Noah (2014)

Title: Noah (2014)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins, Logan Lerman

Just so you guys know where I’m coming from with this review, I’m not a Christian, but I’ll watch movies like Noah because I love movies and I love how they attempt to wow us, how they comment on humanity and how they try to entertain us. Biblical movies are an interesting bunch because if done wrong, they will always end up pissing somebody off, probably a Christian. But to me, biblical movies are as entertaining as any other fantasy film, what matters to me when I watch any film is if it’s entertaining or moving somehow, if it has something to say. I went to see The Passion of the Christ (2005) to see what the big deal was all about and to my surprise I ended up being genuinely moved by some moments in the film. Any habitual film goer and book worm finds it interesting to see a book they’ve read come to life in some way, so that's the mentality I go with when I go see movies like this one.  So my status as ‘unbeliever’ does not stop me from enjoying films that deal with Christian themes. In fact, since I am a former Christian; I can enjoy them on a whole other level because I know the source material. I read the bible a couple of times back in my church going days, so I know the text and I know when a film is stretching the limits of their ‘artistic liberties’, case in point Aronofsky’s Noah and its myriad ways of telling a different story then the one depicted in the bible. On this review I pinpoint the specific elements that aren’t related to Noah’s tale, so if you don’t want certain elements spoiled for you, you’ve been warned!

For those of you who haven’t read the tale of Noah, this is the story of a man who is contacted by God himself. God tells him that he is going to be destroying every human on the planet because man had become evil, corrupt and violent. In other words, God wants to reboot humanity. Yet Noah and his family are lucky; In Gods eyes they are the only good people left in the whole entire planet. The bible says that Noah was “righteous” and “blameless” amongst the people of his time, so when god’s wrath comes down on the earth through a massive planet wide flood, Noah and his family will get a free ticket to survival. But before the rain starts to fall, God tells Noah to build an ark and put two of all the animals in the world in it so they will survive the flood. That’s the gist of it. And that's essentially what you'll get in this film, the problem is that along with it, you'll get a bunch of other elements that have nothing to do with the bible, in fact, they are so alien to the story of Noah that they just might completely take you out of the film. 

When it comes to biblical movies, as a filmmaker, you have to be very careful. You don’t won’t to deviate too far away from the source material because then you’ll have Christian’s boycotting your film and you don’t want that because it could mean the death of your film. You don’t want to anger your target audience, which is basically what this movie undoubtedly does. It has so many elements that are not in the bible! What elements am I talking about? Well, for example, in the film Anthony Hopkins plays Methuselah, who according to the bible was one of the oldest humans to ever exist, so okay, we’re good till there…but then Aronofsky gives Methuselah magical powers? Now I don’t find that all that weird because the bible actually acknowledges magic as being something real. The problem is that in Noah’s story, Methuselah is not a practitioner of magic! Now the bible talks about magicians and sorcerers, but it doesn’t say that Methuselah was one of them. The artistic liberties don’t stop there.

Then we have the most controversial element of the film, the giant rock creatures. I know right? Now strange creatures aren’t all that controversial to me when it comes to the bible because the bible talks about dragons, unicorns, creatures with ten heads, four faces and a whole cornucopia of strange beings, but the thing with the rock creatures that aid Noah in constructing the ark is that they are not in the bible, at all, and so right here is where Christians will put a screeching halt on this movie and say its heresy. I’ve yet to understand why Aronofsky chose to use these creatures as part of the story. I mean, did he do it on purpose to piss of Christians and get them to go to the movies? Was it to get everyone talking about it? Some sort of publicity stunt to get people talking furiously about the film? In either case, it’s a risky move because this could go either way. It could get  Christians to boycott the film and call Aronofksy the Antichrist, or it could make people want to see the film more. Now knowing how Christians react to films like this, I think it will make them see the movie in droves; just to see what the big deal was all about. But there’s no way of denying that Aronofsky took a huge risk here. 

