Killer Joe

                  

Crime, deceit, and fried chicken with white trash in Texas. 'Killer Joe' combines the odd characters and winding story of Coen brothers films with the rough smart dialogue of a Tarantino picture, without quite matching the level of the classics of either director.

It's basically about a father, his girlfriend, his virginal daughter (who always seems to understand and is off in some special creepy kind of a way, but whom no one ever really listens too), dumbass young Jack Black-looking brother, and a charismatic somewhat scary stranger (an early role for Matthew McConaughey). There's also a mother, but I like how we never see her, we just hear about what a shit she is all the time. The films focus is more on the changing hearts of the two kids.

                

                 

It's slow to get started, but once it does there are excellent twists in tone, without it being irritatingly jarring or confusing. They're often more like the tension shifts of 'Goodfellas' or Tarantino's better films.

I really liked most aspects of this movie. The characters (well cast, acting was pretty solid throughout and fantastic as far as McConaughey goes), dialogue and plot, but I wasn't a fan of much of the cinematography. 'Killer Joe' was adapted from a play, and you can totally tell. There's a lot of talking, which I don't count as a bad thing, but it's in the lighting and camera that I think it could be improved. Each scene feels very much like a Scene, with the camera not only never crossing the line of action, but rarely doing anything particularly imaginative, and the lighting kinda feeling like stage lighting, with simplistic spots or basic ambients used mostly. It doesn't make the film no fun to watch, but it did break my immersion, as I kept getting reminded that this was a play. 'The Lord of the Rings' doesn't have a narrators voice endlessly describing the mountains etc, so why not have a little imagination in the conversion from theatre to film too?

Overall a good movie though. The points I have against it I feel that many wouldn't be that fussed about, and there's a lot to like here (though maybe lay off the KFC while watching).

                   

Killer Joe: 69.6

Orgazmo

                     

An early production from the duo that would eventually bring us 'South Park', to my pleasure they're already taking shots at Mormons.

A comically pious Mormon is forced into becoming a porn star, and must hide the fact from his wife while fighting crime on the side as his alter-ago Orgazmo (with sidekick Choda Boy), who has the power of shooting a laser at people that gives them orgasms. 'Orgasmo' is a lot of fun all the way through, despite not having a very hard grasp of its own plot - the majority of its middle portion is a thinly veiled series of wacky events. It's done far less obnoxiously than many of these dumb comedies though (and when I say “dumb” it's not an insult so much as my own term for a stylistic choice).

                 

                 

There's almost a surplus of inventive and personal humour. You can tell it's an early creation of Parker and Stone, as you could see many of the hallmarks of their comedy in early stages of development. The resultant film is a busy mix of ideas; some under baked, some spot-on.

I feel like I know the work of the directors enough by now that if I saw this film without anyone telling me that they directed (and if I somehow missed the cameos) id have guessed that they were somehow involved. I also really appriciated all the male asses they tricked me into seeing, thanks for that guys (at one point it's just a straight cut to ass, brilliant).

                      

Orgazmo: 44.0

Surrogates

              

'Surrogates' looks slick, and the cinematography creates an expensive sci-fi thriller aura. The premise is also pretty good, though its execution and the world building is often terrible. Once we get into the details of the premise - that robotic “surrogates” have become a thing (safer, your choice of body, etc) it begins to break down (like, what, everyone in the world owns one of these things? The only people who don't use them all the time are the ones who protest it on a religious/moral level? What do these things cost, a dollar?) Also, all the tech other than the robot people is the same as it is today, making the robots really stand out and creating a fault in the believability of the fiction. The rest of the world needs to fit the sexy robots, really.

          

          
It also totally lacks subtlety, and fails to look too deeply into the morality problems that the film's premise creates (which is arguably the main component of any good sci-fi).
It still provides a reasonably engaging thriller plot though, and gives Willis plenty of opportunities to crash cars, jump through fires, and generally do what he does. I don't he was the best choice to lead the film though, as a more subtle and less action-orientated actor could have starred in a more thoughtful and character-driven movie.

             

Surrogates: 35.4

Samurai Cop

                 

This is great. It's terrible and silly, but in just the right way to be very, very fun. It has, deservedly, a cult following, and a sequel was been made decades after the original, with the original lead! 

It follows a fairly simple plot: the heroes start a case, the villains are introduced, and then each one is killed off during the second and third acts. Plenty of serious thrillers follow this formula, but it's done so obviously here that plot details don't ever get in the way of the silly action. It's the kind of film that's good to watch with people and talk over it. Oh yeah, and there are a wealth of sex scenes. About every fifth shot at least has nudity in it, so that's good.

                   

                      

This is the kind of film that wouldn't work if it was at all self aware. The fact that it takes itself seriously even while the lead is chopping a henchman's arm off or hanging out of a car to shoot at a van full of baddies is hilarious, as is the game that viewers can play of spotting when the lead has real hair and when he's wearing a wig (they had to do re-shoots but by the time they got a hold of him he had cut his hair). The bizarre cinematography, over-the-top violent action, awkward romance sub-plot, terrible acting, and the non stop pace (apart from the sex scenes, which tended to go on for about five minutes more than they needed too) only make this piece of crap more of a gem. 

