Retro Review: Pixar’s Cars

It has been a long time since Pixar began its quest to revolutionize the animation industry. It started over 10 years ago with the animated classic Toy Story in 1995 and what a ride it has been.

Now there seems to be some fear that Pixar will lose its crown with the release of their latest project “Cars”. So is the film any good? Or is Pixar just riding on exhaust fumes?

The story of their latest project finds a spoiled brat racecar named Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) who believes that he can win every race by himself and seems to be on the verge of becoming immortal on the racetrack. His arrogance gets him in trouble and he almost blows his chances.

Lightning’s whole world comes crashing down around his ankles when he is accidentally lost in the desert and ends up in a small town called Radiator Springs. There he meets Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), Doc (Paul Newman), Sally (Bonnie Hunt), Luigi (Tony Shalhoub) and a whole crop of interesting characters. What life lesson will Lightning learn while stuck in the desert? What is Doc’s secret?

“Cars” begins rather slowly and for the first 30 minutes I almost forgot that I was watching a Pixar movie. Then it happened. A beautiful musical montage that finally meant something and revealed exactly what Pixar was trying to say with a film full of talking cars. That made me smile.

Owen Wilson voices Lightning McQueen.

You see, for me it was hard watching a film about talking cars. I have no problems with talking animals and insects but I kind of get lost when it comes to cars and trucks. Go figure.

Is it strange that Thomas the Tank Engine creeps me out? Well imagine Thomas on steroids and you kind of have my reaction to Cars.

As is with all Pixar films, the animation and scope of the film is amazing. The landscapes and scenery bleed off the screen with raw energy. As I got comfortable I began to see the cars and trucks as characters and how unique Pixar had made their world. I think that really didn’t sink in until I saw the “flies” buzzing around.

Luigi voiced by Tony Shalhoub

My favorite character in the film is the tire salesman Luigi and his helper. I loved that little character and all his hopes and dreams. The character that stole the show was Mater the Tow-Truck who made the whole movie more enjoyable with every simple word he uttered.

I have to say that “Cars” isn’t as strong of a film then say “Finding Nemo” or “The Incredibles” but it definitely ranks above Pixar’s weakest film, “A Bug’s Life”. On the upside, Pixar is still king of animation because any Pixar film is better than 90% of what the other guys make.

You know all my life there are three things I just don’t understand:

1. NASCAR or professional wrestling fans
2. RV owners
3. Movies or TV shows about talking automobiles

Now thanks to Pixar, I at least understand one of these things.

3.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Cast Away

This could be one of the most anticipated films of 2000. The re-teaming of Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis should equal magic or does it?

Tom Hanks stars as a Fed-Ex executive who is trying to complete one last trans-pacific errand before Christmas. Leaving his fiancé (Helen Hunt), Hanks decides he can finish that one last journey before the holidays begin. While the plane is on the way back and Hanks is dreaming of “sugar plums and old St. Nick” a shocker occurs. The plane dive-bombs into the Pacific.

Hanks awakens on a beach where he is surrounded by Fed-Ex packages and doesn’t really know where he is. He decides he can survive until help arrives. How will he do that? How long will it take? And exactly how can one man overcome these tremendous odds and get back to the people that love him?

I loved the airplane crash in this film. It was quite gripping and shocking. It had a presence like the airplane crash in the film “Alive”. I liked how the crash brought out the survival instinct deep inside the Hanks character. The film then moves on to Hanks’ slowly going out of his mind on the island which is a real treat to watch. Hanks is still amazing.

I have made fire!

The structure of the film interrupts Hanks’ brilliant performance and for me ruined the last half. Castaway tries way to hard to live up to the majestic tone of the trailers and the reputation of its cast and crew. Eventually falling apart as it wears out its welcome.

What’s strange about this whole structural flaw is there is the exact moment when you know that the film is boring and toying with you. It all occurs with the dreaded “….years later…” text that flashes across the film. I mean the film before that text seems like a completely different film then the one after. The film doesn’t explode right at that moment. I mean it’s ok until Hanks gets back to the mainland and when he arrives it’s like the film has an identity crisis.

I mean there are at least 4-5 separate endings to this film and with this we have a film that drags on and on. I mean 3-4 of those endings belonged on the DVD not in multiplexes.

What is really the killer about all these endings is that the “theatrical” trailer tells you the whole movie so none of them is really shocking just trying.