To top things off, Aronofsky depicts Noah all wrong. You see, in this film Noah thinks that God is bringing the flood because he wants to completely eradicate humans from the face of the earth, when in reality, it’s the complete opposite. Allow me to explain. True; God does feel disappointed with humanity and wants to wipe them out, but in the bible, God clearly states to Noah that he wants for humanity and animals to continue living; I mean that’s the whole point behind saving the animals, so that after the flood is through they can roam the land once again and propagate, it goes without saying that God wants to save Noah and his family for the exact same reason. For all intents and purposes, God wants humanity to continue. But for some reason, Aronofsky’s Noah thinks he and his family are meant to be the last humans on the planet and that they are not to have babies? So when one of Noah’s family members becomes pregnant he thinks he has to kill the babies? That whole thing? So not in the bible! This course of action makes Noah look evil and crazy somehow. Now killing your children in the name of God is not something unheard of in the bible (just ask Abraham!) but again, this does not happen to Noah in the bible.

Now if you’re keen on reading between the lines and enjoy extrapolating on ideas and possible interpretations of what we see in films, then you might infer, as I have, that Aronofsky is actually trying to point at some particularly hard to swallow elements in the bible. Through Methuselah and his use of magic, Aronofsky points at the fact that in the bible, magic is real, and condemned, which is a preposterous idea in my book, hell even sorcerers are real in the bible. Through the now infamous rock creatures, Aronofsky seems to be saying we shouldn’t find them so strange, after all, the bible talks about talking snakes, giants roaming the earth and even dragons! By depicting Noah as a man who thinks he has to kill babies in the name of God, well, Abraham was going to do that at some point, which if you ask me is the craziest part of the bible, and one that I am completely against. Honestly, if God told me to kill my child I’d scream from the top of my lungs “HELL NO!”; yet I’ve personally met Christians who say they would kill their child if God asked them to. And to me that’s just crazy. So through his depiction of Noah, Aronofsky addresses issues of blind fanatism in religion.   

Aronofsky is one of my favorite filmmakers, he’s made some truly amazing films and the question remains, is Noah one of them? I’m not gonna say it’s a terrible film or badly acted or written, because it’s quite the opposite. The cast is amazing, the visual effects work astounding, the only real problem is that it’s not the story you might expect. Arnofsky takes incredible liberties with the text in order to say what he wants to say. There’s no doubt in my mind that these elements will irk some people out there. I’m just saying, if you’re going to see Noah, don’t expect to see the biblical story represented faithfully, Noah was just Aronofksy playing around with biblical themes and ultimately, if you ask me, pointing a finger at the more difficult to accept elements from the bible. Discuss!

Rating: 4 out of 5  

     

Man of Steel (2013)

Title: Man of Steel (2013)

Director: Zack Snyder

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Antje Traue, Laurence Fishburne

Review:

Without a doubt Man of Steel is the hottest ticket in town; the quintessential ‘movie of the summer’, it’s the “gotta see” of the summer season; so of course I was excited as hell to see it. I had my ticket a whole week before it was released, nothing was gonna stop me from seeing this one! The anticipation was a turn on as they say. The last cinematic incarnation of Superman was Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns (2006). Those of you who saw it know it was disappointing in the sense that we rarely saw Superman doing anything very super; unless you count being a super stalker, a super power. He spent too much of his time brooding over Louis Lane rather than kicking some ass. So naturally, the big question on everyone’s mind is will this new Superman finally kick some ass? The answer to that question is a resounding yes! There’s so much ass kicking on this movie that you won’t know if Superman is saving or destroying Metropolis!

