Wednesday, January 30, 2013

La Grande Illusion - Jean Renoir

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

Something about watching "La Grande Illusion" reminds me of sipping a fine well-aged wheated bourbon. Now a good youngish wheated bourbon initially tastes of vanilla or caramel sweetness transitioning into a golden lushness mid-palate before a nice long soothing finish with a quiet burn. This is, in and of itself, a very tasty and satisfying way to finish off a ruminative and pensive day. But should you age that same bourbon for 10-15 years in new charred oak barrels, that same sip of bourbon will take on an extra dimension. There's a depth and texture that the younger bourbon lacks.

I'm comparing "La Grande Illusion" to aged bourbon, not because it's an old movie, but because it has that same extra dimension of depth and texture. Something that you didn't even know was lacking in other fine movies, and you're not even completely sure how to explain it. It's not greater complexity, or taste, or seriousness. It's another dimension entirely. It's an emanating warmth that pervades everything and yet is impalpable.

They say it's one of the first prison-break movies ever made. But there is no tension nor suspense surrounding the planned escape nor any thrills in its execution. It's notable and remarkable how amicably the Germans and their French prisoners seem to get a long. There is not an ounce of nationalistic propaganda in this film. It accentuates the similarities between people and their needs and at its most on the nose points out the artificiality of borders themselves. The Germans are not portrayed as barbarians, but with honor and a mutual respect for their prisoners.

While it stars the great Jean Gabin, I'd like to emphasize that Pierre Fresnay as aristocratic Boieldieu was a revelation. He's like the Jean Dujardin of another era. Just incredible amounts of gallic charisma and charm. The ending as well is super charming, showing no personal animosity between the French and Germans, which may be unrealistic in some sense, but admirable for striving toward a greater humanistic truth. Grade A.


In a Lonely Place

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

Though I enjoyed it, I don't think "In a Lonely Place" is actually a very good movie. It's biggest problem is that it's overwritten. But it's also choppy and there's lots of stilted dialogue. On the other hand, this is one of the best performances Bogart ever gave, and the underrated Gloria Grahame matches him every step of the way. I wish they had been a more likable couple though. The "honeymoon" period of their relationship was quite sickening. Watching their googly-eyed lovey-doveyness and public displays of affection made me cringe with embarrassment. It's like hanging out with a friend and his new girlfriend and they don't know how to behave in front of people. Sickening. But then of course that changes and things go in a disturbing direction.

It turns out Bogart's character doesn't just have anger management issues. His rage is palpable and disturbing and quite likely homicidal and very scary. This thing becomes a monster movie and Bogart is the monster and we hope poor Gloria Grahame makes it out okay. It's actually a pretty impressive depiction, for its time, of a controlling abusive relationship. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a short-hand understanding about the dynamics of these relationships at the time. I admire and am impressed with the insight on display, but ultimately, the film is close to a failure as a matter of style. And by the by, that nonsense little poem "I was born when she kissed me..." is pretty much the shittiest attempt at evocative ponderousness I've seen in a movie in a long time. Grade B-.

Eugenie De Sade - Jess Franco

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

"Eugenie de Sade" is Jess Franco at his sleazy, salacious best. This film stands out among Franco's oeuvre as one of the few made with seeming love and care, with scintillating eroticism and surreal villainy. At its most dramatic moments one wants to bust out laughing. It plays like a parody of drama, most reminiscent of certain moments from David Lynch's television show "Twin Peaks", particularly the fake soap opera "Invitation to Love".

But the thing about any Jess Franco film is that you're never quite sure how much you're laughing at it, and how much you're laughing with it. Whether Jess Franco is brilliant or if he's an incompetent hack. Probably he's been both in his career. "Eugenie De Sade" is no exception, but it's definitely among the films a person would cite to argue the man is in fact a brilliant artist. It's an engaging mix of the surreal and silly, dramatic and sleazy, and shows what Franco is capable of when inspired and in full use of his talents and effort.

