DVD Review: Hello, I Must Be Going

Hello, I Must Be Going
Directed by: Todd Louiso.
Written by: Sarah Koskoff.
Starring: Melanie Lynskey (Amy), Blythe Danner (Ruth Minsky), John Rubinstein (Stan Minsky), Julie White (Gwen), Christopher Abbott (Jeremy).

I love Melanie Lynskey. Ever since I saw Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures (1994), her debut film, I’ve thought there is something special about her. Her co-star in that film, also making their film debut, was of course Kate Winslet who has gone onto become the most acclaimed and award actress of her generation. While Lynsky’s career has not taken off in the same way, she has become one of the great character actresses working today – adding interesting performances on the margins of films. The type of performances that don’t win awards, but are key to a movies success. Think of her roles in films like Win Win, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Shattered Glass, Flags of Our Fathers, Away We Go, Up in the Air, The Informant, Leaves of Grass or Seeking a Friend at the End of the World and you have an eclectic mix of performances. So I was looking forward to seeing Lynsky take on a lead role again for the first time in years. And while Lynsky is wonderful in Hello, I Must Be Going, the movie itself is rather dull and predictable.

Lynskey stars as Amy, a woman in her early 30s who has essentially given up having a career of her own in order to support her husband’s. And now that he has left her, she is left humiliated and alone with no kids and no marketable skills – and living at home with her parents. Her dad Stan (John Rubinstein) is loving and supportive, but her mother Ruth (Blythe Danner) blames her for what what wrong in her life. Now Stan needs to close a big business deal to save his business and allow him to retire. As part of this deal, they invite Gwen (Julie White) and her 19 year old son Jeremy (Christopher Abbott) over for dinner. Gwen is married to the man they have to convince to sign the deal. Everything must be perfect. And so, of course, Amy and Jeremy start sleeping with each other.

You can probably guess what is going to happen in Hello, I Must Be Going, and you’d most likely be right. Amy, who has been devastated and had her confidence shattered by her divorce will gradually learn what love can really be like, and this will help her come out of her shell, and get on with her life. Lynskey is wonderful at showing this gradual progression throughout the movie. She makes Amy far more sympathetic than she must have been on the page – since when you stop to think about what she does, she is more than a little bit of a whiner. But because she is embodied by the ever lovable Lynskey, we root for her anyway.

Lynskey is not the problem with Hello, I Must Be Going. Everything else is. Christopher Abbott is quite good as Jeremy – or at least as good as the movie allows him to be. I never understood what exactly draws him to Amy in the first place – and what keeps him coming back for more. While Amy is a well-drawn character, Jeremy remains an enigma – but not a fascinating one. Worse yet is the ham-fisted plot of the business deal that brings them together, and especially Danner’s ever annoying character, who is finally (and not so-shockingly) revealed to be just as insecure as her daughter.

The film was directed by Todd Louiso, a character actor himself (probably still best known for playing the shy record store guy in High Fidelity), who has directed at least one better film than this – 2002’s Love Liza, with a terrific performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman (I missed Louiso’s sophomore effort 2009’s The Marc Pease Experience). He shows a sensitive eye behind the camera, but really cannot overcome the holes in the screenplay. Hello, I Must Be Going contains an excellent performance by Lynskey – and not a whole hell of a lot else.

[8.25/10] Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Brief review: Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow succeeds yet again with another bold and daring project for the manhunt of enemy No. 1, Osama bin Laden, based on actual events. Bigelow lets us witness the near decade operation, revealing interesting details and hidden facts, making the experience not only gripping, but informative as well. The films also benefits from Kathryn Bigelow's incredible ability to keep things as realistic, and plausible as possible. There's nothing exaggerated, or Hollywood-ish about this movie, even when the action kicks in. The whole thing is stripped down to the bone, but that only helps to Bigelow for maintaining the intensity level, even when the film is slow and talky. The last 30 minutes are so thrilling, you may find yourself on the edge of your seat, but unfortunately the climax, namely the killing of Osama is nothing special really, hence, it may leave you slightly unsatisfied. Featuring lots of hand-held, camera work, intentionally simplistic cinematography, and washed-out colors, "Zero Dark Thirty" has a slightly documentary-ish feel about it that works to its advantage, plus, there's a certain grittiness to Kathryn Bigelow's shooting style, that adds further realism to the story. The film wouldn't be as great without Jessica Chastain's award-worthy performance as the workaholic CIA officer, Maya, whose angelesque femininity contrasts beautifully with her self-confidence and often intense personality, and the rest of the cast all do a brilliant job as well.

Overall summary: It drags a bit in the first half, and the slaying of bin Laden could have been  way more dramatic, but nonetheless "Zero Dark Thirty" is a smartly-scripted, superbly-made, and truly engrossing piece of cinema, jam-packed with sheer, nearly obsessive intensity.

Movie Review: West of Memphis

West of Memphis
Directed by: Amy Berg.

I have now seen four documentaries about the West Memphis 3 – the three Paradise Lost films directed by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky made between 1996 and 2011, and now Amy Berg’s West of Memphis made in 2012. Of them all, I still think the original Paradise Lost from 1996 is the best. When Berlinger and Sinofsky went down to make the film, they assumed, like everyone else, the three were guilty and they would be making a film about how three teenagers murdered three younger boys. What they found though didn’t add up. There was no evidence, aside from a confession got out of the slowest of the three boys, who recanted. Other than that, the entire case seemed to be built on smoke and mirrors. And it is also unquestionable that without that film, they rest would not have been made. Pretty much everyone who became involved in the case over the years became involved BECAUSE of that documentary. Having said that, I think that West of Memphis is probably the most complete single film about the case. It has the benefit of hindsight, and the years of research and investigation into the original case and shows you precisely what did happen. Even after four documentaries about the case – not to mention an excellent book about it – I’m still learning things.

The story is now familiar to most people – it has become one of the most well-known true crime stories in recent American history. Three eight year boys were found beaten, bound and murdered in a shallow creek. The police have no real leads, but think that the crime might have something to do with Satan worship. They focus on Damien Echols, a “strange” teenager in town, who dresses all in black, and is said to worship Satan – as well as his two friends – Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. The story becomes huge in the small town, and begins to attract national attention. After hours of interrogation, Jessie confesses to helping Jason and Damien kill the three boys. His confession is splashed all over the front page of the paper. It is also riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies that the detectives help him remember correctly. He later recants his confession, and refuses to testify against Damien and Jason – who are to be tried separately. There is no physical evidence tying any of the three of them to the murders. Despite this, all three are convicted, and Damien is sentenced to death.

The movie opens with a recap of the case from back in 1994 – including gruesome crime scene footage and descriptions, that quite frankly, are hard to stomach, but necessary. It then goes over what has happened in the 18 years since then – the celebrities who became involved in trying to free the West Memphis Three – from Eddie Vedder to Johnny Depp to the Dixie Chicks to Peter Jackson (who produced this film, and also gave lots of money in order to hire appeals lawyers and investigators to help out) – as well as the “regular” people who became involved – including a woman named Laurie who ended up falling in love and marrying Damien. The film also supplies an alternate theory of the crime.