Oh, and Robert Z'Dar plays one of the main villains! Anything heavy on the Z'Dar you know is going to be quality trash.

              

Samurai Cop: 34.1

Demolition Man

           

This is the most entertaining Taco Bell advert I've ever seen! 

         

Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes and Sandra Bullock (delivering a tolerable performance for once) lead in this comedy action sci-fi flick about a badass cop from the near future of 1996 who gets frozen as punishment for apparently causing the deaths of an entire plane (or bus? I wasn't listening) load of civilians. He is then brought back in the ultra PC and sterile distant future of 2032 to combat Snipes, a 'Mad Max'-esque villain. 

I like the world concept for this one, and as it often goes the best part of the film is in the first half hour when we're being introduced to everything. The future is a very clean prim place, where you can complain at a booth if you're not in a good mood or you have low self esteem, where you get automatically fined for swearing, and where salt and trans fat is illegal. It's fun seeing Stallone wake up in this world and clumsily make his way about it, but then once he starts to get the hang of it the film becomes more of a generic sci-fi action film. The violence and explosions uild to a crescendo that ends with Snipes being frozen and his head getting kicked off and smashing to “don't loose your head” from Stallone. Sigh.

                    

               

Fine. It's fun. It could have been clever too though, ya know. This iteration of a future world is one explored less often in film, so this felt like a missed opportunity in that respect. The introduction was great, but it felt like the writers quickly ran out of steam when it came to explanations, and then we find out that one guy made everything and everyone like this? And he's not the president of the world or anything, he's just in charge of the LA area, so what's happening in the rest of the world? We never know, but for some reason all of society is on the verge of collapsing when this guy dies, despite the majority of the population honestly believing in his ideals anyway. I don't get why the movie has to end in a big assumed change to the system.

                   

Demolition Man: 48.0

RoboCop

                 

This is a fine action sci-fi film. It just didn't need to be another 'RoboCop' movie. It took itself a little too seriously for my liking, becoming plain old social commentary rather than the gross-out absurd satire of the original. 

A good example of this is the Fox style situation room type thing presented by Samuel L Jackson. It was alright, it was just never that funny. I get the point - I'd just like to be enjoying the movie on more than one level as I do. It pales in contrast to the brilliant news shorts and adverts in the original film, which I looked forward to during the movie. I get that they tried to go at it from a different direction, and in a way I appreciate that, but while it's fine (but not great) as it's own thing, it's obviously going to be compared to the original.

                    

                        

And there's not enough gore! No mutated toxic waste guys being hit by cars and exploding in this one. There's far more of a focus on the family, taking a more traditional western film style. I hated this, but each to their own. Keeping in the Hollywood trend, the wife and son characters were generic and boring. 

The villains weren't even as hateable as in the original. The action sequences were fine, but nothing too memorable. Same goes for the cinematography, which worked until they tried something interesting at which point it tended to feel awkward.

               

RoboCop: 36.2

The Fugitive

               

The term “formula film making” usually has negative connotations - it does for me, at any rate, but what we have here is the epitome of formula. There isn't a scene in this film that makes me think “wow! What an original angle/plot arc/cut/etc” but it still works brilliantly as a well oiled, tried and tested machine rather than something more innovative and quirky.

                  

             

We follow Harrison Ford (in one of his best non sci-fi roles) and Tommy Lee Jones (perfectly cast and as great as ever) as a doctor who's been falsely accused of murdering his wife, and the agent tasked with finding him. As the film progresses Ford evades the police and simultaneously begins to solve his wife's murder, leaving clues for Jones (who is extremely capable, as are many of his men, which is refreshing) as he goes. Though the two leads only meet briefly, Jones is smart enough to get a good handle on Ford's character, and the two build an interesting sort of long distance relationship that's honestly pretty thrilling to see come to it's conclusion, as the two finally meet and Jones tells Ford that now they can rest. I love the flip (or rather dig down) in his character here, as their first words to one another are:

                   

Ford: “I didn't kill my wife.”

Jones: “I don't care.” 

               

And that was ad libbed - isn't that great?

           

                

The plot involves lots of evasive close calls and tension, and while this is formulaic, it's done so well here that I can't fault it. For much of the movie I was thinking “ah, but the murderer isn't being very well fleshed out or introduced to our character, that's bad” but the twist towards the end got me and I rescinded my earlier brain comment.

What I like most about this thriller is that it's intelligent - character and plot, rather than action, drive the story forward, and it crackles with adrenalin as it does so. Tension is built and plot points are revealed so expertly that one could pause the film, go warm up some spaghetti bolognese (um... this is just an example), and come back to continue it, and be completely sucked back into it's world within a few minutes (so much so that one may forget about one's spag bol, let it get cold, then curse it back into the oven with some fresh cheese on top later on). The minor players are characterised really well too (and without them falling into cliché holes), even when they only have a few minutes of screen time.