When I finished seeing this film I was told that the film’s primary focus was about a Fed-Ex package and its journey not that of Hanks. Am I the only one who thinks that’s stupid? I guess you can debate, who’s the castaway the package or the man. Ugh!

3.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Fall TV: Pilot Review: Caprica

In 1978, we saw a sort of Star Wars clone explode across the airwaves as we learned the human race had a lost colony in deep space.  That colony was trying to make its way back to Earth and escape some relentless android/alien attackers, Cylons, who were bent on wiping out the human race for good.

In the original Battlestar Galactica series, there were alot of plot holes, extremely goofy dialogue, silly robotic pets and zombie like baddies. What the show did have was a killer production design, great effects, two dynamic leads (Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict) for the girls and well the eye candy for the boys in a young Jane Seymour, Laurette Spang and Anne Lockhart. And for respectibility former Big Valley star Lorne Greene was their adopted father and leader, Col. Adama.

The show was huge in its day but because the show cost so much the studio had to pull the plug but it lived on in infamy among fanboys. (like me!)

This brings us up to the 2004 reboot, which saw the series core elements adopted and set to a darker more dramatic scenario as the human race is tested at every turn by their relentless enemy. Also added were their attackers, Cylons, were actually built by humans. The series also included the fact that the Cylons had evolved from their “tin can” selves to “skin jobs” or almost human beings. Think Blade Runner replicants but take it one step further and more cranky. Also to add more tensionto the mix,  they made one of the series two main male leads, female.

The sequel series exploded and was heralded as the greatest series ever on television. It lasted four seasons and a mini-series. It was a long drawn out war.

Graystone's first Cylon

The idea of Caprica was to go back to before the Cylons attacked and focus on the generation before the crew of the Battlestar Galactica. It is a prequel. You have Col. Adama’s father, Joseph Adama (Esai Morales) and the creator of the Cylons, Daniel Graystone (Eric Stoltz) , whose fates are intertwined when both their daughters are killed when a terrorist blows up a commuter train.

Heartbroken, Graystone develops a program that allows for a virtual avatar to be constructed of his daughter. From that avatar he wants to build her a body so he can be with his daughter again. He lures Joseph Adama into the fold with the promise “don’t you want to be with your daughter again?” Graystone needs Adama’s shady connections to help build his daughter’s robot body.

It is such a deep and moving pilot as  it plays with all our psyches in one way or another. The idea that a tragedy like this can lead to man’s destruction is incredible and well thought provoking. I also loved how the series continues to play with our ideas of what makes a human being, well, human.

(left to right) Esai Morales, Paula Malcomson, Eric Stoltz

Eric Stoltz is solid as the dynamic, yet crushed “Doctor Frankenstein” of the show. You feel every bit of anguish he endures. I also like how Stoltz builds his anguish and desperation. The man has such a cozy life and it is interesting watching his life literally explode before him.

Esai Morales is equally compelling yet from a different angle. He is suave, sophisticated well haunted much like Graystone. I haven’t seen Esai in such a high profile role in sometime. He kind of reminds me of a Latin George Clooney. 

The last time I saw him was a recurring role on Jericho but the first time I really took notice of him was in 1995′s Mi Familia with low and behold Edward James Olmos (who starred as Col Adama in the Battlestar remake). What is funny about that whole situation is that in Mi Familia Edward played Esai’s father. Esai is such an underrated actor and it nice to see him get this really meaty role.

If the Caprica pilot is any sign of where the series is headed then I am sold hook-line-and-sinker. This looks to be quite an interesting series if they can keep up the drama and intrigue. I just hope it evolves past Caprica city and we get to see other planets and different members of the 13 tribes. This show could be like no other sci-fi show before it if they let it evolve.

The series debuts in January 2010. The pilot is now on DVD.

But as TV pilots go I give it 4.5 out of 5.

So Says the Soothsayer

Movie Review: Sunshine Cleaning

Sunshine Cleaning is really a tale of two sisters. You have one who was the beauty queen in high school, fell in love but he married another woman. And the other sister who has had a rough go of it with everything she does.

Amy Adams stars as Rose the former high school beauty queen who is still sleeping with her high school’s lead football star Mac (Steve Zahn) even though he married another woman. One night during one of their trysts, Mac listens as Rose tells him how much she hates her job as a maid. Rose wants a better life for her son Oscar. So Mac suggests why doesnt she become a freelance crime scene cleaner. She would clean up after the police have taken the body and gathered their evidence. Mac says it would be very lucrative and would help out Rose’s situation.

