Movie Review: Django Unchained

"Django Unchained" caught me by surprise, it's not that I didn't think I was going to enjoy it, after all it's made by Quentin Tarantino who's films I've all enjoyed thoroughly, some I would even call masterpieces. But "Django Unchained" represents something I didn't expect from Tarantino; a harsh critique on slavery. Since the beginning with "Reservoir Dogs", Tarantino has gone out of his way to transcend genre, using it as a means to comment either on character, relationships, or films in general. His trademarks, which we have all gotten used to include, manipulation of time such as "Pulp Fiction" where the film ends as it began, or in "Reservoir Dogs" where we cut from the aftermath of a bank heist to before it actually happened. He would also include chapters in his stories which would usually hint to what will happen next or to introduce a character such as "Kill Bill" or "Inglorious Basterds".

With "Django Unchained", none of the chapters, or time changes are visible, at least from what I observed. This is Tarantino's most direct and linear film, and probably his least complicated and most blunt.

"Django Unchained" follows what Tarantino first started with in the "Kill Bill" movies, by offering up yet another revenge tale. Django (Jaimie Foxx) is a Black slave who is freed one night by a high minded, and sophisticated bounty hunter by the name of Dr. King Schultz. Schultz needs Django to help him find the whereabouts of a murderous gang known as the Brittle Brothers. Django has met them before so he will be helpful in identifying them.

But Django also has other things in mind, we learn that he is married and his wife Brunhilda (Kerry Washington) has been sold off to a Plantation in Mississippi. Schultz takes Django under his wing as a bounty hunter, and the two become partners. After awhile, they set off to find Django's wife who has been bought by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and lives on his plantation known as Candy Land, and as expected the usual Tarantino cat and mouse game and eventual carnage will take place as soon as our heroes get there.

All that I have described to you above, probably comes to no surprise to those who know Tarantino's cinephile sensibilities, yet a new depth has been added. This is a slave's revenge tale, and one that Tarantino takes to heart. This is unlike any other film I've seen that has depicted this period before. Tarantino does not shy away from the atrocities that negroes fell victim to at this time, and this causes some of his most disturbing imagery.

At one point in the film, we see a black slave torn to pieces by wild dogs, we also see a line of them in dehumanizing spiked collars and muzzles. Brumhilda herself is subject to torture in a hotbox in Candy Land where she is stripped naked and left locked up to roast in. When she is released, she gets cold water splashed in her face and then tossed in a wheelbarrow. These are disturbing images and something I wasn't expecting from Tarantino.

Now take "Inglorious Basterds", Tarantino's last film which followed the similar tale of vengeance with a group of Jews getting back at the Nazis during the second World War, and in conclusion brought about an early, and historically inaccurate end to it. That film opened to harsh criticism with some claiming it supported Holocaust denial. I didn't really feel that way, after all, what were the Jews getting revenge for if not for the Holocaust? However, after watching "Django Unchained", I would now say "Inglorious Basterds" is the inferior film, and far less daring. "Django Unchained" takes on the subject of slavery in all of its brutality, and ludicrousness, while "Inglorious Basterds", more or less dances around the Holocaust in favor of its cinematic fueled Adventure story.

Now I still like "Inglorious Basterds", but I can't help but re-evaluate it after viewing "Django Unchained", which I see is a more mature work from Tarantino. But perhaps this is a subject with a more personal stake on the man who has given us characters such as Jules Winnfield and Jackie Brown. Tarantino has long been influenced by blaxploitation and black culture. He even once said if he were ever to direct a biopic, it would be on John Brown, who used violent methods to help abolish slavery. I don't know much about Tarantino's upbringing, but I don't think it would be a stretch to say this topic is near and dear to his heart.

But "Django Unchained" is also a superior film structurally as well, and perhaps it is the direct approach that helps with it. It never seems to slow down, and the dialogue plays like music coming out of the actor's mouths, none so much than with Christoph Waltz, who is playing the other side of the coin from his Hanz Landa character in "Inglorious Basterds", and Samuel L. Jackson who is given the juicy role of a nosy house man. Tarantino seems to gravitate towards Waltz and Jackson who are proper subjects for his kind of dialogue.

