Just when you think Martin Scorsese has done everything he could in film, along comes The Irishman. This film may not be his best, but it adds to his stack of films one can call great works.
Martin Scorsese is undoubtedly the master of gangster films or Mafia films. We have sensed there would be successors in the likes of Quentin Tarantino, but that has not yet come to be. Tarantino has his own gangster style, but Scorsese films are the Mona Lisa’s of gangster movies, if you can truly call a gangster movie a Mona Lisa! Scorsese has shown his versatility in film making since the beginning of this century. His films since the new century began have taken a wide range of genres from epic to fantasy to a family film to business-scam drama to dark comedies to religious biopics. However when watching The Irishman, his first gangster movie since The Departed, it only seems natural that gangster movies were what Scorsese was born to do. Although films in the other genres he tackled are very good, it just seems natural that way. Even the excitement of having Scorsese ‘all-stars’ like Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Al Pacino and Harvey Keitel adds to the excitement. Additions like Ray Romano, Bobby Cannavale and Anna Paquin also add to the excitement.
Now the film has a lot of common elements you’ll expect from a Scorsese gangster movie. It tells of a man and his involvement with the mafia and of his daily duties. It also goes back to his past in how he developed the right type of insensitivity to become as consistent hitman. It also tells of some of his more legendary kills. The film also adds something different. It adds in the story of the ‘vacation of a lifetime.’ It’s not something you’d expect to be in a Scorsese film, but it’s done in a fashion you’d expect to see from Scorsese.
However it’s the aftermath that one would not expect to see in a Scorsese film. It’s like it almost shifts to a completely different film for the last half-hour. That’s what hit me about the film. It not only tells the story of a man who committed a lot of murders and also allegedly committed the murder of the man behind the most intriguing missing person case in the past half-century. It tells of the aftermath of how he would come to regret his actions over the years. Even of how he appeared to have it all and win it with fear during his lifetime, but would be doomed to die alone. You can pinpoint exactly where in the scene where Peggy ask Frank about Jo and Frank calls a distraught Jo up trying to comfort her, but knowing he’s the one who killed her husband. That’s a change of pace from Goodfellas about a mobster who lived the mob life, was imprisoned for it and regrets nothing. Even before the scene of the killing of Hoffa, there are freeze-frame montages that mention of the aftermaths of others involved in the Philly mob Frank Sheeran and Russell Bufalino were a part of, including those shot dead or imprisoned for life. I think the whole theme of the movie wasn’t just mob life, but how everyone involved pays in the end.
Now one thing we should remember is that we should not completely embrace this story as a true story, even though it’s very accurate. The film is based off the book I Heard You Paint Houses by Charles Brandt. Brandt is a former homicide prosecutor, investigator and defense attorney and he’s the man who interviewed Frank Sheeran shortly before his death. During the interview, Sheeran told of his life as a hitman and of his own involvement with Jimmy Hoffa. Sheeran confessed it all to Brandt months earlier and saw a priest the last few months of his lives so he could die with a clear conscience in December of 2003. The case of Jimmy Hoffa is still unsolved and his body has never been found. The FBI have had a lot of stories and sources, but it’s Sheeran’s story that’s the one they’re most going with. However there are still some naysayers that are claiming that Sheeran lied in the interview. Whatever the situation, this missing case is still unclosed. I won’t completely call Sheeran’s story the whole truth, but I believe he makes a strong case and it’s hard for me to sense him lying.
Once again, Martin Scorsese proves himself to the be master of gangster movies. Quentin Tarantino may take ruthless killers to a new level, but Martin is still the master. This film that he directs with a script written by Steve Zaillian is a complex film to pack into 3 hours and 20 minutes. Usually if a film is that long, I would expect the director to justify it. Martin has delivered a lot of three-hour films in the past, but I’m convinced he has justified the time here. If you yourself are one of the people that has been fascinated by Jimmy Hoffa and his missing story, this will be a film that will intrigue you.
It’s not just the story that will intrigue you, but how the Scorsese/Zaillian creates it and arranges it from beginning to end. It starts as the audience visits a nursing home, tours around seeing family after family and comes across a lonely man: Frank Sheeran. Then it jumps into 1975 and the story of how Frank, his wife, his mob boss Russell Bufalino and Russ’ wife Carrie were going on a ‘trip of a lifetime’ from Philadelphia to Detroit. Then it paves on how it led to all this from Frank’s days of truck driving to introduction to the mob to being a hitman for hire to a close friend of Jimmy Hoffa. The story shows of Hoffa’s rise, downfall and attempted comeback. It also shows Frank’s struggle of who should he be loyal to: Hoffa or the mob? It slows the moment of the ‘big day’ down and it delivers the aftermath with feeling that cuts deep. Also it treats the film as if Sheeran is giving us an interview. Almost like we’re Charles Brandt! I have to say the format of the film works and will keep one intrigued whether they’re a fan of Scorsese films, fan of mob films, or just have an interest in Jimmy Hoffa. It’s interesting how the film begins with “In The Still Of The Night” and it’s nice to hear and is replayed at the end, but it sounds haunting at the end. The film and its layout of the story makes it work.