So Rose looks into what it would take to become one of these professionals. She teams up with her sister, Norah (Emily Blunt) who has once again lost her umpteenth job. Their father (Alan Arkin) also lends support by looking after Oscar while they are on jobs.

Sunshine Cleaning is a bitter-sweet comedy as we are once again cheering for the underdog. Amy Adams does approachable and vulnerability with ease these days and this film definitely shows how she can work that side of her repertoire.

As good as Amy is, Emily Blunt steals the show from her. Emily takes what could be a throw away roll and makes Norah even more quirky than probably was written in the script.

Alan Arkin is also quite delightful as their struggling salesman father. He is always there with a nugget of wisdom while he is swallowing his latest failure. (like the shrimp in the bathtub)

I liked that this film was about an occupation many of us probably don’t understand and take for granted but through Rose we not only learn about the profession but we also see what not to do. The whole mattress scene is hysterical and then if you watch the featurette on the DVD it will bring a whole new level to the film’s classic scene.

Sunshine Cleaning is a little gem worth seeking out. This is also a good one for moms!

4 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer

Retro Review: Catch a Fire

Phillip Noyce is probably one of my favorite under-appreciated directors working today. He has an impressive resume with directing films like “Patriot Games”, “Rabbit-Proof Fence”, “Dead Calm”, “The Bone Collector” and “The Quiet American”.

With “Rabbit-Proof Fence”, Noyce began a trilogy of films that explores oppression in three different corners of the globe. In “Fence”, he explored the Australian Aboriginal. In the “Quiet American” he explored the Vietnamese people during the Vietnam War. And finally he explores apartheid in South Africa with “Catch a Fire”.

Of this trilogy of films, “Catch a Fire” is definitely the weakest of the three.

The film follows the struggle of Patrick Chamusso (Derek Luke) who does all he can to stay out of the conflict that is ravaging his country. Patrick works at one of the largest oil refineries in South Africa which is also being the target of rebelling terrorists. But like all looming conflicts, Patrick is pulled in kicking and screaming as he is accused of being a terrorist by a government interrogator Nic Vos (Tim Robbins).

After he is eventually released, Patrick struggles with the devotion to stay out of his country turmoil and decides to leave his family and do something about it. Patrick journeys to Mozambique to join the resistance and free South Africa from oppression.

The film is based on the true life story of Patrick Chamusso and it is an epic one. When it comes to films about apartheid it is hard to forget the films that have come before it like the classic “Cry Freedom” from 1987.

The film’s story is an unrelenting journey and has solid direction from Phillip Noyce. You also have a very interesting, demanding and poignant performance from Derek Luke as the film’s central hero.

But then there is the performance from Tim Robbins. I don’t care what anyone else says, Tim Robbins doesn’t have any range as an actor. Still his best performance to date is 1992’s “The Player”.

I know he won an Oscar in 2003 for “Mystic River” and has done other credible performances in such films as “Jacob’s Ladder” and “The Shawshank Redemption”. But what a lot of people seem to forget is the disastrous performances he turned out in films like “AntiTrust”, “Mission to Mars” and “Nothing to Lose”.

I think his Oscar win in 2003 had a lot more to do with Eastwood’s direction than the performance of Robbins. I guess as I look back on that performance I never felt even then that Robbins could dig deep enough to become the character he is trying to play.

In “Catch a Fire”, Robbins’s character of Nic Vos is supposed to be this narcissistic, sociopathic interrogator who has two distinct sides to his personality as interrogator and family man. He is described as “this beast of a man” by Chamusso’s character but we never really feel any intensity or psychosis from the man. The character should have almost been a sort of Jekyll and Hyde type. Because of this lack of understanding and performance of the film’s central villain, the film suffers immensely. Instead all we get is Robbins trying to look intense but I swear all I see in the man’s eyes is fear that he is living some other man’s career. I think Robbins should stick to directing.

“Catch a Fire” as a whole is a forgettable film and it really is a shame.

2 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Cabin Fever

Do you remember those old “anti-drug” commercials with the frying pan and a raw egg? Well I have to compare the makers of “Cabin Fever” with that egg. Their brains were the raw egg when they first started making “Cabin Fever” but slowly the film cooked their minds. “Cabin Fever” is probably one of the most demented and frustrating films to come out this year.