For years, the most likely suspect was thought to be John Mark Byers – the stepfather of one of the murdered boys. He was front and center in the first two Paradise Lost movies (especially the second one, which is admittingly the weakest of the three) – and certainly did himself no favors, with his over the top grieving and hate filled tirades against the West Memphis Three, not to mention some apparent slip ups. But in one of the ironies of this case, many focused on him solely because he “seemed” like the type of person who WOULD do something like this – which is precisely what got the West Memphis Three in trouble in the first place. There is no evidence against him, and no one really believes he did it anymore. That person is now Terry Hobbs – another stepfather – and there actually is some evidence to support this claim – a hair found in one of the knots that bound the murdered boys for example. Whether or not he did it, you’ll have to decide for yourself based on what the movie shows. It is clear there will never be a true investigation into him by the police or the prosecutors, who insist they convicted the right three people.

And that is sad thing about this case. What has become clear enough for pretty much everyone to except – that the West Memphis Three are innocent and served 18 years in prison for something they didn’t do, is what the police and prosecutors – not to mention the original judge – will never admit. When it became clear that the three were going to get new trials, the prosecutors came up with a deal for the three of them. In one of the strangest pleas I can imagine, the West Memphis Three were allowed to maintain their innocence, while admitting that the prosecution had enough evidence to convict them -  and were allowed to go free. This was presented as a Win-Win for all involved. The Prosecution technically got guilty pleas, and are able to close the case, maintaining they convicted the right three people, and they spent years in jail for the crime, and also protect themselves and the state from any lawsuits the three may file. The West Memphis Three got to get out of jail, and not spend years longer waiting for a new trial, where there was no guarantee they would be found not guilty. Win Win, right?

Except it isn’t a w in win, because the real killer or killers of those three innocent boys is still out there. The prosecution and police don’t care, because they have protected their own asses. But is that really their job? Isn’t their job to find, convict and punish the guilty, and get some level of justice for the victims and their families? The case of the West Memphis Three is one of injustice – injustice because three innocent kids spent 18 years in jail for something they didn’t do, going in when they were teenagers and coming out as they approach middle age. And injustice because someone killed three innocent children, and will never face justice for it. There is no happy ending to a case like this.

Movie Review: A Royal Affair

A Royal Affair
Directed by:  Nikolaj Arcel.
Written by: Rasmus Heisterberg and Nikolaj Arcel based on the book by Bodil Steensen-Leth.
Starring: Alicia Vikander (Caroline Mathilde), Mads Mikkelsen (Johann Friedrich Struensee), Mikkel Boe Følsgaard (Christian VII), Trine Dyrholm (Juliane Marie), David Dencik (Ove Høegh-Guldberg), Thomas W. Gabrielsson (Schack Carl Rantzau), Cyron Melville (Enevold Brandt), Bent Mejding (J. H. E. Bernstoff), Harriet Walter (Augusta - Princess of Wales), Laura Bro (Louise von Plessen), Søren Malling (Hartmann).

A Royal Affair is the type of lavish, historical romantic drama that we always see this time of the year – a prototypical “Oscar bait” movie, about a beautiful young Queen (Alicia Vikander) who does the unthinkable and falls in love with someone not her husband. In this case, that is Johann Friedrich Struensee (Mads Mikkelsen), a German doctor hired to be the personal physician of the Danish King Christian VII (Mikkel Boe Folsgaard), who ends up sleeping with the King’s English wife.

This probably sounds like something you’ve seen before – and in many ways you would be right. The difference in A Royal Affair is that the filmmakers are as interested in the title affair itself – but rather in the politics of the time (the late 1700s in Denmark), and how Struensee did everything possible to drag the country into the age of Enlightenment – and for a brief time succeeded. He is seen as a hero in Denmark today – not so much at the time he was around.

The nicest way to describe King Christian VII would be to say he was feeble minded. He is certainly not very bright, and would no doubt be diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder were he alive today, but no one was all that interested in doing that at the time. Because Christian is a perfect foil. The learned council – full of religious zealots and the rich – passed laws that suited them, and not those that helped the common man. Christian attends all these meetings so he can sign off on all these laws – when he asks what he’s signing, they simply tell him not to ask questions, and just sign, and he does.

But then two people come into his life who will end up changing not just him but the country. The first is his beautiful English bride Caroline Mathilde, who is a modern woman, upset that most of her books were sent back to England because they had been banned in Denmark. She is horrified to discover her husband really is a silly twit – more in love with dog than anything else. But she does what she was raised to do – become Queen of Denmark, and give the King an heir – after which, she promptly banishes him for her bedchamber. Then comes Struensee, who is one of many doctors interviewed by the King to be his personal doctor. Struensee immediately sees how childish Christian is, and knows just what to do to manipulate him. Soon Christian sees Struensee as his “best friend” and confidant – and Struensee sees how he can get Denmark to become a modern country – which in this time means things like ending serfdom, banning torture and opening orphanages. It is also clear that Struensee and Caroline are drawn to each other – the share similar ideals, and are both saddled with the King, who they don’t really like, but need to accomplish their goals. It’s only a matter of time before they will fall into bed with each other.

A Royal Affair is an extremely handsomely mounted production. It has all the trappings of this kind of movie – beautiful costumes and production design, lush cinematography, a romantic score. The film is one of the most expensive made in Danish history – and may well get an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language film, as it is their entry (beating out The Hunt, also starring Mikkselsen). But A Royal Affair is also more concerned with ideas than most costume dramas of this sort. In fact, it is the romance between Struensee and Caroline that gets the short end of the stick here – the movie is so concerned with the politics, the maneuverings of Struensee, and his rivals on the council, and how they all manipulate Christian, that it almost feels like the pair fall into bed simply because the plot requires them to. Both Mikkselsen and newcomer Vikander are very good in their roles, but the sexual chemistry between the two of them isn’t quite there. They seem better suited to each other when they are discussing their ideals than in the throes of passion.

Still, I think that’s why I liked A Royal Affair. I’ve seen too many movies set in this time period, or shortly before and after, where people who are not supposed to fall in love with each other inevitably do just that. The movies often use society’s outrage at the lovers as proof of just how backwards that society is. But A Royal Affair knows that there were more important things wrong with society, other than the fact that it kept lovers apart. And this makes A Royal Affair an engrossing costume drama.