An all-round belter of a thriller. It's a little over two hours, but I wish it was longer. A fast pace, clipped dialogue and solid acting makes this one of my favourite films of it's genre.

                     

The Fugitive: 81.0

Looper

                

Well that was better than I was expecting. Bruce Willis stars as something other than the usual action movie guy (well, kinda). And we get to watch a neo-noir sci-fi with an original story that came out of Hollywood (something I don't think can be said about any other film from the past decade).

I say original, but what I really mean is "not based off a book or a French movie" (to the best of my knowledge). I don't want to hype this film too much - it's not perfect - but it was head and shoulders above anything since... 'Moon'? 

              

                    

Well 'Moon' was SO much better, but this one was pretty good. The plot is complex enough to be thought provoking without being too difficult or walking the viewer through it. It slows down a little one we get to the farm, and I got a bit bored before the finale came around (also, they couldn't help but wedge in a Willis-killing-hundreds-of-baddies scene). It almost felt like two different movies, and I liked the first one much more.

The characterisation of the hero was the biggest upside for me. He's a great character, with plenty of inner turmoil, and I liked the differences between his older and younger self (also, I appreciated how they didn't go out of their way to make lots of jokes about it when the two meet).

The kid and his mum I cared less for, but they were fine. The whole concept was quite nice, and the world felt pretty real, though they didn't go into detail beyond the whole mob-come-time travel concept.

                   

Looper: 68.1

Mad Max

                         

Set a near apocalyptic (then post apocalyptic from the second movie on) story in Australia, add a dash of 'Wacky Races', and you get 'Mad Max'.

It's not particularly clever or funny, but it's definitely what it is. Shotguns, vehicles, and graphic explosions are this series' bread and butter.

                

                   

We come out a little slow with the first one though. The budget for this movie was miniscule $350k, and it shows despite the excellent action direction.

The spikes and skulls style of ornamentation in the later movies isn't present here, but we do get some nicely beaten up vehicles and a couple good chases. "Good" might be an understatement. This series has some of the best car chases in cinematic history, and this film has done amazingly well with what it could afford. Chases are really what this series does best, as we'll see in the next movie. I don't tend to care so much for characterisation in this series beyond how cool they look, and the evil gang in this one are also somewhat underplayed compared to the total mentalists in the other ones, which I found myself looking forward too.

This is a great film though, just not the strongest of the series. His wife/girlfriend is a good sympathetic character, they had some chemistry and a few nice scenes together without it getting boring, and it was a real bummer when she died (though that whole plot line was an awfully slow burner, when contrasted with the speed at which the film was wrapped up afterwards). Mainly though I just can't wait to re-watch the next one.

                   

Mad Max: 66.2

About Scout

                                   

These road trip get to know each other quirky suicidal teens thing is feeling a little played out now. I really liked 'Little Miss Sunshine', and I REALLY liked 'Donnie Darko' (which I feel had just the right amount of this feeling mixed in with sci-fi and creep-out horror) but 'About Scout' feels a bit on the nose.

The strengths here are the character actors, who all perform well and have a nice chemistry with one another. I didn't even find the little girl that annoying. However their backgrounds are only skimmed over to the point where we can identify what flavour of character trope they are, before they're thrust together for wacky races.

               

                 

There are also plenty of plot holes, jumps in logic, and many weird choices are made by the characters that don't really make sense on close inspection. It edges dangerously close to 'Juno' levels of cutsey quirky crap now and then too.

It was basically fine though, the sisters were cute together and I liked the guy (though that might just be because he reminded me of lots of other characters that I like – his back story was never really gotten into in any meaningful way, beyond an opening scene and a few 'The Great Gatsby' references).

                       

About Scout: 37.0

Chappie

                          

So this is like a gritty South African 'Short Circuit 2' with the bad guy from 'Robocop'. It's another one from Neill Blomkamp, who did 'District 9' and... um... remember 'District 9'?

                 

                        

It's fairly sloppy narrative-wise, and the actual science elements are at first a little off but soon become increasingly nonsensical. I know it's science fiction, but it should at least stick to the rules that it initially lays out, right? Otherwise it's just a mess.

I also have a problem with the cheapness of the d'awe factor. Chappie has bunny ears, and wakes up cowering, and is generally adorable (the "you go sleep-weepy" and acting gangster bits were particularly cringy). I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure it would take ages to develop a seamless AI, to the point where it would be difficult to draw the line at where it becomes “alive” (to be honest I think there's only something special about consciousness because we're looking out from inside of it, but whatever). He would probably just be a normal supercomputer for a while, then emulate human emotions increasingly well until it becomes impossible to tell that he's emulating them, right? I mean that's what we do. Have you seen a baby? Cats are closer to me or you than a fresh one. And cats are idiots. It bothers me because I sort of fell for the cutesy crap (more than I would if it was coming from a human child, in what is possibly a bad sign) but I don't want to be your cuteness whore, movie.