Five friends have rented a cabin and journeyed into the backwoods for one of those “camping-party-romps”. The cabin is plain and delightful and the friends start to explore more about each other. Things begin to go horribly wrong when beautiful and innocent Karen (Jordan Ladd) is discovered to have a mysterious and deadly virus. The friends slowly see that their survival may depend upon giving up on each other. Survival can be inhumane but their surviving may depend upon even looking past that.

“Cabin Fever” definitely had the potential to be a harrowing and great psychological film. All the elements were laid out but instead what occurs is like nothing I have seen on screen before. These guys are probably the stupidest, ruthless and inhumane group of kids ever to grace the silver screen. Their actions and what they do to each other is so over-the-top and awful that it made me laugh. This film is laugh-out-loud bad.

The beautiful Cerina Vincent is ready for action!

There are some solid and perverse laughs encased in this film but for the most part it is just there to gross you out with heavy gore. I have liked some really infamously bad and bizarre gore-fests, like the 1985 classic “Re-Animator”, but this film just doesn’t have the logic or intelligence that it needs. The kids in the “Friday the 13th” films had more sense.

I enjoyed the performances from Rider Strong, Cerina Vincent and Jordan Ladd but Ladd especially. Ladd’s performance was the only one in the film that was believable. When she got the disease we all felt it. These three performances stood out in one of the most awful films of the year. Hope they go on to bigger and better things.

What was the film trying to accomplish with Twin Peaks-styled characters inhabiting the wooded area? Sure they are kooky and sort of funny but they seemed to be way out of context.

Maybe I just didn’t get it. It wouldn’t be the first time.

With a surefire indie hit like “28 Days Later” and a monster-gore-fest film “Jeepers Creepers 2” in theatres now, just skip “Cabin Fever”.

1 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: The Cave

Monsters, caves, thrill-seekers, scientists and claustrophobia are all the elements that make “The Cave” just another one of those old-fashioned “monster-mash” movies.

I suffer from an affliction. I love monster movies or as I call them creature features. I don’t care how cheesy they are or if there is some guy running around in a giant rubber suit. Ok, I couldn’t get through all the Godzilla movies but most of them I liked. I don’t know what it is about them but I am always glued to screen wondering what kind of creature that Hollywood has unleashed on us this time. I find it spellbinding for some reason.

If you suffer from the same affliction as me then you are probably going to love “The Cave” for basically what it is.

A group of “spelunkers” and a couple scientists descend down into one of the largest underground caves ever discovered. Hoping to unlock its secrets and discover what lies beneath. As the team discovers their surroundings they begin to realize they are not alone and that they aren’t the first explorers to visit these tunnels. The team begins to panic when one of their team members is killed and a freak cave-in blocks off their only way out. Alone in the dark, low on supplies and being hunted by winged creatures, the team must survive.

Left to right: Eddie Cibrian, Cole Hauser, Lena Headey, Piper Perabo

The film stars a lot of “B-actors” including Cole Hauser (“2 Fast 2 Furious”), Eddie Cibrian (TV’s “Third Watch” & “Tilt”), Morris Chestnut (“Ladder 49”), Piper Perabo (“Coyote Ugly”) and the always reliable and gorgeous Lena Headey (“The Brothers Grimm”).

The film itself is basically “Alien” in the underground but even if we have seen it a dozen times before it can still be a lot of fun. Like we all remember how much fun Pitch Black was.

The film’s atmosphere and sense of claustrophobia is probably its most redeeming feature. The film excels when it focuses on the elements and what it really feels like to be miles and miles below the earth. I loved

Lena Headey

the underwater sequences and how the film was able to make this underground world feel and look so real. This was also the same with “Alien” and what it was like to be in deep space.

The script also doesn’t allow for the audience to get to know the group or allow for a dynamic to evolve. I think this was the key reason why this movie wasn’t as good as it could have been.

One other aspect I found kind of confusing is the fact to why are all these people going down inside this cave. The film just assumes we know. What is the benefit of cave exploration? What is the motive to get into these hazardous situations deep underground?

There also seems to be a lot of unnecessary footage that for me should have been on the DVD. The film’s first scene and the film’s last scene should have been extras on the DVD. Putting those scenes aside, the film should have allowed for the audience to get to know the “spelunker team” better.

If you check your brain at the door and get wrapped up in the film’s wonderful atmosphere then you are sure to enjoy “The Cave”.

3 out of 5.

