DJANGO UNCHAINED.

Tarantino referred to his previous film, Inglorious Basterds, as his masterpiece. How does one follow up one's own masterpiece and not be a failure? Why, make up your own genre, of course. Westsploitation. Is that a thing? I think Quentin Tarantino just made that a thing. Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz) is a dentist-turned-bounty hunter who needs the help of a slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), who knows what his next marks look like. Freeing Django, Schultz enlists his aid and eventually trains him to be his partner. But when Django reveals that he has a wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who was recently sold off to a new owner, Schultz vows to help Django get her back. But it won't be easy, as her new owner is Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), who owns one of the most infamous plantations in the south.

First and definitely foremost... this is one long movie. It's just shy of 3 hours, and it feels it. Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying it's slow or uninteresting. I'm just saying I really felt that 3 hours in that chair.  What didn't help was a moderately slow start. To me, the start of a Tarantino movie is one of the best parts. It's always this slow, deliberate story or conversation. This was perfected, in my eyes, in Christoph Waltz's introduction in Inglorious Basterds. Perfect pacing. Perfect amount of tension and menace and build-up. So here, we get another introduction with Christoph Waltz, so the film automatically sets you up to want a similar brilliance. But, to me, that doesn't happen. Yes, there is somewhat of a discussion that builds up to a moment of shock. But something about it didn't feel very... Tarantino. I didn't have that same thrill at the start that his films always hit off with.

And from there it's pretty much a collection of segments that depend on who the bad guy is at the time. And the film sure does put a fair number of "boss battles" to face throughout. And more often than not, those are the best parts of the film. The last... I don't know... 30-45 minutes--starting from the dinner table scene through to the end of the movie--is purely outstanding. The dinner table scene and the scene near the start of the film when they first ride into the little town and invite themselves into the bar are two of the best performed and written scenes in the film (showcasing Leo and Christoph respectively). Those are some classic Tarantino moments... and I think my biggest problem with the film is that it's nearly 3 hours long and the film doesn't have nearly enough moments like those. Sure, they're sprinkled throughout, some suspenseful and some comical (the KKK masks scene is fantastic, as well). But I felt that, particularly in the first half of the film (prior to Leo and Sam Jackson showing up, and yes, it does take about half the film to get to them), the Tarantino dialogue wasn't up to par. And I often wondered how much of that first half was all that necessary.

All of that being said, however, the second half of the movie more than makes up for any low points the first half might have had. Hell, that last 30-45 minutes alone are worth the price of admission. The violence, comedy, blood, and mix therein is all pretty damn entertaining. Glorious, even.

The acting is all fantastic, as well, from start to finish. Christoph Waltz gives another solid performance for Tarantino. He's no Hans Landa, but he's fun enough. Jamie Foxx has a lot of fun with the titular character. Jonah Hill does show up, but it's barely a cameo. He's on screen maybe five minutes tops and he doesn't say that much. DiCaprio kills it in the dinner scene in particular (and the scene that follows), and prior to that, he shows us he's having fun as a villain. But who steals the show is, of course, Samuel L. Jackson. He has a pretty decent-sized role this time, and he is both hilarious and potentially menacing.

I thought the film had a bit of a rocky start, but it really grew on me as it went on. When the scenes hit, they hit hard and strong. While every moment isn't like a Pulp Fiction or Inglorious Basterds wherein they have amazing dialogues or monologues, there are enough throughout the film that are good enough to eventually make up for it. And the violence is exploitation-level fun and over-the-top. The comedy is great. The acting is superb. Is this Tarantino's best film? No. But that doesn't stop it from being really, really good.


Royale With Cheese

INCEPTION.

Going in, I knew the movie was about dreams, but that was about it. I tried to keep away from learning too much about the movie. So now that I've finally seen it... holy crap. Let's see if I can explain it well enough. Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are partners who have the technology to enter people's dreams and gather important information that would be otherwise impossible to get. Cobb, unable to return to the United States to be with his children, makes a deal with Saito (Ken Watanabe), a Japanese businessman. Saito asks Cobb to perform an inception, the nearly impossible task of planting an idea within somebody's subconscious, on a business rival, Fischer (Cillian Murphy). So Cobb and Arthur must put together a new team to pull off the job. Cobb goes to his father, Miles (Michael Caine), to find an architect--somebody to build the dreamworld they go into. He gives them his best student, Ariadne (Ellen Page). They also bring in two other men, Eames (Tom Hardy) and Yusuf (Dileep Rao). But what they don't expect are the additional complications the mission brings, including Cobb's wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard).

Yeah, despite that lengthy explanation, I still think I failed at giving you a basic look into this movie. I suppose that's the outline shell of the plot, but there's so much more to it than that. Cobb has secrets that play out throughout the film. They aren't all completely difficult to figure out, though, but it still keeps you guessing.

