Django Unchained - A Review

I had originally saved this post for when I went to the cinema to watch Django a second time, but we're actually off to watch something else (shhhh, don't be so impatient, I'll let you know soon!)

This film certainly caused quite a stir. 

I had expected something so explosively controversial that I waited on the edge of my seat to be horrified and shocked. What I found was a classic example of a Quentin Tarantino film! I went in to see a Tarantino movie... and that is exactly what I got. I think those who went in to the movie expecting anything different were kidding themselves.

I am a massive Tarantino fan. I've seen all his films I have all the soundtracks to all the movies. I'm sad that way, but I can't help it. I find his work so refreshing. His movies don't take themselves so seriously, I find the dialogue to always be brilliant and witty, and of course the action scenes are both grotesque but poetic at the same time!

Django Unchained is no different. It features a slave in America, who is bought by an ex-dentist (now a bounty hunter) to help track down three brothers. Although the dentist abhors slavery and acknowledges that he's being a complete hypocrite for partaking in this act of of buying Django for his own means, he promises that when the job is done Django will be a free man. When Django is freed he tells the good doctor that he wants to track down his wife. And that is what they do. Lots of carnage follows of course.

The soundtrack was awesome. There were times during fight scenes where Tarantino would just blast a rap tune, or at other times rockabilly type music or gospel inspired songs. It was all simply in his style and fit in a way that only a Tarantino film could pull off.

I didn't find the movie as gory as Kill Bill Vol. 1 - 2. I mean, Kill Bill was out of this world in terms of violence and blood. But the violence in Django Unchained was different because the violence was against those who could not defend themselves (such as the slaves), and those scenes in particular were very uncomfortable to watch. 

Django Unchained is both outrageous and audacious in it's subject matter but it is also a bromance in that it features two men, riding around on horses having strange conversations and looking out for each other. This is something that I feel has been ignored in the reviews that I've read. 

The movie is based in the south, the pre-civil war south, and features the many different ideas we have about the south in pre-civil war times. Tarantino does not mask the stereotypes but instead takes advantage of them. The film was quite like reading a comic book as are most of his films. 

Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio and Christoph Waltz are absolutely brilliant and believable and although the rave reviews have all commended Samuel L Jackson's performance I wasn't that keen to be honest as I found his to be the most uncomfortable performance of all. Leonardo DiCaprio's role as the deplorable Calvin Candie... slave owner and Francophile, is pretty amazing. He's just so loathsome and his character did not express ideas or beliefs that were routinely spouted in those times. Calvin Candie holds a particular interest in phrenology (and uses it to justify his views of the African slaves) and also the revolting sport of mandingo fighting. DiCaprio really is scarily believable, and gives Candie a look and feel of a young man who has grown old before his time.

Now, I've heard that part of the controversy was the constant use of the 'N-bomb' that littered this film... and it did! It was all over the place. But it didn't seem out of place. After all, it is 'The South', it is pre-civil war times, it is plantation owners and Ku Klux Klan members, and those who believe in phrenology... it is also Tarantino, remember how much the 'N-word' was used in Jackie Brown? Context is important, I feel (not that I believe this film to be historically accurate).

I've pored over Quentin Tarantino's defence of this film, I've also read his own very blunt views about how the US is still dealing in slavery (go have a read, his views are intriguing), and he's also pointed his finger towards countries in the world where you can see slavery openly practised. His views, opinions and arguments do not seem to me, to be those of an ignorant fool who has no respect for the past.

I thought that this film was good. Very good in fact. I enjoyed the writing, the shooting, the production in general. I enjoyed the performances, the soundtrack and the comic book feel. I also like the trailers. 

I'm just a teeny-tiny-Tarantino-bopper. Forgive me.

Read More

Speed Review - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

In a Nutshell:
A retired potions professor has been asked back to Hogwarts. A professor who knows the horrifying truth about Lord Voldemorte and his powers - and Dumbledore is desperate to find out what that truth is. Harry Potter begins to excel in potions as he's found an old potions book written by the mysterious Half-Blood Prince. A few scenes of bickering, kissing, love, despair, frustration and devastation, surprises and shocks and well, that pretty sums up this instalment of the Harry Potter series and I would definitely not want to ruin it for those of you who have not read the book!

The Audiobook:
Jim Dale is the brilliant narrator of the whole series. I will most definitely make time to listen to Stephen Fry's narration too - but I'm not sure it'll be as awesome as Jim Dale's performance (sorry Stephen Fry, I love you!).