Oh and a lot of the story elements are re-heated from other works. Some of the character motivation was also questionable, the plot often moving it's pawns around in order to reach action packed conclusions. Oh and the ending was extremely sappy and the massive jump forward was unbelievable.

It wasn't all bad though. The effects were both excellent and seamless (obviously) and most of the acting was pretty spot on (though none of the characters felt that much like real people, but this was more of a scripting problem). Sigourney Weaver and Hugh Jackman are weird additions, and both seem kinda bored, but Dev Patel does well. It was also a fairly compelling watch, keeping my attention despite misfiring with it's pacing several times. I was gripped towards the end though, but that was ruined by the dumb ending.

                      

Chappie: 36.1

RoboCop 3

                   

We go a full fifteen minutes without even seeing the big guy in this one, and then once we do he's making cutesy small-talk and shooting criminals with barely any gore at all - some guy gets shot in the chest and all we see if a red stain on his shirt! This isn't the 'RoboCop' I know...

The third entry in the series is a gore-less, bland, child-filled, 1.75 hour long death scene. It pales in comparison with the first movie - even the second one. The things that feel the same just makes the whole experience more depressing. While he still sounds and looks like the RoboCop of old, he's shooting guns out of peoples hands and causing explosions rather than just shooting the shit out of people. There isn't even that much swearing, and 0 drugs and nudity. It's terrible, and it's not even slightly smart anymore. The message here is that... what? Japanese companies take over lazy American ones? English people are bad guys? The OCP is evil? I mean those first two are obvious, and the third has already been drummed into us in the last two movies. And here it is done so sloppily, with all the characters being totally black and white.

                      

                        

But RoboCop fights a Japanese robot samurai, so that's good, right? Well, no - the battle between the two that had been built up for most of the film comes to nothing as RoboCop shoots his head off without the pair ever really battling. Later on another two turn up, but that doesn't go much more interestingly. To be fair though, I did like the scenes depicting OCP falling apart as they entered their state of “transition”. I could have used more of those.

Oh yeah, and RoboCop gets a jet pack. I couldn't have written it much lamer myself.

When taken in comparison with the first film, 'RoboCop 3' actively offends me. When taken as an early 90's dumb sci-fi action movie, it's just sort of meh.

                    

RoboCop 3: 22.8

RoboCop 2

                    

God do I hate kids.

                   

Movies are almost always ruined when they start pandering to them, and the 'RoboCop' series is no exception. It's not totally ruined yet, but one of the main villains is a child.

                  

                     

The violence is also somewhat toned down – no guy getting literally shot to pieces or melting in this one, and in the most potentially gross scenes the camera isn't on the gore for long. I'm not that into gore for the sake of it, but I think it's absence here takes some of the feeling of the original. There are still the usual cutaways to adverts etc. and the world isn't totally ruined, but this film is little more than a slightly less effective re-tread of the original.

There's still the third one, which I suppose I should talk about, but the franchise has basically lost it's spark at this point.

                     

RoboCop 2: 43.2

GETEVEN

                   

Yes, it's meant to be one word. Yes, it's meant to be in caps. Otherwise known as 'Road to Revenge', 'GETEVEN' has been giving me Neil Breen flashbacks (like nam flashbacks, but worse) since I first watched it a few weeks ago.

               

                   

The hero of the film/director/writer/etc. is very much Breen's LA cousin. He has a boring, yet well paid job in real life, and has used his money to fuel a mid-to-late-life crisis of a film in which he stars as a sort of magical James Bond super spy type character who everyone loves except for the bad guys - who are very clearly the bad guys and definately not anything else, OK?!

That whole paragraph was two sentences, and this whole movie is a pile of shit. There is a barely cohesive plot that I won't bother going into (but rest assured that it involves drugs, satanic ritual baby sacrifice, and an excruciatingly long sex scene), and the characters are all so badly drawn that they're difficult to describe in any detail that wouldn't out do the movie's actual script. It's not quite as horrific as most of Breen's stuff, but it's extremely close. The icing on the cake is that the guy (his name is John De Heart by the way, and here is the film's hilarious website, which I highly recommend even if you don't bother watching it) wrote and sang all the songs in the film, and even performs one during it. He looks so scared too, and is so quiet. I almost felt sorry for him, but then I remembered how hilariously crappy the movie I was watching was.

             

GETEVEN: 2.4

RoboCop

                                              

                           
If this movie wasn't so famous, and I hadn't already seen or heard of it, I'd go in with very low expectations. I mean, come on - "RoboCop"? Need I remind you of 'WolfCop'? But in a somewhat 'Starship Troopers' kind of a way, 'RoboCop' manages to both be silly-fun and draw a couple parrallels with the world we live in, and what it's turning into. All while driping in ultra-violence and sex and drugs and all that cool stuff.

And it got a lot right. Since then mega corporations are even more of a thing, privatisation seems to be sneaking into everything, and we take the militarization of the police pretty much for granted.