 So Says the Soothsayer

Blade Runner: A Look Back

It has been a couple years since I have seen Blade Runner. I have alot of fond memories of the film and I never got a chance to review it. What made me decide to was that the film has seen many incarnations over the years. Some say there are 7 distinct cuts of the film. Three that were unauthorized by director Ridley Scott. So since it has come to Blu-Ray with 5 versions of the film in one slick package, I thought I would take a look back at the movie.

The 1982 film finds futuristic detective Frank Deckard (Harrison Ford) hunting rogue androids who are bent on destroying their maker. The question the movie presents and in the story by Phillip K Dick, is that if we can make a “replicant” so close to who we are do they develop a soul as well. When does the line between man and machine blur? What is too real?

We have been asking that question well beyond Deckard’s debate, in the 1950s we were all obsessed with jet-packs, androids who would do our chores and spaceships. Oh also before that for some reason we speculated that the moon was in fact made of cheese. But with the dawn of the space race and the red menace, we lost that innocence and space travel became a reality and we all thought maybe we could actually achieve the things only dreamed about in comic books. Maybe Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon will be jet-packing past us one day soon.

The space race was a great time to be alive because it was thought that anything was possible. When Phillip K Dick wrote his story, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? in 1968, he was probably thinking the same thing. The Apollo missions were in full swing and well a year after his book was published Neil Armstrong did in fact walk on the moon.

Blade Runner came in Harrison Ford’s career when he was knee-deep in Star Wars and Indiana Jones. It was the only standalone film he did between 1980 and 1985. Basically this was your classic Harrison Ford. He plays Deckard as part Han Solo, part Dirty Harry and it is brilliant. You have those typical Harrison Ford facial expressions and grunts as he’s hit pumpled and well broken. This film was also one of the most brutal of the films that Harrison did in his early career.

Another performance that could rival Ford’s is that of Rutger Hauer, who plays the film’s main baddie. He is brutal, unsympathetic and brilliant. Hauer’s Roy Batty should be considered one of movie’s greatest all-time villains. He is just so unforgettable.

The reason Blade Runner  is such a classic is because it has so many layers, was such a departure from other futuristic films and well there was the inside movie debate. (Spoiler: Is Deckard a replicant or not?) I have found with each viewing of the film that I arrived at a different answer. That is what is also great about all the different cuts of the film, sometimes they push the debate to one side or the other. Obviously there is no right answer but it is fun to speculate. I have my own answer. What’s yours?

Joanna Cassidy as replicant stripper, Zhora.

For Blade Runner Final Cut, the restoration team went back and fixed some of the errors in continuity and effects the film had. They also did some daring green screen shoots to replace some of the footage. In one scene Deckard is chasing an android (played by Joanna Cassidy). A stuntwoman replaced the actress when she was supposed to crash through many many glass windows. The scene in the original cut was very distinctly the stuntwoman. So 25 years later they brought in Joanna Cassidy shot her in front of green screen and replaced the stuntwoman’s head. It sounds utterly bizarre but somehow movie magic pulled it off. They did a similar feat when they replaced Harrison Ford’s chin with that of his son so that Ford’s lips would match the dialogue. These restoration feats, the clarity on Blu-Ray and well the multi-layered story make viewing Blade Runner a whole new experience. I am not sure if we needed the film to be corrected but just witnessing what they can do is amazing.

The film’s bleak look at the future, mixture of cultures, “replicants” and flying cars is a rich tapestry to tell a story. I almost wish there was a prequel to the movie so we could see what happened to Deckard that made him want to give up hunting androids. I think it would have been cool to expand on the Blade Runner universe as a whole. Was he off-world when he was hunting before? What different kinds of androids are there? I am not sure if Phillip K Dick expanded on this in his novel but it would be interesting to know.

If I were reviewing the film, I would give Blade Runner 4 out of 5. The only real flaw with the film for me was some of the pacing. It does drag on in places.

So Says the Soothsayer.

Movie Review: Inglorious Basterds

After witnessing Inglorious Basterds, I am starting to lose my love for Quentin Tarantino.

Quentin is a movie geek in the purest sense of the word. He studied movies when he worked in a local videostore where he honed his keen eye for dialogue and homage to forgotten genres. Everyone of his films is a mixture of homages to some form or another. And that was what was so brilliant about Kill Bill as he embraced the Samurai vengeance films and brought them into present day.