Not that the movie isn't slow in parts. It's typical 70's exploitation in a lot of ways. The plot is ridiculously bad. The characters are grotesquely thin, and seemingly the whole thing is a weak pretext for making what is basically what would seem like little more than an obscene and creepy little movie in more routine hands. But in Franco's hands, it's a kind of masterpiece. Not a masterpiece for respectable audiences, maybe, but a masterpiece for the rare breed of grimy connoisseur, who looks for and finds art in the unlikely places, including the disreputable ones. Grade A.

Monday, January 28, 2013

The Girl From Monaco

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

For the first hour or so, "The Girl From Monaco" seems like the kind of crappy romantic-comedy that one need not go to France and subtitles for. It's okay as far as that formula goes, with an uptight nebbish lawyer, a sexually available trollop, and a grim body-guard. There is humor present, though maybe not the laugh out loud kind. But as the film goes on, it stops trying to be funny, and we start to notice some interesting parallels between the love triangle in the lawyer's case and the love triangle in the lawyer's life. And so there's only one way this will end up, and it's not funny, but it is interesting. Maybe in the final few moments, the film tries too hard to be evocative. And fails. But it ends up being a pretty good movie that sucks you in with its relatability. Grade B +.

Macao - Josef Von Sternberg

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

I don't consider myself particularly well-versed in Mitchum, but in "Macao" I can definitely see why he was a star. It's maybe not the best film of his that I've seen, but it's probably the most charismatic Mitchum performance that I've seen. Jane Russell also gives a great performance. Her smile is intoxicating, illuminating a deceptive beauty. She brings a crass sophistication to her tenderly cynical role. Matched with Mitchum's charisma, this seedily glamorous noir is both routine and excellent. Grade A-.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Violette - Claude Chabrol

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

At first glance "Violette" did not exactly cater to my sensibilities. It seemed at first what I might describe as bourgeois or perhaps middlebrow. But once the crime is committed and the arrests are made, it becomes quite a good movie. The story really is shocking, and Violette, intensely played by Isabella Huppert is an astonishing and memorable character. Chabrol depicts the sensationalism surrounding her trial in all of its humanity-is-little-more-than-apes-flinging-shit-at-each-other ignominy.

And upon her conviction when Violette calls the panel of jurors bastards who disgust her... I don't even know how to react to that. Cause on the one hand, it seems a fair indictment of humanity in general at that point, but on the other hand, there's a fairly sizable plank in her eye. She's a complex character, toward whom we're surprised to feel some sympathy despite her seeming monstrousnes which is on reminiscent of the main character in Camus's "L'etranger."

All said, "Violette," which is based upon a true story was a nicely layered and thoughtful film that told its story and depicted its characters with remarkable grace and subtlety. Grade B.

Friday, January 25, 2013

The Wrong Guy

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

"The Wrong Guy" is a very funny, forgotten little gem of a movie. It starts off kind of slow and slowly turns into a hilarious comic masterpiece. It's a very silly movie about a guy who thinks he's wanted by the police for a murder he didn't commit, but thanks to hidden cameras is known to be innocent. The chief investigator on the case steals the show with his lazy indifference to finding the murderer and use of the investigation to feed his appetite expensive meals, women and entertainment.

Dave Foley gives such a great comedic performance, I'm in hindsight surprised he never became a bigger star and that this movie is relatively unknown. It holds up well with it's contemporaries like "There's Something About Mary," and "Happy Gilmore." Though in terms of humor, it's probably more similar to "Magruber" or one of Will Ferrell's stronger sillier efforts. With a touch of the amateur zaniness of Tim and Eric.

Maybe my favorite bit is the car ride with the "no bullet theory" guy, but this thing is packed with subtle,  and clever little jokes as well. Like Foley's delivery of the line "Well I guess Agent uh 10 of that elite thing you were talking about has finally met his match."  After watching this, I really can't figure out why Dave Foley isn't as big as Ben Stiller or John C. Reilly. Grade A.