In fact, that's one thing (of the many things) the movie does very well. For a good chunk of the film, you can never be sure if you're in a dream or not. You start getting about as paranoid as the characters, wondering if you're in a dream or back in reality... and then you start questioning which one truly is reality--the dream or... you get the picture. To take something from a fellow blogger, I'd say that to call this movie complex is an understatement.

And then you get the dreams themselves. The visuals are stunning, but it's how they're used that make them magnificent. Watching a city collapse in on itself, the creation a bridge by a mirror's reflection, the characters fight on ceilings and walls and float down hallways, and so much more... What makes these sequences even better is that even though they're dreams, they're happening with purpose. People don't just decide to start floating down hallways--no, they're floating down a hallway because another form of their body is free-falling. I'm sure that didn't make any sense, but it will when you see the film.

There's almost no reason to discuss the acting. It was all superb. I particularly liked Ellen Page (and there's a funny moment between her and Joseph Gordon-Levitt late in the film that's not worth spoilering, but I can't say I blame him). Though I think it's funny that both Cillian Murphy and his movie-father, Pete Postlethwaite, played Americans when one is Irish and can do a British accent and the other is British and can do an Irish accent. I know why they were American (it is part of the plot, after all). Just a random bit of coincidence--a note-worthy observation.

There's really not anything negative I can think of for this movie. It kept me on the edge of my seat. It kept me guessing. It was full of great action and awesome visuals (awesome in the classic sense of the word, at that). The acting was really good. The ideas were incredibly original and executed very well. And the ending was absolutely perfect. There are a couple irks that I don't want to bring up here due to potential spoilers, but they really aren't anything that knock the movie down at all. This is a damn near masterpiece, and I strongly recommend it.


Royale With Cheese

SHUTTER ISLAND.

I've been pretty hyped for this movie for a while, mostly from a mystery/thriller standpoint more than a Scorsese standpoint (I'm by no means a Scorsese aficionado or anything). Now I'm just wondering if I went in with my expectations a bit too high. Shutter Island tells the story of U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his newly appointed partner, Chuck (Mark Ruffalo). They are sent to Shutter Island because it houses an asylum for the criminally insane, and one of its patience has just escaped. But everything isn't what it seems. The doctors, nurses, and orderlies, and security--including Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), Dr. Naehring (Max Von Sydow), and Deputy Warden McPherson (John Carroll Lynch)--seem to be in on some kind of conspiracy, and it's up to Teddy to figure out what it is, to "blow the lid off this thing." The movie also stars the likes of Michelle Williams, Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson, Jackie Earle Haley, Ted Levine, and Elias Koteas.

Even after I was already interested in the movie, I was told it had this epic twist to end all twists--one of the best twists in modern literature (since it's based on a book). Well, I wonder if the book is any different, because I was able to figure out the basic twist within the first 3 minutes of the movie. But just the basic part of it. All the other details, I was never able to figure out until they were revealed at the end. Interestingly enough, whenever there were clues to the ending, it felt like a giant flashing sign saying "look at me, I'm a clue!" But while I was easily able to discern the clues that would inevitably add up to the twist, I wasn't able to put them together and make sense of it before it was revealed. Of course, it all made sense afterward, but still. Oh, and they never explain the "rule of 4" thing, unless I just missed it. Because they find this letter that mentions the 'rule of 4' and 'who is 67'? They explain the latter, but never the former...

The acting, for the most part, was good. But there were times when I was like "OK, Leo, right now I'm just seeing Leo trying to play a cop." They weren't frequent, but they were there. And I worried about the movie at the beginning, wondering what I was getting myself into for 2+ hours, as it really wasn't very gripping, and it seemed to be exposition central.

But the movie does pick up after a while. What helps the movie the most are its visuals. Scorsese does good things to set the mood--the rain, the smoke, the shadows--and he runs with it. There's good cinematography here to really help with the atmosphere, not to mention some really great shots in general.

I also noticed, primarily towards the end, how much symbolism there was in the movie. There were a lot of fire and water motifs, as well as smoke. And the storm/rain acted as a great symbol to the chaos of the situation, as well as to the self-destruction of mankind.

I really don't know what else to say. It was really good, but not "OMG I need new pants" great. Maybe I had hyped myself up too much for it or something. I might not buy it when it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray, but I'd definitely watch it again if I saw it on TV. Because, while it was good and the mystery engaging, I can't see myself sitting down wanting to watch it over and over again. Definitely see it in the theater, though. Just hope you don't get an audience like mine where a woman laughed at all the parts that were supposed to be disturbing and/or unsettling (or, with... like... the one jump-scare in the movie, calls out to the entire theater 'Oh, that scared me!'). So... yeah.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Though I have to admit, the last line in the movie is excellent.)