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

REVIEW - TWISHITE BREAKING YAWN PT. POO

At the premier, R-PATZ reportedly joked around with some Twi-hards outside by saying: "I don't understand what mental condition you have." First off, I'm not sure he was joking. And second - this is one of the problems with the Twilight saga. A lot of Twi-hards are dicks. There, I said it. They make hating the films easy for onlookers with their ridiculous obsessiveness and TEAM EDWARD t-shirts (+ I don't think i'm being at all pretentious or unfair). It's important, therefore, to remove any preconceptions you might have about the film/its fans before viewing the latest installment. I have, unashamedly, seen all the Twilight films and was one of the millions that went to see it on opening weekend. TEAM JACOB tank top and all.

I had a similar reaction

The release of the film was shrouded in controversy after K-STEW apparently went rogue and cheated on our beloved R-PATZ. Without slipping into a Perez Hilton blog post; HOW DARE SHE, R-PATZ IS A FUCKING SAINT! However in the filmic world, all is happy in the Cullen household. Bella is now a fully fledged Trampire after she was turned in the most despicable C-section in the finale of part 1. She's now got horrendous pink eye, and some newfound abilities to boot! No longer a mismatch in the bedroom, the opening 20 minutes or so are filled with Bella's newfound lust for blood and/or R-PATZ' genitalia. Indeed, the opening line of the film is Edward telling the mother of his new child "You're so beautiful." Probably the most frequent line of the film, despite K-STEW's ever present omni-frown. Despite all this, they have so little chemistry on screen that it's no surprise she sought greener pastures off screen.

again, all too familiar...

Most criticism of Twilight is levelled at its poor writing, cardboard characters and incredibly clichéd dialogue. Unfortunately none of these judgements are dispelled by the latest film. With all quiet on the home front, (the Wolves and Vamps are now getting along just fine, in case you were worried) the imminent threat of the film comes in the form of the VOLTURI. An ancient coven of Vamps that seek to destroy Bella's young one, horrifically named Renesmee, because they believe her to be some sort of demon child who will kill endless amounts of humans. Too strong for the Cullen's alone, they draft in their Vamp mates to stand against the innocent killing of Renesmee. There's little offered up in terms of character development - despite the influx of new vampires with unique abilities of their own. Element control/mind control/electric shocks don't add much to the already tiring abilities of the stock characters.

mighty morphin' shitty vampires

There is also yet more incredibly contrived one liners that tend to follow the lines of: "I love you 4eva nd eva bby" *BLEUGH* Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 at points feels more like an MSN conversation than a hollywood blockbuster. Although the film is arguably the least clichéd and OTT of the entire series, it still falls back to this weakness on a far too regular basis. Old habits clearly die hard. I understand the film/books are made for teenagers struggling with their soppy pre-adolescent relations, however there are far more suitable techniques than awful dialogue. Whatever message Twilight is trying to get across (sexual liberation of the female teen???????) it's often lost in its median.

honestly THIS is better writing

Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 looks a lot better than its predecessors, its budget has been vamped up and the CGI looks markedly crisper. However there is the questionable addition of a CGI baby Renesmee that looks about as real as Jordan's buzzers. Still, this film is arguably the best Twilight of the saga. The final battle is interesting enough, and the film actually caught me off guard with a twist I honestly did not see coming. See if you can catch it. Sadly though, Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 really is a shiny vampire in a clan of Cullens. I'm not in the franchise's target audience, and boy does it show. I think Twi-hards will love it, and the rest of us will be loving that it's finally over. Hopefully 5eva.

*SPOILER ALERT*

16/50 states

ALSO, BUNK FROM "THE WIRE" CAMEOS IN THIS FILM. THAT EARNT IT 15 STATES.