Since this is the first film in a new chapter of Superman films, Man of Steel has to go through the rite of passage of telling, once again, Superman’s origin story which we’d already seen in Superman (1978) and Superman Returns. But don’t worry, the good thing is that Man of Steel does it through a series of flashbacks, we don’t really dwell too much in Superman’s teenage years. Like the story of Jesus in the bible, Clark goes from being a child to being 33 years old in the blink of an eye, which by the way is also Jesus’s age in the bible. Same as Jesus; Kal-El is sent by his father to earth to “save them all”, so the parallels with Jesus Christ are pretty blunt on this one, actually there's more of them: Clark ends up being a fisherman, just like Jesus was a fisherman. Hell, Superman’s father tells him “you’ll be a God to them”, so yeah, there’s tons of biblical references on Man of Steel. Superman is even portrayed as having Catholic beliefs, which for me is one of the weak points in the film because this was never a part of who Superman is, its one of the reason why I lowered the score a bit. But unfortunately, according to this film, Clark is brought up in a Christian family. Clarks earth mother Martha Kent (played by Diane Lane) even wears a crucifix on her neck throughout the movie, so yeah, Superman’s a catholic on this one. Why did the filmmakers choose to go this route with the character?  

The thing about Superman is that he is supposed to represent the best in humanity, our best qualities, our highest morals, so I’m guessing this is why they gave him a Christian background, because Christianity portrays itself as a belief system with high moral values, never mind the pedophilia and the mass murders they’ve committed throughout history, Catholicism is supposed to be wholesome, keywords here being “supposed to be”. So then we have Clark sort of trying to hide the fact that he’s Superman because his earthly father, Jonathan Kent tells him the people of earth simply wouldn’t be able to deal with it, one lady who witnesses Superman’s strength starts saying that he is a God send. So Clark is always walking that dubious line between maintaining his secret, or coming out to the world as a super powered alien being. I enjoyed how they explored that angle of Superman changing people’s perceptions of why we are here. They go a bit into how Superman’s existence finally answers the question “are we alone in the universe?” I wish they’d gone a bit deeper into that, I personally think a whole new religion would pop up that would worship Superman, but they don’t go that far into it. So as you can see, this Superman movie gets quite existential. 

"We going to church today mom?"

Superman has always been portrayed as an American icon. His very suit is made up of two of the colors of the American flag. In the old television shows he was portrayed as a character who stood up for “truth, justice and the American way”. So I guess that’s why there’s so much product placement on this film! I counted Sears, 7-Eleven and IHOP amongst the companies that paid moola for their name to appear on this movie. I personally hate that whole “American Way” aspect of Superman, because really, a guy that powerful would be a citizen of the world, not of the United States. If Superman is that noble, that wholesome, he would see past borders and nationalities, he wouldn’t be “as American as they come”. But that’s the way they want to portray Superman on this film and with this movie they’ve really gone all the way with that whole idea. I mean, right before the movie started, they gave a commercial for the U.S. Army in which they compare the American military to Superman as if saying that American soldiers are real life heroes, never mind that most of them die in the line of battle for their countries egotistical reasons, sometimes for reasons that the soldiers themselves don’t even understand. Never mind that the American military is used to invade and conquer other countries simply because they have lots of oil, never mind all the atrocities they’ve committed, like bombing schools and hospitals, never mind that they are the nation that has killed the most people in one single swoop; they are heroes! So, this is a movie that takes Superman, the most powerful being on earth and puts a ‘Made in America’ stamp on it. The most powerful being on the planet is an American, and he’s working side by side with the U.S. Army! Barf. Personally, I hated that about this movie, but no worries, this didn’t hinder my enjoyment of this massive summer movie blockbuster.

And when I say massive, I mean massive! When Supes and General Zod go at each other it is a dangerous affair which puts the citizens of Metropolis in true peril. On this one you won’t get people eating Ice Cream and talking on the phone as Gods are fighting each other destroying the city like in Superman II (1980). Nope, on this one the citizens of Metropolis have to run for their lives or get killed in Zod’s wake! Buildings are toppled, cars fly up in the air and massive amounts of concrete is destroyed when these guys go at each other. The battles are epic and certainly surpass the fight between General Zod and Superman in Superman II; a film which I still enjoy very much. Before this whole superhero revival thing that started with X-Men (2000), Superman II was the best of the superhero movies for me. But of course, it was quickly surpassed by many of the superhero films that are so common today, like say for example The Avengers (2012), which set a new standard for superhero films. And there’s no denying that this new Superman movie is influenced immensely by The Avengers, we get dimensional portals, an alien invasion in a major city and superheroes dueling in the skies; sound familiar? It’s because that’s exactly what The Avengers was all about too. But don’t fret, this isn’t a Xerox copy of The Avengers, yet there’s no denying the influence that film has over this one. I would go on to say that it’s the first official film to be influenced by The Avengers in that it’s trying to reach the same levels of destruction and epic scope.