[7.50/10] American Mary (2012)

American Mary (2012)

Brief review: The Canadian twin sisters, Jen Soska and Sylvia Soska, take indie horror cinema to another level with their latest blood-soaked gem, "American Mary" - an unexpectedly brilliant feminist horror story of revenge, that also explores human's twisted mentality and the perverse desires of people obsessed with the idea of being unique, by turning themselves into monsters, literally. Soska sister's original script cleverly mixes visceral and psychological horror with unsettling sense of realism, outrageous gore and dark humor, and that well-balanced combination of elements leads to an impressive end result. Due to its sick, demented nature, "American Mary" may be a bit too bizarre and revolting for mass tastes, but those willing to see something different, will appreciate the film's bleak uniqueness. Soskas' latest isn't scary, and it's not meant to be, because the story is already shocking and grim enough, so the film doesn't need any additional gimmicks to give you the chills. Sure, being a surgeon horror, there's lots of blood, guts and cut-off body parts, but none of it is over-the-top or too in-your-face. "American Mary" does not look like a low-budget indie film. Soskas' stylish direction complements the film's gloomy tone, which is captured through the use of low lighting and gritty cinematography. It wouldn't be as effective, without Katharine Isabelle's disturbing, yet captivating portrayal of Mary - a gifted surgeon, who's also a sick-minded freak you don't wanna mess with at all.

Overall summary: More nasty than scary, cold, yet sleek in atmosphere and look, and definitely disturbing, "American Mary" is a superbly-crafted and highly original horror movie with feminist undertones, grim sense of humor and grotesque gore, that every genre fan should see.

Movie Review: On the Road

On the Road
Directed by: Walter Salles.
Written by: Jose Rivera based on the book by Jack Kerouac.
Starring: Sam Riley (Sal Paradise), Garrett Hedlund (Dean Moriarty), Kristen Stewart (Marylou), Kirsten Dunst (Camille), Viggo Mortensen (Old Bull Lee), Tom Sturridge (Carlo Marx), Elisabeth Moss (Galatea Dunkel), Amy Adams (Jane), Steve Buscemi (Tall Thin Salesman), Terrence Howard (Walter), Alice Braga (Terry), Danny Morgan (Ed Dunkel), Coati Mundi (Slim Gaillard).

Jack Kerouac’s On the Road was published in 1957, and has since inspired several generations. The book somehow manages to be both romantic and cynical – romantic in hitting to the open road, either all by yourself or with your friends, and having “experiences” everywhere you go. Cynical in the way it looks at long term romantic love, and American society as a whole. You would think a book this popular and influential would have been made into a movie at some point in the last 55 years – but until Walter Salles decided to tackle it, no one else had. That’s probably because everyone thought that Kerouac’s style – a stream of consciousness – would be lost in any movie adaptation. And watching On the Road, you’d have to admit that the novel certainly loses something in translation. And yet, the movie is also endlessly fascinating. Kerouac’s novel that seemed so daring in 1957, when it hits screens in 2012, it seems nostalgic.

Sam Riley plays Sal Paradise, Kerouac’s alter-ego, who at the beginning of the movie hits the road from New York to Denver to see his friend Dean Moriarty (Garret Hedlund) in 1947. He doesn’t know Dean all that well, but there are others in Denver he does know, and Sal is tired of being a frustrated writer in his mother’s New York home, so decides to be a frustrated writer on the road. Over the next few years, he will crisscross the country – from New York to Denver to San Francisco back to New York to New Orleans all through the South, and eventually Mexico, often right alongside Dean and his young ex-wife Marylou (Kristen Stewart), and whoever else happens to want to go along for the ride. They drink, smoke and do drugs nearly constantly, will sleep with anything that moves -which are a specialty of Dean’s, who is an expert at making everyone fall in love with him. These two young men are trying very hard to fill the holes in them left by their absent fathers – Sal’s who died just prior to the beginning of the story, and Dean’s who was once a barber who became a hopeless wino on the streets of Denver, who is constantly searching in vain for. Eventually, we know, Sal will become the writer he wants to be – when he finally sits down and starts writing out everything that happens that we see in the movie – and Dean will eventually, well, Dean remains Dean – oblivious to the pain he causes everyone around him until it’s too late to undo that damage. In this version of On the Road anyway, it seems the basic journey is the one that has Sal go from enthralled with Dean to disillusion with him.

Riley’s Sal Paradise is mostly a passive presence in the film – always sitting back and observing everything, but hardly ever really getting involved. He loves Dean, may well be in love with Marylou, but he rarely vocalizes what exactly he is feeling to anyone. He is content to be along for the ride. The best performance in the movie belong to Garret Hedlund, who gets the best role in the movie as Dean, the ever charming, ever scheming Dean who does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. It’s easy to see why Sal is so drawn to Dean – he is the person that everyone loves, an expert at seducing women at the drop of a hat. Yet all these women – and a lot of men too – truly do fall in love with Dean. They know he will never love them back the way they love him, but they can’t stop themselves. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the sad face of Kristen Stewart, who is quite good as Marylou, who loves Dean when they are on the road together, but knows full well that when they reach wherever they’re going, he’ll be off again, leaving her along. Kristen Dunst plays Camille, Dean’s current wife, who sticks with him because of their children, but knows that even when he is with them, he is miserable. Even poet Carlo Marx (based on Allen Ginsberg), loves Dean, and wishes he would love him back. At least Carlo, unlike Marylou and Camille, is smart enough to stay mostly away from Dean. Hedlund does an excellent job of getting Dean’s lazy charm just about perfect.

The other two great performances are pretty much cameos – but Viggo Mortenson and Amy Adams as Old Bull Lee and his wife Jane, who of course are really William Burroughs and his wife. Mortenson is pretty much doing an impression of Burroughs, which is funny and tragic all at once, and Adams, normally so sweet and lovable, is mostly off her rocker – one time so high that she goes out to sweep a tree. You wish there was more of them in the movie, because they bring a weird energy to their scenes.

Director Walter Salles obviously loves road trip movies – his breakthrough was Central Station, about an old woman and a young boy searching for his father in Brazil, and he also directed The Motorcycle Diaries, about a young Che Guevara riding through South and Central America before he became a revolutionary. He and his cinematographer, Eric Gautier, capture the dusty charm and feeling of freedom of being on the road at the beginning of the movie – and also do a good job of making a moving car heading across the country feel claustrophobic by the end, when it is starting to lose its charm for Sal. The trip to Mexico, which is the last draw for Sal, feels like a fever dream, half seen, half remembered as things come crashing down around Sal and Dean.

This is probably the best version of On the Road that you could make – which probably points out why no one made it before now. It is a good film, but being forced to tell things in a linear fashion, full of “incidents” and cameos, and essentially ignoring the stretches of the book where Sal and Dean are apart, the film certainly loses something between the book and the film. And yet it remains a fascinating film – and a very good one at that.