There are two bloody sequences in Candy Land which dominate the final act and probably top the climax of "Kill Bill Vol.1" as Tarantino's bloodiest set pieces. What's amazing about all of his movies is how he can find new ways to extract blood from all of his victims. In this film, I see Tarantino owing a lot to Sam Peckinpah, and there is even a scene early on where a man is shot off a horse, that for some reason reminded me of Spielberg's "War Horse" just last year, but I digress, it's a whole new game just to identify all the homages the film riffs on.

"Django Unchained" represents the second time this year I've seen a film of such violence elevate itself from the ugliness of its world to become something rather beautiful, the other was "Seven Psychopaths" which is a film that probably wouldn't exist without Tarantino. But "Django Unchained" in my mind represents a great director at his most passionate and angry, it's at the same time an entertaining genre piece and a primal scream at an ugly time in history.

A Christmas Carol

For me it's hard not to think of Christmas without thinking of Charles Dickens. Has there been a more beloved writer? If you haven't read a word of Dickens, you no doubt know his most popular stories. "Great Expectations", "Oliver Twist", "A Tale of Two Cities", and "David Copperfield" have all made there way into our popular culture, and are national treasures in England, where Dickens is probably only second to Shakespeare in that country's pantheon of great writers.

Dickens and the movies have enjoyed a long relationship together, his books have been adapted over and over again, and they probably will continue to do so, because people just can't get enough of them. But I would also say, Dickens wrote in a very cinematic way, so much so, he would've had a great career as a screenwriter had he lived during the advent of film.

Dickens was probably most descriptive when it came to vivid characters, and locations, and they were purposely episodic since his novels were published as serials, this made them perfect fodder of film.

But let's face it, there is one story that eclipses all of his books in popularity and pure pop sentimentalism. When "A Christmas Carol" was first published, it was mostly responsible for making Christmas popular again, it in fact saved the traditions we still today hold very near and dear.

"A Christmas Carol" has been adapted for the screen for what seems like a million times, but the real McCoy remains the 1951 version starring Alistair Sim. Watching the film, I can't say it's much of a complex or even visually compelling film. A lot of it is static, and reminds me more an old BBC teleplay rather than anything that's cinematic, yet, I am sucked into the story each time I watch it, I would even say it's one of the most unabashedly moving films I have ever seen, and most of that has to do with Sim's performance as Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Let's focus on this performance shall we? "A Christmas Carol" is the kind of story that lives or dies based on who's playing the main character. Scrooge is the type of character that I can see many aged actors wanting to play, his arc from penny pinching miser, to a reformed merchant remains one of the greatest transformations in literature.

Yet Scrooge is a much more complicated character than most people give him credit for. It's easy to indulge of the caricature quality of Dickens' descriptions of Scrooge, but that would risk losing any relation to the story. What Sim does so brilliantly is make Scrooge into a real human being, we see his fall from grace, and in fact the film adds a few episodes of his past which aren't in the book that add a few more shades of grey to Scrooge.

Sim's depiction adds a certain melancholy to Scrooge, he makes us empathize with this man who has become hardened by the coldness of life, and we can see him slowly open up as he interacts with the three ghosts which show him his past, present, and future. But one thing that's so refreshing comes from Sim's humor in the character. The fact that Scrooge remains so sourly, and grim springs out some funny occasions. Take his reaction when we finds out from Jacob Marley he's going to be visited by three spirits. "In that case nevermind" he says, as if he couldn't be bothered with the saving of his soul.

But along with this, Sim is able to find the Pathos, and sadness of the character, and he makes the most of the uplifting finale. One of my personal favorite moments of the film comes near the end when Scrooge goes to visit his estranged nephew and meets his young wife for the first time. His face is one of humbleness, but of a man who finally understands how his happiness has eluded him all these years.

The rest of the film is full of the kind of performances that can only be described as classic british film acting, but Sim seems to have transcended all of this, and makes his character perfectly natural and very modern. Even modern actors haven't been able to touch the magic that Sim was able to conjure in this film.

