Django Unchained

There are a few directors whose every movie is as eagerly awaited as the last, thanks to a reputation built on a back catalogue of top class offerings. Quentin Tarantino is certainly one of those, as in my opinion, he has yet to make a film anything less than very good. We expect something in particular from Tarantino in his film, more often than not a loving B-Movie flavour, often a very dark sense of humour, but always, always, a great deal of violence. Now, after years of waiting for it, Tarantino finally has his go at a Western, with Django Unchained.

Django is the tale of a slave, the eponymous Django, who is given his freedom by bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz, forming a partnership to take down a series of targets, before ultimately trying to rescue Django's wife from a plantation. The film takes an utterly brutal look at pre-civil war America, and most definitely focusses on the treatment of black slaves. The movie is nothing short of visceral in the handling of violence throughout, and a great deal of it - at least initially - involves the horrendous treatment of slaves, particularly in mandingo fighting. Definitely not one for the faint hearted, but of course, this is a Tarantino effort, so it's doused with a great deal of head-shaking humour to thoroughly confuse how you should be feeling about it.

The performances of the cast in Django are extremely impressive, although you might expect as much, with Tarantino's reputation. Jamie Foxx's hero grows from a quiet and naive slave to a ruthless bounty hunter, more than willing to get his hands dirty in the process, even assuming the character of a black slaver. Foxx is as he usually is, very focussed and solid, nothing whatsoever to really pick at him for. Leonardo DiCaprio, who Tarantino had sought after for years, plays Calvin Candie, the owner of the 'Candieland' plantation, a figurehead of a mandingo fighting ring, and owner of Django's wife Broomhilda, and he's pretty fantastic at it too. DiCaprio brings a swarthy, yet extremely slimy charm to the character, who is simultaneously sly and a little stupid, not to mention a genuinely unsettling burst of fury. As far as Tarantino villains go, Candie has pretty much everything we've come to expect; he's cool, stylish, has the odd couple of soon-to-be massively quoted lines, and he's very much not afraid to throw his weight around. Very enjoyable performance and quite probably my second favourite Tarantino villain, only second to a character played by the true start of the film: Christoph Waltz. In Inglourious Basterds Waltz was sheer perfection of a skin-crawling villain, loved and hated by all. This time, he's almost the opposite; Dr. Schultz is a kindly man, somewhat of a romantic and holds a great deal of moral obligations. However, he is also an incredibly successful bounty hunter, a profession which he keeps his emotions separate from. If DiCaprio brings charm to Candie, Waltz brings in by the boatload for Schultz, he is simply captivating in absolutely every single one of his scenes. In all seriousness, this is probably the dictionary definition of what a scene-stealing performance will say from now on, as no matter what is taking place in the scene, you cannot help but find yourself drawn to Schultz, just to see what he's going to do next. But there's also another impressive performance amongst them; that of Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen, an elderly house slave trusted by Candie. Although the make-up runs dangerously close to reminding us all of one of Eddie Murphy's Klump family members, Jackson is intimidating, funny and loathsome at all once.

The plot itself runs fairly smoothly, something Tarantino is bringing more and more into his films - just a straight, simple story. Not only is the main plot allowed to run freely, we're given a couple of genius little subplots to keep us fully enthralled, if a little caught unaware. The greatest example of these is Schultz and Django's run in with what we assume to be an early incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan, who are all too concerned with how their hoods are looking to go about their business. Added comedy comes from the unexpected appearance of Jonah Hill as a Klan member. The climactic end is tremendous, though you may have a sense of de ja vu, as it follows the same lines as both Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds...and arguably Reservoir Dogs: a great big slice of revenge for the hero against a huge amount of people he doesn't like. There's even a great similarity between the speech Django gives at the point of his vengeance and the speech the Bride gives at the culmination of the Crazy 88 scenes, however, you can either view this as a lack of creativity, or that Tarantino is just incredibly good at reinventing a similar story, and have you enjoy it without realising it might very well be close in parts to what you've seen before.