The Two Jakes

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

That a film is not as good as "Chinatown," one of the finest films of the 70's, is not at all a fair criticism to level any film. But by virtue of being its sequel, I probably won't be able to keep myself from spending much of my time explaining why "The Two Jakes" is not as good as "Chinatown." This is despite the fact that I think "The Two Jakes" is a very enjoyable film with many entertaining parts. I would certainly watch it again.

Nonetheless, it's not as good as "Chinatown." First of all, I don't really understand it. I don't understand the plot. The motivations are opaque. It's moody, but we don't really understand why it's moody. And I suppose I could rewatch the scene where Keitel's Jake Berman character actually talks about his motivations and figure things out better, but truthfully I don't really care. Fundamentally the plot of this movie doesn't really make any sense, and whatever the contrived explanation is, it isn't really going to make it make sense. By the way, did Berman's business partner really not know who his wife is? It's easy enough to figure out well before the movie reveals it.

Also, "The Two Jakes" is a little tawdry, a little tacky. Listening to the pleasured moans of a women engaged in sexual congress strikes a dissonant note for example. "Chinatown" was a classy movie. A fine movie. "The Two Jakes" is a base thriller. I like cheap thrills. But you want "The Two Jakes" to be respectful to its heritage. It doesn't quite succeed.

And on the other hand, "The Two Jakes" is portentious. Jake Gittes, and in this movie everyone pronounces his name how it's spelled, is haunted by the past. Characters talk about how you can "never escape" the past and we get serious voice-overs and and a such a serious tone at times. "Chinatown" did not try so hard to be a serious movie. It was before it was anything else, a suspenseful thriller with a particularly great iconic 70's film ending. It didn't have to tell you it was serious, it just was. True to the best of noir's instincts. it featured a flawed protagonist, in an irredeemably corrupt world, who fought that corruption on behalf of one innocent. And who lost, because corruption is inexorable, and the innocent do not survive. Maybe "The Two Jakes" tries to gesture at this sort of thing, but it's not really integrated into the story cohesively and we're back at the fact that all in all this movie doesn't make any sense.

But it entertains nonetheless. And when it isn't being tacky or corny, it can be pretty funny. I don't really get it. I don't get what's going on with Harvey Keitel for example pretty much at all. But Jack Nicholson more or less carries the film with his charisma nonetheless. Grade B.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Nototrious - Alfred Hitchcock

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

"Notorious" is definitely among Hitchcock's very best. It is a flawless movie. It's maybe Hitchcock's best shot movie, and Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Rains are all amazing in it. It's heartbreaking to watch Grant and Bergman's characters, obviously in love with each other, treat each other shittily throughout the film. I constantly thought to myself that life is too short to be spending time treating people you love in a shitty way. It shares quite a bit with Casablanca, though it's somehow a colder more sterile film. I think the subtlety of the emotions Grant has to play are tough to pull off and he does it ably. But the real strength of the movie is the building of tension and suspense and the final dramatic pay-off. Grade A.

The Last Seduction

Seen for the second time in January 2013.

The first time I saw the "The Last Seduction" was many years ago, and I didn't really like it that much. I thought the plot was too convoluted, the twists were dumb, and that overall it kind of tried too hard. I also apparently hallucinated a slightly different ending where the protagonist Mike clears his name by using the letter from "Trish" saying she's moving to Beston. That apparently doesn't happen.

I liked the movie a lot more this time around. It's a rather generic 90's noir, which is kind of a tired genre, but generally better than the similarly steamy noirs of the 80's. Noir ran into a lot of problems in the 80's and 90's. It's not just that the genre became tired, but the expectations of nudity and swearing in these movies pretty much ruins them. Everything seems less clever, less smart than the classics. I like steamy and I like swearing probably more than the next guy. But.. how clever would the patter in "The Big Sleep" have been if there wasn't the need for innuendo? And the appeal of noir is basically in its cleverness. Hanging a couple softcore scenes on a rickety plot of corruption, betrayal, and manipulation is a gross abuse of a venerable genre.

