the film it's nice to see something campy. Russell approaches all characters in the film with a mental illness, at times it may seem like it's a natural thing and that we do it too but modern medicine has used these little things as a criteria for diagnosis. This film may feel different and lose it's accessibility if it was handled by a different director.

Masanobu Takayanagi is the cinematographer for this film. Takayanagi does a good job for this film, allowing the film to feel and look accessible which is essential in the film's uniqueness. Though David O. Russell has chosen a different DP for this film, it still has the same style as The Fighter; but without the television broadcast effect. The film is mostly shot hand-held allowing us to feel like we are standing or present near the characters allowing us to feel involved in the conversation and story. There are shots that I have noticed that Russell has used in The Fighter, though this is the second film I have seen from his it may be a trademark shot or scene that is common within his films.

Danny Elfman is a hard working composer, working on a number of films in the past few years. Elfman doesn't have a huge impact in this film because like The Fighter, Russell loves to use soundtracks in particular moments to enhance the scene. I did enjoy the fact that the music choices for the climax scenes matches the emotions of the characters during the film. Elfman may not have a huge impact in the film or at least his score is not as noticeable but when it does come on it works so well that it uplifts us or it haves us in tears. The use of the piano in the defining moment between Pat and Tiffany at the end or the uplifting guitars in the running scenes.

David O. Russell is an actor's director and is always able to bring out the best and unique performances from the actors in his films even if they are not leads. Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper felt natural together and the chemistry was great. Both leads portray characters with mental illness was believable but at the same time, with Russell's direction, allowing to be accessible. De Niro, Weaver, and Tucker are so great. When they have their moments, it's converts you to believing that they are great actors, or in De Niro's case seeing that he still has it. It was also nice to see Julia Stiles in films as it has been a while for me that I have seen her.

Russell has made an excellent film to put in his resume and I think this film will definitely will stand the test of time. It is filled with great performances, supported by the awards that the film has won, and it has great direction from Russell. If it didn't have stiff competition with the ambitious films of 2012 then this may be the best film of that year.

The Fighter (I) (2010)

David O. Russell Marvleous Return

[9/10 · 5 December 2013]

The Fighter is the first film I have seen from David O. Russell and this is the film that really made me took notice of him. The Fighter had some strong competition during that year which may have caused the film to be lost within the hype of the other films like Black Swan, The Social Network and Inception.

The film's screenplay was written by Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson. The great aspect of the film's writing is that the complications and the relationships in the film feel natural and empathetic. The film focuses on these relationships and how it affects the protagonist. From the beginning of the film, it is easy to see that Micky Ward is driven by the influences from his life and it keeps going that way until Ward himself finally has a grasp on his needs and what is essential to succeed in his career and in a way his personal life. People may see Micky Ward as a guy who can't decide what he wants and not independent enough to make his own decisions. This didn't bother me because these characters are so well defined and their presence and effect on Micky that his emotional and mental condition throughout the film is justifiable. The film also touches on Micky's brother, mother and girlfriend. Their stories and relationship with each other are interesting to watch even if at times it may come off as cliché or melodramatic. The dialogue in this film for the most part surprisingly entertaining with moments that will have you laughing or feeling sad. The well written relationships and the entertaining dialogue drives this film effectively even if the plot sometimes doesn't stray off the mainstream.

David O. Russell directed this feature and I see The Fighter as his comeback film showing what a force he is in the industry. David O. Russell really wanted to make this film be focused with the characters and their relationships rather than the style and visual beauty of the sport. That move was risky as I was afraid Russell may not bring anything new to the genre and it'll just recycle the stories with new characters. Russell wanted this film to be driven more by the performances and he succeeded with characters you would just love to see on screen and I felt he really did bring the best out of these actors because they all seem to be outside their usual stereotypes. While that is going on, he was still able to craft a well done underdog story driven by the protagonist's relationships.

The Fighter's cinematographer is Hoyte Van Hoytema who only gained recognition and success in his work in Let The Right One In. Hoytema and Russell has taken a much more hand-held personal camcorder kind of style of photography having us feel like we are standing next to these characters as things unfold. I personally liked this approach and at first I was a bit afraid that the hand-held style may lead to borderline erratic but it's maintained and carefully handled here. The film jumps back and forth a few times with a cinematic feel and a television sports broadcasting style in telling the story. The former features bulk of the film and the latter is only during the main fights. The latter at times do take away from the personal and intimate approach and this is mostly felt on the deep scenes between characters during the fight, particularly at the climax. There are moments in the film where Russell and Hoytema have taken influence from previous boxing films like Raging Bull.