The other thing I really like about this movie is how it doesn't try too hard to build up our protagonists' back story. We get a couple short visuals of his wife and kid and we see him be sad about it but we don't spend too long on it and we never have to meet them, thank god. The violence is also really intense at times, and I like the effects (that bit where the guy drove into chemical waste, walked out all melty, was hit by a car and exploded like a water balloon was particularly, uh, memorable).
                            

                                

Not only were the characters tollerable, I actually liked them. Particularly the boardroom scenes, which I found a lot of fun. Not all the suits were completely evil, and there was a nice range of dark greys all throughout the movie. I liked the variation of antagonists, from the execs to the gang to the ED-209. The practical effects were excellent, by the way. The slightly jerky stop-motion worked for the 209, and a the makeup on RoboCop himself looked pretty great. His suit? The most expensive single part of the movie, I hear. Completely custom built, with that robotic gun holster really working.
An apparently dumb flashy action thriller that has a little more under the hood while still delivering the simple fun of watching people shoot the crap out of one another, 'RoboCop' is a good watch for just about anyone.
                   

RoboCop: 82.0

Miami Connection

               
An absurd and achingly of its time American martial arts action movie set in Miami and featuring the members of the band 'Dragon Sound' on their quest to rid the Floridan city of its thugs and biker-ninjas.
                 

               

You're probably making a few assumptions about what this movie is like now, huh? Well to be honest, you're pretty much right, but I liked it anyway.
The guy who wrote and directed it also played the lead, and apparently had to sell off a bunch of his tae-kwon-do places after the movie bombed on his own money. Ah well, at least it's picking up some speed in a niche "remember the 80's" sort of a way now.

The writing is terrible, the acting is impressively terrible, and the plot is pretty much as silly as a plot can be without trying to be. Twice the film actually just turns into a 'Top of the Pops' episode as we watch the band literally just perform a whole four minute song. It would be a total flop, if it wasn't for the damned enthusiasm that these lousy actors positively exude throughout. They are so obviously having fun, and putting their all into every scene, that I couldn't help but cheer them on as they beat up biker ninjas or whatever dumb thing it was that they were doing. It's all so quaint and fun that it feels like something modern made to be 80s - but it's not! That's why I like it - that and the laughs one has at the movie and how dumb the whole thing is.

I feel like the poster deserves its own paragraph: what the fuck?! I mean, I guess his face kinda looks like that but... Seriously? Why is his skin as folded as the creases in a fashionable dog, or his jacket? Why is there simultaniously a smaller version of himself near his crotch air-kicking a guy firing a sub-machine gun? Talking of his crotch, why do his jeans go so high up? Why are his arms so short - is that... is that meant to be forced perspective? And why, oh, WHY is that dumb scene with a guy taking a letter out of a mail box IN THE POSTER?!
Ok done - if that poster doesn't make you want to watch this bastard nothing will.
              

Miami Connection: 36.3

Green Room

            

I actually saw the premier to this one - the first movie premier I've ever been to. I feel all proper. This is an excellent slashy horror, with ample black humour and a large does of Patrick Stewart being a disturbingly convincing Nazi.

Opening with the necessary group of young people (these ones are in a band), we find them driving around and playing for small crowds and stealing petrol. There is a great establishing shot of their van, taken from above, with corn all around and an arching path running away from it to the road. Clearly the driver has fallen asleep, but we don't need to be told that so we just get to watch the rising sun on the tops of the corn as they wave to the wind. The are booked for what turns out to be a dud, but the interestingly haired guy said that he knew a place where they can get a well paying gig. It's full of white supremacists, but ah well.

               

                      

Things quickly fall to pieces when one of them witness a murder that the owner of the club wants to cover up, and most of the movie is spent under siege  in the green room. We get into the violence suddenly and brutally and there's a lot of gore, which you may not be expecting as the film is difficult to place genre-wise.

The gore effects are good, and the acting is pretty great (awesome from Patrick), but what this movie excels at is its cinematography. Now and then there is a closeup so intense that the background noises become muted and a ghostly choir plays. Mundane objects become the focus of intense scrutiny and are shown in huge detail while simultaneously being reduced to the core of what they feel like. My favourite example of this is with the closeup of the rough surface of an amp, with the unfocused shapes of raving skinheads in the background to a song that we can't hear. All I thought at the time was "how beautiful", but I could also almost feel the rough gritty texture of the amp - and that really is one of the first things I think of when I think of amps, and this film transmits texture in this one shot better than in almost any other that I've seen.

            

        

The cuts are also excellent, jolting the viewer from one extreme of light, space, or sound, to another. At one point one of the band members lowers a needle to a record, and music blares for a split second before we cut from the neon glow of the party to the soft light from the rising sun to see the silent aftermath.