Big credit to Robert de Niro for playing the role of Frank Sheeran. To do Frank, he has to cut deep into the man and how he went from a fearless killer who was able to adopt the coldness of killing to being the man with regrets in the end and wants to die with a clear conscience. Robert does an excellent job of it. Also excellent is Joe Pesci playing the mob boss who wants to call the shots of Sheeran and Hoffa. Pesci really knew how to steal the scenes in the film. Al Pacino was also great as Hoffa. He did an excellent job in delivering a multi-dimensional and complex performance of a man in history who was just as complicated as he was a legend. There were a lot of good supporting performances from Ray Romano, Bobby Cannavale and Harvey Keitel. However one of the biggest standout performances came from one with little dialogue: that of Anna Paquin. Her role of Peggy Sheeran required her to say with her physical actions and facial expressions and she did an excellent job. Even one of the few spoken lines she had in the film “Why haven’t you called Jo?” would pave the way to where the film changed from a story of mob work to the story of regret.
The film should also be admired for its technical merits too. There’s the visual effects team that did the top-notch CGI effects to take the ages of de Niro, Pesci and Pacino back 30 years without them needing heavy make-up. It’s not just the actors acting younger than their ages but the CGI too! There’s also the costuming of Sandy Powell and the set designs by Bob Shaw and Regina Graves to take the film back to the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s. There’s also the inclusion of music into the film that takes the film back to its set times. The score from Robbie Robertson also ads to the film.
The Irishman may be a true story, or it may be one big lie. However you put it, it’s a very telling story that paints a vivid but dark picture of what might have happened in one of the most intriguing missing cases ever. It’s also another film Scorsese directs and puts together in excellent fashion. It’s easy to see why it’s another contender for this year’s Oscars.
Normally when one hears of another Quentin Tarantino film, some will look forward to it while others will think “Not more blood and guts!” Even when I heard Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was about the Manson murders, I too was expecting that and killers with no mercy and no regrets. Instead I got more than I thought. And you will too.
It’s interesting that this is a fictional story of a friendship taking place around a real murder that happened. We have a movie star whose heyday seems to be fading just like Hollywood’s Golden Era. Rick Dalton was part of that Golden Era too. If there’s one person that doesn’t leave Rick, it’s his best friend Cliff. Even Cliff has trouble finding work because of what he’s rumored to have committed. Not to mention getting fired for having Bruce Lee injured in a sparring competition on set. Also this happens around the time of the Manson murders. Some could argue that Hollywood’s Golden Era ended with the Manson murders. Others like Tarantino could argue it ended before.
On the subject of the murders, the film does a good job in presenting the Manson family as people that were brainwashed into being evil. It does seem that Manson created a cult of followers to carry out his evil deeds and were every bit as blood-thirsty as him. One thing we should remember is that the murders took place at the former home of record producer Terry Melcher. Charles Manson first came to California with the dreams of becoming a musician. He was first approached by Beach Boy Dennis Wilson who introduced him to Melcher. Melcher was the producer who took one of Manson’s songs and rearranged it for the Beach Boys. No doubt Manson was furious and that’s why he wanted blood. I always wondered why did they kill anyone in Melcher’s house? Why didn’t they save their attack on Melcher and Melcher alone? I always wondered that. However that scene where the girl from the Manson family talks how she wants blood and doesn’t care answers that question for me. It’s obvious they were blood-thirsty and they didn’t care if Melcher was no longer there. As far as they were concerned, the five at the house were worthy of being killed just by being there.
One thing people frequently think of when they hear of a ‘Tarantino Movie’ is ‘blood and guts.’ Tarantino has developed a reputation for that, and for ruthless merciless villains with no regrets. There wasn’t as much of that here in the film, but there were a lot of scenes which would make one nervous. The biggest of which was when Cliff visits Spahn Ranch just to simply drop off a girl who goes by the name Pussycat. Also that scene when Booth walks into Spahn’s house. Those scenes will make anyone nervous, especially those that know the story behind the Manson murders.
What a lot of people overlook in a Tarantino film is that Tarantino has a love for film as a whole. Many of his latest works, if you look closer, have a style of cinema mixed into his story. The two Kill Bills, Inglourious Basterds, Jackie Brown and the Deathproof part of Grindhouse show Tarantino paying tribute to cinema genres of decades past. The style can be a film noir style, or a cult move style from decades past or a spaghetti western style or even an Asian style. Just look closer. However he does his story, even his most brutal and bloodiest stories, with a style of film genre mixed in. Here, it’s obvious this film is about his passion for the old Hollywood: the Hollywood that was one glorious city. That was Hollywood before the Manson murders. However you can still see how Tarantino shows Hollywood in possibly the last of its golden age in this film. Tarantino himself talks about growing up as a child in Hollywood in the 60’s and being mesmerized by its charm. I think that’s what he’s trying to incorporate in this film.
