AND SOMETIMES IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE... WELCOME TO "SIN CITY"

Ooh, ooh ooh! Look, another historic moment. I HAVE FINALLY WATCHED SIN CITY. I have been banging on about this for years. How I  didn’t get round to it before is virtually incomprehensible – even to me, and I’m usually quite good at figuring out why I haven’t done things. This was the last film remaining that Quentin Tarantino (yes him again, if you’re not a fan, deal with it) is vaguely associated with from a directoral (is this a word? Mom?) stance that I hadn’t seen yet. Now I have. The world can rest in peace – as it were. The film is of course technically a film by Robert Rodriguez who is apparently a great friend of Quentin Tarantino’s. Quentin Tarantino is a guest director here along with Frank Miller (the writer of the comics the film was adapted from) who is cited as director. Now, fair warning. You know Rodriguez. You know Tarantino. Yes there is violence. Yes there are classic “old school” movie genres running through a very, very strange terrain. Yes, the films are very much “boys toys” as it were, what with the imagery and that. Now, as you also know, I lap this stuff up by the bucketful and ask for seconds. Incomprehensibly to me, some people do not. If you are one of those people I fail to comprehend, you can easily pass on Sin City. I won’t blame you. I’ll just be sad you’re missing a brilliant film.

Welcome to Sin City. The name alone holds a clue. I said to look out for “old school” ladies and gents, and the “school” we’re in this round is film noir. A world where the dames are beautiful and deadly, the guys are either hardened good guys with one foot in the underworld or dastardly villains. It is night time, it is cold and we roam the even colder streets, trying to get to know the inhabitants of the city. We have a scary giant who is looking to avenge the only woman who ever showed him affection. We have a cop who puts his entire reputation on the line to save a little girl from a paedophile. We have a hit man after his next buck. And of course, we have a vigilante cop. All these characters come together in the “sewage pit” known as Sin City in a tale as dark as the night itself…

Before you say anything, trust me, there are more reasons than one for this film to have become so popular. I am at a tiny bit of a loss as to interpreting them in conjunction with their original “manuscripts” i.e. the comics. Of course I won’t even get started on the actual images themselves as Sin City’s images have become pretty iconic in their own right. Suffice it to say that the mood of the film very much matches the style of the images. It is very, very much like a comic book “come to life” as it were. So there you go. If you like comic books, that alone should spur you on. That and the rather marvellous way all the seemingly disparate stories come together. I promise you, you will NOT see that one coming.

But then of course there is the film noir side of things. Now, I’m not quite sure what the general opinion is of film noir. I have a sneaking suspicion it is regarded as rather passé. And it is true that simple binaries of black and white, good and bad are rather outdated these days. Understandably so, we have come to terms with the fact that the world is more of a “grey” place then black and white and this is reflected in everything, be it our entertainment or our politics. But I don’t know. There is – go on, admit it – a part in all of us which, when left unchecked, paints the world in those two colours. Really “evil” baddies that can be destroyed by the “good guy”. A good guy with some token “black” in him – this is Sin City after all, you can never completely escape the evil in the air – but whose heart is basically set on doing the right thing. Go on. You like it. Admit it to yourself if not to me. And go and watch the darned movie already. You have half a hundred reasons at least by now… 

ESSIE'S GUSHING CONTINUES - ONE OF THE BEST ENTRANCES EVER : "RESERVOIR DOGS"

I have a sneaking suspicion that over the course of the next couple of weeks, Quentin Tarantino’s entire filmography may well creep its way into the blog. Yes there is a “because I say so” element to this creeping.  What can I tell you. I love the guy. I gush and gush about his films.  People who know me in offline life have learnt to deal with it. I’m sure you will too. Why only the other day a colleague at work was saying how Quentin Tarantino was “this weird guy who never even finished school”. I spent the next fifteen minutes verbally crushing her about that statement. Yes, he never went to film school. Despite this fact, his first feature film? RESERVOIR DOGS. Beat that as far as entrances go, I mean seriously. I do agree that the most important thing is watching movies as opposed to film school. If you love it enough, it will creep into your bones. If you have sh.tloads of talent to go with it, you’ll make a film like Reservoir Dogs.  I can report (with some pride) that other colleagues present ended up agreeing with me and the colleague who initially made the observation was silent and then changed the topic (although that may have been due to the sentences pouring out of me ever louder and quicker, accompanied by sweeping gestures with hands and arms). Now, being an Aries, I am at the very least amused by fighting off such objections with posture and tone of voice alone (admit it you guys – we are a zodiac sign that is especially partial to grandeur). But you know, there is logic behind this argument. Queue, this post.  Let’s talk about Quentin Tarantino and Reservoir Dogs. Not like it’s one of my favourite movies by my favourite director or anything…

