DJANGO UNCHAINED, Carlisle's Final Word.

"Gentlemen, you had my curiosity. But now you have my attention."

Calvin Candie. 

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 0/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 1/2

Final Score; 6/10

Final Word; 
So, a fair bit has been said about this film already. On the one hand, we have critically acclaimed director Spike Lee condemning the film for its depiction of slavery and its overuse of racially provocative language, while the film's stars, including Samuel L Jackson and Jamie Foxx, defend it as an 'important work of art' (yep, that ol' chestnut). We also have Quentin Tarantino (in typically animated and stuttering fashion) loosing his temper during an interview with the BBC. As you'd imagine, I have an opinion on all this, but I'll wade in on that subject later, probably during my long-overdue article on the works of Quentin Tarantino. For now we should consider the film without the murky ambiguity of its subject and behind-the-scenes agendas. I didn't have high hopes, it has to be said (the bitter disappointment of Inglorious still fresh in my mind), but it wasn't the complete mess that I'd expected it to be. I only decided to watch it for the sake of this blog, and because it's all anybody will be talking about for the next couple of weeks (see how I suffer for you people?). 

On the positive side, the first hour is perfection: the slavery is eluded to tastefully, while the violance is comically over-the-top and punctuated with Tarantino's usual flair for irreverent wit (much kudos for the scene where the hooded racisits discuss costume-related issues). What with all the Spaghetti Western styling present in his previous movies, it would seem that this, more than any other project, was the film Tarantino was tailor-made to direct... Everybody gives cracking performances, with particular praise for DiCaprio and Jackson going spectacularly against type, and the script gives everybody some great lines (even if in reality the term 'mother fucker' wasn't used til much later). The locations, the sets and the costume design are also all top notch. Unfortunately, that's where the good stuff ends.
The second hour, where the cruelties inflicted on the slaves is more apparent (subject of the controversy), is over-long and off-kilter with the comic-book sensibility of the set-up, and this apparent return to realism draws attention to the flaws in the script's logic- without wishing to give anything away, the much-aligned Mandingo plot is unnecessary and makes little to no sense at all. Neither is it historically accurate. The last hour again jarringly differs in tone to what has come before, and any tangible sense of realism is cast aside for a disappointing final act; where the ludicrous gun battles are orchestrated to modern-day rap songs, the director has a cameo affecting the World's worst Australian accent, and the hero's horse can dance.

In a nut shell; first hour great, second hour dull and ethically uneasy, and the third hour is dementedly surreal and at the same time dramatically under-whelming. Somewhere in this mess is a decent 90 minuite homage to the Spegetti Westerns of yester-year, but this is unfortunately caught up in the eccentric self indulgence of an egotistical and rambling director- one who occasionally needs to be told 'no'.

 

SCORE KEY, Carlisle's Final Word.

Need a reminder on how I actually score these movies? Alright, here's how it works.

Choose a film. Got one? Good. Now, try to be fair with yourself or this will fall-flat.
 

Let's look at the script's internal logic. Did the story make sense within the confines of the world the film is set? Another way to look at that is 'was it full of stupid plot-holes?' Now we give the film a score between 0 and 2 (‘poor’, 'average' or 'good').

• Did the film make perfect sense? 2 points.
• Sort of worked, a little logic is disregarded to reach a satisfying climax? 1 point.
• The film had more holes than a net? 0 points.

Now the pacing...

• Were you on the edge of your seat the whole while? 2 points.
• Glanced at your watch a few times, getting a numb bum, drawn into a conversation? 1 point.
• Bored? 0 points.

Asthetic. Was it all up there on the screen for you to admire and ogle, or did the film feel a little 'made for TV'? It's a fair question, presentation matters. You may be thinking this puts small budget films at a disadvantage? Yes, it does. But bear in mind, that's only going to make a very small difference, it just won't be a perfect film, and you may even love it more for this.

• Were the sets and effects completely believable, given the constraints of the time it was made? Yes? 2 points.

• Workmanlike. They did the job, nothing more. Not a 'game changer'. 1 point.

• Laughable, distracting, lazy- even for a no-budget film. 0 points.

Alright, almost done. How about the acting?

• Was it all completely believable, did it serve the nature of the film (if it was a comedy, were the stars actually funny)? Yes? 2 points.

• Most of it held up, a few duff performances but nothing that ruined the film. 1 point.

• Bad. All bad. Transformers bad. 0 points.