[7.25/10] Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Brief review: Adapted from Matthew Quick's novel of the same name, "Silver Linings Playbook" is yet another winner from gifted director David O. Russel, who brought us the near flawless boxing drama "The Fighter" back in 2010. Although a bit overrated in general, we can't deny that Russel, who also wrote the script, has adapted the story in an excellent way, balancing the bipolar nature of it with ease and true sophistication, without sucking the delightful quirkiness out of it. Sure, it's intentionally moody, but the story which brings together two flawed, and mentally disturbed characters, with very similar struggles, has an edge that most rom-coms are lacking these days, successfully avoiding the cliches. The film's witty verbal fights, awkwardly amusing situations and 'full throttle' anxiousness contrast beautifully with the Russel's gentle direction, as well as the vulnerability of the two protagonists. Speaking of characters, those are definitely the driving force of "Silver Linings Playbook", as well as the cast that plays them. Bradley Cooper does a stellar job in a rather unusual and unexpected role for him. He embraces the lunacy of his sympathetic character to the fullest, and the end result is great. Most talked-about actress of 2012, Jennifer Lawrence, is every bit as good, if not better as the tough cookie, Tiffany, and they both share a genuine on-screen chemistry. Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver both give superb performances, without which this film would never be the same.

Overall summary: As honest and outspoken as its lead characters, if overlong, and slightly overrated, "Silver Linings Playbook" very cleverly balances comedic and dramatic elements, delivering laughter, sincere emotions, sharp dialogues and quirky romance to its viewers.

Movie Review: Detropia

Detropia
Directed by: Heidi Ewing & Rachel Grady.

Detroit was once a thriving manufacturing city for the entire United States. Slowly but surely over the years, as one car company after after closed it factories or moved them overseas, Detroit became a poorer and poorer city, with high employment and a falling population. It is now estimated that the population is half of what it was during the boom times – and unemployment reaches over 30%. Even the auto bailout hasn’t helped very much. The city is broke and has no way of making more money. Once a great city, Detroit is now a mere shadow of its former self.

The excellent documentary Detropia doesn’t have any solutions to the problems. Nor is it really about how Detroit sunk down to the place where it’s at now. Instead, it is a portrait of what the city is now like – what the residents go through on a day to day basis, the struggles the city government has. To offset these scenes of quiet desperation, the directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady flash to the Detroit opera – which is still going, mainly because of payouts by the auto companies to try and make themselves look good. But if the city is emptying, who the hell cares if they still have “culture”?

The most memorable character in the movie is probably Mike Stevens – a retired teacher who now owns a blues bar. He is outspoken in his criticism for everyone who has helped to destroy Detroit, but also optimistic that it can – and will recover. He is convinced that sooner or later, his bar will start making money again – and he’ll be able to hire a cook (he does it himself now). He goes to the car show, and is in disbelief that an electric car in China costs $20,000 than the Chevy Volt. Yes, but, the Volt has many more features than that car – a Chevy representative tells him. Americans won’t want to drive that car, they assure him. But Stevens seems to remember the recent past better than the Chevy guys do – and when he mentions that is precisely what they used to say about Honda, they don’t have much to say, and quickly end the conversation.

We see Detroit’s Mayor Dave Bing trying to do the best job he can – in a job no sane person would want. He has no good choices in front of him. His city has no money, and he needs to cut services. But if he cuts bus service for example, than many of the residents who still live in town would no longer be able to get to work. He comes up with a novel idea – move people in sparsely populated neighbourhoods into the more crowded ones – perhaps only half the city will be full, but at least than the city could concentrate all their money there – and the businesses in those areas might have more customers. Unsurprisingly, none of the people who are to be “relocated” are very happy about the plan.

We also meet an artist couple, who considered many places before deciding on moving to Detroit. What made them pick the Motor City? They could live cheaper there than anywhere else – and Detroit has more empty buildings and warehouses where they can practice their art.

The film is strangely beautiful. There is something haunting about the shots that Grady and Ewing of an abandoned Detroit. The often just let the images of the empty streets, empty lots, abandoned buildings, closed factories. I have come to think of Detroit of a broken, dirty city – and while Detropia shows that, it also has a sadly beautiful quality.

Detropia is a rather obvious title for the movie – and is not the title I would have chosen. That makes it sound like a more simple minded film – one that probably tries to advocate  a solution or tries to advance some sort of political agenda. That isn’t the case with Detropia. This is a film that looks at a once proud city, that is now probably destroyed forever. What are the solutions? Perhaps, as Detropia shows, there isn’t one.

Movie Review: 5 Broken Cameras

5 Broken Cameras
Directed by: Emad Burnat & Guy Davidi.

Emad Burnat is a Palestinian villager who has spent his whole life in his small village of Bil’in. He gets a camera on the occasion of his fourth son’s birth so he can document his son’s life. Emad, and seemingly everyone else is Bil’in, isn’t really political. They live a simple life, and are happy. All they really want is for things to stay the same. But when the Israeli government decides that they need to build a barrier – to separate villagers like Bil’in from the Israeli settlement near by, the people of Bil’in are not happy – and they start to protest. Their protests are non-violent – basically just the entire village going to the construction site of the barrier every Friday with signs and chanting at the workers and Israeli army member there. The Israeli response is not non-violent – he sees his friends and family arrested or beaten, and throughout the course of his movie, he will have five different cameras that he has used to document the protests destroyed.

The story that 5 Broken Cameras tells is undeniably powerful and important. The film is narrated by Burnat, who tells his story over the images his cameras caught. Professional filmmaker – and Israeli – Guy Davidi co-directed the film, one assumes to help give it a professional polish that Burnat, who says he knew nothing about filmmaking, would be incapable of giving. Had the two simply let the images speak for themselves, and cut back on the cloying narration, this could have been a great documentary. As it stands, I could not help but think that I was being manipulated throughout the entire running time of the documentary. The sad thing is, the filmmakers didn’t need to do that. In this case, it is hard to defend Israel’s actions – but I still don’t like the filmmakers bashing me over the head over and over again with their rather obvious point.

Take for instance a scene in which Burnat’s youngest son, Gibreel, who must be at most 3 at the time, goes up to an Israeli soldier and literally hands him an olive branch (olives being  the main crop of the area). The film shows this, without narration, as if it was a natural, spur of the moment gesture by the wide eyed innocent Gibreel. But the whole scene reeks of a setup – I wonder just how long Gibreel needed to be coached before he did that?

The same sort of manipulation can be seen throughout the movie. Burnat and Davidi never tire of showing us wide eyed, innocent children to go along with their cloying narration that never really shares any real insight into what is happening, but is there to pull at the audience’s heartstrings.

Which is sad, because the story of the Bil’in protests is an important one. We hear stories of violent clashes between Israel and Palestine – and more often, Israel and its neighbors – far too often. The villagers in Bil’in are not trying to wipe Israel off the map, they just want to be left alone in their village, so they can raise their own families in peace. Their protests are peaceful, and what Israel does in response is overkill.

But 5 Broken Cameras remains a film that isn’t really interested in presenting a fair and balance picture of what happened. Instead, they insist on beating its point into your head over and over again, in the most broadly sentimental way imaginable. It’s too bad. The filmmakers didn’t need to go this route to make a good film. In fact, they would have been much better served if they hadn’t. This is a sad enough story that the filmmakers needn’t have tried so hard to pull at your heartstrings.