The story itself is easily told and is, in truth, as old as the hills. It is a gangster movie. A heist movie to be exact. A major crime boss of the area, Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney), puts together a group of criminals he trusts (to varying degrees, it should be said, but it is pretty clear they are all “cool”) to pull off a jewellery heist. It seems like a very basic, easy job for a group of seasoned criminals such as we have here, however things do not go according to plan. The whole affair is carnage from beginning to end. As the survivors make their way back to the rendezvous point, one thing is clear: there is a rat in their midst.  How else would the police have appeared on the scene so quickly and so well prepared? Thing is, the criminals don’t know anything about each other, for security reasons they are not even allowed to exchange first names. Thus begin the mind games. Who is the rat, how to find him and how to deal with him when they do? And oh by the way, where have the diamonds they managed to grab got to? 

Ok, right off the bat, this is vintage Tarantino. This is another reason I respect the guy so much, like a lot of great directors, he had a style from the word go, and although it has been “added to” as years went by, the basic tenets have never changed. Here we have a heist / gangster movie – a favourite genre of the director as we know rather well – with a vintage soundtrack  and a storyline which is both simple and at the same time fuller of surprises than you could possibly imagine. Stylistically, Tarantino starts on something he will elaborate on further later on with Pulp Fiction – non-linear narration. And while in Pulp Fiction, the narration tends to go in larger chunks – that is to say the “morsels” of story we see out of order are larger / longer, here that length is a great deal shorter. This is mainly due to the fact that there is only one story line here.  So as you watch, a bit like the characters, you are piecing the story together, trying to figure out what the heck happened. As the film progresses – and we are, as viewers, blessed with multiple points of view, and hence info the characters don’t all possess, the suspense grows. Because, in a bizarre kind of way, the more we know, the less sure we are how the whole thing is going to end. Expect plot twists. Like, a barrel load or two. This film includes one of my favourite “raaaah” moments in a film. I would call this moment the precise incarnation of why I like Tarantino’s films so much. I’m obviously not going to describe it here but ask me in real life and I’ll be happy to tell you.

And if nothing else, people, here is a thriller that actually needs you to use your noggin as you watch. A rarer and rarer breed of movies these days  as I am sure you have observed. Oh and the cast : Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsden and Steve Buscemi to name but a few. Come on. Admit it. You’re tempted… 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF HER FAVORITE FILM EVER : "PULP FICTION"

I have made a momentous discovery. I have discovered my favourite film. As someone so engaged in films of all kinds, I am hard pressed to pick one. It will always be a close contest. I will always rattle off a couple in close succession, as opposed to one single one. But if you press me for a single one, I am now sure this is IT. Now, you guys know I don’t really write that much about the big classics. I like talking about the “hot” stuff out there along with the ones you may have missed along the way. But come on. This is my favourite film. I have a sneaking feeling it always has been. I want to gush about it for a second. And who knows, maybe I can somehow convince you Tarantino-haters out there (and I really don’t know what to do with you guys but anyhow) to give this a spin. I have a feeling you guys have the impression that all Tarantino films are just jumped-up slasher flicks, you know, with the emphasis on the blood as opposed to any actual content. You are SO WRONG. Ok, let’s get right to it.