This is the last question now, and it's possibly the most subversive. Did the film set out what it intended to achieve? This is the question most open to public debate. If the film was meant to be thought provoking, or funny, or exciting, or action packed, was it? I've seen too many action films that had no action, to many thrillers that didn't thrill, too many horrors that didn't scare, and too many 'thought provoking' films that just said the same bullshit over and over again (yes, war is bad. I know that). Otherwise, was it original?

• The film did exactly what it intended to do in a fresh and inventive way. 2 points.

• Yeah, but it's nothing you havn't seen a 100 times before. 1 point.
  Or, did it completely miss the mark? 0 points. 

DREDD, Carlisle's Final Word.

"In case you have forgotten, this block operates under the same rules as the rest of the city. Ma-Ma is not the law... I am the law."

Judge Dredd.

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 2/2

Acting; 1/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Final Score; 8/10










Final Word; It's not really saying much if I tell you this is better than Sly 'I am the Law' Stallone's version from the 90's. In fact, that statement does this reboot little justice at all, and Dredd is all about the justice...

I can't say I ever got into the 2000AD comics as a kid, but I understand what they are; cynical, satirical, dark and comically violent- and Judge Dredd was their flagship character, epitomising all of these qualities. This reboot puts that up on screen in spades! 'Good taste' takes a long walk and what's left is a very guilty pleasure.
The script is a typical 'outnumbered-and-outgunned' scenario, akin to such classics as Rio Bravo or Assault On Precinct 13 (the original), while the central relationship is that of the typical grizzled veteran reluctantly partnered with an innocent newbie. Sure, you've seen it all before, but that hardly matters. What's important is how that set-up is used.
The characters are developed just enough so that you empathise with their situation, but never to the point that the pace has to suffer for it. Karl Urban's chin is on fine form as Judge Dredd and Olivia Thirlby makes a sincere and likable (and very sexy) Judge Anderson- and aside from some stylish visuals it's their performances that makes this more than just enjoyable trash. Viewed again recently I'm actually amazed at just how much chemistry they manage to squeeze out of their scenes. On the flip-side of the Law, Lena Headey plays the violent crime lord Ma-Ma, and what could have easily been a scenery-chewing mega-bitch performance is an oddly constrained beast.
If I was being picky (very picky, in fact), I'd say that Ma-Ma could have done with being more charismatic, yet she still manages to be a worthy villain.
The music, while hardly memorable, is perfectly pitched- a dirty ghetto bass-line fit for the crime ridden slums, bursting into life when the lead starts flying. Actually, the music put me in mind of the John Carpenter classics- suspencful, reppetative and nihilistic.

On a final (final) word, Dredd delivers all the goods and has a nice line in dead-pan humor. This balances the often bloody and disgusting violence and keeps the whole thing from becoming too nasty, a neat trick that nods to the likes of Paul Verhovan's films. This is a film for both fans of the comic and non-fans alike, and may even have some of you reaching to the comics for the first time. Next time I'm in a bookstore I may well have a look for one myself...

THE IMPOSSIBLE; Carlisle's Final Word.

"After that, when I came up, I was on my own. That was the scariest part. And when I saw the two of you climbing to the tree, I didn't feel so scared anymore. I knew I wasn't on my own."

Henry.

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 1/2

Final Score; 7/10






Final Word; In my humble opinion, 7/10 is a too generous score. Oddly, the film is weaker than the some of its parts.

The characters may choose their actions unwisely, and the final verges on ridiculousness, but in the film's defense this is based on (as if you didn't know by now) 'actual events'. Still, that aside, I can only review this as a film.
The true story in itself is life-affirming, but throughout the film I was aware that I was being emotionally manipulated at every turn; from soundtrack to cinematography. I'm aware that every film 'emotionally manipulates' its audience, but here it feels cynical and, dare I say it, exploitative? Almost like the headlines of a gossip magazine: "daddy tried to eat me" and "raped by my own brother while watching cartoons!" All terrible, but it's written to entertain. I'm not given the breathing space here to find my own emotional resolutions, I'm being led by the nose from point A to point B.

Morally I find this film objectionable, which I guess is a strange thing, and for once I find myself at a loss to describe why. I think partly this is because we see this foreign tragedy exclusively through the eyes of white middle class westerners (the only people who count for anything it seems)- while the natural inhabitants simply serve as background dressing. Surely there are countless tales of those who actually lived in the effected area equally as inspirational and full of courage and loss, but I feel like a bunch of cynical produces decided 'nobody will care if they aren't white".
This is not our tragedy to boast of, this was endured by thousands, yet it's us who hog the spotlight.