The Story:
Not too much happens in this one to be honest. It can be summed up quite quickly. It was beautifully written, but we basically see the introduction of the horcruxes, how Lord Voldemorte managed to survive the backfired spell and come back from the dead, we see professor Snape finally the teacher of defence against the dark arts. This book is significantly darker than the rest of the previous novels - and some of the characters are a little annoying. But generally speaking it is a good one, it's just a little longer than I feel it needed to be.

Read More

World War Z - Max Brooks

“The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. "Fear," he used to say, "fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe." That blew me away. "Turn on the TV," he'd say. "What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products." Fuckin' A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.” Max Brooks, World War Z

I had been quite excited to read this book. I started it before I left on holiday and is quite a quick read. 

The book is quite literally what it sells itself to be 'An Oral History of the Zombie War'. 

The text begins after the war, and what you're reading is a bunch of interviews by Max Brooks - interviewing ex-military, doctors, crazy dictators, scientists etc etc. This is the type of book, I imagine, that in 2000 years it'll be found, and our descendants will believe that we lived through a Zombie apocalypse and survived. The interviews are chronological, the first interview given by a doctor in China who was one of the first people to diagnose the problem. 

So was this book any good? Well, it was interesting, very interesting in fact. It seems that the author certainly did his homework. He looked at the world as it is now, politically, economically spiritually and I believe pretty much described what we could realistically expect if a plague such as the one described really did spread. So, if anything, it is a fictional commentary of countries and how they responded, as well as the people involved.

Unfortunately, as it is a bunch of interviews and I knew that mankind survived, there was no real drama. There wasn't a particular group of characters that I couldn't bare to see die. I didn't feel suspense, or anxiety over their well being. I knew they survived because they were being interviewed after the fact - if you catch my drift. The writing and many voices were excellently executed and to ignore that would be unfair. Although I read for the drama of it, I also read to meet characters that I care about. Unfortunately this was an impossibility with this book. 

The book read like non-fiction, so much so that when I finished reading I really did think - hmmm... well, I've definitely learnt something new; and then I had to remind myself that this is just a prediction of how the world and its peoples would respond to a calamity such as this one. And yes, it's a prediction, but as far as I am aware, I really do think that Mr. Brooks got it SPOT ON. Maybe I seem that I do not have much faith in the human condition - but that's not it. I'm a realist, and I think, looking at the world around us now - most of us would really be able to predict how things would unravel.

Anywho - I recommend you read it if you want to read something interesting. Don't read it for a plot line, or to love characters, or for drama, or horror, or for thrills... or well, anything like that! Read it because you like history and you're interested in psychology - and only slightly interested in zombies - as they don't really feature much!

Oh - and apparently the movie will be coming out in June 2013!

Read More

Macbeth: A Novel - A. J. Hartley and David Hewson

“And still you'll hesitate to tell him, won't you? Why? Because you're a woman? Is your destiny such a small thing then? To keep your legs open and your mouth shut?” Macbeth: A Novel - A.J Hartley and David Hewson

Well good morning! I guess you may have thought that I'd forgotten all about you, but I hadn't. I actually just got back from holiday. And lucky for me, I took a few books and audiobooks to pass some of my spare time. 

So, Macbeth: A Novel has been on my to-read pile for a very long time. And I did it, I finally got around to reading it. 
This is pretty much the same story as Shakespeare's Macbeth, and it pays homage to his genius, whilst also using historical facts and records to cushion out the story. The writers (one of which is a professor of Shakespeare) unashamedly twist and change things - using their own creativity to make the story eerie and uncomfortable; and uncomfortable it most certainly is. 

It follows the same story - pretty much. Macbeth is a warrior, fighting for Duncan, the King. He and Skener Macbeth (Lady Macbeth has a name!) then decide that Macbeth is pretty much deserving of his crown, and so when King Duncan is invited to his castle for a feast... they both murder him, this in turn destroys both their relationship and their consciences. Macbeth falls to to paranoia, becoming dependent on predictions made by three witches... one an old crone, another a giant woman, and the third, a woman in a young girl's body.

This all culminates to the same ends as they do in Shakespeare's Macbeth, except we have detailed prose rather than actors doing all the work!

The Audiobook

Alan Cumming is the narrator of this novel and a fine one he is. He manages to differentiate between all the different characters flawlessly, and his female voices aren't too odd either - which is a nice change when it comes to male narrators. I think the nicest touch was that they actually had a Scot narrate the story, giving a touch of believability that is needed in the narration of a story such as this one. 

The production was nicely done as well, and we even get to hear the voices of the authors both at the beginning and at the end of the story giving details in to the creative process that went in to writing Macbeth: A Novel.