Movie Review: Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty
Directed by:  Kathryn Bigelow.
Written by: Mark Boal.
Starring: Jessica Chastain (Maya), Jason Clarke (Dan), Mark Strong (George), Jennifer Ehle (Jessica), Kyle Chandler (Joseph Bradley), Mark Duplass (Steve), James Gandolfini (C.I.A. Director), Stephen Dillane (National Security Advisor), John Schwab (Deputy National Security Advisor), Édgar Ramírez (Larry from Ground Branch), Reda Kateb (Ammar), Harold Perrineau (Jack), Fares Fares (Hakim), Yoav Levi (Abu Faraj al-Libbi), Fredric Lehne (The Wolf), Tushaar Mehra (Abu Ahmed), Joel Edgerton (Patrick - Squadron Team Leader), Chris Pratt (Justin – DEVGRU), Taylor Kinney (Jared – DEVGRU), Callan Mulvey (Saber – DEVGRU), Siaosi Fonua (Henry – DEVGRU), Phil Somerville (Phil – DEVGRU), Nash Edgerton (Nate - DEVGRU EOD), Mike Colter (Mike – DEVGRU).

Zero Dark Thirty opens not with images of 9/11 but with only the sounds of 9/11 – desperate phone calls from people saying goodbye, begging for help that they know will never come. In many ways this brief, imageless segment is more effective a representation of 9/11 than the few movies that have dealt with the tragedy in a more direct way in the years since. Those images are already burned into our collective memories – we don’t need to see them again. These sounds bring the events of that day roaring back – and is perhaps the most effective opening sequence you could ask for.

The following two and half hours of Zero Dark Thirty is about the CIA’s efforts to track down and kill Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind responsible for that tragedy. The movie focuses its attention of Maya (Jessica Chastain), a CIA agent who will simply not let go until she has caught Bin Laden. We see her, and other CIA agents, as they use “enhanced interrogation methods” on detainees, and any delusions you have about whether or not this is torture will fly out the window fairly quickly. It is torture. And it is brutal. Eventually the interrogations lead to a name – Abu Ahmed – who the CIA is told is a courier for a man named Faraj, a key financier for Al Qaeda. Abu Ahmed is the man who is responsible for transferring messages back and forth from Faraj to Bin Laden. And may be the only person who really knows where the Al Qaeda leader is hiding. Maya doggedly pursues this lead for years – refusing to give up on it when everyone else in the CIA believes it to be a dead end. But since we know how the movie will end, we also know that Maya is right.

Zero Dark Thirty does many things – all of them well. On one hand, it is a portrait of a woman who becomes obsessed with putting the pieces of a puzzle together. We’ve seen this in a few great movies in the last few years – David Fincher’s Zodiac springs to mind. Because like Robert Graysmith in that film, who thinks he has all the pieces of the puzzle to figure out who Zodiac is but cannot quite make them fit, Maya is similarly driven and obsessed. Both are lonely characters – Graysmith’s family being literally replaced around the dinner table by boxes and boxes of paper – and Maya doesn’t even have a family to begin with. When one character (Jennifer Ehle, wonderfully sympathetic) asks her if she has is sleeping with anyone on base, Maya bluntly responds “I’m not the girl who fucks” – Maya is driven solely by her obsession. There is nothing else in her life. And it’s to Chastain’s credit that she makes Maya’s obsession seem real and turns Maya into a real character instead of the robot she could have seemed. It really is one of the very best performances of 2012.

The other great performance in Zero Dark Thirty is by Jason Clarke, who plays Dan, who heads up the “detainee” program – and is the one who is principally responsible for all the “enhanced interrogation”. Dan is a likable guy – when he’s not interrogating people, which is when he becomes downright scary. “You lie to me, and I’m gonna hurt you” he tells the detainees – and they believe him, because he’s more than willing to back up his claim. Clarke, poised to become a star thanks to great performances here and earlier this year in Lawless (not to mention several high profile upcoming releases) makes Dan into an intelligent, thoughtful, yet brutal human being.

And these two performances (and the one by Ehle) are key because they add the human element to what could have “just” been an expertly crafted procedural. And make no mistake, this is an expertly crafted film. Mark Boal’s well-researched screenplay takes you through, one step at a time, what happened, and what led to that night when Bin Laden was killed. And Kathryn Bigelow’s direction is even sharper here than it was in her Oscar winning The Hurt Locker, especially in that final night time raid, which is the most suspenseful sequence of the year, even though we know how it turns out. Boal and Bigelow have once again crafted a timely, important movie – one that leaves politics aside, for the most part, and allows the audience to make up their own mind.

Which, unfortunately, brings me to the made up “controversy” that surrounds the film. Do I think that Zero Dark Thirty endorses torture? No, I don’t. I think it shows torture, without judgment, and allows the characters who commit it to explain their actions. But showing something does not equal endorsing it. Do you really need to be told that torture is wrong? Can you honestly sit there and watch what happens to these detainees and not think that it shouldn’t be done to another human being? As for the question about the movie saying that torture was essential to capturing Bin Laden, and the claims of politicians and pundits saying it wasn’t, I have to wonder what they were watching. It is true that the first person in the film who mentions the name of the courier, which will eventually lead to Bin Laden, was subjected to “enhanced interrogation methods”. It is also true that while he is being enhancely interrogated, he doesn’t reveal the name of the courier – he only does that later, when they are being nice to him, and trying to build up trust. Besides, any movie that is about the War on Terror that doesn’t include torture would be a needless whitewash of history. Whether you like it or not, America engaged in torture for a time to try to win the War on Terror. Zero Dark Thirty faces this head-on.

I’m sorry I even had to include the above paragraph in this review of one of the best films of the year. This is a film that intelligent people will be able to go into and make up their own minds – and the whole time, they will also be entertained by a tight thriller made my filmmakers at the top of their game. Believe the buzz – Zero Dark Thirty is a masterwork.

[3.25/10] Sadako 3D (2012)

Sadako 3D (2012)

Brief review: Do you remember Gore Verbinski's horror masterpiece "The Ring", and the equally as sinister original Japanese version it was based on, called "Ringu"? Well, Tsutomu Hanabusa's "Sadako 3D" is sort of a sequel to the latter, but sadly, an unnecessary and terrible one. Although it wears the title of "Ringu"'s central character, this film reveals absolutely nothing about the origin of Sadako - there's no back story, no proper explanation, nothing... just a dumb, heavily contrived plot that makes no sense at all, and tons of cheesy CGIs. It plays more like an "updated" version of "Ringu" rather than trying to be creative, and bring something new to the table. And no more TVs and VHSs, guys! Sadako is more contemporary now, and she comes out of LCD monitors, plasma screens and iPhones. Sure, over the last ten years, technology has developed tremendously, so this "update" is understandable, but the whole 'cursed video' story got lamer and way less effective. Having said that, the worst thing about "Sadako 3D" is not the flat storyline, or that the film is lacking in scares big time, but the fact that the creators dared to destroy arguable the creepiest character in history of horror, by taking away all of the skin-crawling creepiness out of Sadako, and presenting her as your average ghost seeking for revenge. Hanabusa's direction is amateurish at best, the cinematography is bland, and that combined with the lame, made-for-3D special effects gives the film a dull look.