I know I mentioned that Tarantino’s films are known for have ruthless, merciless villains and that you should not expect to see sentimentality in a Tarantino film. In fact I’ve sometimes joked that the ending of the Hateful Eight is the most sentimentality you’ll get out of a Tarantino film. Of course even in this film, there will be some type of merciless bloodshed. We’re talking Quentin Tarantino! Despite the ending being as brutal as you’d expect of a Tarantino film, there are some moments of feeling in the film. There’s that scene where Dalton is between shoots of Lancer and is sitting near his eight year-old co-star Trudi Fraser. He breaks down because he can’t remember his lines, but Trudi gives words of encouragement, which gives him the drive to deliver an excellent performance. I’ll admit I was not expecting that. Another thing I was not expecting in a Tarantino film was the depiction of Sharon Tate. There’s that scene where Sharon goes into the movie theatre to watch herself in The Wrecking Crew, a screening which Booth is attending too. She’s thrilled to see her face on the screen. She’s also happy to see the audience loves how she’s making a klutz of herself on screen. That scene of an actress and her dreams. That shows another side of Tarantino few knew.
SPOILER ALERT: Ending Revealed In This Paragraph. Now there was a lot of concern about the making of the film. The Tate family was especially concerned about Sharon’s murder being exploited. One can understand. Her murder has already been exploited enough with people’s intrigue of the Manson murders. Instead the murder doesn’t happen at all. For those that didn’t notice, the film also leaves out the marital troubles of Sharon and Roman Polanski as well as the fact Sharon was pregnant at the time of her murder. This story is more about the friendship of a fading Hollywood legend and his stuntman double who stays with him through think and thin. It takes place during the time of the Manson murders, but there’s a twist of plot which both Cliff and Rick are involved. In short, we don’t get what really happened in the film. This is another case where Tarantino plays around with history just like he did with Inglourious Basterds and with Django Unchained. Instead he gives us the history that we want. And right at the end, we see Rick go to Sharon Tate’s party. Sharon and her friends are happy and safe from harm, and you leave the theatre satisfied knowing that’s how it should be.
Quentin Tarantino does it again. I have to say this is the least blood and guts I’ve seen in a Tarantino film. Mind you this is is less about blood and guts than it is about a unique transition in Hollywood. It’s Golden Days were fading and Hollywood was going in a new path. Many major movie stars saw television as a domain of wash-ups back then. However Tarantino reminds you of a charm of Hollywood that didn’t leave, but just changed for a new era. It’s not the same, but it’s a charm all its own. As I mentioned previously, we’ve seen Tarantino incorporate many different past style of films when he tells his stories. He doesn’t just simply tell a story, he adds an atmosphere and a feel to his films. We see it here again as we get various feelings through various scenes.
Top acting credits have to go to Brad Pitt. Funny how he’s nominated for the Supporting acting category for the Oscars while Leo is nominated in Lead. The film does belong to Cliff Booth as it is mostly his story. He’s the friend of Rick’s through thick and thin, he’s the stuntman who has trouble finding a job, but he’s the right person when trouble arises near his house and has what it takes to stop it. Brad does an excellent job of creating the character of Booth and owning the film. Leonardo di Caprio was also excellent as a fading movie star. The role of Rick Dalton reminds you that behind the glamor of movie stars, they still faced difficulties such as pushy producers, demanding directors and an industry that considers even the most legendary actors disposable. Yes, even back then, the powers that be in Hollywood still believed an actor was only as good as their last opening weekend. Leo was good at showing the insecurities of Rick, but ending on a positive uplifting note. Leo’s performance as Rick was just as arresting as Brad’s performance as Cliff and the chemistry between the two were excellent.
It wasn’t just Brad and Leo that made the film. There was Margot Robbie who gave a 3D performance as Sharon Tate. She did a great job of showing Sharon as a girl with big dreams and big hopes. There’s also Mike Moh’s performance as Bruce Lee. Note that the Lee family were angered how Bruce was made to look egotistical. However Quentin stands by his claims. There’s the performance of Julia Butters as Trudi Fraser. She’s in the film for one brief scene, but she steals it. The actors who portrayed members of the Manson family were also good as a team. The film also has a lot of great technical efforts like Robert Richardson in cinematography, Arianne Phillips in costume design, and the production design team in setting up the various sets. The film also shows another Tarantino film trademark: excellent music. The film had to have excellent songs from that era to fit the film. Tarantino delivers an excellent selection of songs from the late-1960’s that fit the movie perfectly.
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is less about Tarantino’s blood lust than it is about his love for cinema and the days of Hollywood’s Golden Age. It also ends unlike any Tarantino film before. Which is what makes this film so unique and worth seeing.
I don’t know about you but live-action comedies didn’t fare so well at the box office this summer. The highest-grossing comedy of the summer was Central Intelligence with just over $127 million. The only other two comedies of the summer to gross over $100 million were Ghostbusters and Bad Moms. Have people lost their sense of humor? For this summary, I will review two movies: Ghostbusters and The Nice Guys.
The Nice Guys
I’ll start the focus on one movie I saw all the way back in May. A comedy I was hoping to do well at the box office but didn’t. I saw The Nice Guys because I felt we were long overdue for a crime comedy or a police comedy. I have to say that this was a funny movie and has to be this year’s overlooked gem.
It takes us back to the 1970’s not just to do with the clothes, hair and music but also of a 70’s thing few 70’s-set movies focus on: the abundance of porn. We often forget that the 1970’s was the sexual revolution’s biggest heyday. A decade of free love at its freest and pornography was prevalent even in the movie theatres. It was even okay back then to take a date to a porno.