REVIEW - SKYFALL

Britain is a largely expectant country; whether it's football, tea strength, a Paul McCartney show, or other over stereotyped British activities, we demand the best. The same applies to our Bond films. Ever since Dr. No and (Sir.) Connery hit the big screens, there has been an air of "Britain Expects" about the series. And it's no real surprise, as Bond has become one of the most widely known exports of GB in recent history; just look at how excited everyone was when he jumped out a helicopter with HRH in July. MADNESS! But it's more than that. Watching in the cinema, before the film even begins there are half a dozen Bond related adverts each proclaiming their product will turn Jon Doe into James Bond. Bond is bankable. The franchise has the weight of a nation on its shoulders, and the pressure of the fat cat producers prodding it forwards. Does Skyfall deliver for both? In short: yes. And then some. 

watch Outland. Connery as a Space cop - Golden.

In the early millennia Bond was looking tired and worn, hence the 4 year break after Brosnan and the complete refresh to Flemming's first novel for Casino Royale. Directors were struggling to keep people interested in tired gags and repetitive fantasy story lines; there's only so many times the Russians can threaten to end the world after all (...or is there?). But with Danny Craggers the series looks to have found itself a lead to propel the franchise back into the right direction: tougher, darker and more attune to Flemming's series. And it has come to fruition with Skyfall. Third time lucky, ey?

old meets new

The film throws its audience straight into a mission in Istanbul; JB is in the process of recovering a hard drive with names of undercover MI6 agents. No easy feat, and after some rooftop motorcross he finds himself on the top of a moving train mano-on-mano with his adversary. With time running out, M (still Judy Dench) orders JB's female assistant operative to take "the shot". But of course she hits Bond, plunging him 200 odd feet off the train and down into the watery depths of a raging river. Apparently women can't shoot. Add that to the list ay? I jest! As a side note, I read an article suggesting Skyfall was the least misogynistic Bond yet; I'd have to strongly disagree. For reasons i'll get onto soon. 

JB > JC

Soon after JB disappears, he is pronounced K.I.A. and M writes a less than heart felt obituary. Yet in the very next scene we see him on a sunny beach, knee deep in a foreign looking lady (stage one of Skyfall not being the least misogynistic Bond film) drinking a Heineken. Cut back to London and the MI6 building is in pieces, the files are being leaked, and M is having a moment. Bond acknowledges this and makes his way back to the new HQ, beginning his vendetta to get all British on those responsible. He soon discovers the face behind the treachery: Javier Bardem. His outstanding portrayal of camp fashion designer-esque villain Raoal Silva, brings a much needed kick of chaos to the film. He is hell bent on dealing revenge on M (stage 2 of Skyfall not being the least misogynistic Bond film) and taking down the "establishment" of MI6 and Gran Britannia; he represents a threat to the old guard.

being typecast as the villain is working for Mr. Bardem

Meanwhile the war at home is raging, as the supposed incompetence of MI6 is called into question by top brass of Number 10: is there a need for 00 agents in this modern world? The analogy works to directly question the audience: is there a place for Bond in 2012? The rest of the film provides a succinct and booming "YES MUM." Skyfall is a stunning mix of action, witty dialogue, and a few gadgets (the ejector seat is mocked, as well as the exploding pen) that perfectly blends old with new; highlighting the need for balance. It should be considered the archetype for future Bonds, and the benchmark for the past. It is, indeed, a resurrection.  

not a half-bad Bond girl, either

47/50 STATES

REVIEW - LOOPER

Time travel films are always hotly anticipated. Something all of us wish was invented, it's usually a joy to see our childish hopes and dreams played out infront of us on the big screen. Personally I'd go back to May 19th and re-watch the Drogba penalty with less nerves, make a lot of money on accumulators and go into business with Roman Abramovic. However, in Looper  we see time travel being used for slightly more dangerous means: assassinations. It's 2044 in the grand ol' USA (more specifically, Kansas) and we're promptly told by Joseph Gordon-Levitt that time travel has not been invented yet, but in 30 years it will be...