Alistair Sim was actually a very well known character actor in Britain, very often playing in comedies, he even stole the show from Marlene Deitrich, in Alfred Hitchcock's "Stage Fright", but I suppose he will always be remembered as Scrooge, it's really he who has made this "A Christmas Carol" into a classic film, and one that remains cherished to this day.

Incidentally this is in fact the only British film version of "A Christmas Carol" I have seen, the others I've seen were produced in Hollywood and remain much more artificial and losing the darkness of the story. Perhaps it took the British to truly adapt Dickens and who understood the darkness of his stories. Dickens was one of those writers who understood that darkness always had to come before the light.

Merry Christmas from Jeremy and The Movies

Worst Movies of 2012

Hey guys, I have just gone through the longest hibernation in this blog's history, what have I been doing? Well let's just say I've been busy with various different creative projects, along with various different real life things. But I'm here to say that Jeremy and the Movies has not retired despite what you may hear from these brash, new, young movie blogs. No, we keep on truckin, and will for hopefully more years to come.

Lot's to talk about, lot's of films in the air of course, as usual, I've been trying to catch up with all of the must-see event movies, and some of the smaller more indie movies that have come out this year in order to come out with my top ten list which should be ready by Oscar season. I'll also have my favorite performances, my Special Jury Prize, and 2012's MVP!

But this long process always begins with the bottom of the barrel. This of course comes from the worst movie of the year.

Now, seeing how I do try to avoid films that I don't see myself liking all that much, not many movies appear on this to make for an appropriate list. However, there are some films that fall through the cracks, and never fail to disappoint.

Two movies come to mind that totally made wish I didn't spend my time and money to watch, but unfortunately I did, and the only thing I can do in return is to prevent this from happening to anyone of you faithful movie watchers.

The first film "Rock of Ages" hides its crumminess from it's all out cheese factor, and 80s nostalgia. For some reason, movies like these get a free pass because they dupe the audience into thinking that just because they are self-aware of the high camp of their movie means it's all for fun. No, no, no, this cannot be. Yes, movies can be cheesy and fun, but those movies at least have some creativity to drive the cheese. "Rock of Ages" is about as bland as any of the overused hair band rock anthems this movie uses. Even usual fun actors like Alec Baldwin and Russel Brand can't lift this wreck into any sort of level. You can call me a Grinch, a Scrooge, or just a fan of alternative music, but "Rock of Ages" offers nothing that you haven't seen before, and nothing would make a worse double feature than this film with High School Musical 3.

The second film that fits into this worse movies category, is here just for the very reason that it inhabits almost everything I hate about certain movies.

I came into "Dredd" on a whim. I have a weakness for comic book movie, for me they are usually a nice escape, but this wasn't at all.

"Dredd" is actually a small scale comic book movie, it has a very simple plot, and for most movies, I'd consider that a godsend, as the biggest problem with most films are the overly complicated, and convoluted plots. "Dredd's" plot is fairly straight forward. The fault with the film is its execution. The film deals in a post- apocalyptic future where these the cities are ruled by judges who are judge, jury, and executioner all in one. Dredd is the most bad ass of these judges, and together with his rookie sidekick must take down a ruthless, violent gang ruler named Mama.

What I hated about this film, and what I hate about most of these types of films isn't the ultra-violence it revels in, but in the complete bleak, and nihilistic video game approach to its material. Dredd is mostly a faceless emotionless hero, he has a mean scowl worthy of Clint Eastwood, but a personality equal to a turnip. Bodies are blown apart, blood is splattered in all directions, and in the end you are left feeling pretty miserable and uninspired. I felt dirty after "Dredd", and maybe it's my weakness that I can't accept this sort of nihilistic point of view, but all I know is this movie made me feel sick inside, and that's something good movies don't do.

Well that's it, I'm sure there are other really bad films that were made this year, but I'm glad I didn't have to see them. Do yourself a favor and avoid bad movies at all costs, remember if it looks bad, it probably is.