MOVIE REVIEW: Django Unchained (2012)

Dear Quentin Tarantino: I've long admired your work since I first saw Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction when I was 16 years old. Since the release of Inglourious Basterds nearly four years ago, you've convinced me that it's entirely possible to forge historical fiction out of pulpy, B-movie tropes and make them chillingly relevant, whilst being overwhelmingly entertaining. The closest comparison I can make to this technique are postmodern adaptations of Shakespeare I've seen developed for theatre, but even that is a loose comparison. Here, the execution with Django Unchained, while controversial, is absolutely flawless.

1858, the American South. German dentist King Shultz purchases Django, a slave, from a travelling slave-owner. Dr. Shultz shoots the slave-owner, dead and frees his captives. He reveals to Django he is actually a bounty hunter and trains Django to be his apprentice. After a year of lucrative exploits, Django reveals to Shultz he has a wife, Broomhilda. Enchanted by their personal history (due to a coincidental connection with her name to German lore), Shultz agrees to help Django find Broomhilda, who happens to be owned by a wealthy plantation owner named Calvin Candie. Candie also happens to be sadistic, shrewd, and morally corrupt; a fact the duo must deal with in order to leave with Broomhilda, and their lives.

Django is essentially a spaghetti western set amidst a pre-American Civil War, Deep South backdrop. Like my earlier comparison with Shakespeare, here, the setting is Tarantino's canvas, and the genre serves as his colors. The heroes of spaghetti westerns were typically regarded as social outcasts or marked men who had nothing to lose in order to reach their goals. Django is a freed slave, but gains individual strength upon his freedom and legendary status (because in 1858, an African-American, in dapper attire on a horse is going to draw attention). The stories usually dealt with reclaiming lost love or gold, here we get both, and with the similar quality of blood-soaked, graphic violence that made counterculture American westerns like The Wild Bunch so notorious. It's a daring artistic proposition, that entertainingly pays off.

Aside from the violence, the only thing that will potentially repel viewers from Django is the blatant displays of racism portrayed in the film. Yet, the racism in Django, while a subconscious political statement, is really a dramatic device used by Tarantino to remind viewers of how society viewed each other during this time period (one sequence involving a pre-KKK movement comes off as comically brilliant). Interestingly, I remember hearing very little about the anti-German sentiment and antisemitism that was portrayed in Inglourious Basterds. It is my personal opinion, as horrible as they are, that historical depictions of racism must avoid censorship, as a reminder of how far away we've matured as a society, and as a lesson why we should never tolerate them again.

Bold, ingenious, audacious. Django Unchained is currently my favorite film of 2012.

10/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

Revisionist/alternative history is slowly becoming a favorite genre of mine. About a year ago, I read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, also by Seth Grahame-Smith. I thought it was moderately enjoyable, having not read the Jane Austen novel, I couldn't appreciate the throwback references. However, when I caught wind of a film adaptation for one of his works; Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, I had to give it a shot.

Seeking revenge for the murderer of his mother, a young Abe Lincoln is rescued by a self-proclaimed vampire hunter, who begins to train him to be America's answer to Van Helsing. He learns that American vampires were descended from one in New Orleans, and have plans to turn the nation into a land of undead. Lincoln enters politics, and becomes President, but somehow needs to find a way to protect his secret identity from his family and the nation, in order to avoid opening a Pandora's Box of fear upon America.

AL:VH is basically a story of style over substance. I don't know if it was the storyline or the hammy, theatrical approach to the acting that resulted in something lost in translation for me, but the execution of the narrative for some reason didn't click with me. In fact, I got a little bored with a good chunk of the story. Fortunately, the film has enough action to spare, and comes off as very over-the-top yet grand when juxtaposed against the Civil War setting. While in the end, I didn't have much to say about the film as a whole, I appreciated it's sense of spectacle and look forward to the next Grahame-Smith adaptation...just as long as they work on tweaking the script a bit more.