UNBELIEVABLE, JEFF

JEFF DANIELS has been sent back from 2074 to run things - establishing a criminal network that runs the city. He employs JGL's character, young Joe, as a LOOPER. His job is to be in a certain place at a certain time, and kill whoever has been sent back from the future for a hell of a lot of silver. Trick is though, one day you will come face to face with yourself in the field - a mind fuck to say the least, and then you're supposed to kill your old self, termed: "closing the loop". For some reason, loops are being closed on a much more frequent basis. And surprise, surprise, it's not long before JGL comes face to face with Bruce Willis kneeling in front of him. A questionable casting perhaps, and in the moment that JGL is pondering how he became John McClane, the old Joe springs into action and escapes. Failing to close a loop is punishable by death, and so now there's Jeff Daniels chasing young Joe, chasing old Joe.

my god I want this poster

The greatest part about Looper is that it's incredibly simple in its explanation of how things in the present affect the future. Young Joe, for example, scars his arm to write "Beatrix" in order to get old Joe's attention for a meet at their favourite restaurant. The latter then informs young Joe that there's another waitress who works on weekends called "Jen" that would have been a better choice; but with age comes wisdom, aye? They talk. And young Joe learns that someone called the "Rainmaker" is closing all the loops whilst tearing shit up in a police state America 30 years later - it is, according to old Joe, therefore crucial they find and kill all of the three possible "Rainmakers"; who are nowt but a toddler in 2044. 

some questionable face SFX

All of this polarises the two Joes, who have differing opinions on child murder. The old Joe buggers off to make some regrettable decisions, whilst the young 'un uncovers the location of one of the possible "Rainmaker" children: a farm where Sara (Emily Blunt) is a badass mother/farmer/shotgun wielder who lets Joe help protect her child, Cid. As young Joe and Sara become close, he learns she is telekinetic - a genetic mutation that 10% of the population have, however most are unable to do much more than lift coins. Sara is slightly more proficient, as is her son. Meanwhile, old Joe is on a war path. Having lost his dear wife in the future, he is determined to do anything in his power to find the "Rainmaker" and stop his life from unravelling. Even going on one of the best-action directed rampages at Jeff Daniels' head quarters that you'll see this year.

think Kevin Smith would like to go back and un-direct that one, too

The director, Rian Johnson, really surprises in Looper  with some excellent cinematography and action editing, and at points feels more like a neo-noir than a time travel fiction. And a neo-noir/time travel film is a hard thing to do, least of all do well. But Johnson really excels in his first real shot at the big time. It's as if he's come back from the future as a master writer/director. Sure he's helped by a stellar cast, and one of the best JGL performances of his career, but the film is genius from start to finish. The dialogue is witty, the idea well executed, and the finale outstanding. We'll be watching Looper again, and again, and again, and again...

not quite as good as Groundhog Day, however.

43/50 STATES

REVIEW - KILLING THEM SOFTLY

Set against the backdrop of the 2008 Presidential election, America and its inhabitants find themselves in a precarious position. With the red guy promising to return the US to its former "glory", while the blue guy promises "change". I've inverted both because Killing Them Softly is a film that sets out to debate  both these claims. The opening sequence is perfectly jarring in its juxtaposition of an Obama's speech with intermittent cutting between the decadence of a post-Katrina New Orleans - the direction America is headed is still up for debate. Meanwhile, there's some killing to do. 

and they say money can't buy happiness

We are introduced to Frankie and Russel, two low time crooks who have fallen on harder times - the poor fuck Russel is Australian. They're promptly hired by Squirrel, played by Vince Curatola (Johnny Fucking Sac! for all you Sopranos fans), to roll over a high stakes poker game run by Markie Trattman. Markie is played by Ray Liotta, who clearly has let himself go somewhat since the glory days of Goodfellas; he's a disheveled shell of a gangster, hitting his own poker games to make quick bucks. Thus the set up seems perfect: Frankie and Russel rob the game, and immediately the finger points back to Markie. A victimless crime! Except that would make for one helluva boring mob film.