Here, they make a crime story set in the deliriousness of the porn business. It doesn’t aim for one-liners like so many other comedies resort to. What it does is it makes comedy of the situation. A case of a private eye and an enforcer who become unlikely partners in trying to solve a murder and who is connected to it. Another humorous situation is at the Los Angeles Auto Show where a clip of the porno starring the murder victim is spliced in to the auto show film to the shock of all. The story even has ironies added into it like how the Holly March, daughter of private eye Holland March, is able to help solve some part of the crime with her know-how. Another irony is how a politician who wants to have the crime solve is actually a part of the instrumentation. It all adds up to a humorous story that will have you laughing at the situation.
The film also gives you this summer’s biggest WTH moment. That comes when the police interrogate a neighborhood boy who showed his penis to a neighboring porn director who was killed. That’s sexual abuse, right? When I saw the interrogation happening, I was expecting a scene of a sexual abuse victim. Instead, the boy comes across as excited as if his exposing could open up opportunity in porn in the future. That was so bizarre. Just reminds you that the sexual revolution of the 1970’s was that free.
Director Shane Black takes a break from directing superhero movies like Iron Man 3 by directing this crime comedy he co-wrote with Anthony Bagarozzi. It comes off as very humorous in a dark way. I’d like to think he succeeded. Russell Crowe was the right fit for enforcer Jackson Healy. He possessed the right ruggedness for the role. Doing crime comedy is something new for Ryan Gosling but he did a very good job as Holland March. The scene-stealer was young actress Angourie Rice who played daughter Holly March. She did a good job of going just a simple daughter of Holland to all of a sudden one who can best help trace the case and even help solve it, with providing some action of her own. Also a big surprise is seeing Kim Basinger as the politician. I admit it. Like your typical 80’s kid, I always picture Kim as the bombshell she’s most famous for. It was surprising to see her play a role of an older character. I’m not complaining. I think she did quite well.
It is too bad to see that it didn’t make too much at the box office: $57.3 million. There was a time a while back where crime comedies or dark crime dramas were a big hit. I remember the 1990’s were capable of churning out one such movie per year that would be a classic like 1994’s Pulp Fiction, 1995’s The Usual Suspects, 1996’s Fargo and 1997’s L.A. Confidential. Since then, it cooled down. I was hoping this movie would revive some interest in it and rediscover the humor of the crime comedy. Also I feel there’s another message being sent with the lack of success of the film. The 70’s retro in movies has now faded. I know it was very active from the 90’s carried into the 2000’s and showed some muscle at the beginning of this decade but it’s obvious 70’s retro has faded with time.
The Nice Guys is an overlooked comedy from the summer. It’s worth seeing if you have the chance.
Ghostbusters: Answer The Call
From retro 70’s to retro 80’s: the retro phenomenon that still has the most muscle despite retro 90’s encroaching. Now news last year of a Ghostbusters remake featuring an all-female ensemble of Ghostbusters seemed unorthodox at the time. One conservative filmmaker went as far as saying ‘My childhood is ruined.’ However I was willing to give it a chance. I mean this is 2016.
In order to differentiate itself from the original 1984 Ghostbusters, it gave itself the subtitle Answer The Call. Now the big challenge was to decide whether the film was a case of the ghostbusters starting up together or whether these four women were filling the shoes of the men before them. It was decided to be a story where the ghostbusters start fresh. It’s very tempting to compare it to the first Ghostbusters. Actually there’s no escaping it. If you compare the two side-by-side, you will notice a lot of differences. And not just simply the change of genders of the cast. The first is the humor. The new film has humor and lines that are more irreverent that the humor and jokes in the first. The second is the Ghostbuster-wannabe characters. One thing about the first is that the addition of nerd Louis Tully added to the humor of the film. Of course Rick Moranis always specialized in nerdy characters. Having a bimboy character who’s their receptionist play the Ghostbuster wannabe here didn’t fit as well. Plus he wasn’t even that funny. Another is the possessed character scene. I’m sure those of you would agree that the possession of Dana Barrett worked better than the possession of Abby Yates. Even the line “No Dana, only Zuul.” is way more memorable.
Despite the first Ghostbusters being better than the new one in many ways, the second one does have elements that are better than in the first one. The first and most obvious is the better special effects. The film was able to create better and more eye-catching ghosts than they were in the first one. Computer technology has made that big of advances over the years. Another was the rock concert scene. If there was one plus to the movie, it was that where the foursome have to battle a ghost while a rock band was performing. That added to the humor and made it enjoyable.
It’s clear from the start this is a group effort between Paul Feig, Katie Dippold and Melissa McCarthy. This is the third collaboration with the threesome where Feig directs and co-writes, Dippold co-writes and McCarthy acts in. Its often questionable who was the main lead role of the film: whether it was Kristen Wiig’s Erin Gilbert or if it was Melissa McCarthy’s Abby Yates. I know McCarthy’s star has grown bigger over the years. The addition of two other Saturday Night Live talents Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones make for a good mix of humor.