Also the style of the original noirs is pretty much obliterated for the sake of making a modern movie. It's as if the film-makers think the defining aspect of noir involves a manipulative femme fatale and a convoluted murder plot, when so much of what made classic noirs good was their style, their lingo, the sense of gritty sophistication. The world of noir was always a contrived one. That world never actually existed. Directors of modern noirs seem to make the mistake of trying to make a noir set in the real world, often to disasterous results. This is probably why most neo-noirs that actually succeed are either period pieces, or cartoons, or else something like "Brick" which has clearly created a self-contained stylized world that has little to do with the world we now live in. The remakes of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" and the "The Big Sleep" are perfect illustrations of the problems with trying to make a good noir today. Where the originals are both great films if a bit mawkish in the Postman's case, the remakes sacrifice stylishness and cleverness for a steamy realness to a pretty dismal result.

But the "The Last Seduction" more or less works despite the pitfalls of the modern noir. The plot barely holds together and suspension of disbelief requires real effort, but not in a seriously flawed way. Bill Pullman is great playing his character to comedic effect. Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as an incredibly cold-hearted, incredibly manipulative sexpot. The guy who plays the lug does a good job at being a lug too. He's more believable than I had remembered him being, though the small town lens through which we view him is complete nonsense. You find guys like him all over the city. And you find women like Bridget pretty much nowhere. But I guess the provincial view of small towns this film evinces is supposed to suggest some kind of sophistication. But the people who made it weren't sophisticated enough to do it in a truthful way. Grade B.

Monday, January 21, 2013

The Devil's Sword

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

"The Devil's Sword" is some kind of 80's Indonesian supernatural kung-fu revenge film featuring a nympomaniacal crocodile queen, plenty of creative decapitations, some great dubbed trash talk and mythical kitschy monsters straight out of a 10 year old's nightmares. It is pretty great, sexy at times but not salacious, and a whole lot of fun.

The action pretty much never lets up as we watch an honorable warrior help an almost equally skilled female kung-fu fighter rescue her husband from the clutches of the evil crocodile queen, whose lusts, unlike the ocean or the sky, are without limit. To do that, they must first retrieve the devil's sword and defeat the evil warriors who also seek it. I fear understating how great the four way battle between the protagonist and the evil warriors, including a witch is. It is in many ways the highlight of the movie.

It is in some ways like if Kill Bill were a low-budget 80's Indonesian film that also had creatures from a 50's sci-fi movie and great dubbing. A wonderful melange of inspired kitsch. Grade A.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Mystics in Bali

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

I've dabbled in these '80s Indonesian horror movies a bit. Stuck my big toe in so to speak. The waters warm, but it leaves me indifferent. I read some other reviews of "Mystics in Bali," a practice I usually avoid. A lot of people are enthusiastic about the weirdness of "Mystics," and yeah sure it's weird, but I'm it's a weirdness that I'm indifferent to. I can easily imagine a person getting their strange cinema kicks from this movie. But, personally, I don't get mine.

I guess part of it is that on paper, it's a weird movie, but it really didn't seem that weird to me while watching it. It's an above average low-budget horror film and that's all it is, at least as far as I can tell. Yes, it's an Indonesian movie directed at a western audience, which gives it a few novelty points I suppose. And there's a cackling witch and amateur special effects of a disembodied head sucking a baby straight out of a woman.And there are characters who appear out of nowhere and deus ex machinas. Admittedly it sounds good on paper. It's just underwhelming in execution.