tony soprano playing tony soprano

Introducing Jackie, who puts the P.I. in Pitt and quickly the little scheme is uncovered. He is contracted by a nameless suit (played by Richard Jenkins), whose identity remains a mystery throughout the film, to turn the mess into a body count. He's going to need a bit of help though, so in flys James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano) to lend a helping hand. Reunited the first time since The Mexican - another great Pitt movie if you have a spare few hours - Pitt and Soprano sit in a bar (a table I would do anything to pull up a chair to) and discuss business in what is arguably the best scene of the film. Turns out Soprano is becoming disillusioned with the recession, and proceeds to drink + hooker himself into early retirement, sadly ruining the promise of a Tony vs. Johnny Sac finale for the Sopranos fans. Jackie is well and truly alone.

Obama style?

Y'see, in an economy fueled by gambling - be that stock breaking or business deals gone wrong, the mob style mentality of an unidentified corporate America has plunged the country into dire circumstances. To reuse an earlier phrase: there is no victimless economy. Thus the poker game/entire plot of Killing Them Softly is simply one big, meaty, Soprano filled analogy for contemporary America. Hell, maybe Pitt is even supposed to represent Obama? Ok, maybe that was pushing the analogy one step too far, but the effort was there. The film is a really interesting semiotically, and one that allows various readings, of which I'm sure there will be many. It also treats its audience to some sublime editing and some of the prettiest cinematography you ever did see in a quasi-gangster film - some of the death scenes are anything but soft.

KILLING THEM SOFTLY WITH HIS SONG...

Killing them Softly has a lot to say, I'm just not sure it's fully articulate to its audience. There will be some questionable reactions, and some of the dialogue can seem a little preachy at times - however, it's America so perhaps we can chalk that one down to environment. It's stylish, has plenty of action, lots of favourite mafia stars, and a dollop of a message to send to its viewers. The United States is going through its toughest economic period since the 80s, and there needs to be more films made like this one. Ultimately in a recession, crime still pays; just not as well.

42/50 STATES

REVIEW - THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

The release of Nolan's thrilling conclusion has been surrounded by anticipation, frantic guessing and unfortunately, tragedy. Events in Colorado have slightly marred the release of DKR, but one yank maniac could not stop hordes of Batman faithful from flocking into cinemas on opening weekend; nor could he stop scores of ridiculous journalists from flooding the print and internet with various spoilers. Have no fear, if you are yet to feast your eyes on Bale and co. then this review will ruin nothing. It will, instead, contain some of the worst batman jokes you've ever heard. Apologies in advance.

thankfully not literally: "Batman Forever"

What did Batman say to Robin before they got into the Batmobile?

Get in the car, Robin.

Val Kilmer had his go, as have many others over the years - and so the challenge with adopting a series like this becomes how to define yourself against a back catalogue of all-too-similar Batmans. Nolan's great success from this series has been rooted in his ability to shroud the film in his unique aesthetic and avoid slipping into the established, boring, familiar genre tropes of shoddy superhero films. On the fast track to becoming an Auteur, his filmography reads dark, stylish, and unpredictable - accompanied by his brother, Jonathan, he has forged some of the most perplexingly brilliant stories that every screenwriter wishes they had penned. Oh, and he has a little help from an ensemble of actors he strings across his films: Leo, Hardy, Bale, Caine, Freeman, Neeson, not to forget...

the man married Uma Thurman

Why is Batman's voice so deep?

Because he suffers from larynJUSTICE

DKR picks up where the Dark Knight left off. Bruce has become somewhat of a Howard Hughes character - shut away from Gotham, entrapped by a city that has falsely exiled Batman, in favour of an equilibrium of peace achieved by the Dent act. The film opens at a benefit held at the newly built Wayne manor, where Commissioner Gordon is about to expose Harvey Dent for his true character; however at the last moment decides to pocket the speech, deciding Gotham is not yet ready for some hard truths. This is also the setting for the introduction of one of the most fondly awaited moments for the male viewing community: Catwoman. And Anne Hathaway does not disappoint, minxing her way onto the screen and into Wayne's private quarters (not like that) where she nabs his Mother's ol' pearls, you know the ones from Batman Begins, before escaping down a pipe (again, not like that). Brief introduction and sexy screen time done with, the film then hurtles into the main storyline with a ferocious pace that it never relinquishes. Introducing Bane.

kiddy got clawz

What happens when Batman sees Catwoman?