Visually, again it's what you expect from a Tarantino effort, particularly following on from the style in which he shot Death Proof. There's a nice nostalgic feel to the film, and it definitely captures the twang of B-Movies that Mr Director is so very clearly a huge fan of. Furthermore, it's more of the same when it comes to the score; you're really thrown off kilter a little when rap and rock music comes blaring out over a backdrop of  19th century Southern U.S. But it works phenomenally; not only does it help set the perfect tone for the film, but it also reminds us just who has made it.

5/5 - Up there with my other favourite Tarantino films, and, in case you couldn't tell, I'm somewhat of a fan of his. Despite it's disturbing content, despite an enormous amount of splatter violence, and despite a lengthy runtime, Django Unchained flows very easily, and keeps you interested, if not engrossed for the whole ride. There are some brilliant performances from DiCaprio and Jackson in particular, and an otherworldly performance from Waltz to help it on it's way. However, most importantly, this is a film which not only retains all the hallmarks of a Tarantino film, but it is a brilliant film outright. A definite to watch.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

After a wait which seemed maybe just a bit longer than the extended edition of the original Lord of the Rings extended trilogy, fans of Middle Earth cinema epics finally had got their wish, with a return to the Shire at Christmas time. Of course, we're talking about Peter Jackson's first of three-part adaptations of The Hobbit; An Unexpected Journey.

This film was lobbed back and fourth through development hell for the majority of the last decade, ever since the phenomenal success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Whilst Peter Jackson had initially expressed an interest in making the film as early as 1995, the rights to any adaptation were already under ownership, then, when these rights eventually were secured, the director attached to the project, Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy) would ultimately drop out, leaving the whole thing in doubt until Jackson finally returned to the director seat. There is a great deal of pressure on this film, first and foremost, it has to live up to standard of the previous Middle Earth movies, which broke new ground, particularly for the fantasy genre. However, it is also vital that this film retains the more light-hearted feel of the Tolkien novel; after all, this was a story originally written for children.

Just in case you don't know, and if you don't, go buy the book, it'll make you just a little more smiley, here's a brief summary of the plot. Bilbo Baggins is your typical hobbit, happy to allow life to be something that just happens to him. All that changes completely upon the arrival of Gandalf the wizard to his home, bringing with him a company of thirteen dwarf warriors who are undertaking a quest to retake their home city from a terrible dragon, Smaug. This first part of the trilogy focuses more on how Gandalf and the dwarves slowly change Bilbo's outlook on a life of adventure, slowly making their way through the wilderness and through the Misty Mountains. There is an additional story fed into the main picture too, wherein Azog, an orc who killed the father of dwarf king Thorin Oakenshield before being humiliated in battle by the dwarf is tracking the company.

For me, the casting is one of the very best things about this movie, and that's aside from the obvious roles. Those being the return of Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and Hugo Weaving as Elrond. All as amazing as you'd expect it to be, particularly Gandalf getting up to a little more shenanigans than we were used to seeing last time round. An extra return to Middle Earth is also a little bit awe inspiring; Christopher Lee as Saruman. Sure, he gets CGI'd a little, thanks to Old Man Time trying in vain to erode Sir Lee from existence (he won't succeed), but Saruman is back in his full booming glory, and even though we know he's not supposed to be evil yet, Lee pushes through a suspiciousness about the great wizard in a bit of an "uh-oh, he's up to something!" kind of way. But, the best of all the returns has to be, and unsurprisingly so, Andy Serkis as Gollum. Gollum's big scene in this movie will no doubt go down as one of the best he's ever been in, which is saying quite a bit given the excellence of Two Towers and Return of the King, but it's almost as if Serkis was never not Gollum, he's somehow even creepier in his childlike brutality that you just can't help get fully sucked in to his riddles.As for those joining the cast, the dwarves all do their job masterfully, even if seemingly half of them get no speaking parts. Richard Armitage plays Thorin in a very Sean Bean-like manner: all blood, guts, moodiness and thunder, not to mention making several ladyfolk swoon in the process. James Nesbitt is not only a surprise inclusion in the cast as Bofur, but, perhaps a little more surprisingly, he's actually pretty good too, providing a mixture of humour and a bond to Bilbo. And that of course brings us to Mr Baggins, cast perfectly with Martin Freeman. Bilbo is essentially Arthur Dent from Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy but with big hairy feet, so why not cast the man who made Arthur Dent brilliant to make Bilbo brilliant? Freeman brings a pleasant simpleness to the role, a reluctant giddiness to give in to his unexpected urge for adventure; there's a constant charm about him, and he's instantly likeable. Oh, and there are also pleasing little cameos from Ian Holm as old Bilbo and Elijah Wood (who almost certainly didn't need CGI on his face, as I'm fairly sure he's an ageless freak of nature), set literally seconds before the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring. Which is all very nice.

