Johnny Handsome (1989)

Title: Johnny Handsome (1989)

Director: Walter Hill

Cast: Mickey Rourke, Ellen Barkin, Elizabeth McGovern, Morgan Freeman, Forest Whitaker, Lance Henriksen  

Review:

I did an article a while back called 16 of the Top ‘Revengiest’Revenge Movies; in it I included these films where something awful happens to the main character, but then things turn around and eventually the main character gets his or her revenge, usually in pretty gruesome ways. I didn’t include the film I’ll be reviewing today because I had not seen it in such a long time. When I first saw Johnny Handsome I must’ve been about 13; all I remembered about Johnny Handsome was its basic premise and the fact that I liked the story a lot. There’s something gratifying about revenge tales, they always start out with something awful happening to the good guy of the film, then in the end whamo! That sweet, sweet revenge. The bad guys get what they deserved and the good guy gets his revenge. Though in this sense, Walter Hill’s Johnny Handsome is a bit different than most revenge films, Johnny isn’t your typical good guy, he’s actually a crook.

In Johnny Handsome we meet John Sedley, moments before he pulls off a diamond heist. John is not just any crook though, he is a mastermind in pulling off robberies. Also, his face is severely disfigured due to an anomaly in his genes. His deformity doesn’t stop him from doing what he has to do. Johnny is pulling off this diamond heist with the help of two individuals. One is a tomboyish lady called Sunny Boyd (Ellen Barkin) and the other a low life called Rafe Garrett (Lance Henriksen).  The three stick up the diamond store, and as we might expect in this kind of movie, things get ugly. The cops are called upon and at the last minute Rafe and Sunny decide to double cross Johnny and shoot him and the owner of the store, their idea is to keep the loot to themselves. Rafe and Sunny leave John for dead, unfortunately for them, John doesn’t die. Instead, he is rescued by the police and taken to a hospital where he is given the opportunity to jumpstart his life. You see, the doctors want to perform a surgery on him that could give him a normal face again. Will he take this opportunity to begin again? Or will he go back to his old ways?

It occurred to me that Johnny Handsome plays out a lot like a ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’ story where the main character has a duality about him. He has his good natured/kind side, and he’s got his evil side, which he is at battle with. Johnny used to be a crook, because his looks led him to become an outcast, ridiculed and made fun of all his life. But what happens when he gets his face back and he no longer looks like a monster?  What kind of battle will be waged with the demons inside of him? This is what is at the center of this story. Johnny is even given a chance to fall in love with a beautiful woman, and lead a normal life, unfortunately, his former life calls him. Revenge calls him. Should he heed its call?

This is a Walter Hill film, so it’s not just any director we’re talking about here. This is the guy behind such action packed 80’s classics as 48 Hours (1982), Extreme Prejudice (1987) and Red Heat (1988). Hill’s a director whose films are very male oriented, he makes films for guys to holler and cheer at, they are about tough dudes, shoot outs, guns and explosions; tough dudes and sexy ladies. This time around things are a bit different though; not that Johnny Handsome doesn’t have its fare share of action and shoot outs, but the story is told in a more film noir style. It’s darker, grittier, more character driven. The film starts with a shootout and ends with a shootout, the middle of the film is the whole process of Johnny going from looking like a monster, to looking like Mickey Rourke before he turned to boxing. Funny how in real life, Rourke know looks like Johnny before the operation, oh the irony of life!

Hill invests a good amount of time getting you to know Johnny, getting you to feel for him. Rourke does a good job here, he plays the tormented soul, you feel like he’s the Frankenstein monster or something; a misunderstood creature who’s just looking for some love. At first, when we first meet Johnny he looks like a deformed monster, similar to the character that Eric Stoltz played in Peter Bogdanovich’s The Mask (1985), someone deformed because of genetic defects.  The character of Johnny also reminded me of Marv, another beat up character that Rourke played in Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City (2005). During the first half of the film, Rourke plays his character through heavy amounts of makeup. But half way through the film, after the operation, he transforms, and then we get the real Mickey Rourke, the mind boggles at how much Rourke has changed through the years! The rest of the film is populated by an excellent cast of supporting characters. Ellen Barkin has always been great at playing these rough, tom boyish ladies, on this show she plays a woman with no moral values whatsoever, she hangs out in bars, being a whore, stealing, killing and double crossing. She hangs out with low lives like Henriksen’s Rafe Garrett. Henriksen has always been great at playing villains, here he plays the main baddy, not much of a stretch acting wise, but he gets the job done. Rounding things up are Morgan Freeman as a cop who knows Johnny’s true nature, and Forest Whitaker as the doctor who operates on Johnny. Whitaker plays the guy who wants to give Johnny that second chance to improve himself, the guy with hopes that we can all change.

