Django Unchained

Django is by no means Tarantino's best - far from it in fact. However, by the very nature of what the film is about, it may wind up being one of the most important things he's ever done.

Films about slavery are few and far between. In my lifetime, I've seen one - Amazing Grace from 2006. Wikipedia lists twelve (three of those are set for release in 2012 or 2013). A scant few compared with  many hundreds - if not thousands - of films that have been made about the greatest crime against humanity in the twentieth century; holocaust films.

After the holocaust came a swell of films about the holocaust; providing an outlet for the widespread feelings of anger, horror, repentance and regret. They came from all sorts of countries, but German cinema especially was shaped by a generation of Germans looking back on their past. Likewise, in the wake of the Vietnam war, there were a flood of films that depicted the horrors that unfolded there, and called into question America's longstanding pride in superiority in warfare. The scars of the Vietnam war are still there, but it has been 'dealt with' on a cultural level. These films helped entire nations move on from the mistakes they've made; they are a result of and a part of the healing process. It's a trend that has gone on for centuries, and we see it now in today's trend of movies about wars in the Middle East.

But America hasn't finished dealing with its past yet. Django Unchained is an important movie because it is an American film about American slavery before the civil war. The practice is arguably more inhuman than the holocaust; treating entire people groups as animals to be commanded, traded, and bred. It was widespread around the world, and lasted far longer than the holocaust or any other genocide (for a solid rundown on the context of slavery, click here). And as I said before, there is relatively little in American popular culture that reflects on precisely what transpired across those decades.

Casablanca

A classic film from the golden age of cinema, rightly regarded as one of the finest.

You have definitely heard of this movie. At least, if you haven't explicitly heard of it, you have heard it quoted or seen it referenced a thousand times over. Such lines as "Play it once, Sam. For old times sake", or "Here's looking at you kid", or to my surprise, "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship..." This is a film that has totally saturated pop culture, influenced many films for decades to come, and is held up as a contender for the 'greatest movie ever made'.

And I liked it. In fact, I think other people will like it too. While it exists in our cultural memory as a sweeping romance film - and, yes, the romance is integral to the plot - it's actually more of a drama/thriller, centring around the tension between characters trying to escape from Casablanca. The film was made and is set in the midst of the second world war, in a town in French Morocco called Casablanca. A melting pot of different cultures, Casablanca is located on the northern tip of Africa. In 1942 it is ruled by the French, who are occupied by the Germans, but is far enough from both that neither exerts complete control over it. Refugees from across Europe have made their way here in order to escape the war, by boarding a boat for Lisbon, and eventually getting to the United States. (The film was written before the States joined the war, but was released the year after.)

Dr. No

The first in the Bond franchise is only really remarkable in light of its legacy.

James Bond is a legendary figure of pop culture. First envisioned by author Ian Flemming in 1953 in his novel, Casino Royale, the name has become synonymous with the film series, and the universally recognized catch phrase; "Bond... James Bond." Dr. No was made in 1962, and was the first in a long, long, line of films featuring James Bond, with several actors playing the role of the central character (and others) throughout the 50 year run.

The first film opens unexpectedly with three goofy looking old men crossing the street, to the tune of 'Three Blind Mice'. This strangeness abruptly gives way to thriller material when the three men break into a building and kill everyone inside. This prompts MI6, to send their best man. Here we meet James Bond, suave agent of British Intelligence. He's introduced to us in a nightclub, playing poker, because that's what gentlemen do. We see him briefed by his superior, 'M', and given a different pistol by 'Q' (a shadow of the scene in later films), and flown off to Jamaica to investigate.

Gangster Squad

From the director of the fresh, funny, surprising Zombieland comes something utterly mediocre.

Gangster squad is set in late 1940s Los Angeles, with the city under the control of real life gangster Mickey Cohen. Hotheaded but honest cop John O'Mara, played by Josh Brolin, is chosen to put together a squad off the books to wage guerrilla warfare against the 'enemy occupation' of drug runners, whorehouse overseers and tommy gun toting gangsters that wear the badge of Mickey Cohen.

This true story is exaggerated into life on the big screen with stylish flair. Fast forward and slo-mo is liberally applied to the competent action beats to give them a glossy sheen. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone provide the sex appeal as the sexy cop and sexy femme fatale (although unlike real femme fatales, Stone's character is a good girl pretending to be bad). O'Mara and his wife give moral grounding and warm fuzziness. Giovanni Ribisi plays the gang's tech expert and sympathetic family man (after O'Mara),  while Max Kennard plays the gunslinging bad-ass and Michael Peña his junior partner and part time comic relief.  There's also a black guy who's good with knives, because every team needs a black guy and someone who uses knives. So I guess they saved money by rolling them into one? Anyway, he's played by Anthony Mackie and he's pretty bad-ass as well.

Hitchcock

The film succeeds on many levels, but doesn't quite touch the heights of greatness of the titular director.

(This review contains spoilers for Psycho)

Alfred Hitchcock is still today the master of cinematic suspense. For the most part his films still hold up; I watched The Birds for the first time this week, and was enthralled at how such an admittedly silly premise could be turned into such a nail-biter. True, there were some awfully outdated "yellowscreen" effects, and times have certainly changed since the 1960s, but considering films like The Happening are made to this day, it's a wonder how well it holds up.

Psycho even more so. Psycho is perhaps most closely associated with the director today, but in 1960 when the film was in production it was considered a risky project, so different it was from Hitchcock's other works. The studio refused to fund and market it, the censors refused to approve it, and when it was released it was met with middling reviews. Since then, however, it has become most beloved by critics, with near universal acclaim. The film is considered both the genesis and the apex of the slasher/horror genre.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is finally here! Epic-ness overload!!!
Like really, way too much.

The Hobbit is one of my favourite books from childhood. I tried to get into Lord Of The Rings, but found it too dense. The Hobbit was a shorter story, on a smaller scale. A straightforward adventure with a tight band of characters. The book indicated links to a larger world and a broader story, but it was really an intimate tale of humble beginnings that built to an epic - but still relatively small - climax.

I feel like the films have gotten this mixed up.

Coriolanus

Shakespeare's elegant verse translates beautifully into this tale of modern warfare... As long as you have the patience for it.

Up until last year, Shakespeare's Coriolanus has never been adapted to film. Is that not astonishing?

Ok, there was a BBC series from the 80s, and it had some decent actors and direction behind it. I watched a little; it's a pretty much your standard BBC Shakespeare. This film is very different.

Coriolanus is tells the tragic tale of a Roman general, Caius Martius (played in the film by director Ralph Fiennes), who wins glory in battle and runs for consulship (similar to presidency) of Rome, urged on by his ambitious mother. The play is about patriotism, rivalry, jealousy, ambition and pride. There's a fair bit of Freudian psychology involved too, but since that wasn't invented when Shakespeare wrote it's a testament to his grasp on human nature that he hits on themes that will fascinate humanity for centuries to come.