As the plot fills with bodies, there are some fine death sequences, and the characters drop off in an order that never fails to surprise. It's a self-aware film, and some of its jokes have a subtle 'Scream' quality to them. The characters are all full of life and the situation also isn't wholly unbelievable, which lends the characters' actions yet more believably. I particularly enjoyed the down on his luck, yet hopeful and somewhat business-like punk guy who interviews them in the beginning, and the manager of the club, who never gets involved physically other than to mop up some of the blood, and who ends up walking to the nearest town and turning himself in. Stewart also gives a great performance as the lead Nazi; a guy I get the impression used to be a real violent psycho, but has since mellowed out into a nice old organised crime organiser. He manages to be very creepy as he's talking through the door to the green room, and then very weak looking at the end as he's caught in the forest.

Overall a very good horror/thrillery type thing. The ending even defies convention, as the groupie cuts off the last surviving band member before he can make the obligatory tying-it-all-together statement: "tell it to someone who gives a fuck".

           

Green Room: 69.1

Pulp Fiction

                 

Implicitly dialogue driven, with a host of characters who delight in talking shit, and roll their eyes at the earlier introspective personalities popularised by films like 'Taxi Driver'. While 'Reservoir Dogs' was a very "first movie" kind of first movie for Tarantino, he hits his stride with 'Pulp Fiction' in a way that I don't believe he has matched since (though he has come close a few times).
          

       

Like his earlier work, the timeline of 'Pulp Fiction is all over the place, and we learn of our character's personalities through a jumble of their deeds rather than a linear story line. While 'Reservoir Dogs' presents us with a series of flash backs though, this movie is set up as a series of stand alone little stories, the characters of which just happen to have been woven throughout each one. The name 'Pulp Fiction' is, of course, perfect for this movie, as is the poster (on the right) which ties in with the theme. It's one of the most accurately and imaginatively named films of all time, and the poster for it is probably my favourite movie poster of all time too (the only one that I've ever included in a review, so far).

The script is also fantastic, and such joy has clearly been taken in its creation that reading it is almost as much fun as watching the movie. To date it's the only script that I've ever bought - an original copy that I found in a second hand furniture place, complete with a ticket for an original showing of 'The Exorcist' used as a bookmark (which I also kept, of course) - and it's a very cool little book. The characters of many crime movies have very limited dialogue, and their personalities lean more heavily on their decisions and actions for development. Here though Tarantino's characters delight in their dialogue, telling long rambling stories to one another and chatting mindlessly as they drive around. In the case of Jules and Vincent in particular, this connotes a sense of innocence. They live easily and fairly free, in a way that many aspire to.
I really like Vincent, and he is one of the reasons why I like John Travolta so much. This was one of the high points of his characteristically up and down career, and I like seeing him here even more than I did in his earlier classics like 'Greece' and 'Saturday Night Fever'. His character is inept where Jules (Samuel L Jackson) is more to the point, and most of the his drama stems from trying to fix problems that he's accidentally caused. He's also always going to the loo, spitting in the face of movie tradition (apart from Japanese movies, where they often seem oddly obsessed with the flushing of toilets) as he announces "I've got to take a piss" and buggers off every few minutes. He's also hugely unlucky, as every time he does pop to the john he misses out on something. This all stems from his passing off of what Jules took to be a miracle (the pair were shot at many times, but all the bullets missed, seemingly passing through him). After this point the two characters split apart with Jules (in a state of spiritual enlightenment) starts having all the luck.

        

      

Now Jules is somewhat more of a loose cannon, who likes to quote bible passages as he kills people and has "Bad Motherfucker" on his wallet. Despite this, he's also more competent than his partner, who has a habit of making rookie mistakes (leaving your gun on a counter while you go into the bathroom of a mark, shooting one of your guys in the face, etc.). He's far more open to the idea of being saved by a miracle, and this is ultimately what saves him from meeting the untimely end of his friend. Side note: did you know that the actor credited literally as "the fourth man" in 'Pulp Fiction' has since had a sex change? Funny, huh? She looks good now anyway, though I've never seen her in anything else.
         

                
Both men work for Marsellus Wallace, who's a crime lord in the LA area. We don't get a good look at him for a while, seeing only the big plaster on the back of his head. There are a few interesting theories about why he has this plaster, by the way. My favourite is that it's covering the hole through which his soul was removed (by the devil?), which is the mystery glowing thing in the suitcase (a MacGuffin that Vince and Jules are stealing back for Marsellus, which interestingly has the combination code of 666). Marsellus doesn't appear in many scenes, and when he does he spends most of his time being scary or being raped. Despite this he's a huge influence on the film, as everyone is ultimately either working for or against him. He also manages to make Bruce Willis (as Butch Coolidge) look wimpy; quite a feat.
Butch is a boxer who is getting over the hill, and is looking to retire in luxury. Rather than take the bribe from Marsellus to throw a game though, he bets heavily on himself and wins. The rest of his story consists of trying to get away with it and leave the country with his useless French girlfriend. I'm harsh on Fabienne, and she is annoying, but it's an excellent example of great Tarantino dialogue. The apparently trivial conversations she has with her boyfriend do in fact have hidden meanings that relate to the themes rest of the movie. There's a lot of dialogue, but it's very well delivered, and it's a real workhorse of hidden meanings. So much of Tarantino's best characters are revealed to use through their mindless chatter rather than when they're shooting each other, and I love that.
The sequence with the gimp and the hillbillies is an odd mix of difficult to watch, hilarious, and exciting. I loved the bit where Butch was going through possible weapons, referencing just about every action and horror movie with the cliche of each one. As he reaches the chainsaw anyone who doesn't know Tarantino may be thinking "oh, OK, here we go" but no, he hasn't made 'Kill Bill' yet but he is of course already in love with samurai movies, so Butch finally settles on a kick-ass katana.
                    