One thing to note is that personnel of the original Ghostbusters gladly came back for the revamp. There’s Ivan Reitman who’s the co-producer this time around. There’s Bill Murray who makes a cameo as a skeptic to the busters. Dan Aykroyd makes a cameo as a taxi driver, Annie Potts makes a cameo as a crabby hotel clerk, Ernie Hudson appears as Patty’s uncle Bill, even Sigourney Weaver makes a cameo appearance.
Ghostbusters: Answer The Call may not compare to the original. It’s either the freshness or the magic of the first that’s not there. Nevertheless it is enjoyable and does make for some good laughs.
And there’s my summary of the summer’s comedic movies with focus on the two. Hopefully the studios should be able to find the right funny stuff to get the live-action comedy back to being a summer hit next summer.
Quentin Tarantino is possibly the most uncompromising director in Hollywood. Even when he’s not at his best, he can still make a statement. I gave The Hateful Eight a look. I have to say I found it had a lot to like.
It starts in post-Civil War America in the frontiers. It’s a cold day and there’ signs that there’s a blizzard coming soon. Major Warren, an African-American bounty hunter, has three bodies to take back to Red Rock. He hitches a ride with a stagecoach despite being told by driver O.B. Inside the current passenger wants to be alone. Warren does get the ride and meets his other passengers: another bounty hunter by the name of John Ruth who has his bounty, the ruthless Daisy Domergue, with him handcuffed to him also headed to Red Rock. The ride is not pleasant as Daisy should racial slurs at Warren. To which Ruth response with a punch in her face. However Warren and Ruth are able to bond as Warren reads him his letter from Abraham Lincoln.
Along the way, the coachman comes across a Lost Causer by the name of Chris Mannix who claims he’s to be the new sheriff of Red Rock. Mannix is welcome but tension between him and Warren start over each other’s war records. However both Ruth and Warren make a pact to protect each other’s bounties.
The blizzard becomes so powerful, the four have to take refuge at the nearby Minnie’s Haberdashery, a stagecoach lodge. Minnie’s not there and the four are greeted by Bob, a Mexican who claims Minnie is visiting her mother and he’s in charge. Also at the Haberdashery are Red Rock hangman Oswaldo Mobray, cowboy Joe Gage who’s simply traveling to visit his mother, and former Confederate general Sanford Smithers. Ruth knows they will all be in the lodge overnight and trouble is bound to brew with all these differing and conflicting people. So he gets all but Warren to disarm.
They even try to get the eight to have a civilized dinner of stew at the same table. However Mannix points out to Warren that his letter from Abraham Lincoln is a forgery. Warren admits it, stating his letter gets him respect from white people that he’d otherwise be denied. Ruth is outraged when he hears this. Warren also has another confession, but to Smithers. He provokingly confesses to him that he tortured, sodomized and killed his son in lawful self-defense in revenge for his son executing black soldiers during the Civil War.
Another incident happens known only to Domergue, the coffee was poisoned. She alerts no one of this and allows for Ruth and O.B. to pour a mug. After drinking they both vomit and collapse. Mannix is fortunate enough not to drink the cup he poured after he saw what happened. Domergue is able to kill Ruth but through her own gun. Warren attempts to be the master of justice, determined to find out who poisoned the coffee. Only to uncover that Bob is possibly an impostor because Minnie’s haberdashery does not allow Mexicans. He suspects from the start that Minnie was killed and executes the Mexican. To the surprise of everyone, Warren is shot from below. Further shootouts follow leaving Mannix and Mobray wounded.
The film then flashes back to the beginning of the day when it was to be a typical day for Minnie’s Haberdashery. However a robbery happened where everyone including Minnie were killed. Only Smithers is still alive. The leader of the heist was Jody Domergue, Daisy’s brother, who plans to ambush Ruth knowing they’ll eventually stop here because of the anticipated blizzard and his gang will take Daisy away. Returning back to the current situation, the story goes into various confrontations and leads to an unpredictable ending.
Of all the films that are happening around this Oscar season, this appears to be the one film that shows no real intention of making a political statement or social statement of any kind. Actually what it is doing is telling a story that for the whole of it only takes place not even for a full day. It’s starts with a free African-American major wanting a stagecoach ride only to end up in the same coach as two others. Then another. All of which are polar opposites and you know a fight would start any minute. Then the four get to a shelter during the blizzard which happens to be a haberdashery place with four others, also a set of characters too with traits you know could add to the conflict.With eight spiteful people in the same place at the same time with a bone to pick with at least one of them, you know hell will break loose any minute and you wonder who will be the first to get killed. Even as you watch the whole film unravel, you will end up surprised to see anyone at the end of the movie alive.
Once again Quentin Tarantino delivers. He’s one of few directors that doesn’t have to succumb to the pressures of parental guidance groups, family values groups or even the pressures of Hollywood and be able to deliver his stuff his way. As I said at the beginning, he’s possibly the most uncompromising director in Hollywood. He is no holds barred in terms of the use of profanity and racial slurs in this film and uses no restraint. As is common in his movies, he divides his film into segments or even chapters as he does here. Also like his past films, he plays with the chronology of time as the incidents of what happened before the eight got together is shown as the fifth chapter rather than a simple flashback as most film makers would do.