Yet, the film goes its own way offering us many original elements. For example ‘Krypton ‘, Superman’s home world is a wonder to behold; I loved how they portrayed the different levels of political hierarchy. The technology of the planet mixes the organic with the technological in a really interesting way. The whole deal with Superman’s father, and who he was on his planet, loved that whole bit. We get to see why the suit, why the ‘S’, why the super powers, basically, all the ‘why’s’ about superman are answered. This film simply explains things better. But what we really wanted to see with this new film is Superman kicking ass right? So don’t worry my friends, there’s tons of that! This movie delivers on the spectacle arena, you won’t be disappointed. As a summer blockbuster, this movie functions to perfection, without a hitch. Casting wise the film is perfect, Henry Cavill as Kal-El was perfect casting, he looks the part. There was a moment where I thought I saw Christopher Reeves face, but it could have been my nostalgia goggles messing with me. Amy Adams as Louis was great, she isn’t bitchy or cartoony, she’s just a smart reporter, though I do feel that Louis and Clark’s love on this movie comes out of left field because there’s nothing to really validate it or spark it, it simply happens, it feels like they fall for each other simply because that’s what happens between Louis and Clark, not because they genuinely fell in love. Michael Shannon is great as Zod, but I was expecting a more intense portrayal of the character coming from Shannon, who is used to playing intensely nutty characters. Still, he doesn’t mess things up, it’s just that I thought he’d do something just a little more over the top.

  

Bottom line is this movie didn’t disappoint with its spectacle and massive amounts of destruction, the only reason why the film looses a couple of points for me is for using Superman to spread patriotism (which to me is simply another form of fanatism) and for making him a catholic, which just sucks, Catholicism was never a part of the equation; but the rest of the movie? Freaking awesome! A great summer blockbuster that won’t disappoint in terms of constantly showing you cool stuff. I mean, how cool was it that Superman finally used his heat vision and his super speed? Trust me on this one you’ll see Superman doing stuff you’ve never seen him do on any other movie, like for example, seeking the council of a Catholic priest. After the film finished, the audience stayed behind expecting one of those cliffhanger endings that the Marvel and Fast and the Furious films have popularized so much, but don’t waste your time, you’re not going to get it here. The filmmakers opted not to give us a cliffhanger as if saying: "this is a DC movie not a Marvel movie and don’t you forget it!" I'm positive that this movie will make obscene amounts of money, and I'm sure a sequel is certain, actually, both David Goyer the films writer, and Zack Snyder, the films director are signed to return. The success of Man of Steal will determine if we will ever see a Justice League movie, so if you want to see that movie happen, go on and see Man of Steel. If Man of Steel is any indication, we should be in for something  special, DC style. 

   

Rating: 4 out of 5  

Les Miserables (2012)

Title: Les Miserables (2012)

Director:  Tom Hooper

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter

Review:

Poverty stricken times call forth films about poverty stricken people and no other film is more suitable for today’s borderline depression era days than Les Miserables, a film that truly explores the sadness and desperation that comes with being less fortunate, actually, to be more accurate it truly wallows in it. But I’m of the mind that even the sadder parts of life have to be explored, life is bitter sweet and to say that life is all peaches and cream simply isn’t true. There’s a lot of sadness out there in the world we live in and it is important we talk about these sad parts of life, it is important that we don’t ignore the darker issues, for how are things to get better if we ignore problems? Les Miserables focuses in on one of the saddest elements of society: extreme poverty.