                   
Also that watch scene was legitimately hilarious, and Christopher Walken delivers his monologue to the young Butch perfectly.        
Of course I have to mention Mia Wallace and her story with Vincent. The scene in the 50s diner is excellent, as is the pair's car ride up to it. We reference the movie's name here, as we do just about everything 50s. The green screens on the car windows are badly done, and the world outside looks rather noir (this is also somewhat the case with the scene with Butch in the taxi, but here it's more referencing 'Taxi Driver'). This theme is continued once they are inside the restaurant when the world outside of the windows doesn't look quite right, as if it's partially colourless and doesn't quite fit with the real-life view from the windows. The theme continues into the diner, obviously, and we even get to briefly see Steve Buscemi playing a Buddy Holly waiter.
Mia is a stark contrast to her husband, and interestingly in the only scene that we see them together, she's just sitting on a sunbed in the background with a completely blank expression on her face, not really looking herself. She's an interesting character: opinionated and judgmental, but in quite an irritating and childish way. She also takes pleasure in control, yet occasionally lapses back into acting like a little girl. A good example of this is when she playfully tries to roll her own cigarette while Vincent is in the bathroom. It's a very funny scene as Vince talks to himself in the toilet while Mia fucks around, and the mood switches with a jolt as she finds Vincint's heroin and ODs. As is a common theme in this movie, the rest of the story is taken up with Vincint trying to clean up a mess that he has inadvertently created.
And talking of cleaning up messes, have I mentioned Winston "The Wolf" Wolfe? He's the man to call when you accidentally shoot a guy in the face, and you can be sure that he'll turn up in nine minutes thirty-seven seconds. His quick quips and sharp humour are a good match for Jules, and thoroughly put Vincent in his place.
           

                
He disappears as quickly as he arrives, though. While things would be a lot easier if he was around more often, that's just not how it is. He's a bit of a miracle figure, an extension of Jule's newfound faith.
The film opens with a pair of small time thieves who call one another Honey Bunny and Pumpkin. They area  couple of only briefly introduced yet intriguing characters: Pumpkin sounds English, and Honey Bunny is a weird mix of adorable and mental. They discuss robbing a diner instead of the usual liquor stores, kiss, and then she pulls out two pistols and starts shrieking. We don't see them again until the closing scene of the movie, when I've all but forgotten about the dynamic duo. There hasn't been any obvious way that they've linked into the story so far - but wait! Jules and Vince are at the diner too! (Fresh from their clean-up story at the start of the film, and still looking dorky in their surfing t-shirts). It's so nice to see Vincent again, and I was just so pleased to get to see them do another scene together. Especially as said scene is so brilliant. Vincent of course missed some of it because he's gone to the loo, but Jules handles the gunman and lady beautifully, and if I ever do get around to getting a wallet (and then maybe some money to put in it) it will almost definitely say "Bad Motherfucker" on it.
What a perfect movie; I can't imagine it getting much better than this. The acting is excellent and the script is perfect. Whenever I have a crack at fiction I try to give people something of the effortless yet meaningful banter that they all have here. Favourite American movie, hands down.
          

Pulp Fiction: 95.8

Kill Bill: Volume 1

      

One of the most relentlessly violent and bloody films I have yet to see. There are few contenders, though the South Korean 'Thirst' springs to mind. The 'Kill Bill' series is Tarantino at his most comically gory, it's in the territory of comic book heroes and villains, and everyone fights to the death and is decapitated in showers of blood.

         

         

There is no letup, no scene where the viewer can feel safe. For many it's likely a somewhat difficult movie to watch for this reason, but where 'Thirst' triumphed and where 'Kill Bill' failed to some extent is that I found myself getting bored of it. It's sort of like watching a 'Saw' film, but one that's nicely written and brilliantly shot. It's shocking, but it ended up just sort of bumming me out. And I think that's because nothing changes, other than an escalation of gore and the blood content. Where 'Thirst' continued to build on our character's personalities throughout the hardship, we get most of the feelings out of the in the beginning of 'Kill Bill', before moving on to the continuous slaughter.

That's not to say that this was a bad movie - it wasn't, it's just probably my least favourite Tarantino movie. It does a lot of things excellently though, and it does a good job of making the bride be one of the most badass (and I'm been sick in my mouth a little just uttering that word) characters of all time. And she is, right? After all she's been through, and in her yellow jumpsuit with a black go faster stripe.