There is no one single story here. Actually, there are three. Two of these stories revolve around the gang boss Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames). See, Mr Wallace likes his sports. He likes to watch, for example, a good boxing match. He is also a betting man – and like the rest of us, he likes to win his bets. But he has an advantage over the rest of us in that field. See if, for example, he feels unsure how things will go, he can take precautions. Like taking Butch (Bruce Willis), a good pro boxer who is a tad bit past his prime for example, and explain to him if he should win or lose and at which round. Butch gets paid handsomely for his trouble, and Mr Wallace is happy. If Butch does not comply however, Mr Wallace is not amused. And I think we all know by now that an unamused gang boss is never a good thing. Then there are his two right hand men – Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield ( Samuel L. Jackson). They do things gang bosses do not condescend to tire themselves with. You know, extortion, debt collecting, murder and the like. But Vincent  especially is a little nervous of late  - he has an extra job you see. He has to take Mr Wallace’s dashing young wife (Uma Thurman) out to dinner while Mr Wallace is not in town. He must show her a good time, not offend her in any way, yet not cross any boundaries. I.e., he is on VERY thin ice indeed until the dinner date is up. And then there are two small time robbers. Pumpkin and Honey Bunny. They are planning their last couple of hits before they retire to some exotic location together. And they hit on an idea – why not rob a restaurant? And how do all these people come together you say? You will have to watch the film and see. But trust me when I say, regardless of what you’re thinking the answer is… You’re probably wrong…

Now, take these three stories. Cut them all into a few large chunks and jumble them up. And tell them in completely non-linear order with seemingly no rhyme or reason. Welcome to Pulp Fiction. As you can well imagine, in the wrong hands the formula is an unqualified disaster. But these, you see, are not the wrong hands. The puzzle is constructed in such a way that, although between Mr Tarantino’s penchant for surprises and the way the story is told you have no way of knowing what “comes next” until the last minute, it is, at the same time, clearly done so that you don’t actually have to research the film online later to clearly understand what is going on . On a side note, some people see this “incomprehensible” quality as a major asset – I don’t get it quite honestly. A film is something you should be able to understand as you watch it. Or a bit later, when you think about it. It shouldn’t take research. But at the same time, especially if you watch a lot of films, you want to be surprised. You want to not be able to tell what is coming next. I can categorically promise you that in this film, be it in terms of plot twists or actual pieces of the plot, you will rarely know what is coming next. This is one of the things I truly love about this film. 

The other thing I like about the film – and all of Tarantino’s films as it happens – is his own particularly dark brand of humour. This is what puts a twist on this little number too. Because, by Tarantino’s own admission, the three basic plot lines that are interwoven are as old as the hills. That is precisely the point. You take a classic and you put your own twist on it. How far you can twist it largely depends on your personal talent. I think you see where I’m going with this…

I mean yes, there is blood – people die. But newsflash – it’s a gangster flick.  If nobody died and there was no blood, you’d complain about it being unrealistic. This is something for you cats who want something both truly entertaining and truly original as entertainment.          Just take the plunge man. There is a reason every single person on the planet calls this film a classic. Time you found out why. 

A BLOODY TALE OF SWEET REVENGE : "DJANGO UNCHAINED"

I have been waiting for this film for so long. SO. DARN. LONG. Ok, peeps, please don’t except anything even remotely resembling an objective review of this film. I am such a massive Tarantino fan that I could not possibly… I mean, the guy can do no wrong ok? That’s why there is nothing wrong to find. This is, in a way, the good thing about Tarantino’s films. It’s clear cut. You either love it or you hate it. It is either a whole bowlful of filmic goodness you dive into headfirst or you run from it screaming. As there is no doubt at all which side I’m rooting for, let’s move straight onto the film and what it is about…