With Inglorious, his homage is to one of his idol’s Sergio Leone, who along with Clint Eastwood revolutionized the Spaghetti Western into a genre that every film buff studies. He even hired Leone’s own musicman Ennio Morricone to do music for his opening. That whole opening is filled with talk, tension should have set up what was to come. The scene drags on for an eternity but it sets up a nice tone and aptly describes the tension between the Nazis and the French people in 1941. It is very subtle but does the job.

The film has two plots, one involves a young French girl, Shosanna (Melanie Laurent), who finds herself given the perfect opportunity to avenge her parents death at the hands of Nazis when she forced to befriend a German war hero who wants to premiere a film in her newly acquired theatre. The other is centred around Brad Pitt’s Basterds who become a thorn in the side of the Nazis as they occupy France. You could say they are a much bloodier version of Robin Hood. The storylines eventually intertwine and well you have a movie.

There are alot of dialogue sequences in this film and hardly any action. When action is displayed it is quick and fast. It’s like ripping off a bandaid, gotta do it quick so people will hardly notice it. And very little killing of Nazis, it is more of an afterthought and talked about. Whatever! What will shock a lot of people is the film is also 80% subtitled as Quentin kept the German & French languages. I actually really love watching foreign films but for your average male 18-35 who is Quentin’s main audience will probably run for the door.  

I think the reason some people are saying they love it is because it is Tarantino and it still cool to still love Tarantino. Kind of like it is still cool among some circles to praise Kevin Smith. Smith is dead to me after he sold out with Jersey Girl and Catch & Release. Everything post has been crap. Tarantino is still riding a fine line.

I have loved 90% of Quentin’s work. For me his biggest miss-step was 1997′s Jackie Brown which I found just so all over the map, flimsy and amateurish. It was like Quentin was cleaning his boots and forgot to use polish.  Pam Grier’s performance in Jackie was the best of the piece and that shows he does know how to get amazing performances from his leads like how he sculpted Uma Thurman into a killing machine in the ultra-brilliant Kill Bill movies. His half of the Grindhouse double-header, Death Proof, was far weaker than Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror. Kurt Russell was amazing in Death Proof. Actually Kurt’s role in Death Proof reminded me a lot of his anti-hero Snake Plissken. (See links to my retro Tarantino reviews at the bottom of this review)

That brings us back to Inglorious Basterds, Quentin gets a great character performance from Brad Pitt who is the best thing about this film. His character is classic Tarantino but he is only in the movie for 30 mins of a 2.5-hour marathon.

Melanie Laurent

I have already mentioned how much I liked Brad Pitt in this film but there are also great performances from understated people like newcomer Melanie Laurent and Til Schweiger. They could be breakout performances. Laurent is so sensitive and masterful in the subtle probably why she has become such a star in France. Schweiger’s blood-thirsty Nazi killer is what the movie should have been more about and he is a scene-stealer in every one of his scenes. I especially loved his knife-sharpening scene.

There has also been alot of praises about Christoph Waltz as the Jew Hunter but for me I felt he was brilliant at the start but the more I saw of him the more he got dull. I wanted to see him get his not because he was intimidating or damn evil but because he was annoying.

I have to admire Quentin’s affection for Ennio Morricone (still my favorite movie composer of all time), Sergio Leone, his choice of cast but for me as a whole this film marginally slips past Jackie Brown as Quentin’s worst film. It is just so dull!

3 out of 5 

So Says the Soothsayer

Quentin Tarantino’s Movies by the numbers:

Death Proof 3 out of 5
Kill Bill combined 4.5 out of 5 (review)
Kill Bill Vol.2 4 out of 5
Kill Bill Vol.1 4 out of 5
Jackie Brown 2 out of 5
Pulp Fiction 5 out of 5
Reservoir Dogs 3.5 out of 5

Retro Review: Kill Bill Vol.1 & 2

Volume One

The maniacal mind of director Quentin Tarantino has always been fixated with the world of samurai and kung-fu action genre films. The director has embraced a lot of films in the vein of those old subtitled Bruce Lee movies we all loved in the 1970s. But were they really that great that they need a double-film homage to them. That is basically what the two films that comprise the “Kill Bill” films are.

Tarantino’s first entry in his revenge series finds the central character, battered and beaten bride-to-be character only known as “Black Mamba” (Uma Thurman), left for dead as her whole wedding party is wiped out by the “Deadly Viper Assassination Squad” (or DiVAS) masterminded by “Bill” (David Carradine).