And it is undeniably an above average low budget horror. Which is good despite the fact that so much low budget horror is completely unwatchable. I think my issue is that it's good, but nothing special, by low budget horror standards, but that it's also not particularly weird by those same standards. Grade B.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Sister of Ursula

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

What "The Sister of Ursula" lacks in originality and pacing, it makes up for in tawdriness. Ultimately this film has a nice twist and builds to a solid climax, but one might never make it there without the sordid sleaze and atmospheric suspense of the first half of this solid if undistinguished giallo. Grade B.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

The Girl From Rio - Jess Franco

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

I didn't know that I was going to be watching a Jess Franco film until I saw his name in the opening credits. This changed my expectations considerably, though perhaps it ought not to have, as "The Girl From Rio" is at the conventional end of the Franco spectrum without also being at the positive end of the qualitative spectrum. Though Franco's imprint is subtle, it is still definitely there.

Evidently this is an adaption of a Sax Rohmer story, about a sex-crazed villainess who wants to enslave all men. Like "Barbarella," it's more of a b-movie than any kind of exploitation movie - if we can draw a distinction between the two as a matter of genre than as a matter of production and marketing. Also, like "Barbarella," it's kind of boring.

The qualities that make a Franco film distinctive are somewhat lacking here. It's sensual without being smutty.   There's no surrealism, nor any obvious incompetence. A reasonable amount of effort seems to have gone into making it. It is, to put it plainly, a very conventional bad movie that one could easily imagine leaving an audience of tasteful middle class adults bored yet not ashamed. This is not the sort of film that Franco is known for. At his best, he would leave that same audience either scandalized and corrupted or astonished that a movie that bad had ever been made.

Nonetheless, little touches bear the Franco imprint, e.g. awkward dubbed dialogue, an incoherent twist, etc. Franco is a frustrating film-maker. What makes him distinctive is hard to pin down, and his oeuvre is so vast and he's worked in so many different genres and styles with varieties of budgets and seeming effort on his part. A person is probably a lot better off if they dismiss him casually before they find themselves corrupted by one of his gems and find themselves wading in and sifting through more and more of his work in an effort to duplicate that initial experience. Though sometimes one is rewarded by finding another gem. Just not in this case. Grade C.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Diabolique - Henri-Georges Clouzot

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

"Diabolique" is taut and suspenseful and clearly hugely influential. It takes a minute to get rolling, but once it does the tension and mystery build to a great climax. The idea behind the twist popped through my head a few times, but probably only because I had seen enough movies that aped that twist. A really well done film. Well thought and well executed. Grade A.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

God Bless You Mr. Rosewater - Kurt Vonnegut

Read for the first time in January 2013.

"God Bless You Mr. Rosewater" is one of Vonnegut's weaker efforts. It is still much better than his least works "Timequake" and "Player Piano." The common thread here is a smug self-righteousness that undermines his schtick. Speaking of schtick, it is one of those occasions when you are conscious of an author doing his schtick which is something you usually enjoy, but in this instance actually grates for some reason. My biggest complaint though is the tone of condescension Vonnegut takes toward "the masses." It's also my biggest problem with "Timequake" and "Player Piano."

It's not quite that I find his embrace of socialism and charity either wrong or insincere, but it seems done with a phony admiration that is tired and hackneyed. In today's world you can see right-wingers use the same kind of romance to sell tax-cuts for the very rich and demonize a guy like Vonnegut as not a real American, which was probably true enough in Vonnegut's time too. And this itself is no fault of Vonnegut's. What I object to is the cheapness of the tactic.

The fact that I came to use the word tactic, I think speaks volumes about this work. I don't think I would that word while discussing Vonnegut at his best. A tactic is used by someone with an argument to make. And though I would never say Vonnegut is not making an argument in his works - He is a deeply moral author with something to say about how we should live - I would say that the body of his arguments are not so nakedly evident in his best work.