Johnny Handsome is a very underrated Walter Hill film. The film didn’t hit it big in theaters, in fact, it was a downright flop. It cost 20 million to make but only raked in 7.2 at the box office. I guess the film really didn’t connect with audiences for some reason. A pity because the film is a good revenge tale, and it has an excellent cast, this is the kind of film that makes you wonder why exactly did it slip through the cracks? Maybe it was due to the fact that it had some hefty competition at the box office. Upon it’s release it went up against Ridley Scott’s Black Rain (1989), which by the way was the #1 film that week, and it also went up against Sea of Love (1989) which starred Al Pacino. Also a bunch of successful family comedies like Uncle Buck (1989) and Parenthood (1989), so I guess a dark, brooding film about a deformed dude wasn’t at the top of anybodies list that weekend. But whatever, those that know, know; and on my book, this is a solid revenge tale with good performances and a dark, grimy look. If you’re ever in the mood for something like that, then this is the film for you.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Django Unchained (2012)

Title: Django Unchained (2012)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington, Don Johnson

Review:

There’s a group of filmmakers out there that use their clout in Hollywood, their power as icons of filmmaking to truly say something about humanity with their films. These directors grow conscious of the power they have as storytellers and so, instead of making empty Hollywood spectacles with no meat to them, they opt to make films that actually say something, films that not only entertain us, but also enlighten us at the same time. Take for example Steven Spielberg who’s been doing it for years with films like Empire of the Sun (1987), Amistad (1997), Saving Private Ryan (1998), Schindlers List (1993) and most recently Lincoln (2012); all films that pin point a dark time in human history. Through these films Spielberg speaks of the horrors of war and the inhumanity of slavery. With Inglorious Basterds (2009) and now, Django Unchained Tarantino has graduated into this group of filmmakers who use their careers and films to comment on the evils of society. Yes sir ladies and gents, Django Unchained serves up a hefty helping of Tarantino hatred aimed at the white supremacist boneheads who think that white is more than black. Once again Tarantino zeroes in and aims his guns at the evils of racism. 

In Django Unchained  we meet Dr. King Schultz, a mercenary disguised as a dentist. He goes around killing criminals for bounty. He needs to kill this gang of murderers, but he doesn’t know what they look like, so he searches for a slave that used to work in the same plantation where these three criminals are currently hiding out. Enter Django, the slave who can help Dr. Schultz out. It isn’t long before both Django and Dr. Schultz team up and decide to work together as bounty hunters, erradicating the world of bad guys for the right price. But Django can never forget his true love, a beautiful slave girl by the name of Broomhilda. Can Dr. Schultz and Django free Broomhilda From the clutches of an evil slave driver named Calvin Candie?

So the pleasures of watching a Tarantino film are many in my book. First off, let’s talk about how Tarantino is finally making a western, a genre of films that he was obviously going to end up working on at some point in his career. It is almost a given that whoever loves Kung Fu movies as much as Tarantino does, will also love westerns, because both of these genres are very similar. This is probably the reason why Tarantino agreed to appear in Takashi Miike's Sukijaki Western Django (2007), a film that effectively mixed the asian film with the western, I recommend that one if you feel like seeing a stylish and offbeat western, in it Tarantino cameos as a cowboy. Tarantino's love for westerns is very evident in Django Unchained, for example his appreciation for Sergio Corbucci's original Django (1966) can be heard as soon as the film starts; it opens with the original Django theme song from Corbucci's film playing through out the entire opening credit sequence, the credits in the film where done using the same striking red font used in Corbucci's film. Django Unchained has shoot outs, taverns, characters riding horses in the sunset, a little town in the middle of nowhere, sherriffs, marshalls, male bonding, all elements we've come to expect from the western; but what makes this one different is the issue of slavery. Django Unchained goes into the whole 'Mandigo Fighting' scene, which was all about white slavers pitting their strongest slaves against each other to the death.  