On this one we meet Jean Valjean, an ex-con who went to jail for stealing bread. On the particular day we meet Valjean he is set free and tries looking for a regular job, but due to the fact that he’d been in jail, he gets rejected left and right. He soon ends up in a church, screaming at god in anger, asking God why his life so miserable. But then a twist of fate makes Valjean reconsider his life and so he decides to reinvent himself and a few years later, Valjean becomes the owner of a sewing factory. Unbeknownst to him, Fantine, one of his female employees gets fired for no good reason. Unable to care for her little baby child, Fantine ends up on the streets, selling her body in the seediest parts of town. It isn’t long before death comes knocking at Fantines door and Valjean, feeling guilty for her death swears to take care of Fantine’s little baby daughter,  Cosette. What happens when Cosette grows up and wants to live her life, apart from Valjean? 

Right away, from frame one you know this movie is epic; we see Jean Valjean and hundreds of other prisoners pulling a boat into shore with ropes as they sing, and I just knew this one was going to be special. First thing you notice when you see this film is that the actors are singing for real, the songs aren’t dubbed or pre-recorded, which takes a little getting used to because normally musicals pre-record every song and actors are simply lip-synching as they sing and dance, but not on Les Miserables; here the actors really sing on set, live and this is the way you’ll hear it. I was pretty blown away by Jackman and Hathaway specifically, but really, everybody does a bang up job here. Anne Hathaway sings a song that just might bring you to tears, and win her an Oscar. I’d say maybe Russell Crowe was the only one a little off at times, but even he did a commendable job. So be ready for a musical that feels just a little bit more realistic then others, every breath, every sob between songs is heard, the pain and the feeling in the performances is projected more efficiently because of this technique.

As I watched this version of Les Miserables, I noticed how similar the story is to films like Annie (1982) and Oliver! (1968). All of these films are musicals and all three are about little orphan kids living in poverty. All three films have kids living with horrible step parents who want to take advantage of the child, and in all three films, the child is rescued by a genuinely good person looking to give the child a chance at a better life. But I guess in scope and tone, Les Miserables is closest to Oliver! The only thing that makes Les Miserables a bit different then these other two films is the element of romance, a love triangle that developes and the French revolution! The people of France in Les Miserables are on the verge of rebellion and this theme of the oppressed being sick and tired of being treated like garbage is an important one on this film because the misery of the people is often simply a reflection of what’s going on with its government. Are people just gonna sit back and let their government trample them? Or are they willing to die fighting for their freedom? Interesting themes no doubt. I found the character of Javert, the policeman following Valjean interesting. He is torn between serving the government and doing what his human side is telling him is right. This character has an interesting duality there.

The Oscar nominations are in and both Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have been nominated for their work on this film, which isn’t really a surprise. Les Miserables has also been nominated for Film of the Year, so this lets you know there is something special about this film. Plus with a cast like this one, wow, who wants to miss this show? Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonhan Carter who worked together previously in Tim Burton’s Sweeny Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) reunite here with great comical effect, playing the evil step parents of poor little Collette. But screw the Oscars, The Film Connoisseur is telling you this one is awesome, a cinematic experience of the highest caliber; a film that will move you to tears. Not to be missed!

Rating: 5 out of 5

The Man with the Iron Fists (2012)

Title: The Man with The Iron Fists (2012)

Director: The RZA

Cast: Russell Crowe, Lucy Liu, RZA, Byron Mann, Rick Yune, David Bautista, Pam Grier, Gordon Liu