No Vonnegut's pedanticism is hidden in his best works behind his wild creativity, entertaining characters, and brilliantly funny humor. This work does have its share of entertaining characters and at times the humor is as legitimately funny as anything in literature. But again, there are moments when the Vonnegut schtick grates. And again, it often feels as though Vonnegut is a little too smug about the whole thing. And there's that creepy feeling you get where someone seems to be showing their respect for the "working man," but you get the sense, not exactly that Vonnegut doesn't respect them, but that the respect is misapplied and that there is a fundamental disrespect congruent with the sincere respect. Like he respects the working man, but also knows that he could never be one, and lurking in his mind is the belief that this is so because he is in small but important ways better.

That's the charge at its most naked with minimal dancing around. I hate to put it that baldly, but I try to put plainly what I find off-putting in the tone of Vonnegut's writing at times like these and it is the best I can do. Nonetheless, this is one of those Vonnegut books that should be read like some people read the Bible. The world would be a better place if more people read this book. It's just not among his best.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Seen for the second time in January 2013.

"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" is a movie that tries too hard. It tries too hard in every conceivable way. It tries too hard to be clever. It tries too hard to be funny. It tries too hard to be cool. And it mostly fails. But I chuckled a few times, and as far as violent and expletive filled suspense thrillers as light entertainment go, this was indeed lightly entertaining.

Some ideas, like the gay private eye, are pretty good if not irritating as often as they are enjoyable. The irritation level on this highly self-conscious movie is fairly high. But it's not a bad movie. It's just very smug and too fond of its own cleverness. It's a very shallow showy cleverness that wields itself like a sledgehammer forcing you to acknowledge how funny it finds itself. It's like meeting some drunk yuppie at a bar faking some foreign accent and saying different variations of the same thing over and over again, winking heavily and nudging you in the ribs each time, until you respond despite the fact that you've been politely trying to ignore him. Maybe it's not clever after all, so much as it's persistent and perversely confident.

Also, to tell the truth, I am not what you would call a fan of Robert Downey Jr. though he's nebbishly good here. I do like Val Kilmer and this is otherwise well cast. But trying to tackle a serious subject like child sexual abuse is sort of a misstep. It comes off more exploitative than serious. I say leave that stuff for the Lifetime movies starring Meredith Baxter Birney of my childhood memories, and leave the light entertainment light. Note to filmmakers, it doesn't make your superficially stylish, sweary, violent fun-times movie "better" if you get "serious" for a moment. It's a cheap trick and it actually makes your movie worse.

And yeah, I guess I watched it for a second time. I realized I had seen it before about 10 minutes into the movie. What can I say, I've spent much of my life drinking heavily and watching movies. So I forgot about this one. In my defense, it's a fairly forgettable movie. Grade B-.

The Dead Zone - David Cronenberg

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

Putting Christopher Walken as the lead role in "The Dead Zone" is some crazy yet brilliant casting. I don't know if it's perfect casting but it's definitely inspired. Walken is so off-putting and it works well with the creepy and ominous atmosphere this film has going for it, but I can't help but wonder how it would play with a different actor.

But this is of no import. "The Dead Zone" is probably the very best adaption of a Stephen King novel bar none, which when faithful tend to err on the side of the boring for long stretches. And which when non-faithful there exists no easily applicable generalization. But suffice it to say Cronenberg delivers a strong movie here. I am not generally fan, but this is a great effort.

The ending in particular is brilliant. First of all, Michael Douglas's final actions are hilarious.And then the overblown pathos of Christopher Walken's final moments is almost camp. But it works. Grade A-.

Monday, January 7, 2013

Two thousand Maniacs - Herschell Gordon Lewis

Seen for the first time in January 2013.

