Film reviews 2016 - The Hateful Eight - Quentin Tarantino: N****r Lover

Brief Synopsis: A bunch of the Usual Suspects are holed up in a cabin with a single white female prisoner and wordy black bounty hunter. Accordingly there are more bitches and niggers than you can shake an NWA tune at - and yes a lot of blood - everywhere!

..

Ok - so this review wasn’t meant to be that long - well that shit didn’t happen. I guess there’s more to about this film then I had wanted to express but I hey I guess shit happens - like this film. Much has been made - by Quentin himself - of the film being filmed in 70mmm. However unlike the Revenant or Sicario Tarantino doesn’t necessarily use this format to the greatest effect - they’re aren't many shots of the frozen wastes surrounding the cabin which location for this piece. I know Quentin doesn't give a fuck about that though, he wants you to study the pockmarks and wrinkles on the faces inside, I’m sure he’s using the wide lens in a narrow environment to enhance a feeling of claustrophobia - we get it - except it doesn't really work.

There is a some interesting dialogue. Very little of it realistic - but this is the Tarantino universe - that’s to be expected really. Quentin's been obsessed with the N word since the very beginning, since Reservoir Dogs and by extension those identified with that epithet - even when they’re not present. In this film the word is hurled at Mr Jackson’s character and infinitum - the majority of the rest of the action being taken up by the physical and verbal battery of Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character - who also gets quite a few N Words in herself.

By this far down the road with Quentin we’re also used to it, it’s not big, it’s not clever but it’s what he does - we’re meant to accept it. But therein lies the rub - just how far are we meant to take this acceptance - well as far as Tarantino is concerned, as far as it can go. Many don’t remember in Pulp Fiction that male rape of the black male crime boss by rednecks Deliverance style - no big deal, well in this film the roles are reversed and a quite graphic description and visuals of Mr Jackson committing abuse on a white Civil War enemy are depicted. Now as a black male am I really meant to say it’s not indicative of anything? After all it’s a post-racial society - or so we were told until black males in America - from 12 years old upwards keep getting shot to death repeatedly by police - on camera. I also suppose it matters even less that the literally emasculation of black males by castration as part of lynching is part of the history America. Yes maybe the movie is meant to be making that point but it just comes over to me as more gratuitous abuse.

Much has been made - again by Tarantino himself - of his standoff with police about the brutality against black males with Police Departments threatening boycotts of the film. Tarantino has styled himself as the saviour of the black male, without any hint of irony pre and post his last film Django he has explicitly stated in many an interview that he wanted to give young black males in America a hero. He wants Django to be a rites of passage movie that Black American Dads could watch with their sons, no such pretensions in this movie I guess.

The simple fact is that Tarantino has a very unhealthy obsession with black people and black men in particular - it seems from this film. Some reviewers have commented on the ‘misogyny’ of the film - as if the racism doesn’t exist. It’s funny how white liberals never seem to take issue with that but in today’s world they seek to defend the rights of women.

The simple fact of the matter is that this film is a story of Tarantino's patriarchal attitudes - with a particular emphasis on blacks. Because of the fact that Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character is … excuse the terminology … in a way just ‘fluff’  I can see why women might be offended by the portrayal< But if she had been replaced by a male character it wouldn't really have made that much of a difference - the film really isn’t about her.

I don't want to give anyone ideas - and anyways it;s too late now - but had the prisoner been black that may have actually made for a much more interesting premise. Though in Tarantino's hands I dread to think how that would have panned out - I'm sure he considered it - so perhaps even he realises there are some things he may not be able to get away with.

I watched the whole film, it was watchable but it was very caricaturish - even without the stuff they got Jackson to do and had done to his character, Bottom line: the plaudits for this film are really a reflection of why there is still so much racism in society and why it is deemed acceptable for blacks to be legally lynched - the mainstream finds it ‘entertaining’

The Guardian’s review title was: ‘Agatha Christie with gags, guns and Samuel L Jackson’ and that’s about right I suppose - after all Christie did pen ‘Ten Little Niggers’

2016 Film reviews - The Revenant - Leonardo Goes Grizzly Adams

Brief Synopsis:

Leonardo Dicaprio goes Grizzly Adams and a) seeks revenge for the death of half-breed son to the hands of White Man that speak with Forked-Tongue b) finds Bears most certainly do shit in the woods and when they do it’s best not to disturb them.