The Dark Knight Rises

Hijacking the Gotham stock exchange is no easy feat, unless you're Tom Hardy in a breathing mask. Making light work of a few guards and bankrupting the Wayne Corporation in a matter of minutes, Bane thrusts Bruce into gear; despite the best words of cockney wisdom from ol' Michael Caine, he dons the suit once more. Hot on the tail of Bane and Batman, the Gotham PD make a somewhat ill advised decision to go after the masked vigilante. However, aided with a new toy from Fox, aptly named "The Bat", we see Bruce take to the air and make it back safely to his now liquidated Batcave. He now has his prerogative of the film, stop whatever the hell Bane is planning. With only Gordon, Blake (new detective played by Gordon-Levitt), and Catwoman even believing Bane exists; Wazza enlists the help of Hathaway to guide him to Bane's sewer hide out. In a confrontation and the first real bout of fistycuffs of the film, Bane breaks, destroys and generally beats the Bat out of Bruce. He then informs our caped crusader that the League of Shadows are firmly in his control, and on the move to fulfil what Bruce only delayed in the opener of the trilogy - to destroy Gotham.

superb fight sequences

How does Batman's mother call him for Dinner?

dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, BATMAN!

Bane then makes the very common super villain mistake, he keeps Bruce alive. Choosing to place him in the supposed worst prison in the world to teach him a lesson of subversion - to reduce someone that had everything, to nothing. Herein lies the main thesis of the film, and back at Gotham a similar project is already underway. The ruling class go on "trial" to be "sentenced" by the Scarecrow, where they are offered the choice between exile over the frozen river or death; tough. All the while the criminals loot, pillage and have their way over the city. There's no surprise, then, that this is probably Nolan's darkest looking Batman (although it's mighty close between the 3) - embedding Gotham and the prison with dark hues and shadows, the camera rarely sees any light; couple that with morose performances from Bale, Hardy & Hathaway. But just as Bruce's father once asked - why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up, Weezy! In Batman & Gotham's darkest fall yet, the question is whether there's enough energy left in weary legs to do so. 

"shut the fuck up, crime"

What's Batman's favourite fruit?

Ba na na na na na na na na na na na na na na n-GRAPEFRUIT

That's as far as I want to go regarding plot development, I fear any more comments would be dangerously bordering on spoilers. Ultimately, it's everything you thought it would be, and more. There's regular witty one liners, an overall sheen of incredibly stylised cinematography, some phenomenal action sequence editing, a stupendously sexy Anne Hathaway & some cunning twists and turns that will keep even the most seasoned viewer honest. Nolan indulges his audience in everything we've become accustomed to since Batman Begins those short 7 years ago. And in my opinion some of the negative reviews have become just that - too comfortable and unappreciative. Also ignore anyone that says you can't understand Bane, wash your ears folks. Arguably the finest 2 hours and 45 minutes of cinema this year, DKR has a very special and unique feel as the finale of the second best trilogy this side of the Millennia (LOTR). I take my Bathat off to you Nolan. And i'm not at all sorry for the jokes.

46/50 States

SPECIAL - INSIDE TARANTINO'S MIND

There are many questions that arise from watching Tarantino films: why is QT so obsessed with feet? whatever happens to Mr. Pink? do they speak English in "What"?  are a few that spring to mind. Theories have been posed, forums flooded, but an air of mystery still lingers around QT's filmography.  A couple of days ago I stumbled upon this great short called: "Inside Tarantino's Mind" - made by a duo of Brazilian directors, it has a Coffee & Cigarettes-esque feel to a discussion surrounding recurring motifs and characters in QT's films, and exposes Tarantino's remarkable resemblance to Roger Federer.

