Somebody knows my taste better than myself! I thought this film was about the film-actor Charles Bronson and therefor was not very high up on my priority list. In fact, “Bronson” is about a man who decided to become famous while being in prison. The larger part of his life, he spent behind bars, the prison he regarded as a hotel where he could optimise his techniques. Assaulting prison personnel (especially the swat teams) he soon got the name of being the most violent inmate in the UK. Bronson decided that this was not enough…
“Bronson” has a unique mix of elements making it a very original film. A Lynchian opening, theatre, a weird surrealistic atmosphere and pitch-black humour. The film is (in my opinion) not as violent as is sometimes suggested. In fact, there is more than one conformity with “Chopper” by Andrew Dominik in story. “Bronson” is more strange though.
As you probably know there was actually one production called “Grindhouse” which included both this film and Robert Rodriguez’ “Planet Terror”. The film actually contains titles at the end of the first part and then a new film started. For this (and undoubtely financial) reasons, the films are usually distributed separately, so I had to get both films in order to see “Grindhouse”. I noticed that Tarantino is working on a new film and realised that I hadn’t seen “Grindhouse” yet, so I picked out both DVDs from the rental shop.
“Death Proof” is a film like you can expect from Tarantino. It contains hilarious dialogues, grim humour and fierce violence. Two parties of beautiful, but rather cheap girls with dirty mouths have a good time, but then their good time is interrupted by Stuntman Mike, a great role of Kurt Russell. There may be not too much of a story to the film, but still I noticed that on many places (such as the box or IMDb) give away a bit too much of it and that does not raise the enjoyment of the film. Speaking of enjoyment, like I said, there are beautiful women and great dialogues, but every time I see a Tarantino, I wonder how much further we can go in displaying violence and its gruesome details. Especially when it is no longer (really) meant to be funny, I wonder what the use of it all is. The box of the Dutch version that I got, speaks about “caricatural violence”, but I do not know if I agree with that description. “Pulp Fiction” was funny, but I am not so sure if every scene in “Death Proof” is meant to laugh. Maybe it is, but Tarantino keeps pushing (my) borders, especially in his inventions of new forms of sick sadism. Anyway, safe for a few extreme eruptions, “Death Proof” is another nice Tarantino production.
I hope to review “Planet Terror” tomorrow.
Here we have another Belgian film, but this time spoken in Western Flemish. An extravagant writer thinks it is an interesting experiment to play the drums in a band with three lowlife idiots. He uses his ‘adventures’ to write a book (which later became this film). What you get is “Anyway The Wind Blows”, squared. Antisocial, mouth-filthy morons having fun with metal/punk-like music, beating up eachother, “janets”, women and whoever is in their way. This results in short explosions of bloody violence in the beginning of the film, working towards a very violent end. There are some crazy findings in filming and in the story and if you understand what the actors are saying, the dialogues are very amusing. “Ex Drummer” appears to be a scum version of the earlier works of Tarantino (but bloodier) layered with filthy music and characters that make the youths of “Trainspotting” look like mother’s favourite. “Ex Drummer” is a step further than most comparable films. Is this a path filmmakers should continue? Well, I had a few good laughs here and there, but overall I don’t find it necessary that film directors are trying to find the boundaries of when people actually get shocked (and I think “Ex Drummer” will do the trick for many people).
Casey (Thomas Jane) is an ex criminal trying to live a normal life with his exigent wife. Then he gets a phonecall of his old partner Nick (Aaron Eckhart) who says to be on the straight path as well and he wants to step by on his way to paris. When Nick arrives on thursday morning, all hell breaks loose.
Casey finds drugs in a suitcase that the two of them used in the old days and decides to flush it down the sink. Obviously other people know about the drugs and first a rasta-man (Glenn Plummer) tries to get it from him, which results in a brilliant Tarantino-like scene. After overpowering the rasta-man and hanging him in the garage, Casey is visited by Nick’s girlfriend Dallas (Pauline Porizcova) who isn’t after the drugs, but “the money”, of which Casey didn’t know yet. Waiting for Nick Dallas decides to rape Casey, but after two orgasms her head is blown off by Billy Hill (James LeGross). He already knows about the drugs and that Casey doesn’t know about the money, so he also decides to wait for Nick to come back. In the meantime he would like to try to saw Casey to pieces but have him live longer than 16 hours (his record). Fortunately Casey manages to overpower Billy Hill as well and also hang him in the garage. The next visitor is a cop (played by Mickey Rourke) and apparently Nick has stolen a lot of money from the cops. Casey gets until 7:00 pm to get the money. When he finds it, he decides to try and have the bad guys shoot up eachother at his house while he flees with his wife.
I hadn’t heard of this film until a friend lent it to me. I found it very funny. It is a rather violent movie with a lot of grim humour. The way we like it, eh?
For a few euros I bought the “director’s cut” DVD with “over an hour of extra footage” and I know what extras. It must have been a long time since I saw this film. I really wonder why it became so popular. It is extremely strange and most of all, extremely violent. Strange in the sense of comics mixed in the film, strange images on the background, unusual colours, rediculous scenes and a vague sense of humour.
As you will know “Natural Born Killers” tells the story of the two lovers Micky (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis) who drive across the USA killing people and making love. Heavily drug-influenced and completely insane. The media turns them into heroes and there is major interest in the trial and interviews. In the end of the film the two escape.
Anyway, a great film and if you see the cheap DVD somewhere, don’t hesitate!