Meet Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). To the untrained eye he may well look like just another travelling dentist touring the Wild West, but you couldn’t be further wrong. Dr Schultz is a bounty hunter, and he is one of the best, if not the best there is. Fate brings him face to face with Django (Jamie Foxx). Django is a slave like many, many others you could find in the country at the time, but he holds a specific interest for the good doctor. Back in the days where technology was not widespread, you had to know what the person you were bounty hunting looked like to be sure to “hunt” the right man. And Django just so happens to be in possession of such information about a specific group of scoundrels Dr Schultz happens to be looking for. While he is about it, Dr Schultz frees Django, gets him fresh clothes and a horse, teaches him how to shoot and, when the pair seem to hit it off particularly well, partners up with him in the bounty hunting business. Over time, the pair become fast friends and Dr Schultz agrees to aid Django in a personal matter. His wife is still a slave and she has had the sad misfortune of falling into the hands of a particularly sadistic plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). However, saving Broomhilda (Kerry Washington – Django’s wife) from Monsieur Candie (as he likes to be called) and his motley crew headed by his loyal old butler Stephens (Samuel L. Jackson) is not going to be easy. It’s a good thing our friends have a bit of penchant for short cuts…

There is a reason this film shot to number 41 in the IMDB TOP 250. There is a reason it got 5 Oscar® nominations. First of all, hats off to Mr Tarantino for assembling such a brilliant cast and for getting the best possible performance out of a group of quite extraordinary actors. You know all the hype about Christoph Waltz? Well, guess what, it isn’t hype. He is THAT good. Heck, he is nothing short of brilliant. He deserves any and every glory and award he gets. And the villains? Oh my. Oh my, my, my. Calvin Candie is one of the most loathsome villains I have met in my time and Stephens is the perfect sidekick. OK to be fair, Stephens is actually a tad bit more than just a sidekick. But I’ll let you work that out as you watch. The point is the acting is beyond  brilliant.

As for the plot? Ok, one small thing. It turns out that the original of the film was five hours long. It was CUT DOWN to three hours. Now, personally I don’t see what is wrong with a five hour film, especially if it’s directed by Quentin Tarantino but hey. I guess it is slightly impractical from the cinema owner’s point of view. Now, the problem is, you feel the missing footage. Here and there, there are hints of things that you could have sworn were going to be further developed, but are not. Luckily they are not frequent. As for the blood? The gore? Is there much killing? I hear you ask. To which I respond, is that not why we came? The blood and guts start flowing around 10 minutes into the film and only intermittently stops, with “tarantinian” surprises around every corner. And trust me, if these surprises don’t make you love King Schults / Christoph Waltz even more than you already do, you really have no heart. Or sense of humour.  

Then of course, we really, really mustn’t forget Django. Because, to be absolutely fair, that is what this film is about. And Mr Tarantino makes an excellent point about slavery. There are strong messages in the film, to the point that some may find some of the bits a tad bid didactic. Then again, I think those bits would have gone much better within the five hour framework.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying, in any way, that they shouldn’t be there – slavery was a terrible, shameful time and we need to talk about it openly. This is probably why, in actual fact, Quentin Tarantino is the best man to talk about this. I mean, accuse him of what you will, shrinking from portraying brutality is not, nor ever can be on that list.  But anyway, back to Django and Broomhilda. Jamie Foxx is the perfect Siegfried to his beloved Broomhilda, and if there was any a couple whose sweetness and suffering justified a whole plethora of villains being sent to a bloody grave, it is them.

In short, to all my Tarantino fans, fear not. It’s all we have been waiting for and more. For those who aren’t… 

THE BEAST WITHIN WEEK 1 : "DEATHPROOF"