Now if you've seen Tarantino's previous films then you know that he sympathizes with black people and all the suffering they've gone through across history, one could almost say that Tarantino wishes he was black himself. While he has been known to love all types of films from different genres, he's always had a fondness for blaxsploitation films like Coffy (1973), Superfly (1972), The Mack (1973) Foxy Brown (1974) and Shaft (1971). Tarantino is constantly inspired by these films. His love for them always shows up in his work; Pulp Fiction (1994) and Jackie Brown (1997) both have a whole lot of black in them and so does Django Unchained. Black is beautiful and Tarantino knows it; and he wants to make damn sure you know it as well. Black characters have always formed a part of Tarantino's cinematic heroes, so when Tarantino decided to make his Django black as opposed to all previous cinematic incarnations of the character, it didn't suprise me one bit. And when the film ended up criticizing slavery and the Ku Klux Klan, it made all the sense in the world. The white slavers of those days, along with the members of the Ku Klux Klan aren't all that different from Hitler's Nazi's, which Tarantino also criticized with Inglorious Basterds; I think it's safe to say that  Tarantino is concerned with making films that put a magnifying glass on humanities greatest mistakes, a practice that some of the best directors do.          

Same as Spielberg graduated from making Summer Blockbusters to making more serious, socially conscious films with The Color Purple (1985), so has Tarantino. Once upon a time, Tarantino was a filmmaker  more concerned with shock value then anything else. I'm not saying that films like Reservoir Dogs (1992) or Pulp Fiction are empty films, these are some of his best films, truly entertaining. And there's no doubt that they are glorified b-movies, films that sulk in their low brow entertainment roots. But now, it feels to me that with his two previous efforts he's decided to speak his mind against on important issues, things that truly matter in the world. With Django Unchained  Tarantino makes the black man, a slave, the hero of the film. He gives a slave, the power to strike back at those who would treat him as less. In Inglorious Basterds Tarantino changed history and rewrote it in his own way; in Tarantino's universe Hitler and his cronies die burned alive inside of a movie theater, while a Jew laughs maniacally from the afterlife. We all know that's not the way it happened, but symbolically, Tarantino is showing how much he hates antisemitism by burning these truly evil individuals inside of a theater. In this way, he gets a cinematic revenge for all of us, for all the victims and for himself. Django Unchained functions the same way, but with white supremacists, slavers, and the members of the Ku Klux Klan. There is one scene in Django Unchained where Django practically  whips a white racist to death, then shoots him dead. There's such hatred in Jamie Foxx's eyes during that scene, it's as if he was whipping this racist individual for all those who have suffered through out history, an awesome scene! With this film Tarantino is saying "you're wrong and have always been wrong about this, let's whip some sense into ya!" 

But aside from racial issues, the film has some amazing performances all around. I have loved Christoph Waltz performances from the very first time I saw him in Inglorious Basterds (and who didnt right?) but on Django Unchained he doesn't play a villain, instead he plays an extremely likable character, that of Dr. King Schultz, Django's liberator and mentor, what a great character! He is very articulate, very intelligent, very civil, but he wont have a problem blowing your head off if the law permits him to. Jamie Foxx totally commands his character as Django, loved every second of him on screen. He has this attitude to him, first his this angry, scared slave, but slowly he turns into this cocky, black avenger who soon realizes his worth and will take no crap from anybody. And yet another plus this film has going for it is DiCaprio's Calvin Candie. Holy moly what a great character. I've always loved DiCaprio's performances, he has a level of intensity he can reach which is fantastic, and he really channells that anger into this character, so much so that DiCaprio cut himself while filming an angry scene and Tarantino, bless his soul, used that very take. There's a duality to Calvin Candie that I enjoyed, he's a villain, but a nice guy at the same time. Samuel L. Jackson plays an old slave who basically kisses Calvin Candies ass all the time, you'll grow to hate him, but he will also make you laugh. All in all, an excellent cast that makes the film a true pleasure to watch. 

This being a Tarantino film, the high levels of violence displayed here shouldn't surprise anyone. Here the blood flies like there's no tomorrow. This is a revenge film after all, so when the blood must flow, it will, without mercy. The word 'nigger' is also used profusely, an issue that has become something of a controversy, but in Tarantino's defense I will say that the white people of those days probably used the word as much. You can also expect a film that has a well thought out story, with some incredibly good character development; this film takes its time so you can get to know these characters, the dialog will keep you glued to that screen; it's no secret Tarantino has a talent for writing dialog thats just a pleasure to hear, these characters can be so freaking funny at times. Plus, there's cameos galore here! Keep your eyes peeled for Bruce Dern, Tom Savini, Michael Parks, the original Django Franco Nero, Don Johnson, Jonah Hill and Zoe Bell. For lovers of westerns and Tarantino films, this film has tons of treats, you just gotta keep your eyes and ears open. All in all, one of the best films I've seen in 2012, one that's sure to make my top ten of 2012. By the time the film ends, you will have a huge smile on your face and love Django; Jamie Foxx really earned his actors badge with this one. I rarely go see a movie twice the same weekend, but this was one of them. Highly recommended my friends, fun and enlightening at the same time.