Overall summary: Daft, contrived, sensationally un-scary, but above all completely unnecessary, "Sadako 3D" is J-horror at its worst, not only because of its ridiculously cheap execution, but mainly because it ruins one of the creepiest characters ever, and makes it look lame.

Movie Review: Life Without Principle

Life Without Principle
Directed by: Johnnie To.
Written by: Kin-Yee Au & Ka-kit Cheung & Ben Wong & Nai-Hoi Yau & Tin-Shing Yip.
Starring: Lau Ching Wan (Panther), Richie Ren (Cheung Ching Fong), Denise Ho (Teresa), Myolie Wu (Connie), Lo Hoi-pang (Yuen), So Hang-suen (investor).

Every time I watch a Johnnie To movie, I anxiously await the gunfights. More than any other filmmaker in Hong Kong right now, To is the one who has taken over for the likes of John Woo as an expert action filmmaker. His gunfights in films like Breaking News, Election and Election II, Vengeance and Full Time Killer (to name but a few of his films) are expertly crafted, and unlike American action films, not cut to shit with rapid fire editing. John Woo described his films as ballet with bullets, and To has a similar style. He is one of the best action film directors in the world right now.

This was very much the case when I sat down to watch his latest. Life Without Principle. But a strange thing happened as I watched the film – I got so invested in the different characters in the movie, the expertly crafted story, and the fast paced storytelling employed by To, that I barely noticed that he didn’t have any action set pieces in the film at all. By the end of the movie, I realized that I had seen perhaps To’s best film to date – and it didn’t even contain the type of action he is best known for.

The movie basically has three plot threads – all of them revolving around the financial crisis. In the first one, we see a woman whose job it is to sell stocks to people for a major Hong Kong bank. Obviously, the riskier the stock, the more than bank wants to sell it – and she has a quota to meet and could be out of a job if she doesn’t meet it. The problem is, anyone who knows about stocks, knows that the bank are ripping you off with bank fees and would rather invest themselves for far less – and anyone who doesn’t know about stocks, shouldn’t be investing in this sort of stock anyway, which means you have to lie to them to get them to buy. It appears her co-workers have no problem with doing so – but she has a conscience.

The second story line is about a group of gangsters. Even they seem to have trouble raising funds recently – their once posh banquets have now fallen on hard time, with fewer tables and fancily named vegetarian entrées to disguise the fact that they are cheap. They have even lost some of the ranks to the financial trade themselves – you can’t make enough money being a gangster, so you may as well trade stock. Panther is perhaps the only loyal gangster left – he hopes from one of his “sworn brothers” to the next, getting them all out of jams.

The third story line is about a police Inspector, who is called out to several crimes throughout the movie (he really is the unifying character of the movie). While he appears to be just a cop with no involvement in the financial crisis, his wife gets him involved anyway – going from wanting to buy a new apartment, to insisting they do so when they unexpectantly become the guardians of the little sister he didn’t even know he had. Of course, she buys at just the wrong time – when the bottom starts to fall out.

To weaves these stories together with ruthless efficiency. There is murder and bloodshed in the film to be sure, but it’s low-key compared to most of To’s other efforts. The message is simple and direct – there really is no difference between the cutthroat world of high finance and the cutthroat world of gangsters. Like last year’s Margin Call, Life Without Principle shows just how far bankers will go to make money – not caring who they hurt in the process. Of the two, I think I prefer this one – To’s film is less preachy than Margin Call, and a hell of a lot more entertaining. Sure, the ending could use a little work (I don’t think it needs the happy ending that gets tacked on here), but overall I think Life Without Principle shows To at the height of his powers – even if there are no gunfights to speak of.

Movie Review: The Day He Arrives

The Day He Arrives
Directed by: Sang-soo Hong.
Written by: Sang-soo Hong.
Starring: Jun-Sang Yu (Sungjoon), Sang Jung Kim (Youngho), Seon-mi Song (Boram), Bo-kyung Kim (Kyungjin / Yejeon).

Sang-soo Hong’s The Day He Arrives is a quietly moving film. In many ways, I suppose, it is autobiographical. It is about a filmmaker Sungjoon who returns to Seoul for a few days visit from his teaching post in the country. He directed four films, but apparently no one saw them, so he has taken up teaching. He has no plans while in the city except to visit his old friend Youngho, a movie critic. But he spends the first night alone, not being to get in contact with his old friend, and instead going drinking with a group of film students before confusing them by taking off on them. He then visits an old girlfriend, and begs forgiveness.

Finally, he will meet up with Youngho, and the rest of the movie plays like variations on a theme. In each, Sungjoon and Youngho go to a bar with Youngho’s attractive female friend Boram, a film professor, where they spend their time drinking while the owner is away. Eventually, the owner Yejeon, comes back – and Sungjoon is struck by how much she looks like that old girlfriend (since they are both played by the same actress, he’s right). But what happens in each of these variations changes slightly. They have similar discussions, but they take on different meanings as one character will say or do something different. Twice they will meet up with a former actor of Sungjoon’s – once he is angry with Sungjoon for abandoning him for a bigger star after their first movie, and one time he is a lovable, drunken oaf. In all of them, Boram seems to be attracted to Sungjoon, even though he thinks she should be with Youngho, and she flirts with him, oblivious to the fact that he is more drawn to the bartender. And the way Sungjoon expresses that attraction to the bartender – and the results – is also different each time.

The movie is both funny and sad. As with other films of Sang-soo Hong that I have seen (and I feel I should see more), the film is made up of a series of scenes where the characters drink and talk – and then go somewhere else to drink and talk some more. The film is shot in beautiful black and white, which gives an element of sadness to the proceedings. Sungjun seems lost and aimless. He has nowhere to go – either in Seoul or in his life – so he just keeps repeating his day ad nausea. The film students recall what he once was – young and idealistic – and while its fun to look back at that for a while, eventually he must flee. His relationship with his girlfriend is over – but he has to go back and revisit that as well. And then, when he meets the barmaid, who looks just like her, he must repeat the pattern all over again. Some people have criticized Sang-soo for simply remaking the same film over and over again – and I can’t help but think that The Day He Arrives is a slight shot at those critics, as he has made a film about a filmmaker who keeps living the same day, with slight variations again and again.

The movie is filled with Sungjoon’s longing for something more – something he will not discover, at least not during the film’s fleet 79 minute running time. At the end of the film, he’s still wandering around in circles, still melancholy, still doomed to repeat his mistakes again and again. The Day He Arrives is a deceptively simple little film.

