PHROM PHILLY, WITH LOVE!

Subscribe below -

Gimme your email address and i'll send you presents..

Saturday, 19 January 2013

REVIEW - DJANGO UNCHAINED

I think Westerns are great. & the journey of the Western has been long and interesting. Arguably its birth was with the 1903 film The Great Train Robbery, it then passed John Ford's phenomenal Stagecoach in 1939, went through Leone's magnificent Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960s, and landed in contemporary cinema with films like Cowboys and Aliens. Yep, gone are the days when the Western was a great genre, and Clint Eastwood was less racist. One man, though, has always kept the genre close, shielded it from the apparent Alien attack: Quentin Tarantino. Growing up infatuated with Leone's framing and storytelling, QT learnt his trade in the back catalogues of a video store. Graduating through his filmography, it was clear to see his influences - you might even argue Kill Bill is his blending of Kurosawa and Leone (I'll save that one for another time). Still, it feels his entire body of work has been building to this film. If he can pull of this Western, he will have made it in his own eyes, as much as ours. Which is probably why the script took ~3 years to write.

*by a 3 year old

The story of Django Unchained is inspired by his chained predecessor: Django, made in 1966 and starring Franco Nero - who makes a brief cameo discussing the silent "D." Other than the appearance of Nero, there's little repetition from previous films of the genre. There's only 1 Johnny Cash song, for christ's sake! The film is undeniably Tarantino's. We open in the Antebellum South, following a posse of recently purchased slaves on route to their new plantation when up rolls Dr. Schultz (Chris Waltz), a German "dentist" who is looking to acquire Django's (Jamie Foxy) services. Dispatching the two white escorts with his wit, dialogue and fast draw, the two ride off together to the nearest watering hole for a pint and a business discussion.

"shooting from the hip"

Django's cunning eye reveals that Schultz is, in fact, a bounty hunter and not a travelling dentist. He offers Django his freedom and $75 for that same cunning eye to identify the Brittle Brothers, who Schultz will then shoot. "Kill white people and they pay you for it" quips Django, "What's not to like?" The two enter into an agreement and begin what feels like the trimmings of a buddy movie. Cowboys are lone rangers, these bounty hunters are more like BFFs & here QT's writing really comes to the forefront. So much so that you begin to ignore the stunning scenery they ride through, in favour of the snappy dialogue performed admirably by both actors. There are even some particularly well framed shots, that cut from wide angle to close up and vice versa (CRASH ZOOMS), that simply pass over the viewer because the film is so well balanced between the audio and visual. Speaking of which - the soundtrack is typically blazé and pop-ish (John Legend's contribution is excellent). QT even manages to slip a Rick Ross number in there, but does it look out of place? Hell no. Not in this Western.

you can't jus' WALTZ ina town an' shoot somebuddy

Django's super cool nature comes unravelled when he sees those who have wronged him in the past. For you see, even ex-slaves have subtext in Tarantino's Western. Django's real desire is to be reunited from his estranged wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington DC) - and Schultz, as a responsible whitey, agrees to help his free negro pal find her after a winter's worth of hunting; as this Django fella is proving himself quite the natural. The two grow close and soon Schultz paternal relation to Django wears thin, as the freed man becomes something of a revelation in his newfound liberty. The search for Broomhilda leads them to one name: Calvin Candy (Leonardo Da Vinci). Monsieur Candy is a particularly suave and ruthless plantation owner, the owner of young Broomhilda and a big name in the "Mandingo" business: also known as Nigger fighting. The two hatch a plan and make their way to Candyland. If the first half of the film had your curiosity, the second will grab your attention.

Sandy Joyner

The majority of the white folk are presented in a hilariously caricatured Blazing Saddles-esque fashion: "WHAT'S A NIGGER DOING ON A HORSE?" is a frequent line. Samuel L. Jackson also gives one of the best performances of his career as Steven, the head slave of Monsieur Candy. Deep-seated race relations are treated in Django Unchained like never before. It's OK to laugh as Steven suggests burning the pillow cases after Django has slept on them. But with the comedy, comes the brutality. Whips and early forms of KKK militarism are also shown in garish honesty. Although again, not without their hint of "Tarantino." In one of the best sequences of the film, members of a hate mob discuss the negative aspects of wearing white hoods with eye holes - none of them can see! The ironic hint to their reduced awareness, or blindness, is clear - Tarantino is criticising racial hatred in his own way. And it works.

and then they kissed?