The Fighter is much more soundtrack driven rather than score driven and it does work for me, though I do wonder how different the tone of the film would be if Michael Brook, the composer for the film, was given the opportunity to create a score replacing the soundtracks. Sometimes in sports films, soundtracks do become a bit cliché and tend to use the same type of music but here I didn't feel that as the tracks are placed in specific moments that it didn't distract me or having me feel that it was cheesy. Michael Brook's score was great when it comes on but it's very rare that I do hear it due to maybe the fact that Russell might feel it may detract from the characters and having us think that it's more than what it is, well it's not and Russell doesn't want us to search for something that isn't really there.

The acting in this film is the main reason that this film is given much praise as it boasts the best performance from Christian Bale, Mark Whalberg, Melissa Leo and Amy Adams so far. I was glad to see that the Academy was able to give them credit where it was due but I was a bit disappointed to see Whalberg on not being nominated. I was amazed on Bale's transformation, just from the first shot where he appears he just looks sickly and disgusting. I was also impressed with Adams transition from her good girl characters to this tough and assertive woman who takes control of the scene every time she's on. Melissa Leo definitely was a standout in this film too who always strives for attention and to be the best in the scene, she seems to get the bets reactions from the actors therefore making the scenes much more effective. Jack McGee was really entertaining to see here, either being subtly funny or being able to add on the drama of the scene. I wish he is able to get much better roles in the future.

The Fighter so far is one of my favorite sports films of all time and also it is tied as my favorite from David O. Russell. I am glad to see Russell coming back and continues to make great films (SIlver Linings Playbook & the upcoming American Hustle).

North by Northwest (1959)

It's Age And Influence Has Impacted This Film's Strengths

[9/10 · 3 December 2013]

Hitchcock is highly praised by critics and the general public as one of the most influential directors of his time and they are not wrong. I have not yet seen all of Hitchcock's work but I have seen most of his films that are commonly regarded as "essential". North By Northwest is one of those "essential" films and it was the one that I felt was the weakest. I am sure that most people will disagree with me but this is how I perceived it after viewing the film three times.

North By Northwest is written by Ernest Lehman, who has worked on highly regarded films like The Sound of Music, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, and a personal favorite of mine Sabrina. Lehman has written very ambitious films, showing off things that other writers have not yet thought of. North By Northwest is a prime example on how grand his vision was for the action thriller. The film's premise is quite funny and it does get you intrigued. The film starts small, then it gets bigger and bigger as the film progresses. The set pieces in the film are daring and at times ridiculous (though not entirely in a bad way). My main issue with the script is the way the protagonist is written. Roger Thornhill is too self-centred and at times cocky for his own good which many may appealingly engaging, I found it to be difficult for me to show any empathy or sympathy of his unfortunate conditions. Towards the end of the film there is a moment where Thornhill and Eve Kendall discuss about being together and this is the first time where Thornhill showed some sort of emotional vulnerability and had me caring and started to see the side of him that was not shown earlier.

Alfred Hitchcock is not shy in pushing the boundaries once in a while, and this one is definitely a huge push. This Hitchcock film has definitely inspired many action/thriller films in the future and still being used as inspiration in modern filmmaking. I do admire the fact that Hitchcock wants us following a man who in most situations is helpless to do anything. North By Northwest is a film that contains the most memorable action sequences, but ironically the main reason that these set pieces lacked the impact for me is the influence it has made on contemporary films. These scenes have time and time again been replicated and taken inspiration from it that when I actually give this a watch, it loses the magic that these scenes can give off. The effects that are used in this film are very ambitious, and because of this ambition it has aged poorly as time passes. Though these is heading towards late Hitchcock, he still has not lost his touch to create mystery and suspense.

Robert Burks is a frequent collaborator with Hitchcock starting from Strangers on a Train and ending with Marnie (The only film between that he did not work in was Psycho). The relationship between Hitchcock and Burks are an example where both members are in tune with one another. Burks understands Hitchcock's vision, this is why the films they work together are very different from one another and each one has their own style. North By Northwest may be the biggest film that they both have worked on, second being To Catch A Thief. Burks has chosen very wide and huge shots of the environment that the action is taking place, which is one of the key factors that makes this film feel large and ambitious. The crop duster scene or the climax are the key moments where his photography shines. Personally, I much prefer Burks' work on Rear Window and Vertigo but North By Northwest is a force of its own that it cannot be dismissed.