"Two Thousand Maniacs" is a cartoonish film about the animus of small town southerners toward northerners and is plainly exploitative in nature. It's entertaining enough, but nothing special really. The plot is a contrivance for the display of creative for its time and gory for its time ways of killing people. Toward the end there's a weird little hick Dennis the Menace character with a southern accent who is annoying as anything but in a weird way is a highlight of the movie. Herschell Gordon Lewis made a mistake in not having the protagonists off that kid. It's a mistake I'm confident that a more modern director wouldn't make. It's not a question of clouding our sympathies for the protagonists, but a question of giving the audience what it wants, which is what a movie like this ought to do. You know, Herschell Gordon Lewis was a pioneer of sorts, but who gives a shit. He's made better movies. This one is just okay. Grade B-.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

And God Created Woman

Seen for the first time in January 2012.

"And God Created Woman" is a fairly slight movie for the bulk of its duration. We seemingly have a good-hearted trollop, iconically played by Brigitte Bardot, surrounded by wolves, by who's machinations she ends up marrying a likeable and sympathetic guy. But maybe and by "maybe" I mean "obviously," she is in love with her husband's brother who is attracted to her but put off by her wild ways. Husband and wife try their damnedest to make each other happy, but the wolves are circling, and of course she succumbs to temptation.

This is where the movie gets good. The tension builds and she goes into a frenzy of dancing in a pretty good scene toward the end. And the ambiguity of the ending works pretty well. Will she ever make that poor fellow happy or will she just drive him to misery? We don't know, but me, I wish 'em the best. Grade B-.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Django Unchained - Quentin Tarantino

Seen in the theater for the first time in January 2013.

I thought I would never again utter the words "that might be his best movie" about a new Tarantino movie, but that's exactly what I found myself saying after finishing "Django Unchained." I think the key thing about this movie is the love story. It's something that's really lacking in Tarantino's other movies. This is the fitst time that Tarantino has filmed genuinely moving scenes. The closest he has come before was in "Jackie Brown" (and to some extent "Reservoir Dogs"), but the stakes are so much higher here.

And this is an important point in comparison to "Inglorious Basterds," where the stakes somehow don't feel as high or as real, where Tarantino basically made a stupid cartoon. I nicknamed Tarantino "the master of cartoon violence" after that film and I meant it as a complement. It's quite a thing to be, but it was little more than transferring what's great about "Kill Bill Vol. 1" to WWII and making what felt like a dumb cartoon, where many of Tarantino's signature elements and obsessions grated highly.

Django on the other hand deals with its material in a genuine way. It's hard not to call much of it a cartoon as well, but it nonetheless deals with the subject in a such a serious way that the cartoonish elements work within and in complement to a larger more serious framework. Tarantino gets many little details right as well, and the racial component was surprisingly nuanced in my opinion. Most obviously in the form of Samuel L. Jackson's character, but also even in Django himself, who's willing to sacrifice other slaves in the pursuit of his own goals. A detail Tarantino gets wrong however is when Candie's sister brings Hildy to Schulz's room. This is something a southern lady would have pretended not to know about. But even here, I wonder if Tarantino's version isn't better. Sometimes art must lie to tell bigger truths.

Strangely I was not dazzled by the violence here as I have been by other Tarantino films. Of course the film is incredibly violent, but it doesn't stand out as a dazzling tour de force of violent extravaganza the way the first Kill Bill did upon seeing it in the theater. I feel like, as in Tarantino's first three movies, the story and the film stand up on its own without the incredibly stylish violence.

And yet at the end of the day I am still not 100% convinced it's his best film. It's something I'll have to ruminate on more and frankly, I'll probably have to re-screen it and see how it holds up. It's a long movie, after all, and while I'm still dizzy from the thrills, I can't help but wonder how much bloat is in here. But I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. This is Tarantino for the first time in a long time wrestling with serious impulses and perhaps biting off more than he can chew. But I think I favor it. If "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is a stunning display of his mastery of cartoon violence and "Inglorious Basterds" is his cartoon treatment of the holocaust, then "Django Unchained" is a perhaps imperfect mix of Tarantino's cartoonishness and seiousness. His first three movies mixed the cartoonishness and seriousness more expertly, but the stakes were also much lower. Grade A.