Spike Lee recently hit out at Django Unchained: "American slavery was not a Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It was a holocaust. My ancestors are slaves. Stolen from Africa. I will honor them." He couldn't be more wrong (in fact, Spike Lee has been a bit of a dick recently). In the same month Lincoln is released, the subject matter is being presented in two very different ways - but I know which one I'd rather watch. Tarantino isn't dishonouring the history of African Americans, hell no. He's celebrating the liberation of black people in his own unique, gory, hilarious, fan-boy way. In a running joke across the film - the "D" in "Django" is silent; the rest of the film is anything but.


45/50 STATES

p.s. QT's cameos are phenomenal

Saturday, 5 January 2013

REVIEW - THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

Happy 2013, crew! Which of yous have already broken your resolutions, ya naughty good-for-nothings? Hope everyone had good tidings and enough drink to put down a donkey. This is a little belated and my memory has been somewhat zapped by festive whiskey drinking, but here goes a few thoughts on the recent release of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. A film that most, especially Tolkien fans, had been wishing for since Frodo sailed to the Undying lands of the Elves (oops, spoiler). Our tale surrounds Mr. Frodo's infamous Uncle Bilbo and his unexpected journey "there and back again" - or at least, the first 6 chapters of it.



13 Dwarves, 1 Hobbit. (not a porno)

The immediate talking point of the film surrounded the formation of a trilogy. Lord of the Rings worked perfectly in this format as 3 different parts; indeed, some was even left out - Tom Bombadil, notably. However, to split a novel that barely covers 300 pages into 3 separate films seems foolish and money grabbing. Particularly when the bulk of screen time in LOTR was dedicated to grandiose battle sequences, of which there is little in The Hobbit (at least, in this film). Ultimately it would have been wiser to trim into one film, or even just a pair of flicks - the storyline drags and some less interested in young Bilbo would easily lose interest after the first hour, let alone the first film.


translated directions: "fly, you fools"

The "unexpected" nature of this journey comes one evening when Gandalf secretly scratches an invitation onto Bilbo's door for Thorin Oakenshield (who has more than a hint of Vigo Mortensen about him) and his merry band of 12 Dwarves (including James bloody Nesbitt) to have a shindig. The young Hobbit is soon overrun with company and invited to be the burglar on a quest to retrieve treasure stolen from Erebor by Smaug the Dragon - now located on top of the Lonely Mountain (see above). Soon the Took within the Baggins takes over and Bilbo finds himself out the door, on a pony, and without his handkerchief. The company are off towards Mirkwood and stumbling upon all sorts of Middle Earth life: outwitting trolls, being captured by Goblins and trapped by Wargs.

oh dear

This is where the film departs from Tolkien's work. In the novel there is no mention of a dangerous "Necromancer" conjuring dark spells, or of "Radagast the Stoned/Brown/Definitely Stoned," or even of a meeting in Rivendell between Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond. Nor is Thorin's one armed, allbeit bad ass looking, nemesis talked of at all in the book. Jackson clearly didn't feel there was enough entertainment in the first section of the book, and so placed a few more threats to keep audiences awake (again - why not just trim?). Still - the Dwarven company are infinitely likeable and Freeman's portrayal of an unassuming Bilbo, who flounders over the simplest of tasks yet excels where isn't expected to, is commendable and he carries it well (even has a slight "Tim" feel to the character).



HD 3D and Gandalf just don't mix

The film opens in HD 3D and unfortunately finishes in it, too. Jackson's decision to double the FPS (Frames Per Second) of the film from 24 FPS to 48 FPS always seemed a strange choice, and it seems absolutely ridiculous after watching The Hobbit. There's an argument for the natural technological advancement of cinematography, but those that make it should be strangled by 35mm film. The entire film looks almost CGI - but not in a good way; more in a video game cut sequence kind of way, particularly whenever long shots are used (which is often). It just doesn't feel cinematic. Plus making me put glasses over glasses always ruins my movie watching experience - it's genuinely one of the most annoying things imaginable. So fuck you, Jackson.


Bilbo's crack addiction will be interesting to watch

Sadly The Hobbit does not compare to LOTR: it's nowhere near in the same league of filmmaking or storytelling. In its own right, it's still a thoroughly enjoyable tale about maturation, adventure and friendship; and it will be interesting to see where the next two films take us. However The Hobbit feels as tall as its protagonist, in that it barely gets off the ground. Sadly, most fans of the book will lament it, and most newcomers get bored of it. Jackson's gone off the radar with this one, and we don't quite feel like we're in Middle Earth anymore. 

32/50 STATES