Bernard Herrmann is a legendary composer who has worked on the most iconic of films delivering the most iconic of scores. North By Northwest's score is an example of that brilliant craft with an upbeat and tense composition that sticks with you throughout the movie. The score often builds up throughout and then the action and suspense occurs then it comes in full force. It adds on to the sense of desperation to survive which is something Roger Thornhill constantly has to go through.

Cary Grant is the protagonist of this film and I'm just going to say that currently I am not a fan of him. I am not sure whether it's the roles he picks, or that I just haven't seen enough of his films. Grant comes off here as a hero or invincible even though he is meant to play a man who is very vulnerable and lacks the skills to survive in the face of danger. Grant constantly has an answer for everything and has a sarcastic joke to say with every response, but this may be more due to the writing than his acting abilities. Eva Marie Saint is another member Hitchcock's list of leading ladies but if I had to rank them, she isn't up there with Grace Kelly and Janet Leigh. Saint still does her role well though, able to project that sexuality that many actresses cannot do and still maintains to be just as equally witty and as Grant. James Mason was a treat to see, he brings this class in his role as the antagonist of the film. The accent and delivery of his lines make gives him a unique quality that other actors of it's time just lack.

North By Northwest will stand the test of time as a classic but in a personal level it just didn't impact me the same way as Rear Window or Psycho had on me. I came into this film open minded with every time I watch it and it does get better with each viewing.

Skyfall (2012)

Exceptional Execution And A Step In A New Direction

[9/10 · 2 December 2013]

Let me just get this out of the way and say that I am not the most immersed fan of the Bond films, and I only properly watched Craig's interpretation of Bond. Though I am aware about the principles of the Bond films like girls, gadgets, etc. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace felt like they were trying to steer away from the principles that fueled the pre-Craig bond films. Skyfall in the other hand embraces it and spraying something new in there making it feeling fresh and unique.

The film was written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade & John Logan. Since both Purvis and Wade have experience and knowledge of the history of Bond, they may be responsible for the genius reference moments in the film, like Q and the Aston Martin DB5. Logan on the other hand was a surprise for me as he has never written a Bond film before and isn't a frequent collaborator with Mendes. Nevertheless Logan has done well here. He has brought that imagination of thrilling and intense action sequences here that haves us hooked all the way through. The film is able to explore the argument of the traditional and contemporary approach, even more so at the end of the film, which I thought was a nice touch. The emotional drive in the film is carried not by Bond but rather by M, as the film showcases the regrets and sacrifice that M has made and the torment and suffering that others and herself it has caused. The film also surprised me by touching on Bond's past, showing us his roots and home.

When I heard Sam Mendes was directing this film, I knew that this was going to be handled much better and the film will feel significant and requires to be viewed over and over again. I was a bit worried on how he would handle the action element of the film as I don't really see him as the most onerous when it comes to those particular moments but he really outdid himself here with action sequences that shine and is memorable. It is the intimate moments where I appreciate Mendes' craft because he has proved it with his previous films like Away We Go and American Beauty. Mendes really understood Skyfall's characters, displaying their vulnerabilities and strengths allowing us to engross on the story and the relationships that is being explored. Mendes has accomplished in creating the most stylish Bond film yet, at least for now. The film is definitely a first step into a new phase of Bond that will define the subsequent Bond films.

Roger Deakins has worked with the best directors of this century and he frequently collaborates with them. Deakins has worked on every film by Mendes after Road To Perdition, except of course Away We Go. Deakins is definitely one of the crucial fraction in making this film feel and look beautiful. The highlights are the scenes that takes place in Macau and Shanghai, this is where the image makes an impression with popping colors and employing a modern style of photography. The action sequences are handled very well as Deakins and Mendes allows the stunt men or actors to show off their skills within that one shot allowing for a much more smoother experience. As the start of the film, the image feels more natural and then heads towards a more colorful approach in the scenes in Asia. The end takes a monotone palette stripping the image down with the beauty that accommodates the first three quarters of the film, correlating with the themes that Mendes was trying to project (particularly the traditional vs contemporary aspect).

Thomas Newman who have worked with all of Mendes' films, aside from Away We Go. Newman a lot of the times doesn't make scores that people will end up taking notice while watching the film, though there are a few exceptions like American Beauty and WALL-E, but he does have the ability to suck us in and allow us to feel the emotions that Mendes wants us to feel in selected occasions. Newman's score for Skyfall projects that and avoids the feeling of being campy even if it doesn't deviate too far from the modern day action scores. His score just works seamlessly with the traditional Bond theme that is scattered throughout which adds on to the immersion.