Still, back to the film review... The acting is top class, with particular kudos to the child actors, and the sets look suitably dangerous and desolate, and while the film does drag in moments (especially if you already know the ending, which is hard to avoid with all the media coverage) it builds to it's inevitable climax with some memorable scenes along the way.

AVENGERS ASSEMBLE; Carlisle's Final Word.

"There was an idea to bring together a group of remarkable people, so when we needed them, they could fight the battles that we never could..."

Nick Fury.

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 2/2

Acting;  1/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 1/2

Final Score; 7/10

Final Word; It does what it says on the tin. Everybody gets some good screen-time (except Thor, whose poorly served, but the least interesting), and everybody kicks some ass. Downy Jr cracks wise, Johannsen smolders, and both Evans and Hemsworth flex serious pecs. The plot (ha, you’re not here for the plot!) sees Loki, Thor’s evil brother, engineering an alien invasion against Earth by using the Tesseract- the McGuffin* from the Captain America film. As you’d expect from writer and director Joss Whedon, it’s full of dry wit, one-liners, some memorable action scenes and most importantly solid characters. Except this on its own fun and trashy terms and it’s a real gem. Samuel L Jackson shoots down a plane with a rocket launcher and the Hulk smashes, what else do you need to know?…

‘Puny God.’

Hulk.

* McGuffin =  a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist (and sometimes the antagonist) is willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to pursue, protect or control, often with little or no explanation as to why it is considered so important.

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON; Carlisle's Final Word.

"This is Berk. It snows nine months of the year, and hails the other three. Any food that grows here is tough and tasteless. The people that grow here are even more so. The only upsides are the pets. While other places have ponies or, parrots... we have... dragons."

Hiccup.

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 2/2

Acting;  1/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Final Score; 8/10

Final Word; Smart, sassy, and visually stylistic, this is a film that everyone in the family can enjoy- and not just the kids. The various dragons run the gamut from cute to genuinely scary, and most of the cast are expertly played, especially Gerard Butler's emotionally stunted and grizzled Viking chief. Jay Baruchel, as Hiccup the hero, is a little grating on the ear at first, but that fits the character well enough. So far as the plot is concerned, you'll be able to work out exactly how things are going to end within the first fifteen minutes, not that it matters- because you’ll be hooked by the quirky characters (including Toothless, Hiccups’ charismatic scene-stealing dragon), snappy dialogue and impressive visuals.

CONAN THE BARBARIAN; Carlisle's Final Word.

"I live, I love, I slay, and I am content."

Conan.

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting;  1/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 1/2

Final Score; 6/10

Final word; Well, there can be no denying that despite its near infinite quotability, the original Scwarzenegger film was not without some real problems. Given the time that's passed, how badly that origional has dated, and with a wealth of original source material, that a reboot of the franchise was, perhaps on this occasion, justifiable.
The intention was clear from the start: a hard edged adult fantasy, with all the trappings you'd expect- violence, gore, nudity, more nudity, biceps, sorcery and more violence. In that respect, the film doesn't disappoint. However, that doesn't stop the whole film feeling a little flat. Sure, it's all there, and initially that's enough, but it does get rather dull fast, and you can't help but feel you've seen it all before- only with a lot more showmanship. This will always compare badly to 300, which is probably the high-end for this sort of thing. Still, it's not awful, just workmanlike. Honestly, it's almost just a tick-list of cliches, and the plot is never anything more than an excuse to get from A to B.
In it's favour, Jason Momoa looks an excellent Conan (acting is another matter), and Stephen Lang (although underused) is a villain you want to see cut into lots of bloody and ragged pieces. Rose McGowan vamps things up nicely as a sadistic witch, and Rachel Nichols makes the most of her eye-candy role as the damsel in distress (and I'll freely admit she's bloody gorgeous).
Can't help but feel what really would have saved this was a better sense of humour- Hell, even 300 had some darkly comic moments! Everything here, for better or worse, is played straight. I appreciate that's probably more in keeping with the original Robert E Howard stories, but looking at this purely as a film, what this needed was a little more wit: humour is a good thing, it can mask a poor script and shoddy acting, and makes a film like this a lot more entertaining. Say what you like about Schwarzenegger, but he had a good formula in his films- violance, blood, punchline.... And punching-out a camel is pretty funny.

Like Conan, you'll be content, but never satisfied...