[9.50/10] Django Unchained (2012)

Django Unchained (2012)

Brief review: Three years after the phenomenal "Inglourious Basterds", mastermind Quentin Tarantino shows us yet another different side of him with "Django Unchained" - a controversial  spaghetti western, riddled with subtle irony and a confronting mixture of originality and absurdity, that plays more like a spoof on slavery, rather than taking its subject matter of racism seriously. The answer to how is Tarantino capable to create a 165-minutes-long movie, full of many overextended scenes, that is still hugely entertaining every step of the way is: compelling dialogues, and tons of wit and playfulness. Yes, talkiness is this film's main strength. "Django Unchained" is also filled with over-the-top violence, outrageous manga-like gore, and exciting, almost shocking blood-soaked gunshots. Every single shooting location is chosen with flair and discernment, the smooth cinematography and warm color palette give the film a stylishly western-ish look, the intentionally clumsy super-quick zooms à la Shaw Brothers add edge to the already impressive camera work, and the fact that the film is being shot in an anamorphic format on 35 mm film, adds further authenticity and roughness to the visuals. Every performances her is award-worthy. Jamie Fox does a solid job as the slave-turned-bounty hunter Django, Christoph Waltz's delightfully nutty performance is simply amazing, Samuel L. Jackson delivers easily the best supporting performance of 2012, and all the tiny cameos are just fantastic.

Overall summary: Although certainly not the best movie in Tarantino's impressive career, "Django Unchained" is nevertheless a stylish, wittily-written, blood-filled, and wildly enjoyable near masterpiece of a spaghetti western like no other, which is destined to become a classic.

[8.25/10] The Impossible (2012)

The Impossible (2012)

Brief review: Brought by the creator of "The Orphanage", Juan Antonio Bayona, "The Impossible" is a based-on-a-true-story disaster drama, and also the director's first English-language effort. Ironically enough, Bayona achieves pretty much the impossible, not only by delivering one of the most technically-impressive films of the year, but also by telling an emotional story about hope, faith, fear, and despair, but above all the power of human spirit. "The Impossible" isn't all about the disaster itself, but the terrifying consequences of it, and one family's struggles and their fight for survival The film is filled with horrifying images of destruction, pain, suffering and sorrow, that are so devastating at times, they might bring you to tears, but the constant tension, suspense and anticipation of what's about to happen, save the film from being purely depressing. Visually, "The Impossible" is impossible to fault, really. If you thought the Tsunami sequence in Clint Eastwood's "Hereafter" was amazing, wait to see the one in this movie. The big Tsunami overflow is so effective and perfectly-executed, it makes you wonder how did they actually manage to accomplish that, and make it looks so incredibly realistic. Same goes for the scenes showing the destroyed environment after the Tsunami. Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor are both convincing and brilliantly believable in their difficult roles, but it's Tom Holland, that really makes a big impression with his truly inspiring powerhouse performance.

Overall summary: Devastatingly heart-wrenching, powerfully-acted, terrifyingly realistic and technically flawless, Bayona's "The Impossible" is a disaster film at its finest, one that manages to keep you one the edge of your seat from start to finish, as well as move you deeply.

[5.50/10] This is 40 (2012)

This is 40 (2012)

Brief review: Judd Apatow's long-anticipated sort-of-sequel to 2007 comedy hit "Knocked Up" is finally a fact, but was it worth the 5-year wait wait? No, definitely not. Unfortunately, the story about a dysfunctional family, whose juvenile members can't deal with each other, is pointless from the beginning to the end, and barely contains any big laughs, due to the witless, egocentric and clumsily-written script, that is supposed to be funny, but it isn't. Sure, the movie has its moments of amusement, and the constant verbal fights between the characters are somewhat entertaining, but truth to be told, "This is 40" is genuinely funny only when it  really get down and dirty, which is hardly a compliment. Worst of all, for a comedy revolving around family dynamics, "This is 40" has no likability factor, no moral, and no heart... at least not a big one. Besides, it's so long and stretched out, at certain points you start to think that it's never going to end, which isn't a good sign for sure. Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann are both charming, and decent actors, and they do an okay job with the immature maretial they have to work with, so it's not their fault that the characters they play behave like 14-year-olds, instead of 40. Also, as terrible as it may sound, the kids in the film are loud, noisy, and downright obnoxious, and that makes them very hard-to-like. Sadly, the film barely possesses any noticeable technical qualities, and Judd Apatow's lazy, uneven direction doesn't help "This is 40" either.

Overall summary: Overlong, annoyingly whiny, often nasty, and pretty much pointless, if still moderately funny and watchable, thanks to its charming leads, Apatow's sort-of-sequel to "Knocked Up", "This is 40" is too aimless and self-indulgent to make you care for its story.

[7.75/10] Rise of the Guardians [3D] (2012)

Rise of the Guardians [3D] (2012)

Brief review: Based on William Joyce's book series "The Guardians of Childhood, "Rise of the Guardians" is DreamWorks' latest feature, which turns out to be of those animated flicks, that can be equally enjoyed by the kids and their parents, thanks to its solid story, high entertainment value, and eye-popping visuals. David Lindsay-Abaire's cleverly-adapted script mixes up mythological and fantasy elements with huge amount of wit and juvenile innocence, in order to provides us with an engaging storyline with never a dull moment, that is as kind-hearted and affecting, as its briskly-paced and action-packed. Moreover, the film's moral beliefs are so pure and sincere, it will make you feel like a happy kid, who still believes in Santa Claus, Easter Rabbit, Tooth Fairy, Sandman, and even Jack Frost. "Rise of the Guardians" is crafted with vivid imagination, and that shows through the vibrant animation, impressive use of color and remarkable attention to detail. That being said, some of the characters' design, particularly the human and the human-looking ones, isn't the slickest you'll ever see, simply because their faces look a bit waxy. The other characters, however, are beautifully-crafted, especially the Tooth Fairy and the baby fairies, which are the cutest little things you'll ever see. The use of 3D in this one is downright jaw-dropping, and arguably the best in any animated flick ever created. The voice acting is spot-on for the most part, breathing life into the lovable CGI characters.

Overall summary: Energetic, lively, imaginative, full of fresh ideas, and definitely worth-seeing in glorious 3D, "Rise of the Guardians" not only astounds with its vivid, colorful, and richly-crafted animation, but also has heart-warming morality and magicality, that will win you over.