Many would say that any film’s first and foremost task is the suspension of disbelief, to keep the viewer in the world the film has created and not allow them to slip back into reality. However for me this has become increasingly replaced with the task of stopping me slipping into unconsciousness - the suspension of sleep.

Now if that seems like the start of a scathing review of the Revenant - well I’m going to kick you right out of that world. I actually quite liked the film but I’m not really too sure of what it’s about - because I kept falling asleep in it. I’ve tried watching it a few times - and probably will again - because it looks great and I really enjoyed DiCaprio's performance. Of late I've been really impressed with Dicaprio's skills. He's made some amazing movies over the years - The Departed, Shutter Island, Inception; he was great in The Wolf of Wall Street and he’s gonna get nominated for an Oscar for this - but that wasn't enough to keep me from falling asleep.

Now as I’m writing this I’ve finally figured out what my problem with the film really is - it’s to do with the elephant in the room - Tom Hardy. I’ve seen Hardy is some films I’ve really liked recently too. I thought he was great in with Noomi Rapace and James Gandolfini in The Drop and his one-hander Locke  was excellent. For me he was utterly convincing in both of those and therein lies the rub: I wasn't convinced by him in The Revenant. There was one scene where he’s sitting with his back to a tree with his hat off so you can see his scalped head - and he’s talking and I didn't quite recognise him. The scene is quite early on and I was convinced and I wondered, I am being prejudiced against  him, because his performances are always so earnest, (he is the modern ‘method actor’) and as soon as I see ‘Tom Hardy’ I just see him acting - being earnest. For me for this film to succeed his character has to really standout and the performance has to be a tour de force that makes you see beyond the actor - so as the object of Dicaprio's nemesis if I don't as a viewer get a true sense of disgust and rage at him then what’s the point of the entire film? It feels like the filmmakers really want to get across the message that the frozen western frontier is really the enemy - but an amoral and unconcerned one. They don't want to put all the harshness on Hardy’s character so they seek to reflect his moral desolation in the set pieces and when that's not enough they start with the native American mysticism and exoticism - and that’s where I really got turned off. I felt it unnecessary and that sort of thing generally rubs me the wrong way. It’s like every 15/30 mins they wanna go all Apocalypto meets Apocalypse Now on us while we marvel at the gods and spirits of America that were lost to progress. There are nods to so many 70s films about 'half-breeds' with the son that Dicaprio must avenge - will the spirits of the forefathers help him? For me that’s not revenant it’s redundant.

Having said all that I would say the film is far from redundant - the parts I remained awake for I enjoyed (put it this way I fell asleep the first 5 times I watched Apocalypse Now and that’s now a favourite of mine). As I said previously it does look fantastic - and I can see myself watching it again. I just wish we could dispense with the ‘white man speak with fork tongue’ routine.

Oh I should really mention that Di Caprio acts the part really well when a CGI Bear whups his ass. I guess I didn't earlier because of three letters - C, G, I.

2016 Film Reviews: Chi-Raq - 'You know you done fucked up right?'

Brief Synopsis:

Spike Lee addresses Chicago’s black on black violence epidemic by turning Ancient Greek Comedy Lysistrata into a Minstrel Show for white folks

I’m a staunch believer in not commenting on films, books, visual art, music, until you have seen or heard them. When The Chi-Raq trailer came out and there was a huge amount of condemnation of it from the black community online - and rappers in particular I reserved judgement. I’ll be honest - I tried to give Spike Lee’s actually pretty condescending comments about people confusing 'Comedy' with 'Satire' a pass. And I'll be honest again - it was because to an extent I thought he might be right. I thought that he might be correct in assuming that an audience not so up on Ancient Greek plays - Comic or Tragic may not discern the intricacies of material as ‘high brow’ as work such as Lysistrata. Lysistrata is the ancient greek COMEDY that Chi-Raq’s plot is based on. BUT and there will be a lot of BUT(T)S in this review, as soon as I saw the trailer I felt instantly that the film was not going to work and would alienate the people who are not only it’s subject but whom it purports to support.

The first thing I saw was that the cast was - too old. The issues in Chicago with gun violence that make is so newsworthy are that it’s not only black on black crime but many of the perpetrators are so young - many in their teens, Yet the leaders of the two rival gangs are Nick Cannon and Wesley Snipes, that is not to say they could not have roles in the film - of course they could - but not those pivotal roles. Angela Bassett sassing all over the place isn’t going to reach any young minds - it all just seemed very off. Sam Jackson somewhat reprising his role from Do The RIght thing seemed incongruous in 2015.  The casting of John Cusack - well let’s get to that at the end...