The RZA’s love for Kung Fu movies can be traced all the way back to his beginnings as a musician in the Wu-Tang clan, where the famous rap group would conceptualize whole albums based on Kung Fu movies like The 36^th Chamber of Shaolin (1978). RZA also scored the music to Tarantino’s Kill Bill movies,   Afro Samurai (2007) and its sequel Afro Samurai Resurrection (2009). So it’s safe to say that RZA’s love for Kung Fu films has always been there. In a featurette RZA did for the Afro Samurai dvd, his genuine love and appreciation for these films was evident; so the fact that he directed, wrote, starred and scored The Man With the Iron Fists doesn’t surprise me the least, in fact, it makes all the sense in the world. Here’s a guy who’s seen thousands of Kung Fu movies. He understands and obviously loves the genre; this isn’t some ignorant poser trying to make a Kung Fu film, this is a connoisseur. With The Man with the Iron Fists he meant to unleash all that Kung Fu knowledge onto the silver screen as a love letter to genre. Problem is, this is his first film ever, so a lot was depending on him pulling it off, and pulling it off well. So, the question remained: would the RZA be able to do it? Could he pull off this ambitious project on his first time out?

Story is all about this peace loving blacksmith (RZA) who hates making weapons and would much rather spend his time making toys for kids. But, as fate would have it, he ends up having to make weapons anyway so he can save enough money to escape with the woman he loves. He makes weapons for two gangs that are fighting each other over a shipment of gold, and the control of the town. You see one greedy bastard known as ‘Silver Lion’ killed his own master ‘Golden Lion’ just so he could take over the clan; problem is that while Golden Lion wanted peace, Silver Lion wants war and The Blacksmith is caught in the middle of it all. Will The Blacksmith ever find the peace and love he yearns, or will death, carnage and revenge force him to turn into a stone cold killer?

The Man with the Iron Fists was obviously a labor of love for the RZA who basically took all the things he loves about Kung Fu movies, put them all in a blender and called it The Man with the Iron Fists. It’s got elements from recent Kung Fu films like True Legend (2010), a little bit of Afro Samurai (2007) and a whole lot of Shaw Brothers. The thing with The Man with the Iron Fists is that if you’re a lover of Kung Fu movies (like I am) you will immediately identify the films where RZA got his inspiration from. It kind of reminds of what happens when you watch a Tarantino film. The film has that repetitive storyline that a lot of Kung Fu movies have where the hero gets all banged up by the bad guys, goes through a recuperation/training process and by the ending of the film, he ends up kicking everyone’s collective asses to kingdom come. The difference between a Tarantino film and The Man with the Iron Fists is that while Tarantino takes the genre he is paying homage to and re-invents it, brings something new to the table, makes it better somehow, The Man with the Iron Fists hardly re-invents the Kung Fu genre, or brings anything new to the table. It’s quite simply a homage that walks on tired ground. Still, that being said, the film is an extremely entertaining affair; I was not bored for a moment.

And here’s the part where I start talking about all the cool stuff this movie has going for it. First off, the production values are top notch. The art direction, the wardrobes, the weapons and the look of the film were all great. I’m thinking that the production benefited a whole lot from shooting on location in china, which is a great surprise; I love it when a film shoots on location. The Kung Fu action is excellent and very well shot. I’ve read some reviewers complaint about them not being able to comprehend what’s going on in the fights, I don’t get where they are coming from, I could see perfectly well what was happening during the fight choreography, which was quite good in my book. Characters have all sorts of cool weapons that I had not seen on any movie before; like for example there’s these two sword fighters,  each has a sword that when united with the other, creates a ying and yang symbol that allows them to kick some serious ass together.  The gore was plentiful as well, which caught me completely off guard! Since Hollywood’s so shy with blood and guts these days, I was expecting a tame film in this regard, but I was wrong. There’s all sorts of over the top death sequences; which were gruesomely entertaining; a kung fu fan should be pleased with all the blood spraying on this movie.