Another thing Tarantino does here like he does in some of his other films is throw in some subtle humorous moments. One example is the case of a cowgirl from New Zealand. Another is getting all of the eight at a table to eat their dinner in a civilized manner, or as civilized as it can get. Another example of his dark humor is the gory effects of when one gets shot in the face or when one drinks the poisonous coffee. And an additional example is how he has items be a significant part of the film. The same way the watch, Kahuna Burger, suitcase and wallet fit the story of Pulp Fiction to a tee, we have Warren’s letter from Abraham Lincoln. He does the type of movie violence that can even make Martin Scorsese jealous. He always was a film maker who didn’t play by the rules. He always made his own rules.
I will admit being a longtime fan of his movies, I was wondering what The Hateful Eight would be like. His last two films weren’t exactly his best: Inglourious Basterds could dazzle at first but would later be seen as ridiculous in afterthoughts and Django Unchained look both ridiculous and redundant as revenge being rehashed. Here Tarantino takes a chance by having most of the situation happen in a single physical location. Most of the time you have that in the case of student films or feature-length films of rising directors. Here Tarantino uses his experience and his knowledge of directing and writing to create a full intense film that’s predominantly set in a single place. That was very creative of him as he does a good job in the story and directing and delivers a movie that gives you the sense anything can happen any minute.
However the film is awfully long and there are many scenes that seem like they are drawn out. Sometimes there are times you’re actually wondering why something hasn’t happened yet.I do give Tarantino credit for delivering a story that’s unpredictable but I still feel almost three hours is too long for such a film.
SPOILER ALERT: Ending Will Be Revealed In This Paragraph. Bypass This Paragraph If You Want The Ending To Be a Surprise. If there’s one surprise Tarantino gave me, it’s the ending. Usually Tarantino is one film maker that doesn’t usually have sentimentality in his films. I have never seen a sentimental moment in any of his previous films. However the ending as Mannix and Warren appear dying was possibly the most sentimental thing I’ve ever seen in a Tarantino film. Sure, that’s not saying much but it’s still atypical enough to notice. No, I didn’t shed a tear as didn’t anyone else in the theatre but it was still a surprise.
Tarantino may be the brains behind what’s all happening in the film but it’s the actors that make it come alive. All eight of the main actors had to deliver a character that was as likable as they were hateable. Basically the type of characters whom you wouldn’t shed a single tear over when they die. They succeed in doing so and even make you welcome their deaths at times. Samuel L. Jackson and Kurt Russell were the ones able to command the most attention. However the biggest scene stealer will have to be Jennifer Jason Leigh. Her performance as the uncoothed Daisy Domergue really caught everyone’s attention. Her character of Daisy could have been considered annoying or even a distraction but she made it work. Her turn will also surprise you how a woman can be as ruthless as the men. The second show stealer would have to be Walton Goggins as Sheriff Mannix. Goggins also had a character that could have easily been dismissed as annoying or over the top but he became more likable and oddly enough appreciable by the end. If there was one more scene stealer, it had to be Bruce Dern as the spiteful Confederate General. Even the minor roles such as Minnie and Six Horse Judy were played well.
The film also did well in terms of its technical aspects. Robert Richardson did a very good job of cinematography both among the outside shots and inside shots. The natural and created sets works well too. Once again, Tarantino delivers a film with an excellent mix of songs from the past that fit the film well. However it’s the addition of the score from Ennio Morricone that give the film an added boost.
The Hateful Eight is not Tarantino’s best film ever. In fact it’s imperfections are noticeable. Nevertheless the film rarely gets boring and will still please Tarantino fans.
American Hustle has a lot to attract crowds by the looks of the premieres: big name actors, 70’s setting, crime story, lots to stimulate excitement. The question is does it deliver?
The story is set in 1978 in New York. Irving Rosenfeld is a dry cleaning store owner as a profession, con on the side. His love interest is Sydney Prosser, a mid-western girl who came to the Big Apple to redefine herself. Once into the relationship, he reveals his ‘other side.’ She decides to be his partner in crime posing as a British aristocrat: Lady Edith Greensley. Even though they are a perfect match, he’s hesitant to leave his six year-old son Danny or divorce his young wife Rosalyn.
FBI agent Richie DeMaso has been keeping his eye on the pair and their scheming and even arrests Irving on a loan scan only to bargain Irving into lining up four additional arrests. Sydney is up on the heist, feeling she can manipulate Richie in the process. Also in the scheme is Irving talking about a wealthy Arab sheikh looking for investors. One person suggests the sheikh do business with Camden mayor Carmine Polito who’s helping to revitalize gambling in Atlantic City, a person
The funny thing is while Richie doesn’t seem to have what it takes to get Carmine, Sydney and Irving do. Richie wants to entrap despite the objections of his boss at a law firm. Sydney is able to help an FBI secretary manipulate $2,000,000 of wired money for the operation. The boss at the law firm is so impressed, he finally gets Richie’s approval. Richie is unable to win over Carmine at a meeting but Irving is with his sheikh story to the point Irving and Carmine become friends. The meeting with Carmine and the Irving’s Mexican friend disguised as the sheikh works.