So I listened to Spike in interviews put on his angry man shtick and act indignant about the criticisms, citing statistics and defending using the Greek play as a basis for the film. I listened perplexed as rappers involved in social movements in Chicago where they are from - claimed Spike was exploiting poor black people and I and thought say it ain’t so.

Then I watched the film. Spike - I’m talking to you now, Mr Lee - I get that you wanted to challenge thinking  - or rather I get that was your purported aim BUT Spike, Mr Lee - Lystista is not a historical document, it WAS a comedy - that's not how the Peloponnesian War ended!

One rapper claimed that Spike had the story for a while and couldn't get funding until he put into the context of the current events in Chicago, Hijacking the term Chi-Raq and harnessing the zeitgeist - hence the exploitation argument. Something having seen the movie I can now understand. The movie presents a picture that is extremely out of touch and seems quite bourgeois. I earlier alluded to a generational disparity in the film - specifically in the casting, my fears of this were compounded when early in the running time a ‘young’ female character refers to a rival as being a gang member’s ‘main squeeze’ - this dialogue in quickly followed up by the phrase ‘bust a cap‘ - this is the slang used by the ‘young people’ of the film.

I could really rip this film to pieces but I’m scared that might continue the cycle of black on black violence and I’m sure all involved had the loftiest of intentions and the sistas in it like fine as hell - I wouldn't want to upset them - but I’m gonna have to call bullshit and finish off like this:

Spike - you done fucked up - you know the right? (Bill Duke voice) You wanted the white establishment to like you and you finally achieved it. The white press loves this film - but most black people hate it. You thought I’m gonna use an archetype of Western literature as source material, belittle and berate the thugs in the streets killing babies - right alongside Fox News and 'The Man' would finally embrace you - and he has. There’s a couplet for a Geto Boys song from 1990 called City Under Siege:

‘You’re goddamn parents are a trip,

The streets got your babies cos you’re full of that bullshit...'

The whole song describes what’s going on in these communities far better than this movie does. The whole song is less than 5 mins. In less than 5 mins I wanted to turn this movie off - I had to force myself to watch it.

Shame on you Spike, it looks like you finally Bamboozled yourself - you’re now more guilty of all the things you have a problem with Tarantino for than he is.

2016 Film Reviews - Sicario - Good Kurtz Bad Kurtz

Brief Synopsis: No Country for English Women - with great American accents

I don’t do memes but if I did the one for this film one would go something like ‘When the producers gave you the lead role, but forgot to tell you someone else is the star’

Brief Synopsis: Blunt is an FBI agent dispatched to a special government task force combating the war on Drugs - ending up in her own journey into the Heart of Darkness a la Apocalypse Now with Josh Brolin and Benecio Del Toro playing Good Kurtz Bad Kurtz.

So Emily Blunt finally gets a lead in action movie. She’s not running around pouting with Matt Damon or saving Tom Cruise's arse, all with second billing, no - she’s finally the lead arse kicker, except that she’s not. Spoiler alert - too late - I just spoiled it.

In fact the real clue is in the film’s title - Google it.

In a way the film reminds me of Mad Max: Fury Road which I believe would have been better titled Mad Maxine. I didn't like that movie because I really didn't think it was that great, despite the plaudits. I find I also have a problem with this type of dis-ingenuousness: as with Fury Road, Sicario’s main action is all around the main supporting actor, so why bill them as some kind of foil?

Siciario, like The Revenant, I feel is incredibly well shot. I would be surprised if they weren't both in the running for Best Cinematography at the Oscars. However I much preferred the acting in Sicario, I think primarily because there was for me just more of it. Blunt gives a great performance - within her character’s limitations. Forget about her character’s incredible naivety at blurred edges in tactics in the ‘war on drugs’, are we meant to believe that an FBI  agent doesn't know what Medellin is? I guess Federal agents just aren't up on Netflix.

Long story long, Blunt finds out that it's the same shit different toilet - if you can't beat 'em join 'em. But if you're too soft you can't join them anyway. It’s not sold that way but I have to wonder what the feminists are saying - is it because she’s a woman that she can't hang? It’s kind of a Catch 22 - if Blunt’s character does ‘man up’ and get with the program then she’s as bad as the (all bad) guys, if she doesn’t she can’t do shit about it any way. Is the film really a disguised essay on gender politics in America in 2015 - probably - after all it was directed by a French-Canadian.