I won’t lie, the film does have a few flaws here and there, most of them related to this being the RZA’s first film. For instance, I don’t think it was a smart choice on the RZA’s part to juggle so many production responsibilities. He directs, writes, scores and on top of all that, acts in the film! The RZA plays the titular ‘Man with the Iron Fists’ and his performance is quite subdued. The Blacksmith is a very quiet, laid back kind of character, it felt to me like this pivotal character should have been played a bit more intensely by an actor with experience.  I don’t think it’s the worst performance ever, but the part called for someone who could display more emotion,  plus to be honest, I don’t think RZA’s much of an actor. As a director? Sure, he did a decent job, but acting is definitely not his forte.  Also, somewhere near the end, the film feels a bit rushed. This could also have something to do with the fact that the original cut of the film was four hours long and the RZA had to compromise and cut it down to the usual hour and a half; this is his first film after all. I’m looking forward to a director’s cut of the film where hopefully we’ll get more character development and story. I hear RZA is pushing for a director’s cut for the dvd release, which would be awesome in my book. Since this film only cost 20 million dollars to make (a modest budget by Hollywood standards) I think it will be successful enough to make its money back, and hopefully bring on a sequel. I wouldn’t mind getting a second dose of Kung Fu awesomeness from RZA, because this movie satisfies in that department.

My final word on this one is that it’s not a perfect movie, but it is fun enough for you to forget all about the flaws and just enjoy the damn thing. The violence is so cartoonish and over the top that people laugh after some of the deaths, which I think is a perfectly normal reaction to all the mayhem that happens on screen. The idea of this character having Iron Fists is freaking awesome and him battling this other dude with metal skin? Sweeeet. The RZA as the Black Smith was the weak link of the show, but then we have Russell Crow chewing up scenes and having a blast with Lucy Liu who plays the lady who runs the local whore house. Fun times are to be had, if you love your Kung Fu mixed with some hip hop tunes; this is the place to go. I wonder if what RZA was really trying to prove with this film is that he could be the one to direct the Afro Samurai movie? Now there’s an idea!

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Quick and the Dead (1995)

Title: The Quick and the Dead (1995)

Director: Sam Raimi

Cast: Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, Lance Henriksen, Keith David, Tobin Bell, Gary Sinise

Review:

The Quick and the Dead isn’t one of those films that purely emerged from the mind and imagination of director Sam Raimi. It wasn’t like Evil Dead (1981) or Darkman (1990) both of which were films born and bred in Sam Raimi’s brain. Nope, on The Quick and the Dead Sam Raimi was a director for hire. He was personally chosen by Sharon Stone herself for this film because she loved what he did on Army of Darkness (1993). So here was Sam Raimi, coming out of the moderate success of Army of Darkness, doing his first “director for hire” picture. How did it go?

An awesome cast makes this an awesome western!

The Quick and the Dead centers around a shoot out contest that takes place in the Western town of Redemption. This contest attracts a varied group of gunmen from all over the Old West. The twist comes when we find out that one of these gunmen is actually a gun woman who goes by the name of ‘Lady’. She signs up for the contest but doesn’t reveal the true nature of her plans: exacting sweet revenge on the man who was responsible for the death of her father! It just so happens that this man is the towns mayor; an abusive politician named Herod who squeezes tons of tax money from peoples pockets and lives a life of luxury at their expense. Will she ever muster up the courage needed to go up against Herod and his men? Will she ever get the revenge that she came for?

One of the things that makes The Quick and the Dead special is the fact that it has a female lead in the role; normally western films have a male lead in them. I figure studios think females don’t really give a damn about cowboy movies so why make one with a female lead? But this one was just a little different. It has an ass kicking female playing the lead character in the form of Sharon Stone, who's one tough cookie on this movie. Though many of the men in Redemption enlists in the contest, somebody protests saying that ladies shouldn’t be allowed to enter. Herod, the towns mayor played by a scene stealing Gene Hackman says “we don’t have nothing against ladies entering the contest, it’s just that ladies can’t shoot for shit!” All the men in the room laugh when he says this. It's right then and there that , and Lady proceeds to show them what she’s made off by shooting her gun faster and quicker then all of them thought she could. So this movie is different that way. Sharon Stone carries the whole film on her shoulders. She’s the ‘Blondie’ of this film. She smokes a thin cigar, says very little and answers almost everything in two syllables. To her credit I will say that she was appropriately bad ass in this film, equal parts sexy and tough.