When “Black Mamba” awakens from her coma she plans out the vicious extermination of the DiVAS. By the end of the film, two of her prey will fall and Mamba will be knee-deep in blood. The film co-stars Michael Madsen, Lucy Liu, Vivica A. Fox, Daryl Hannah and Julie Dreyfuss as the DiVAS.

Tarantino’s passion and obsession with the genre is evident in every frame of his latest film. Tarantino’s no-holds-barred action and blood reigns throughout his film and the director seems to be having a lot of fun showing how much he loves what he is filming.

He loves the look, intrigue and animation of oriental culture but I am not sure if he understands its majesty and soul. Akira Kurosawa, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time embraced the samurai genre and created the immortal “Yojimbo”. That film is probably the greatest of the genre and why didn’t Quentin try to emulate the majesty of that film instead of crazy linear kung-fu films? If you want to homage this genre why not look to the best.

I really loved the performance from Uma Thurman who shows that she has a lot of will and stamina to go through this film. What Tarantino must have put the actress through must have been grueling. Her performance does ring through as a treasure incased in all the blood flung throughout this ultra-violent film. She is magnificent.

There are some obvious tributes to the films of the martial arts genre. One being Uma Thurman’s yellow jumpsuit in film’s giant battle scene is very reminiscent of Bruce Lee’s immortal costume in “Game of Death”. Uma’s victims in that scene are all wearing masks that are very eerily similar to Jet Li’s “Black Mask” movies. Tarantino’s subtle homages could also be seen as a criticism that Bruce Lee would wipe the mat with Jet Li and how much Tarantino loves old school vs. new school kung fu movies. At least that’s what I saw in it.

When I went into this film I was curious to see if Quentin’s 200-plus page script had put some depth inside this basic revenge scenario story. There is very little depth here but the script was probably so huge because Quentin put every little detail into his obsessively calculated action sequences. Quentin is great at doing over-the-top action scenarios drenched in 2 coats of blood and that is basically all “Kill Bill” is.

In some ways, “Kill Bill” is lost in translation but in others it is a blood-soaked, limbs-detaching, samurai-sword ballet of utter billiance.

(4 out of 5) So Says the Soothsayer.

Volume Two

I have thought long and hard to how I was going to write this review. How does a critic review the second half of a larger movie? Instead I decided to review the whole film while keeping in mind to what I gave the first entry in the series.

For me the first film was an opus to Quentin Tarantino from Quentin Tarantino. It was filled to the brim with witty dialogue, bloodied corpses and oodles upon oodles of stylish flash. I didn’t really get it. By the time the first film ended I was disappointed.

I washed the slate clean and started again with the sequel baring in mind some of the scenes in the first film. As the film develops, a lot of secrets are unveiled as we learn about the Bride and her relationship with Bill. The film looks at where the Bride trained to become an expert killer and we learn more about how the rest of the Viper Squad relate to Bill. We even finally find out the Bride’s actual name.

The second chapter begins with The Bride hunting down trailer-park reject Budd (Michael Madsen) who is another member of the Viper Squad. After Budd, that will leave just one-eyed Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) and Bill (David Carradine) left in her murderous sweep. As the film unfolds a lot of shocks, surprises, details and secrets make Volume 2 a lot more enjoyable and interesting.

When you actually bring both pieces of Quentin’s “chick-with-samurai-sword” epic together you have amazing entertainment that also reflects back onto some of Quentin’s favorite things which are “spaghetti westerns” and “kung-fu epics”. I like that the second half more because it has some quieter moments and a purpose.

Also I have to credit the strength and ability of Uma Thurman. There has never been a role like this in Hollywood and never such a brilliant performance by a woman in this genre. She is breathless.

On the flipside, Carradine has never been this cool since he shaved his head in “Kung Fu”. The legendary actor eats up scenes as he matches wits, swords and kisses with co-star Thurman. Quentin has delivered this actor from Lazarus Pit like he did with Travolta in “Pulp Fiction”.

These two outstanding performances are the glue that holds together the Kill Bill epic and it is easy to see why. Quentin may love long forgotten kung-fu movies but he does know the brilliant in them.

As one complete film, Kill Bill could become Tarantino’s best work to date.

Kill Bill: Vol.1 (4 out of 5)
Kill Bill: Vol.2 (4 out of 5)
Kill Bill complete (4.5 out of 5)
So Says the Soothsayer.