Now this, as you may remember, is part of a project Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez started up a while back. Two films – Deathproof and Grindhouse / Planet Terror, both of a certain genre, both using similar filming techniques, released at the same time. As these films are a duo, I will be reviewing them both this week, because naturally I bought both. I mean, if Quentin Tarantino directed it I MUST watch it… And Robert Rodriguez… Well, I think I mentioned this in “Four Rooms” but I was curious about him. So there you are you see. First observation; I should seriously stop watching films “wholesale” as it were. No, what happened was this; I watched Deathproof. I actually really enjoyed it. I had some spare time on my hands so I reckoned seeing as this is a duo, I could just go on to Grindhouse. Admittedly, I would not be able to finish it today but it isn’t actually a classic of modern cinema, no harm done, right? Wrong. Very wrong. I mean it’s totally OK to watch it in pieces (to anyone who watched either movie, this will sound like a very VERY bad pun). However, two hours of Tarantinian gore and violence topped up with Rodriguez gore, violence gunk and zombies… I don’t quite know how to describe it but it is not a happy place… Especially where my stomach is concerned and I have a sensitive stomach… I guess if you watch them separately it would be ok. In fact, I am pretty sure you would be ok if you watched them separately. This wholesale movie watching is a problem that I have to personally deal with…
Ok, Deathproof. Now, these films are, by the way, in the genre of old – 70’s – slashers. This includes the technical side of it: grainy filming, problem with the colors, missing scenes… If we didn’t know better, we might think we had dug something out of the vaults of yesteryear. It’s not only the technique but the storyline that harks back to an entirely different era (apart from the fact that it is actually set in modern day America. Small detail but there you go). You remember the genre: a group of young ladies about town. They are beautiful, confident, having fun and they really don’t give a damn… However, they are not aware of one thing… A dark stranger is watching them from afar, biding his time, and when he makes contact… Well…
I have heard a lot of people dissing this film. “Oh but it’s Quentin Tarantino, we expected something more”. The fact is the film is funny. And I don’t mean in the way that horror movies – meant to be scary – turn out funny. This is a class – and classy – example of horror – comedy. I say classy because, as with every single Tarantino film, Deathproof is packed to the gills with references to other films and inside jokes. I’ll give you one example; I know this is not really my style but I want you to get the ambiance. So we all know about Mr. Tarantino and his er… Love of women’s feet, right? This is no inside info if it’s the first time you’ve heard of this, just watch a goodly number of his films and more often than not SOMETHING, anything, to do with a woman’s feet will get into the story. Now, opening shot for Deathproof. We are driving in a car, and we see the road from the eyes of the person sitting in the passenger seat. The passenger is a lady; she has her feet up on the dashboard. Her feet are bare with red nail varnish… So what we see is a dashboard and a bit of sky outlining a woman’s feet and legs. Right on top of this picture comes the writing, in big bold orange letters “A QUENTIN TARANTINO FILM”. All I could do in response was say “Yes, it is!” and burst out laughing… That sort of thing… By the bucket load. Don’t take it too too seriously though, it’s a “peanut” movie, aiming to take your mind off the rest of the world for a couple of hours and give you a good ride… With everything a Tarantino movie entails of course… (Including the director himself in a cameo! I am so glad he is back to that, when I didn’t see him in Inglorious Bastards, I had begun to worry…) So fasten your seatbelts… It will be one HECK of a ride…

A WOMAN WHO CALLS THE SHOTS - JACKIE BROWN

As I start my review, I just want to share a weird fact with you guys. Whenever I think about this film the song “Ma Baker” starts going around in my head. No idea why – no connection to the movie. The human brain is weird… Anyway, this, my dearest readers, is another Tarantino movie. One I hadn’t watched until recently. Now, I love Tarantino but this movie isn’t my favorite. It proves one point though: Even the worst Tarantino movie (I’m not saying it is the worst; it’s just that it’s the one I liked the least) is better than a lot of people’s best movies out there… Sorry guys but that’s a FACT…

OK, so who is Jackie Brown? She (Pam Grier) is a flight attendant for a tiny airlines flying between L.A. and Cabo – Mexico. She doesn’t make much money; therefore, she needs to take on a couple of extra jobs. Like acting as mule for arms dealer Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson * swoooon * ). This is all working just fine until the cops bust her. They are not after her, however – but Ordell. The problem is that Ordell has been so successful in evading them and covering his tracks (you’re dead if he so much as suspects you MIGHT talk to the cops) the police (Michael Bowen and Michael Keaton) don’t even know his name. Hence Jackie finds herself in a VERY tight spot. She must either go to jail and risk losing her already modest job for good or collaborate with the police and risk losing her life. But then Max Cherry the bail bondsman enters the picture. He is a sweet guy who falls madly in love with Jackie and with him she hatches a plan to play the police and the gangsters off against each other and walk off with A LOT of money. It’s risky. She will have to get passed Ordell’s henchman Louis (Robert De Niro) and girlfriend (well sort of) Melanie (Bridget Fonda) and of course thwart Ordell himself…