Problem is Irving’s set-up with Carmine and the sheikh catches the attention of a Mafia overlord named Tellegio who is second-in-command to Meyer Lansky. Tellegio is more demanding as he demands the sheikh become an American citizen with Carmine expediting the process with bribery if needed, and a $10,000,000 wire transfer to prove the sheikh’s legitimacy. Richie agrees, eager to get Tellegio but Irving knows the operation is doomed.
Further signs of a downfall are seen as Richie, who falls in love with Lady Edith, learns of the truth of Sydney and becomes violent. Irving tried to stop Richie’s abuse and the deal but Richie tells them there’s no way out. If Tellegio learns the truth, he’ll kill Irving, Sydney, Rosalynn and Danny. To cause huger friction, Rosalynn starts an affair with a mobster. The mobster wants the deal with the sheikh to be true while Rosalynn knows the whole story and wants a divorce.
In the end, it turns out arrests are made successfully on members of congress and a lot of dirty secrets confessed on tape. A lot of things are lost too, like a chance to entrap Tellegio, Richie’s status with the FBI, Irving’s earned friendship with Carmine and his marriage to Rosalyn.
The thing about the film is one is left with the question of what is the point of this movie? Is the movie trying to tell of a crime heist that flopped? Is it trying to tell a political message about corruption? Is it trying to make the actors do showy acting? Is it trying to be a retro-70’s movie that captures the feel and sound of that decade? I’m left confused.
Another question is if this movie is trying to be a David O. Russell ego trip? This had me wondering because if you notice, American Hustle has actors in his previous two movies–The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook–acting in major roles. In fact the four Oscar nominated performances from this movie come from actors who have already received an Oscar or an Oscar nod for a performance in either The Fighter or Silver Linings Playbook. It almost seemed like it was packages as a ‘David O. Russell all-stars’ collaboration. I will acknowledge that Russell is the director that has most made the biggest impact on films in the past five years but still…
On a more positive note, I give them credit for saying “Some of these events actually happened.” at the beginning. It’s way less misleading than saying “Based on a true story.” I read in Wikipedia that it’s based on the FBI’s ABSCAM operation from the late-1970’s/early 1980’s. I never read anything about those operations but it does capture my intrigue about them and what the real story was.
On an additional note, I saw this just a month after I saw The Wolf Of Wall Street which also featured interesting and colorful characters based in New York/New Jersey. Seeing those two movies this past while really made me wonder about the behavior of people from New York City. Hey, I don’t want to think stereotypical thoughts of other people but it still makes you wonder.
I know I talked about my question of Russell’s intentions of directing. I also question the script Russell co-wrote with Eric Warren Singer. Sure, Russell knows how to direct actors. In fact eleven of the last eighty Oscar nominations in the acting categories over the past four years came from a performance in one of his films. Nevertheless the showy acting distracts from the story line. Even if Russell wanted to deliver a story that was more character-oriented than plot-oriented, the performances were too distracting for it to make much sense. Even some of the 70’s elements like the disco dancing between Irving and Sydney made me question whether that was intended to be part of the story or trying to get a 70’s feel.
As for the acting, I won’t completely blame the actors for the over-the-top showiness, not even the ones who were nominated for Oscars. I heard Russell encouraged some of the actors to improvise their roles. Christian Bale appeared to be the one lead role that most had it together. Amy Adams also showed some elements of control of story over ‘showtime-style acting. Not to mention she also did a good job playing her least sweet character I can think of. Bradley Cooper’s role was a bit confusing and was one of the prime distractors of the movie. Jennifer Lawrence was also another top distractor. One thing I most give credit for is Lawrence again does a great job of playing a woman years older than her. Jeremy Renner however had one of the most underrated performances of the movie. He was the one who most delivered in character acting that worked for the movie rather than distract. Looking back, I just wonder if the film was to do about some New York people with actual ‘drama queen’ personalities. Nevertheless it didn’t stop them from distracting me from the plot.
I know that I talked a lot of how the movie sometimes focuses more on giving a 70’s feel than telling the story at times. The inclusion of the various 70’s songs during certain scenes–most notably Goodbye Yellow-Brick Road in the scene where Rosalyn and Sydney meet eyes for the first time–had a lot to do with me questioning if the movie was telling a story or a 70’s throwback movie. Even the placement of certain songs in certain scenes had me wondering if it fit the story right. One thing I do give credit for is that in terms of the clothes, the hair, and the set designs, this is the most 70’s-like I’ve seen. I hardly ever sensed a trace of the modern times which is what a lot of aptly-named 70’s throwback movies often include. That has to be the one flawless thing of the movie.
American Hustle is a movie that will leave you scratching your head. If it’s trying to tell you a story of an FBI sting, it sure got lost in the showy character acting or the 70’s throwback elements.
“I was a big slut but I’m not anymore. There will always be a part of me that is dirty and sloppy, but I like that, just like all the other parts of myself. I can forgive. Can you say the same for yourself? Can you forgive? Are you capable of that?”
Do you think it’s possible to do a comedy about dealing with bipolar disorder? Silver Linings Playbook makes the attempt to make a comedy out of it and succeeds.