                 

                    

The movie heavily pays homage to the classic samurai revenge flicks, and follows their same basic structure. The style is beautiful, hinting at just about every classic martial arts movie without directly ripping any of them off. There's even an animated sequence (no less bloody than the rest of the movie, despite featuring a child as it's main character). The swords and the swings and the sprays of blood are presented so artfully, it's violence porn in it's purest form, and you can clearly see the love that went into creating every little detail. Even if it's not for me, it's an excellently crafted movie, and not only for being one of the best homages to eastern cinema that I've ever seen.

The gore links the samurai action in with a more traditional Tarantino style, as victims are left dismembered yet still moaning and alive (the scene with that aid who had both her arms cut off was particularly difficult to watch) have definite flavours of films such as 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'Django Unchained'. People aren't just dying horribly, their surviving horribly and moaning about it loudly. The filming techniques manages to retain the quirky Tarantino style too, even as it plays partially into your basic samurai revenge style. There are lots of little quirks which help to explain things to us in ways that could be seen as cheating if they weren't pulled off so majestically. It's difficult to explain, but it's a little like reading the blue prints of the movie as you watch it. A great example of this is the see-through car boot letting us see the hostage in the beginning of 'From Dusk till Dawn', and another is when Mia draws a magical square (its actually a rectangle, which always bothered me) in the air in 'Pulp Fiction'. Add to this little weird uses of sound and music like when the Ironside Siren sound plays ridiculously loudly whenever she sees a target.

I didn't hugely enjoy it personally, and I haven't bothered seeing the second installment yet (at the time of writing), but I do appreciate that this is an excellently put together piece of cinematography, and a worthy addition to the Tarantino series. It feels somehow less real than his other movies, and I think I even saw somewhere that the 'Kill Bill' series are actually movies in the Tarantinoverse, which would make sense as they do sort of feel like they could be the sort of crazy-ass fiction that would fit in with that crazy-ass world.

     

Kill Bill: Volume 1: 77.2

Seven Psychopaths

  

An awesome cast (including Christopher Walken and Colin Farrell - and while I haven't particularly noticed him as being good before, Sam Rockwell was great in this too) and a plot that wouldn't look out of place in a Tarantino movie (one of the earlier, better ones), 'Seven Psychopaths' is an interesting mixture of a classic American mobby thriller and a British crime comedy.

It's an interesting blend of styles, and a very engaging plot. It moves in ways that few Hollywood films do (which is arguably because, other than the setting, it is effectively a British film, but oh well). Though the meaning of the title seems clear, and a basic Tarantino style premise appears to be set up in the first half hour, the film begins to branch out as the psychopathic condition itself is explored.
   

  

The central character is called Marty, and is an unemployed writer. The script he is trying to write is a shadow of the plot of the movie itself. So does he represent the real-life writers of 'Seven Psychopaths', and their struggles to create the plot, or does he represent the viewers? A bit of both, I think. He is the writers while he is asking his friends about his script. In these scenes Billy and Hans are different aspects of the audience, with Billy wanting to end it all in a final showdown with explosions and gun fights, and Hans wanting more intelligent female characters. These two embody stark contrasts in personalities, and each sits on Marty's shoulder like a little angel and devil. But which is which? Well, they're both psychopaths, and this is what lends the movie an intriguing surrealist twist. At other times, though, Marty is us, as he watches mighty actors clash and events unfold around him in a state of frightened disbelief.
Colin Farrell does an amazing job as Marty, and the director, Martin McDonagh (who also directed the brilliant 'In Bruges') handles him perfectly, letting him sit back and let the likes of Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, and Sam Rockwell do their thing, while having him show his own style (which is so refreshing that I'm honestly surprised that he's in a movie set in Hollywood). Like 'In Bruges', the movie makes fun of the absurdity of guns, and violence in general. My favourite example of this was the scene where Hans is threatened by an armed mobster, who says "Put you're hands up!" to which he replies "no." "But... I've got a gun!" And Hans snorts slightly "I don't care." The whole cast do very well, with Walken creeping towards the edge of self parody before expertly saving himself with some quality acting.
   

  
It's filled with self-parody, and it definitely knows that it's a movie. There's the movie-within-a-movie aspect, but the subtle way that this is expressed negates any cliche that this could create. It's also both not afraid to kill off it's characters, and able to kill them off in meaningful ways before the climax of the movie, which I appreciate. The death of Myra I found particularly sad, at which point I realised that this film had somehow got me to care for it's characters - a rather rare trait these days.
The ending was exceptionally delicate, and while I imagine some to get annoyed about the slight trick that was played on them, I loved it. The first end, with the burnt flag, the view, and the upbeat music, was too perfect. That was the ending to The Movie, not the end of the story. We still had to see how Marty had grown, and we are the bunny man at the end. That last scene was really touching, and I'd go so far as to say that it was one of my favourite endings of any film.

I'm not going to say that you're stupid if you don't like this movie, but you definitely aren't not stupid if you didn't.
   

Seven Psychopaths: 89.9