So it’s basically a heist movie. But WHAT a blast from the past. First up it’s the 90’s. People buy cassettes (are you old enough to remember cassettes? I am and realized how long it had been since I had seen one as I watched this). Then of course, no cell phones. The hair and clothes. Then, the actors. I mean, naturally, barr Samuel L. Jackson and Robert De Niro but ask yourself WHEN did you last see Pam Grier? Michael Keaton – I mean he was BEETLEJUICE for Heaven’s sake!! He appears to have tried his hand at directing and voiced over in Toy Story but when did you actually see him in something? In my case, I’m thinking years… Robert Forster was nominated for an Oscar® for this performance – but I honestly don’t remember seeing him in anything else… The film isn’t just a “brainless American flic” either – even the Berlin Film Festival nominated Mr. Tarantino for a Golden Bear. Samuel L. Jackson actually made off with a Silver Bear. And that’s only a tiny snippet of awards and nominations it received…

If you find Tarantino movies overly violent this one is good news. It isn’t as violent as his other stuff – not by a long shot. I mean sure there is violence (this IS a gangster movie you guys beef up a bit!) and sudden deaths but not in anyway that would upset… Let’s say your average cop drama viewer. And it contains all those other things that make me swoon over Mr. Tarantino’s work – a smart plotline, A LOT of excitement and witty repartee (and that last one you HAVE to admit is a rare gem in films today!)

FOUR MEMORABLE STORIES FROM "FOUR ROOMS" -

Now this is an interesting project. It’s one of those things you wish you had thought of yourself, you know? I’ll give you the tagline for the film: “Twelve outrageous guests. Four scandalous requests. And one lone bellhop, on his first day on the job, who's in for the wildest New Year's Eve of his life.” Set in a hotel, an old rambling hotel – so down on its luck that the entire staff is down to just the manager and the bellhop – four rooms tells the story of, well you got it… Four rooms. Now, each “room” is directed by a different director and is about 20 – odd minutes long. The writer /directors are Allison Anderson, Alexandre Rockwell, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino.
Ted the bellhop (Tim Roth) is stuck at work on New Year’s Eve. The hotel isn’t exactly what you might call full, but there are quite a few guests (twelve in total) knocking around… They are possibly the last handful of guests the hotel may have, so he runs hither and thither to assist and serve… However, not everything will quite go his way… There is a group of very strange ladies (among whom we can spy Madonna) gathering in the honeymoon suite. A rather rowdy couple in 409 who will prove more trouble than they first seem to be. A gangster (Antonio Banderas) and his wife who desperately need a babysitter for their two rather spoilt children will squarely land on Ted in 309 and just as he is ready to pack the whole thing in and leave, the famous film star in the penthouse (ironically played by Tarantino himself) rings with a rather bizarre list of requests.
Now, I love the idea of this film – and it’s really funny in bits, especially the Rodriguez and Tarantino segments (the gangster and the star in the penthouse. By the way, don’t you love the way Tarantino casts himself in his earlier films? Does anyone know why he stopped doing that?) . But, without presuming to be an expert, I may well have done a few things differently. For instance, the four stories DO NOT interact at all if you don’t count Ted. Except once – and even that was, I felt, a slight push. I kind of like the Balzac approach, you know, he will be talking about a character in a novel and just then another character from another novel will come walking by… Not necessarily for any reason in the plot, just as a cameo as it were. They could at least have done that in my opinion – this result is just too cut off… Tim Roth is VERY good to give him his due. However, there were times where I could swear that he was just trying to be Basil Fawlty from Fawlty Towers and only just failing (you’ve heard of Basil Fawlty right? John Cleese’s character from the British sitcom? Oh never mind, just click here) Thirdly, well, not all the stories were, in my view, that interesting. I mean, the first one is well and good; but I wouldn’t have persisted with the rest if I didn’t know that a Tarantino performance was coming up in the end… However, persist I did, and ended up positively howling with laughter in bits and remembering why it was that I adored Mr. Tarantino. I have also developed a healthy interest in Mr. Rodriguez and will proceed to dig a film of his out of my “to watch” pile for next week… You’re going to have to be patient for that one though ;)