Rating: 5 out of 5   

Revenge (1990)

Title: Revenge (1990)

Director: Tony Scott

Cast: Kevin Costner, Madeleine Stowe, Anthony Quinn, Miguel Ferrer, John Leguizamo

If you asked me which one I prefer over the two Scott brothers (Ridley Scott and Tony Scott) I’d quickly tell you that I lean more towards Ridley Scott’s style of filmmaking. It’s not that I hate Tony Scott’s films, it’s just that I enjoy Ridley Scott’s films a whole lot more because they are more cerebral and artsy, and I love artsy. Ridley’s films satisfy my brain as well as my thirst for art and spectacle. Tony Scott is the complete opposite; he focuses more on making commercial films that play by Hollywood’s rules and I enjoy Tony Scott’s films for entirely different reasons, they are crowd pleasers, they are fun and fast paced, they are action packed. Where Ridley’s films make money as a by product of the quality of his art, Tony’s films are the other way around, money making comes into the equation first. And that’s exactly what he is best at: making profitable action films. Tony is the director behind such box office hits as Top Gun (1986), Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) and Days of Thunder (1990), all big Hollywood productions with big stars and wide appeal. Sometimes, he branches out and does more experimental films; the results have been films like The Hunger (1983) and Domino (2005). And finally, if you ask me, Tony Scott is at his worst when making simplistic, vapid films like Unstopabble (2010). But most of the time, his films are entertaining and highly watchable. 

Ridley Scott Directs 

Tony Scott has also ventured into the revenge film territory. He has made two films of this variety, both of which are excellent within the revenge film genre. The first one he made is the film I will be reviewing today: Revenge (1990). His second entry into the revenge film sub-genre was the Quentin Tarantino scripted: True Romance (1993), a film I have revisited on more than one occasion. The reason why Tarantino got Tony Scott to direct True Romance was that Tarantino saw and loved Scott’s Revenge (1990). Tarantino has been quoted as saying “I’m a huge fan of that movie. In fact, that was the reason I was supportive and really tried to make it happen that Tony directed ‘True Romance’. I was like I want the man who directed ‘Revenge’ to do my movie”  In fact, the dvd cover for the unrated director’s cut of the film has a Tarantino quote that says “I consider ‘Revenge’ to be Tony Scott’s masterpiece”, so hey, Tarantino backs the hell out of this movie. And when you watch it, you actually feel like your watching a Tarantino film in many ways.

The story is all about fighter pilot Michal Jay Cochran (Kevin Costner), who’s just retired and is ready to just kick back and relax. His friend Tiburon ‘Tibey’ Mendez (Anthony Quinn) a Mexican ‘business man’ whom Jay once flew to Alaska for a hunting trip, invites Jay over to his mansion in Mexico to enjoy a couple of days of relaxation. Problem comes when Jay meets Tibey’s wife Mireya, who is a stunning beyond belief  beauty (Madeline Stowe). Jay and Mireya are immediately attracted to each other. They develop the kind of attraction that you just can’t stop. The kind of love that’s going to happen no matter what; the kind of love that can get people killed. And so the question arises, will Jay and  Mireya go through with it? I mean, if you knew the object of your affections was married to a stone cold gangster, who is also your friend, would you even think about going through with it? Well, all I can say is that if you saw Madeline Stowe in this movie, you’d understand why Jay decides to screw it all and go for her, which of course get’s him into massive amounts of trouble.

Friends or Foes?