The Story
The prose is full of Scotland. That may sound silly but it's true. Sprawling, vicious and beautiful landscapes that directly impose themselves upon the characters. There is also a lot of pathetic fallacy, personification and an abundance of gothic conventions that just make this story - quite simply - beautifully written.

Hartley and Hewson do a pretty brilliant job of characterising Skener and Macbeth in such a way that as a reader you do really like them, and empathise the silly mistakes they make. Macbeth's paranoia becomes uncomfortable, not because we think him mad, but because his madness is a result from his fall from grace. Hartley and Hewson seduce us in the first few scenes, Macbeth and Skener having lovely characters and morals - and then we see the temptation, the action, the fall, and the decline. It is the love that Macbeth and Skener have for one another that when it self-destructs it is pitiful. 

There is all sorts in this book. There's murder, misogyny, feminism, sex, violence, paedophilia, rape, infanticide, crime, conspiracy, war, regicide, magic, mystery and romance - and all are developed and explored in a way that can really make the reader uncomfortable - but also, at times, was able to give respite to audiences.

The narrative is intense, as are the characters, and so for me, I really had to take short breaks as I could feel myself becoming a little overwhelmed. 

There were times that I could feel myself rolling my eyes and saying to myself 'this is a book for men' - haha, sexist... I know. I just found that a lot of the fight scenes were just needlessly long, and more for an audience who enjoyed the movie 300, rather than Shakespeare enthusiasts. 

So... as a Shakespeare enthusiast am I enraged at the bastardisation of his Scottish play? No, not at all in fact. I think this is an excellent resource for those who just cannot connect with the English of the play but want to be able to enjoy the story. It's also great for those who do not go to theatre, and enjoy prose instead. 

So why do I only give it three stars? Well, it's just because it felt... so... long, and at times I felt like I was reading it because I had to, not because I wanted to. And maybe, in a more sexist vein, I found it... very... masculine, and I couldn't connect with the female characters. But, I will say this, I will happily read any future novelisations of Shakespeare's plays. I'd love to read what they do with them.

But anywho - that's just me. If you liked it, or are planning on listening to it any time soon - then please, hit me a line and tell me off if I just didn't get it! 

Read More

Dredd - A Review

Today I and a couple of my friends decided to go to the movies.

We were actually going to watch 'ParaNorman'. Well, we basically got the times mixed up and ended up NOT going to see it. 

After making our way to the movie theatre we decided that it would only be worth the journey if we actually watched something. So, we decided 'Let's see The Watch' but we all know how Ben Stiller is... sometimes he's awesome, and sometimes he's not so awesome. Unfortunately we all had busy schedules in the evening and so it was an impossibility to watch a later showing... and that is all they had available. 

And so... we opted for Dredd. All we watched was a trailer on YouTube in the middle of the mall's Food Court. We couldn't hear it, just see the fanciness of it all. I'm quite the sci-fi movie fan and so are my friends and so, well, we made the decision to watch Dredd (we didn't watch the 3D version).

This was probably one of the worst movies I have ever watched. Ever. 

The effects were pretty top of the line, but the story was just so ridiculous. I mean, so utterly ridiculous that it kinda stopped making sense right about twenty minutes in to the story. 

Karl Urban played Dredd and he was wooden, boring, and robotic. In fact, to be honest, if I hadn't watched Sylvester Stallone's Judge Dredd I would have actually thought for the first hour that he was playing a robot. 

The story is this. We're in futuristic, radiated America, and the only place that isn't barren radiated wasteland is a mega-city reaching from Washington to some other American city (sorry...). The city is pretty much a police-state run by police-people who have the authority to be both judge, jury and executioner. Dredd basically teams up with a Psychic (who is a mutant) and they're going up against Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) who is basically the queen-bee, drug-dealing, eye-popping, murderess ex-prostitute; you can pretty much guess the rest. I love you Lena Headey... but why, why did you take this role? You were awesome just being the pretty lady from 300 and the psychotic queen from Game of Thrones.

The violence (which there is a lot of) is vulgar, boring and cliched. There was no suspense and in fact... let me be honest, I walked out twenty minutes before the end. 

I'm sure there will be some fans of the comic books who feel that Dredd is a lot closer to the comic book than Stallone was... this may be true, but it didn't appeal to my sensibilities at all. And I quite openly hoped that Dredd would die so there wouldn't be a sequel. 

Anywho, this film was DREDDFUL (Get it? Get it?) and you know what the worst thing is? It has been given a 7.7/10 on IMDB....
I give it a 2/10.

Read More