Craig comes back for his third attempt of playing James Bond and he has done a wonderful job, as expected. There may be a bit of a step back for Craig here as the emotional driven scenes are not handled by him but rather by Judi Dench as M. Dench was able to embody a character who has a lot of regrets in her life and the audience can see how fractured her soul is with people fallen under her command. Bardem was a great villain in this film, making himself very memorable and tries to outshine any actor in the scene with him. Fiennes is an actor that always brings his best in whatever role he is in and he has done so here but he was limited here in screen time. The bond girls, Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe, were fantastic here. I love seeing women who can carry their own or at least bring something unique and fresh to a formula that has been recycled over and over again. Harris was a standout in balancing sexy and toughness while Marlohe on the other hand brings out the lustful desires of the audience while not being there just for a good time with Bond.

Skyfall is definitely a milestone for the Bond series and it sets up for a new phase in the series. If you enjoy a new twist in the same formula, beautiful photography and brilliant direction then give this one a try. I hope Mendes' 24th Bond film will just be as good as this, maybe even better.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Ambitious And Thematically Deeper

[9/10 · 29 November 2013]

4 years after the reboot of the popular franchise directed by J.J Abrams has now returned with a sequel. Star Trek Into Darkness is definitely a much anticipated sequel due to the first film being successful commercially and critically. This sequel have been argued whether or not this is an improvement over it's predecessor, but there is one thing I can guarantee and is that this film is definitely a well made Science Fiction Action film.

Star Trek Into Darkness was written by Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof & Roberto Orci, and all three acts as screenwriters and producers of this film and it's predecessor. The sequels of the franchise is usually the best opportunity for the writers to dish out the best stories for the franchise as they are not restricted in having to explain the characters back stories and having to define the relationship between characters. Star Trek Into Darkness can truly be a film of it's own. The writers have definitely written something I found enjoyable with a plot that is intriguing and a villain that is so mesmerizing to watch that we wouldn't mind if the film focused on him even more. The film's screenplay is definitely thematically deeper than the first film. The film explores themes of friendship, death, sacrifice, and family. This did impress me in comparison to other blockbuster films released this year and it's something that I will definitely come back to over and over again and it would still not lose it's steam.

J. J. Abrams comes back to direct this sequel of his successful Star Trek reboot. Abrams have definitely crafted something much better than it's predecessor as this may be due to a much better understanding and connection to the source material. Abrams have crafted something that is different from the other Star Trek films released but able to relate and throwback elements from the classics. Abrams have made something deep and entertaining. It may not be as in your face and pretentious as other films that touches the same themes as it still retains it's action packed entertainment approach which I don't mind either as long as it is executed with flourish, and Abrams has executed with such flourish. Abrams were able to sneak in some still and heartbreaking moments that surprisingly made me care about the characters, which is something I usually dismiss in films like this. This does give me more faith with Abrams future films, as he has disappointed me before like Mission Impossible 3. I hope he does return for a sequel to this film as he definitely revived a franchise to a new generation and hopefully for future ones.

Daniel Mindel comes back as the director of photography for this film. Mindel is more known as an action director and he is a frequent collaborator with Abrams, aside from Super 8. Mindel and Abrams have brought back the beautiful photography that was present on the first film. The visual effects in this film do look impressive and improves the already fascinating effects from the first film. The lens flare in this film is much more toned down, or maybe it just seemed less distracting due to the improved technique in photographing this film. The shots that Abrams and Mindel uses for this film, especially within the ship, are filled with panning and this is due to the great blocking that Abrams employs in his shots allowing the film to be constantly in motion but without relying on the shaking effect of hand-held camera. As the film does contain certain intimate moments, I felt that they were shot fantastically and adds on to the tension or emotion that Abrams wants to convey or bring out from us.

Michael Giacchino is responsible for the film's score. When the film's theme song plays, it gives me the chills as it just makes me think that we are coming into a special film. Giacchino has brought the good areas from his score of the first film and improved upon that with this film feeling much more ambitious and heavy. Though the moment at the start of the film with the sick child contains a beautiful piece driven by a piano. Giacchino definitely knows how to suck us in with his scores, just listen to his work on the Pixar films like Up and Ratatouille.