The story itself is good, pushing on through the meeting in the Shire to eventually battling goblins in the Misty Mountains, definitely no complaints with that. Nor with the inclusion of the extra story; Azog hunting down Thorin. The only complaint that I would have is that it seems to be extremely stretched. It's not a particularly popular opinion, but Fellowship was my least favourite of the LOTR films, largely due to how much time they spend in the Shire, and that's the danger run by this movie; it takes the majority of the first hour before they so much as leave Bag End. That said, the scenes with the dwarves are very much enjoyable, especially their drinking songs, their tidying songs, their sad songs...and their songs about songs. Furthermore, as muchas I truly enjoyed seeing so many of the familiar faces of the previous films, there is a feeling of "OOOH LOOK, IT'S HIM/HER! I REMEMBER THEM!". Case in point being Bret McKenzie (out of off of Flight of the Conchords) reprising his minuscule role as Lindir, for the sake of a barely less minuscule role this time out. The main problem the movie really had to deal with, as mentioned earlier, is the balance of a more light-hearted feeling that the previous films whilst still keeping everyone interested with a vaguely serious fantasy film, and it does wobble a little every so often. We get a little confused between the moody brooding of Thorin, the joyous singing of the dwarves, the full blown evil of Azog and the sheer slapstick of the Trolls, not to mention the flip-flop of moods present in all of the scenes involving the Goblin King (voiced fantastically by Barry Humphries, no less). It's a bit weird, because each of those scenes are extremely well done, and all are very much enjoyable, but they jar a little.

Cinematically speaking, the film is absolutely outstanding. The staple of Jackson's previous trilogy returns with a vengeance here; of course, it's the "SWEET MERCIFUL JESUS, NEW ZEALAND IS BEAUTIFUL" panoramic shots of the Kiwi countryside. But not only this, Jackson's decision to film in 48fps is a masterstroke in the main run, as it really makes you feel like you're looking through a window to Middle Earth, particularly when viewed in 3D or IMAX. However, one gripe with this is that some of the CGI looks a little tacky in comparison to the non-virtual surroundings; the Goblin King and the Trolls are the main culprits here, whilst looking impressive, they look very much like they've just been plucked from an animated film. Furthermore, Azog is pretty much an entirely animated presence in the film, and whilst that's not a bad thing if you get it right (which they definitely did with the Gollum motion capture), you sort of miss the giant brutes of men in orc costumes, only tweaked with CGI instead. However, some of the CGI is pretty spectacular, and the battle between stone giants is simply astounding.

Overall, it's a bit of a mish-mash in terms of tone, but I'll be amazed if you come away from it without actually having very much enjoyed the film. Encouragingly, it did feel quite similar to Fellowship, in terms of building up to a greater story, and so here's hoping that the next two will be a bigger step up, as although I definitely wasn't disappointed with the film, it didn't quite live up to what I had expected.

4/5 - A little confused in places, but definitely better than most fantasy films you're likely to see. There are scenes of sheer brilliance littered throughout, and it's almost worth sitting through all 169 minutes just for the scenes with Gollum, let alone anything else. Not quite as good as what I was expecting, but a very good film nonetheless.

P.S. - Everyone enjoy Sylvester McCoy being Sylvester McCoy being Radagast the Brown, completely insane, but this time...with rabbits!