We meet Pat Solitano Jr.: a Philadelphia man with bipolar disorder who was just release form a mental institute after eight months following having given a brutal beating to the man who had an affair with his wife. The incident has hit him with hard consequences. Besides being institutionalized, he lost his job, his wife Nikki has put a restraining order on him thus him living with his parents. And adding to the difficulty, his father Pat Sr. is out of work and resorts on gambling for income and hopefully launching a restaurant. His parents give him strict orders to take his medicine and see a therapist. It starts off rocky as he neglects his medicine and throws violent raging fits such as two incidents at 3 in the morning in front of his parents and when he hears My Cherie Amour, the song played when he caught his wife with his coworker. He does however see his therapist Dr. Patel but doesn’t open up to him too much.
One night, he’s invited to dinner with his friend Ronnie and his wife. He meets Tiffany, a young widow who also has a neurosis condition of her own and also lost her job because of it. Over time, Pat and Tiffany develop a friendship and the friendship becomes closer when it’s obvious she can work with his condition for the better. He even offers to have her relay letters to Nikki. She agrees to as long as he’s willing to be a partner for her in an upcoming Latin dance contest. He also agrees and things get better. It’s through the friendship that Pat is able to open up to Tiffany. Tiffany is even willing to let Pat know that right after she lost her husband, she slept with ever man at her job, which explains why she lost it. Pat hopes that the dance competition will get him to win Nikki back. Tiffany even assists in motivation by giving him a typed letter from Nikki.
Things take a turn for the worse when Pat Sr. asks Pat to come to an Eagles game as a ‘good luck charm’ because he bet a lot of money. Pat agrees but that would mean missing out on the dance practice with Tiffany. It turns out to be a bad idea as Pat sees Dr. Patel with a group of Indo-American Eagles fans. Young males throw bigoted slurs at them, which leads to a fight where Pat gets involved and gets carried off by the police. The Eagles lose the game and Pat Sr. loses the bet big time. Tiffany then gets in on this by telling Pat Sr. and all that their dance practices together are better good luck charms for Philadelphia sports games. So a final bet is made: The Flyers win against the Dallas Cowboys and Pat and Tiffany score at least a 5 in the dance competition. Pat is nervous about it until he rereads the letter from Nikki. Tiffany even says Nikki will be at the competition and is willing to lift the restraining order if they score well.
The day of the game and the competition approaches. Both Pat and Tiffany are nervous, as expected. Nikki arrives to see the dance competition but Tiffany is horrified. Why? She said Nikki would be there, right? The family is busy paying attention to the game at first while Tiffany tries to calm herself down with drinks. Pat is able to spot her in time for the dance and before she could drink any more. The game ends with the Flyers winning and the two are able to score a 5.0 in the dance. Pat Sr. won the bet and will get the restaurant and Pat Jr will get his restraining order lifted. But just when you think things will end as you think it will, it doesn’t and leads to an ending that’s a lot happier and ending you feel it right.
This movie is a surprise. Normally you’d think that making a movie about dealing with bipolarism would not make for a good movie, never mind a comedy, but it does. I believe the biggest reason why this movie is so well is that it does show the negative sides of bipolarism and people reacting to personal tragedies but it shows a ray of light. It shows both the bipolar person and the person dealing with tragedy as 3D people instead of types. It shows them both as people struggling with their setbacks and weaknesses and people trying to fight it out. It shows the unique chemistry between the two that helps them triumph over their difficulties and eventually win both to the other in the end.
It was a big effort to make these two types main characters for a comedy but a romantic comedy… and it succeeds. Tiffany was the perfect one who knew how to make Pat overcome his condition. It was evident that Halloween night when Pat thought he was hearing My Cherie Amour again but Tiffany let him know he was not hearing that song. She was also able to get it through to his family that dance training with her was very helpful in winning the games Philadelphia played. She was also able to use a fake letter from Nikki to give him the motivation even thought it risked biting her in the end. You could tell that Tiffany was more for him than Nikki. A bipolar and a promiscuous widow makes for a bizarre pairing for a romantic comedy but it works here.
The best quality of the movie had to be the acting. Bradley Cooper has to have delivered the best performance of his career. He succeeded in making a 3-dimensional person with bipolarism and make him a character that first appears hateable but become more likeable later on and whom you want to succeed in the end. Jennifer Lawrence gives a performance nothing short of remarkable. It’s not just about doing a character who’s an emotionally-fragile person trying to be the one in control but also doing a character many years older than her (she’s 22) and look convincing, and she does it. If she wins the Oscar, I will not be surprised. Robert De Niro also did a good job as the struggling father who has problems of his own. Jacki Weaver also did an excellent job as the mother even though she didn’t have the showiest of roles. Good supporting turns from Anupam Kher and Chris Tucker add to one of the best acting ensembles of the year.
David O. Russell did a marvelous job in both writing the screenplay and directing the film. His follow-up to The Fighter also delivers excellently and has to be one of the best this year. What you think would be as expected doesn’t and works for the better in the film. Very good adaptation. The other standout feature in the movie is the music. There’s the score from Danny Elfman along with previously released songs. Many of which are already familiar. Its blend into the story works well.
Silver Linings Playbook makes an unlikely pair of characters for a romance movie turn out to be possibly the best romance of the year. Very smart, very sensible, very human and very winning. Definitely amongst the best of the year.