The actors in this film is more focused solely on their interaction with one another rather than a separate entity of it's own like the first film, due to the first film focusing on their backstory and how that connects to the way these characters are. I can definitely say that these actors work well together and more moments show their acting range. Pine and Quinto banter and acting, particularly in scenes where their relationship and feelings towards one another are being discussed and explored, have definitely grabbed on to me; making me care about the decisions of these characters and empathise with them. A stand out performance from Benedict Cumberbatch is definitely something that needs to be noted when praising this film. Great and scene stealing villains are not something unique in films nowadays but his is something that cannot be ignored. If I am to nitpick, I am still a little disappointed with Karl Urban's character being a source of one liners, the character is also written quite campy which does become a distraction for me. All in all the actors did a great job and hopefully the next film will allow more screen time to flesh out both the actors and the characters they play.

Star Trek Into Darkness is ambitious and thematically deeper than it's predecessor. It is also more entertaining and features a villain that we won't forget. I hope that Abrams come back for a third installment and somehow improve on a film that is definitely one of the best blockbuster films of 2013.

Paths of Glory (1957)

A Film Rivalling Kubrick's Best And The Other Films Within It's Genre

[10/10 · 25 November 2013]

This film is one of Stanley Kubrick's overlooked films, others include the films that came out before it, but just because the film is overlooked doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Paths of Glory is the best of his overlooked films. Before watching this, I heard so many great things about it but I always try to be objective when I come into a movie to avoid unrealistic expectations and prevent myself to be too excited or disappointed.

Paths of Glory is based on the book of the same name written by Humphrey Cobb. The screenplay was written by Kubrick, Jim Thompson and Calder Willingham. Thompson and Kubrick have previously worked together on The Killing and I thought they did a decent job on that one. Paths of Glory is definitely an excellent tale of loyalty, mercy, sacrifice and the politics of war. There are many war films that fail to captivate me but this one has such a great story and such an empathetic and likable protagonist that the film had me engaged the whole way through. The film's dialogue, in my opinion, is much better written here in comparison to Kubrick's previous film as it felt more realistic and doesn't try to stand out. I understand that both films are totally different in genre and style but I am just judging it with what works for me personally. People who expect the film to show more chilling and intense action sequence may be disappointed as there is only one area of the film that contains this, but I didn't mind it because it's great plot made up for it. There are definitely some stand out scenes in this film including the ending, the courtroom and the charge on Ant Hill.

Kubrick comes back to the modern war genre, his previous being Fear and Desire. He definitely showed his capabilities as a director in this film by creating a war film that is intimate and personal. Kubrick understands the importance of substance over style and that making this film more character driven, it haves the audience care about the tragic and sadness of it much more. This film definitely competes with the other Kubrick greats but it lacks the brilliance and originality that his subsequent efforts would deliver. Kubrick is not a stranger to controversy, though his most controversial films were released much later, and this film definitely created quite a buzz in certain countries which I think just supports the film's greatness.

The film's photography was handled by the German cinematographer, Georg Krause. This is the only film so far I have seen from Krause's long list of films he has worked in. The film's photography may not stand out or stylistically as much as Kubrick's previous film but there are moments in here that are very memorable and excellently shot, an example would be the long shot of the camera moving down the trench seeing the soldiers just standing on the edges of the scene. The black and white photography by Krause will not have anybody turn heads and be in awe but instead it just brings the viewer into the story and have the image be appropriate in enhancing the film's themes and plot. Paths of Glory is the earliest film of Kubrick that I have taken notice of his style that allows a shot to be patient and have the characters do a long take of a scene, this makes the film feel a lot more natural and relying less on cuts in order to drive the film.

Gerald Fried comes back to do the score for this film and it certainly is different from his previous film with Kubrick. Fried's score doesn't feel as cheesy or as over the top here in comparison to The Killing. The score feels very patriotic and strong. The use of drums to create that sense of tension really makes certain moments feel right. I can definitely say that his work here is much more appropriate and an improvement over his previous work.

The acting aspect of the film is driven by Kirk Douglas. I have always admired his acting and he always seems to play characters that are very likable and can empathise with. Douglas shows a lot of vulnerability and compassion for his character, and this feeling is even more heightened with the supporting cast that primarily interacts with him are cold, heartless and egotistic. The stand out in the supporting cast is George Macready as he played an egotistic and cynical antagonist that polarises with Douglas moral values. It's always nice to see the usual actors that come back in Kubrick's films, as they are always playing very different characters and they always stand out.

Paths of Glory is one of Kubrick's well made films and it definitely competes with the other highly acclaimed war films. It has a strong performance by Douglas, excellent direction and writing from Kubrick, and a fascinating story of the politics of war.