Sadly, this film was a complete bomb at the box office and an abysmal failure for Sam Raimi who started to doubt his abilities as a director. “I felt like I was a dinasour. That I couldn’t change with each film” But Im guessing that wasn’t the case. Raimi remains a great stylist in my book, he’s kind of lost touch with that in his recent films (Spider Man 3 and Drag Me to Hell) but Im hopeful that he still has a couple of great films in him. The failure of this film can be attributed to a common ailment in action films: having a female in the lead in a genre whose target audience is mostly males. I don’t get this because, shouldn’t guys be happy to get a western with an incredibly beautiful actress in the lead role? But whatever, films like Supergirl (1984), Red Sonja (1985), Barb Wire (1996), Elektra (2005), Aeon Flux (2005), Catwoman (2004) and Ultraviolet (2006), with very rare exceptions, continue to bomb at the box office. But of course, this could have to do something with the fact that these movies are pretty bad to begin with. I guess the real question would be why doesn’t Hollywood make better films with female heroes in them? You make a good action film, with a female lead and it will be a hit just as much as the ones with male leads in them. Look at Salt (2010) and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001), two examples of successful action films with a female playing the lead.

Sam Raimis stylish direction remains a major asset of this film

But forget that noise; Sharon Stone in The Quick and the Dead was bad ass. This film not finding its audience was a real tragedy because, not only is this film a great western, it’s also one of Sam Raimi’s best films. At least in my book it is. When Sharon Stone (one of the films producers) chose Raimi as the director for this project, she thought that Raimi showed promise in Army of Darkness and that The Quick and the Dead was going to be the film where he could really come full circle and fine tune his directorial skills, which he achieved wonderfully as far as Im concerned. The film is filled with many signature Sam Raimi camera moves. The lightning flash zoom in, quick camera moves and odd angles make this one a stylish western. Raimi gives it his own distinctive style by placing the camera in extremely interesting places. Like for example when characters load their guns, the camera is actually on the gun itself! In one scene a gunsman shoots his gun and the camera becomes the bullet…little things like that let you know that yes, you are watching a Sam Raimi film. That, plus it’s got the word ‘Dead’ in the title.

Aside from Raimi’s camera play, we also get memorable heroes and villains and a great story to go with them. The contests attracts all sorts of gunslingers to Redemption, each one of them a unique character. For example, Lance Henriksen plays a gunslinger named Ace, because he is renowned for being so great. He likes to do tricks with his pack of cards, which are all aces. We get another gunslinger who’s a gun for hire, another one is a ruthless ex-con, another one is a young kid, and so forth. Behind the characters lays a story of connected lives. They all live under the oppressive reign of Herod, the films villain played by the one and only Gene Hackman who eats up the screen whenever he appears. There’s this awesome scene in wich Sharon Stone is planning on shooting Herod down, but she is so intimidated by the words he speaks that she doesn’t even dare pull the trigger! Now that’s what I call a villain! On top of this, every other character on this film is played by a recognizable actor before they got famous. Russell Crowe is here playing a Priest who’s looking for redemption. He had an ugly past as a gunslinger and is looking to make his peace with God by becoming a priest. Leo DiCaprio plays ‘The Kid’ who also happens to be the son of Herod, the villain. Even Jigsaw himself is here playing a gunslinger who’s looking to kill ‘Lady’. All in all, this film has a solid cast! So much so, that if this film had been made today, with the exact same cast, it would have cost a hell of a lot more money then what it cost back in those days when a lot of these actors were virtual unknowns.

So let’s see, the cinematography is excellent, the music is top notch, the whole cast really makes the whole thing worthwhile, what’s not to like in this picture? Nothing! It is a great homage to Sergio Leone films and westerns in general. We have the lead without a name; we get the revenge that drives the plot of the film. We even get the helpless towns folk who can’t fight for themselves, so they end up looking for the right gunslinger to save them from the oppressive villain. And we got the showdowns at noon. Basically, everything and anything you could ever want to see in a western. This is a highly underrated Sam Raimi film in desperate need of some love and attention!

Rating: 5 out of 5