[5.75/10] Tai Chi Hero (2012)

Tai Chi Hero (2012)

Brief review: After the recently released martial arts caper, "Tai Chi Zero", here comes the second installment in the franchise, that promises even more silly fun and crazy fights. Sadly though, the director obviously didn't save the best for last, because compared to its totally refreshing predecessor, "Tai Chi Hero" is a bit of a let down. The story about the origin of Tai Chi fighting style is even more unfocused and less action-packed this time around, and full not-so-interesting back stories, that muddle the plot even more.Also, its clever tag line says 'from zero to hero', but unfortunately, it's more like 'from goofy fun to unnecessary seriousness', which automatically makes this sequel less enjoyable than the wacky "Tai Chi 0". Having said that, the film still has its moments of cheeky humor and slapstick comedy, as well as video game references such as pop-up 'vs.' titles and cartoon-like special effects, plus, it kind of redeems itself in the final act, thanks to the final 'stair rail' fight sequence between Yang Lu Chan and the protector, which is executed to sheer perfection, as well as super-exciting and fun to watch. That being said, this extraordinary action scene is not enough to save the film from being average at best. Angelababy is pretty to look at, and Yuan Xiaochao continues to impress as the protagonist, but it's Tony Leung Ka Fai as Master Chen that gives the most charismatic performance here.

Overall summary: Neither as quirky, nor as funny, nor as inventive as the original, Fung's "Tai Chi Hero" has one true highlight, namely the astonishing final fight scene, but apart from that, this so-so sequel barely delivers the big fun and non-stop action its predecessor did.

Movie Review: Django Unchained

Django Unchained
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino.
Written by: Quentin Tarantino.
Starring: Jamie Foxx (Django), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio (Calvin Candie), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen), Walton Goggins (Billy Crash), Dennis Christopher (Leonide Moguy), James Remar (Butch Pooch / Ace Speck), David Steen (Mr. Stonesipher), Dana Michelle Gourrier (Cora), Nichole Galicia (Sheba), Laura Cayouette (Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly), Ato Essandoh (D'Artagnan), Don Johnson (Big Daddy), Franco Nero (Bar Patron), James Russo (Dicky Speck), Bruce Dern (Old Man Carrucan), Jonah Hill (Bag Head #2).

Watching Quentin Tarantino`s Django Unchained I couldn’t help but think of those news stories you hear from time to time about how some group of Southern politicians want to downplay the “racial aspect” of slavery and teach students that the Civil War was about “States Rights” more than slavery (which is technically true, although since the right the Confederate States were fighting for was the right to own slaves, their argument doesn’t hold much water). What Tarantino has essentially done in Django Unchained is make the anti-Gone with the Wind. There are no smiling, happy slaves cracking jokes here. There is no romanticizing or idealizing the old South. In Tarantino`s film, everyone in the South is a racist bastard, deserving of what they get. Coming on the heels of his last film, Inglorious Basterds about a group of Jewish soldiers killing Nazis, giving us a more fitting ending to WWII than the real war gave us; Tarantino has essentially done the same thing here for slavery. That will not sit well with some – what he is essentially saying is that there is little to no difference between Southern slave owners and Nazis – but it is more accurate than not.

The film stars Jamie Foxx as Django, a slave who has been sold at auction and is tracked down by King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a German dentist turned bounty hunter. He needs Django to point out the Brittle Brothers for him so he can kill them and collect the bounty. He makes Django a deal – he helps him catch the Brittle brothers, and Schultz will give Django his freedom. Django acquits himself so well on that first job; he decides to make their partnership more permanent. Django agrees. He needs money – and also help in becoming a killing machine. His wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) was also sold at auction, and Django will do anything to get her back. Schultz agrees to help him get Broomhilda back, after a winter of tracking, killing and making money.

The heart of the films first and second act is the relationship between Django and Schultz. In many ways, it is a mentor and student relationship – with Schultz molding Django's raw talent for killing people and helping to channel his immense anger into a more productive means. Waltz, who won an Oscar for Basterds playing perhaps the most memorably evil Nazi in cinema history, is essentially playing a Good German this time around. He is the one white character in the movie who disapproves of slavery, and you treats Django more or less like an equal. I say more or less, because even after they form a partnership, Schultz still only gives Django a third of the bounty they collect instead of half. And there are times when he seems almost patronizing to Django. Still, he is clearly the only good white character in the movie – and make no mistake, it is not a coincidence that he is not American. Foxx has the less showy of the two roles – Waltz gets the best dialogue, and as in Basterds, he makes the most of it. But through the course of the film, Foxx’s Django becomes his own man. While he needs Schultz at first to teach him what to do, by the third act, Django needs no one.

That third act is what elevates the film to the truly great. Once Schultz and Django figure out that Broomhilda has been bought by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), owner of the famed Candie Land plantation, who prefers to be called Monsieur Candie, they come up with a plan to get her back. Candie likes to put on a front of civility, class and enlightenment – and doesn’t understand how being one of the leading purveyors of Mandingo Fighting (slaves fighting slaves to the death) interferes with that. He even treats Django with more respect than he would treat any other black person, because Schultz treats him as an equal, and because he is posing as a “black slaver” himself. But make no mistake, Candie is as vile as creation as Tarantino has ever created – horribly, gleefully racist, and when he figures out that Schultz and Django may be playing him, he becomes even more hateful, and spews even more bile. Yet, despite how evil Candie is, perhaps the real villain of the film is Steven (Samuel L. Jackson), Candie’s most trusted, oldest slave – who laughs at all Candie’s racist jokes, and looks down his nose at Django. Through the course of the movie, Steven does even more to protect his way of life – in which slavery plays a pivotal role. It is no mistake that the makeup job on Jackson makes him look like Uncle Ben. Jackson, who has pretty much been sleepwalking through his roles for the last decade or so, rips into his role as Steven – and makes what could have been a regular Uncle Tom role into something much deeper, darker and more complicated.

The film has all the hallmarks of a Tarantino film. The films dialogue has a rhythm all its own – from the early scenes of Schultz and his “negotiation” with Django’s owner, to the dinner party scene which is the centerpiece of the third act to a ingenious and hilarious scene in which a bunch of Klan members complain about the lack of visibility in their hoods, no one writes dialogue quite like Tarantino – and no one is better at finding the right actors to deliver that dialogue. The film is also the most violent of Tarantino’s films – blood splatters the wall, the grass, the flowers, the trees and everything else around them every time guns are drawn – which is often.

What Tarantino has done in his last two films is what critics always complained about in his earlier films – he has developed a world view and a sense of morality. While Basterds was a better film – it is Tarantino’s masterpiece because his love of cinema and dialogue actually became key thematic elements in the film itself – Django is probably his angriest film. Many people have fooled themselves that in an America where Barack Obama is President, that racism is dead and we live in a “post racial world”. Tarantino doesn’t buy that argument. Django Unchained is a violent, angry look at race relations in America – yes, one that recognizes that America has come a long way from its earliest days, but still knows there is more to do. America still needs to reconcile itself with its violent, racist past and in some ways, a film like Django Unchained can help that. Yes, it is a spaghetti Western, a Blaxploitation film and a comedy. But it is also a more honest look at race in America than any other film in recent memory. Oh, and it’s the year’s most entertaining film to boot. This is truly a masterful film – one that only Tarantino could make.