A while ago I saw vol. 1. This is an amusing completely over the top martial arts action film that can only come from Tarantino. I had heard that vol. 2 is different. Well, it is, but not as much as I expected. There is more talking, more information than in vol. 1. You get to see what happened around certain scenes of the first film and of course “Beatrix Kiddo”s (Uma Thurman) quest to kill Bill continues. There is still action in vol. 2, but without the ‘Matrix-elements’ and a few thousands litres less of blood. Also there is the grim humour of Tarantino and of course his weird dialogues. However many people will not agree with me, I find the scene in which Kiddo kills Bill great. Of course I am not going to give you the details.
All in all I found “Kill Bill: vol. 1” amusing, but I found vol. 2 even more amusing.
The loudly anounced fourth film of Tarantino after the brilliant “Pulp Fiction”, the alright “Jackie Brown” and the also alright “Reservoir Dogs” (all too old to be reviewed here it seems). “Kill Bill” falls in the same catagory as the the last two film: alright. Uma Thurman is badly threat by a few people and so she goes out to kill them. Not a very original story, but of course you get a Tarantino-touch. Still, there isn’t enough humour to compare “Kill Bill” to “Pulp Fiction”, there isn’t enough grim violence to be a second “Reservoir Dogs” and overall I would say that Tarentino has either too much or too little of the elements that characterise the ‘genre’ that he started. “Kill Bill” could/should have been more over-the-top like “From Dusk Till Dawn”, also it could/should have been more funny (in violence) or there could/should have been more of the silly dialogues that we came to watch his films for. It is funny that when somebody is wounded, blood keeps squirting from the wounds and there are some other funny wounds, but just not over-the-top enough. I do like the Japanese anime parts that is perfectly in the atmosphere of the rest of the film. As you probably heard, “Kill Bill” is Tarantino’s ‘martial arts film’, but it seems that he could chose between real martial arts and “Matrix”/”Crouching Tiger” like elements, which makes the film too credible or too incredible.
All in all not what it could have been. Maybe part 2 is a bit better, this first parts just ends halfway the story.
So why hadn’t I seen this film before? For years I have known that Quentin Tarantino was involved in this film, but I guess I never found it in a videoshop and it had to take until MTV broadcasted it before I finally saw it. A shame, because this wonderfull film is truely entertaining.
“Four Rooms” refers to four hotelrooms in which four different stories, written and directed by four different directors, take part. The film brings great grim comedy that we are nowadays familiar with, but in 1995 it may have been even more funny than nine years later. There is a bellhop (Tim Roth) who has to run an entire hotel alone on oldyears evening. In the first room a group of witches (including Madonna) stay, trying to turn their leader back from stone to a human being. Only… there is one “missing ingredient” for their soup.
Next Ted the Bellhop runs into the wrong room and gets involved in some SM kind of roleplay.
The third room is a great part in which Ted has to babysit the two children of a maffia-man. Of course things don’t entirely go the way he wants to.
The last part is written and directed by Tarantino and he also plays the main role. Tarantino really does his thing with totally useless dialogues, a strange kind of humour and of course violence.
Should you have missed this film until now too, do your best to see it afterall.
However I have known about this film I never watched it since action-movies are not realy my kind of film. In the end it turned out to be a bit more than an action film: a violent lesson in Zen!
What did I say there? Yes, read it again: a violent lesson in Zen.
Edward Norton plays Jack who is bored by his life as an insurance inspector who suffers from severe insomnia. Accidentally he runs into Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and the two become friends. After finding out about their mutual love for fighting and pain, they set up a fight club where strangers can beat the shit out of eachother and still become friends. Fight Club slowly evolves to become an anarchistic/terroristic organisation lead by Jack and Tyler.
Tyler has the strangest philosophy of life which gets pretty close to what you hear from the Buddhist corner of Zen at times. He wants Jack and later his other students to become unattached by the material world, fame, appearance, etc. Also he says that the destruction of life (your own or that of others) will result in higher appreciation of it, but death is something to definately not worry about. During the film Tyler says a lot of things which are in total contrast to his lifestyle and it seems that through violence he wants to reach harmony with himself and the world. Taking ascesitism and self-mutilation to extremes, I like the idea of Fincher and his story.
What I don’t like too much is the end which is very Matrix/Existenz-like. Also the length is a bit overdone (135 min). But overall “Fight Club” is better than I expected and it reveals some strange abnormalities in peoples (spiritual) lifes to extremes.
Maybe you know the story behind this film, but it is a strange one! Mark “Chopper” Read is an Australian criminal who supposedly killed 19 people, but was never convicted for any of these murders. Still he spent most of his adult life in prison for violence, possession of arms, etc. In jail he wrote 9 books with his ‘memoirs’ which were instant bestsellers and Chopper became some sort of culthero with fanclubs and everything. This film is so to say a compilation of the 9 books with the Australian stand-up comedian Eric Bana as Chopper.
The first thing that you will hear about this film is mostly that it is extremely violent, but still funny. Personally I found the film indeed rather funny, but it is not as violent as some people want you to believe. Also the ‘ear-scene’ isn’t like the one from “True Romance” in my opinion. Actually I find “Chopper” not more violent than other crime-comedies that you can see today.
Anyway, Chopper is a strange and charismatic person who seems not too intelligent but he is definately not stupid either. All through the film he betrays friends for money, drugs or just because they did something to him. The film is strangely cut. On one hand it seems as if the film is told by Chopper to two police officers in a bar, but it can also be told by Chopper to two guards in his prison while they are watching a documentary with an interview about him. The scenes are all through eachother and it is hard to tell what happened first and what happened later. Also it is unclear what is presented as a fact and what is fiction. Indeed a style of filming that we became familiar with, especially in the genre.
Overall I found “Chopper” pretty amusing.