 This movie was great for various reasons; first and foremost, it’s a great revenge film. The complications and situations that happen in this film are worthy of a Tarantino film; you almost feel like he could have written it himself. For example, just in terms of characters doing all sorts of crazy things for love, this one is very similar to True Romance (1993), yet another film in which two characters risk their lives for romance. In Revenge, Jay and Mireya fall madly (and blindly) in love with each other. Their love sets in motion a chain of destructive events; but they don’t care; they can’t seem to keep their hands off of each other. Who cares if Mireya is married to a stone cold killer? They are in love! Anthony Quinn playing the role of Tiburon ‘Tibey’ Mendez, Mireya’s gangster husband, is a real asset to the picture. Tibey seems at first like a nice kind of gangster. He plays tennis with his clients, loves his smoking hot wife and treats Jay like a son. But don’t double cross him or you’ll see his ugly side. There is this moment in which you get to know how pissed off Tibey can get: two of his henchmen attempt a hostile take over of Tibey’s operations; he quickly lets them know just who is boss. And when he discovers what’s going on between Jay and Mireya, boy, he really shows just how much of a vengeful villain he can be. The most tense scenes in the film come from those moments when you get the impression that Tibey kind of knows what's going on, but he's just toying around with Jay. You get this uncertain feeling creeping up on you: Does he know or doesnt he? Great stuff. 

 And this is where I take a chance to talk about Madeline Stowe, one of the most beautiful actresses to grace the silver screen. From the first moment she appears on screen she stuns, and the sex scenes on this film are really something else. I saw the directors cut of the film (the only version you should see of this film) and the scenes where steamier than one would expect from a Hollywood film. Tony Scott really made an effort to make this film erotic, I think it worked because I am now officially a Madeline Stowe fan. After seeing her in this film you certainly feel like this is the kind of woman you’d get yourself in trouble over. Anthony Quinn’s character asks Jay at one point “Do you think my wife is beautiful?” and Jay hesitates to answer, afraid that Tibey might get the wrong idea, but I quickly answered for him with a resounding “Hell YES!” So we got a solid cast on this one. We also get Miguel Ferrer who plays sidekick to Costners character for about half of the film, and John Leguizamo tags along in one of his very first roles ever. Leguizamo isnt really given much to do, it’s one of those roles where the actor isnt really experienced or famous yet so he doesn’t really say much. But he’s there, and he does have one cool scene all to himself. Reportedly, Leguizamo partied so much one night that he barfed on Tony Scott, which probably explains why Leguizamo hasnt worked with Tony Scott ever again. 

 My only problem with the film is the way things are resolved in the third act. The resolution didn’t gel well with a story, the kind of build up we get through out the whole film makes you think things are going to end up really badly between Jay and Tibey, but alas, things are resolved rather blandly instead. This is a trademark move from Tony Scott. While his brother often times makes films that don’t have the happy ending tacked on to them, Tony is the kind of director who actually fights to include them on his films, again showing his affinity for Hollywood style filmmaking, the mega happy ending has got to be there to satisfy the audience, so people go home happy. For example in the Tarantino’s original script for True Romance, Christian Slater’s character dies a horrible death. Tony Scott didn’t want that ending for his film, so he fought to include the mega happy ending we see in the film with Patricia Arquette and Christian Slater on the beach with their new born baby looking all shiny and happy. Revenge doesn’t exactly have a happy ending, but the main problem in the film is solved in a fashion that didn’t seem to fit the film, which kind of promises a nasty showdown in the end. But that was my only real problem with the film. The rest of it was perfect in my opinion.  

Revenge was a film that had was a hot property at one point in Hollywood, way back in 1979. You see, it took the film little more then ten years to get to the silver screen. Before it was turned into a film, it was a novella by author Jim Harrison. Once it was printed on Esquire magazine in 1979, many a Hollywood director wanted to produce and direct this project. Amongst the actors and directors who were actively seeking to direct this film were: Jack Nicholson, Kevin Costner, John Houston, Sydney Pollack, Jonathan Demme and even Francis Ford Copolla himself, but it was Tony Scott who ended up directing and he did a great job with it as far as Im concerned. It might get a little too light for a revenge film at times (especially during it's third half) but it does get pretty intense, it has some really gripping and cringe inducing moments and it’s a bit different than other revenge films because of its marked sensuality. Highly recommend this underrated Tony Scott film. 

Rating: 4 out of 5 

Death Wish and Death Wish 2

Title: Death Wish (1974) and Death Wish 2 (1982)

Director: Michael Winner

Cast: Charles Bronson, Hope Lange, Vincent Gardenia, Jeff Goldblum, Laurence Fishburne

Review:

One thing popped into my mind while watching Charles Bronson mercilessly kicking crimes ass in Death Wish: “they just don’t make them like this anymore”. And that is true, stone cold classics like this aren’t made in these extremely PC, PG-13 days. Bad ass mother truckers like Charles Bronson aren’t born anymore either. I mean, Jason Statham might try to be as ice cold deadly as Bronson by remaking Bronson’s The Mechanic (1972) (which I will be reviewing soon) but he is a few bald spots short of portraying that hard ass/mean bastard persona that Bronson displayed so naturally. One icy cold stare from Bronson and you knew you were going to meet your maker. One look at a film like Death Wish and its obvious that action films have been as watered down same way that  horror films have. Sad but true, action/horror films just don’t have the gravitas they used to. At least we still have these grimy revenge flicks on dvd to remind us of a bygone era in Hollywood filmmaking, a time when filmmakers didn’t even take in consideration having their character do the right thing. Or the best thing, he simply did what had to be done.