Wimbledon just got a whole lot more interesting

Do a bit of googling and you can soon find plenty of articles on Tarantino's alternate universe theory, one I've become increasingly interested in. I don't feel QT really gets the credit he deserves. Sure he looks like a raging pervert, but for Christ's sake, the man made a Neil Diamond song seem fucking cool. he's made the films every aspiring writer wished he/she had inked. But it's much bigger than that. You see all of Tarantino's films - the ones he's written and directed - are all inexplicably linked by more than just a brand of cigarettes.

seriously, Neil - fucking - Diamond

The theory begins with the first movie universe, a realer than real world in which True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds and the upcoming Django Unchained are set. Predominately established by character relations - for example: Mr. White had worked with Alabama from True Romance + Mr. Blonde (Vic Vega) and Vincent Vega are brothers. QT has confirmed this and stated he once had plans to make a prequel to Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, which would've been set in Amsterdam - sadly now Travolta has too many years and massages under his belt. 

under the belt, geddit?

Expand this further - the "Bear Jew", aka Donny Donowitz, is the father of movie producer Lee Donowitz from True Romance. In QT's movie universe, all the characters have grown up learning how a faction of commando Jews de-scalped hundreds of Nazis, eventually machine gunning Hitler's face until it looked nothing more than a spilled bowl of salsa. The argument goes that because WWII ended in dramatic fashion in a movie theatre, everyone in this universe lends a far greater significance to popular culture - debating Madonna's Like a Virgin over breakfast becomes common place, and everyone has a much more in depth knowledge of cinema and TV. Since the war was won in a perilous act of hyper-violent slaughter, everyone is also more desensitized to murder - think Butch and Esmerelda the cab driver's sexualisation of violence, Vincent Vega's distinct lack of real worry when he shoots Marvin in the face, and last but not least - Mr. Blonde's pure glee as he slices, tortures and jives around to Steeler's Wheel.

common place in the QT world

With me so far? Good, 'cause this is where shit starts to hit the fan. Y'see, inside the first universe, there lies another. QT has gone on record as saying that Kill Bill and From Dusk 'til Dawn take place in what he deemed a "movie-movie universe" - that is, they are movies that characters from the first universe (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, etc.) would go and see in cinemas. Kill Bill, after all, is essentially Fox Force Five, right down to Mia Wallace playing the title role. And who would make these super violent cavalcades you ask? Son of "bear jew" of course! Nobody is better placed to come up with these movies than Lee Donowitz, produced in a world where America's crowning victory was locking a bunch of people in a movie theatre and blowing it to smithereens. 

"Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead."

Right. So basically now we've got every single one of Tarantino's films placed. In this theory he made them all within one overarching world, which is fucking genius. There's so many little details that you can notice if you really look for them. For example, props in the first universe also appear as popular culture references in the movie-movie universe. In Pulp Fiction, Butch butchers Zed with a sword made by none other than Hattori Hanzo - a fictional Hattori Hanzo then grafts the Bride her new toy in Kill Bill. Red Apple cigarettes are famously smoked by all in the first universe, but appear predominately as advertisements in the movie-movie. The same way Malboro, for example, might be injected into films for the same purpose. 

Finally, the briefcase! The contents of which have been up for debate since '94. How about if I told you that Vince and Jules were sent to retrieve the briefcase of diamonds that were stolen from Mr. Pink at the end of Reservoir Dogs. Sound plausible? It would make sense seeing as the Vega brothers are the link between the crime syndicates of Joe and Marsellus, and it explains the glow that emits from the case each time it opens. So there you have it. A rough QT fan theory that you may, or may not, buy into. Personally I'd like to believe. But all I'm sure of is that I cannot fucking wait for Django Unchained, as it predates the chronology of Inglourious (which should be interesting), and it looks absolutely rad.

best xmas present ever