6/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Silent Night (2012)

Yes Virginia, there are killer Santa films. Quite a few in fact, although none of them in particular have been very good. Silent Night in fact happens to be a "loose remake" of a controversial 80s slasher called (more pretentiously) Silent Night Deadly Night. I have seen the original before, and by all means, it's one tasteless, sick puppy of a film. It's not enjoyable by any stretch if you're looking for entertainment, but requires the viewer to suspend some moral fiber in case it might offend (a couple shots of strong eggnog will help). I have no interest in reviewing it for the sake of my sanity, but I came across the remake out of low expectations that maybe they tried something different and markedly improved. The result? Yes, but not by much...

In a small, Wisconsin town on Christmas Eve, the Sherriff and his young, attractive Deputy have responded to a bizarre murder where the killer has allegedly been sighted as wearing a Santa suit. That's bad news for the populace, because the town is so fired up for Christmas that they throw an annual Santa parade, complete with hundreds of potential suspects dressed as St. Nick. Each killing leads the duo to piece together a pattern to the murders, until they discover the killer Kringle's true motive.

The most distinct aspect this film has going for it is the police procedural, mystery edge to the story, that's helmed by the Sherriff and Deputy. The problem is, it's done a little clumsily, with a lot of guess-work going on in an attempt to create what ends up being poorly-written suspense that's barely worthy of "CSI." The rest is typical, ultra-violent, slasher fare with creative "kill-scenes" that are obviously a throwback to the 80s - bratty girl electrocuted by cattle prod, topless porn actress fed into a woodchipper, elf-clad blonde impaled on deer antlers (which also happened in the original) - I swear, I'm not making any of this up. Surely there's a core audience who...appreciates...this sort of stuff. Most of the time, I was either wincing or raising my eyebrows in disbelief.

I guess what the film does have going for it is Jamie King's performance as the Deputy, since she really manages to come off as the only relatable character in the entire story. Even the killer's identity feels like something of an afterthought, tacked onto the "meh" screenplay and leaving the door open for a possible slew of direct-to-DVD sequels. Also, let's face it: Most of my generation was raised on a diet of chipper Christmas films, only to discover "alternative" fare like Gremlins, or Die Hard in later years. I always welcome something "different" for the holidays. The only difference between those films and Silent Night, is that they were better films.

6/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Hello everyone, hope you're all enjoying your holidays. I've been back from school for roughly about a week, but have resumed blogging after a week of decadence. I just needed some "me" time, but now I'm done. Anyway, for the first of my three reviews, here's The Hobbit.

Most Tolkien fans are already familiar with the story: prior to Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Bilbo Baggins is paid a visit by Gandalf and a group of dwarves who he joins on a quest to reclaim their kingdom from a threatening dragon. Although Bilbo is reluctant at first, he discovers a sense of adventure amidst the journey, including a fateful encounter with a wayward hobbit named Gollum and "The One Ring."

Putting it nicely, The Hobbit is to Lord of the Rings what the Star Wars prequels are to the original trilogy. Some may cry blasphemy at my comparison, but I generally enjoyed those films, even if they were wholly inferior in comparison to their predecessors. The Hobbit dazzles viewers with the help of a ten-year advance in special effects between the series. Although I did not see the film in it's controversially ground-breaking, "soap opera-like" 48 frames-per-second, I've seen enough film and TV on LCD projections that I know it's really best served for films like these where the "smoothness" makes the CGI less obvious. At 169 minutes, it's a long endeavor, but with enough adventure, imagination, and distinct characters that it will keep your attention.

The Hobbit's biggest flaw is that it's esotericism comes with a strong reliance on comic relief, whereas viewers unfamiliar with Tolkien at the time Lord of the Rings was released (like me) were tenaciously drawn into the world of Middle Earth thanks to the trilogy's strong dramatic thrust. The Hobbit leans heavily on mild-frathouse humor, mostly from the dwarves. While it worked in bits and pieces in Rings, here it feels at times excessive, and borders on amateurish. Mature audiences (like my parents) will likely be bored by these antics, but the target teenage audience will likely gobble it up.

Most sentimentally, The Hobbit is a welcome reunion to Middle Earth for characters that were originally introduced in the series, and then some. I doubt it will win serious artistic accolades, but as a technical powerhouse, it is a force to be reckoned with.

7/10

Peace,
- Jon