Paul Kersey the architect, but his real passion is vigilantism. 

 Story for Death Wish concerns an architect called Paul Kersey (Bronson). Paul lives a great life with his wife and daughter. Film starts out with Paul and his wife on vacation in Hawaii, taking in the sunsets, enjoying a dinner by candlelight, basically, having a grand old time with his beautiful wife. But crime never sleeps, and so, one night, while Paul is still working in the office, a band of hoodlums that seem to have come straight out of Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971) burst into his home and savagely attack his wife and daughter, effectively killing Paul’s wife. By the way, keep an eye open for a very young Jeff Goldblum who plays one of the rapists! This was Goldblum’s debut film. So anyways, the authorities promise to perform an investigation, but that’s as far as it goes. Paul knows the cops aren’t going to get anything really done in a city as big as New York, so he does what any revenge hungry ex-husband would do under the same circumstances; he goes out and starts looking for those responsible. And those of their ilk. Which means, if you’re a criminal, you were going to get your lesson coming from Bronson’s gun. Paul turns vigilante and starts whacking out any bastard who even looks at him funny. Bronson is tired of getting kicked around by thugs and living in fear, he takes matters into his own hands and turns into a stone cold vigilante! Are the streets ready for Paul Kemp’s vengeful anger?

 Death Wish took me back to those days when there were no video cameras in every square of inch of the city. This was a time when if you were waiting for the train at 2 a.m. and a group of thugs came into the subway, kicked you in the nuts, stole your wallet and took off running, no one would know it happened but you. The thug who did it would end up happily counting your hard earned cash in some dark corner of the city. I lived in New York City during the early 80’s, and I can attest to that feeling of insecurity you got while walking the streets at night. Deathwish captures that feeling perfectly. I know what it was like to take the train and suddenly become frozen with fear when a good for nothing troublemaker walked into the train cabin, with mischief on his mind; with evil in his eyes. Films like Deathwish were a response to that out of control wave of violence that took over the streets of New York City circa 1970’s. You’d walk with fear of getting mugged, or raped or possibly even killed, all for the contents of your wallet.

Gun behind the newspaper, oldest trick in the book!

 But this is a film that looks at those criminals straight in the eyes and says “Screw you bastards! You’re all going down!” It has that “I’m not taking this shit anymore” vibe going for it. It’s a film with the mentality of someone who has decided to take matters into his own hands. Since there are no video cameras taping your every move, Paul Kersey can whip out his gun, blow away any criminal that attempts a vile act and simply walk away from the scene as if nothing had ever happened. Paul Kersey vengeful acts are fueled by what was done to his wife and daughter, but its crime in general who pays. He doesn’t just focus his vigilantism towards the ones who hurt his family; Paul Kersey goes out into the streets to declare war on all manner of thugs. Kersey goes from one scumbag to the next, blowing them away as best as his gun can, cleaning up the city for good. Doing what the police haven’t got the man power to do. In a way, Kersey ends up being a hero.

 I saw Death Wish and Death Wish 2 (1982) over the weekend; while watching the second one, I couldn’t help feeling like I was watching the first one all over again. Yes my friends, Death Wish 2 is basically the exact same movie, with the exact same plot. It picks up where the first one left off; with Kersey trying to help his daughter lead a normal life again after the events of the first film. He’s got himself a new girlfriend and a new job in Los Angeles. Slowly but surely, happiness seems to be creeping back into his life. But, crime doesn’t rest, and so hoodlums break into his household once again. They rape his housemaid, and kidnap and rape his daughter. And so the cycle of revenge fueled vigilantism continues. The sequel focuses more on Kersey seeking revenge from the actual perpetrators of the crimes, as opposed to crime in general as seen on the first film.  But he still manages to save a citizen or two from a criminal attack; it is in these scenes that he is portrayed as a hero, or a “very good citizen” for doing what he does. While Kersey is out there stopping crime, the film asks the police force: “Where the hell where you guys?”

 In spite of Death Wish 2’s repetitiveness in storyline, it still manages to have its moments and some very memorable lines. One scene has Kersey following a group of criminals into an abandoned hotel. Upon coming face to face with one of the men who raped his daughter, Kersey notices that the perpetrator is wearing a crucifix on his neck. He asks the low life: “Do you believe in Jesus?” and the guy says “Yes” then Kersey tells him: “Well, you’re going to meet him!” and then BLAMO! Blows the guy away! No mercy for the wicked. Death Wish 1 and 2 were films of their time, they represented a frustration with the violence on the streets, and a desire for citizens to take matters into their own hands and protect themselves from the evil out there on the streets. Some studios backed away from producing these films because they considered them too controversial. They didn’t want to spread the idea of vigilantism amongst the populace and because they thought that a film with the word “Death” on its title wouldn’t sell tickets. Boy where they wrong! This franchise lasted all the way up to Death Wish 5: The Face of Death (1994), where Kersey still kicked ass even though Bronson was something like 72 years old when he made that film; evidence that Charles Bronson’s hard ass genes  allow him to kick ass longer than any normal man would.

Rating Death Wish (1974): 4  

Rating Death Wish 2 (1985): 3 1/2

Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Title: Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Comments:

Every Tarantino movie is a special treat for me. His films dont come out every year, he takes his damn good time to start working on a new project, but more often then not, that 'in between film time' is well worth the wait. Tarantino films are films for people who really enjoy a good movie. He really takes that extra time and effort to set up a sequence, to write the pitch perfect dialog, to escalate the suspense in a sequence to brilliant heights. Inglorious Basterds was a project which he had been wanting to do for some time now, and its finally come to fruition. Its based on an Italian film made in 1978 dealing with similar subject matter (Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato a.k.a. Deadly Mission) but ultimately, Tarantino's film is a whole other thing. So whats the veredict for his latest nazi hating opus?

Story concerns a group of dudes known as "The Basterds" who go around doing nothing more then killing Nazi soldiers. This is one part of the story, where we follow these guys capturing, questioning, torturing and finally killing nazis all around France. But theres another story in which we follow a woman whos whole family was killed by Nazi scumbags. She escapes, tries to live a normal life...until the moment for her pitch perfect revenge practically falls on her lap. Both stories collide in the third act of the film to offer us one glorious revenge filled moment of triumph!

So basically, it appears as if Tarantino had to blow off his hatred for Nazi's. It happens to directors every now and again, hell, it happens to anybody every time they read the history books. Cant say I blame 'em. Hitler and his pack of dogs were some of the slimiest group of people to ever walk the face of the planet. Who the hell were they to say they were the best, and the only ones deserving to walk on this planet? I say, to hell with those Nazi bastards, and lets all make sure nothing like that ever happens again in history! Ever! Steven Spielberg released his hatred for the Nazi party when he made Schindlers List back in 1993, hell, the Nazi's were the villains in two of the four Indiana Jones films. Many more films have shown their hatred towards the Nazi's: The Pianist, Life is Beautiful, Sophies Choice, to name but a few. So now its Tarantino's turn to spew some intense hatred towards them.

Most films dealing with history try to be as historically accurate as possible. They gotta stick to the way things happened. Heres were Tarantinos Inglorious Basterds takes a bit of a turn from your usual Nazi film. Basically what Tarantino did was he developed this story around people who are suffering over the Nazi's occupation of France. But he takes the story his own way and shows us how he would have wanted to get Hitler and his closest buddies all in the same room at the same time to wipe them off the face of the earth. Im not going to go into details as to how he does this, but its one of the coolest revenge stories Ive seen. The last moments of this film are truly awesome, makes you wish it had really happened that way. But it didnt, so dont expect this movie to stick to history and the way things happened cause thats not what your going to see. This is a "what if" sort of story.

This movie is 100% a Tarantino film. How do we know this? Well, for starters, its a revenge story. We all know how much Tarantino loves those! One of its main characters is a woman, which goes right in line with most of Tarantino's films, which most of the time end up giving women the power to overcome their troubles on their own. See both Kill Bill films, Jackie Brown and Deathproof for examples of this. The film is divided into chapters, which is a very common Tarantino landmark. We have a scene where everybody in the room just whips out their gun and shoots the hell out of each other, which is something we've seen in many a Tarantino film, even as far back as his True Romance days. So be ready for a film thats purely and undoubtedly a Quentin Tarantino film.

Another thing that distinguishes a Tarantino film from all others is the excellent choice in actors. Many might view Brad Pitt as nothing more then a pretty face, but I beg to differ. Ive always thought he was one of the finest actors from his generation. Sure, he's just as guilty as the next hollywood actor for making crap (Mr. and Mrs. Smith for example) but you need only to look through his resume to see some excellent performances. My favorite of the bunch is Early Grayce in Dominic Sena's Kalifornia. Where Pitt plays this hill billy white thrash whacko with some serious psychological issues. Highly recommend you check that movie out if you doubt Pitts acting skills. Other films Id recommend as examples of Pitts excellent acting skills are 12 Monkeys, Seven, and now I'll add Inglorious Basterds to his list of excellent performances. Here he plays Lieutenant Aldo Raine, a guy who wants nothing more then to kill Nazi Basterds and collect their scalps! He plays that country boy accent from Tenesse very well! His character is the one responsible for some of the more comedic moments in the film.

What actor doesnt want to jump at the opportunity to be in a Tarantino movie? We get an excellent cast here of great actors that you've probably never seen or heard of before, but probably will see and hear a lot of from now on because they were in this film. Example: Christoph Waltz the actor who plays the most hateful of the Nazis in this film (Col. Hans Landa) is already lined up to star in next summers comic book flick The Green Hornet. But I have to say, he deserves his upcoming success, on this film he plays a truly hateful Nazi commander! The kind of Nazi that will question you and question you and question you until he finally discovers you are hiding something, or being unfaithful to the Fuhrer and then he will make you pay for it! Great character! Very versatile, Waltz character demanded that he speak four languages! French, Italian, English and German! A memorable villain played by a very experienced actor, he has not made many American films, but you should see all the movies this actor has made all over the world! Same thing with the beautiful Melanie Laurent, who has an impressive resume of French films, but had never made an American one. She plays the rebel who got away, the vengeful woman in Tarantinos Nazi universe. We also get a great supporting cast, among them Eli Roth (director of Hostel I and II and Cabin Fever testing his acting chops) playing the "Bear Jew", a member of the Basterds who is famous for smashing Nazi skulls with a baseball bat! We get Mike Myers playing a cameo as an American col. Though I have to admit, I found Mike Myers role to be very unnecesary. His performances is a simple cameo, nothing truly relevant. Or maybe I just couldnt get past the fact that its Dr. Evil trying to play a "dramatic role".

But aside from the excellent actors and production values, this film portrays once again Tarantinos ability to whip up some great dialog and suspense. The dialog on this film is plentiful (something Tarantino is very well known for as well) but its not your usal "Tarantino Bullshit". Often times in Tarantino movies characters will start talking about the most mundane things, and go on and on about them for minutes on end. On example of this is in Reservoir Dogs when the characters start talking about the true meaning behind Maddonas "Like a Virgin" or in Pulp Fiction when Vincent talks about what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France. In Inglorious Basterds characters do have extended conversations, but to my surprise, they were all pertinent to the story. The lengthy dialog simply served the purpose of enhancing the supense or the drama in the scenes which I thought was a step up for Tarantino. Everything the characters said needed to be said and only enhanced the story as if the dialog though plentiful was distilled of any unnecesary words. Speaking of suspense, there are many scenes which start out ever so slowly, and before you know it they build up to a great climax. These Nazi bastards can really get to you even in film, when you know they arent real. Tarantino really constructed some fearful Nazi soldiers, characters that act and think like cold robots without any feelings or sympathy.

Do not expect a film that sticks to historically acquarate facts. This film takes place on its own Tarantino Nazi Universe, things dont happen the way they did. But youll wish they happened the way Tarantino portrays them on this picture. The film is very violent and graphic at times, be ready for just the right amount of gore and graphic mayhem. But you can also expect lots of comedy, some of the situations end up being quite funny, like the moment in which Pitt is trying to pass himself as an Italian film crew so he could get close to Hitler, and one of the Nazi officers starts questioning his Italian accent and he tries his best to speak Italian, though its obvious his Italian doesnt go any further then saying "arrivederci!" Hilarious.

All in all, a great Tarantino film. Well worth all the wait. Highly recommend you check it out at the theater. Its the kind of movie thats made for people who truly appreciate a good film. Great script, great performances, fun times. Tarantino's still got it.

Rating: 5 out of 5