Avengers: Age of Ultron Movie Review

Does it really matter what anyone thinks of a movie like Avengers: Age of Ultron? These kinds of movies don’t live and die by either critical or popular opinion. They are guaranteed to rake in huge revenue not only at the box office, but through merchandising tie-ins. The hype and excitement, the feeling of its being a cultural event THE movie you must see this summer (or early spring as it opened in early May) ensure that hordes of people will go to see it. And those multitudes have been programmed from decades of action-packed, effects-laden event movies to believe that all they have to do is stimulate the physical senses. As long as lots of stuff blows up, implodes, collapses, cracks, breaks, splinters, and crunches accompanied, of course, by appropriately deafening sound effects, then the movie has accomplished its primary goal.

Classic Movie Review From My Collection: Do the Right Thing

Spike Lee’s first two feature films clearly established him as a filmmaker concerned with issues within the African American community (She’s Gotta Have It showed him also being particularly sensitive to feminist issues), but his third time at bat proved to be the magnum opus – the film that would tie together race relations on Stuyvesant Avenue in Brooklyn, a microcosm perhaps for the entire borough or even the whole city of New York. Do the Right Thing remains to this day one of his greatest accomplishments for the skill in direction and writing to bring together good entertainment value, social issues, sound filmmaking techniques, and a clearly delineated personal vision into one concise film.

Django Unchained Movie Review

Quentin Tarantino likes to make movies that he would like to watch. Well, shouldn’t every filmmaker do the same? It’s widely known that Tarantino came up on movies by working in a video store and devouring all the trashy B-movies he could get his eyes on. All of his movies are basically slicked up versions of those same midnight and drive-in classics that were his film education. Spaghetti westerns have served as one of the largest influences on his movies, particularly the Mexican standoffs that tend to occur in the climaxes of films like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. In the last decade he has specialized in revenge pictures, with Django Unchained being the latest, this time an American slave revenge fantasy in the style of a cheap spaghetti western.

The Avengers Movie Review

A funny thing started happening in my mind a few days after seeing The Avengers – I actually began feeling like I wanted to see it again. This after coming out of it with the usual lackluster feelings I have after another superhero movie. The bar has been set so low for our expectations when it comes to the latest incarnation of some colorful but troubled person with special powers that we think of films as uninteresting as Spider Man 2 and Iron Man as great works of art. I enjoyed those films almost as much as anyone I suppose and I agree they are among the best the genre has to offer, but as far as I can tell the only thing that sets them apart from junk like The Fantastic Four is a slightly better screenplay and at least an attempt at something deeper and richer beyond blowing stuff up real big and loud.

"Jules, You Give that Fuckin' Nimrod $1500, I'll Shoot Him on General Principle.": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XXIV and Conclusion

Go to Part XXIII: "I had what alcoholics refer to as a 'moment of clarity.'

The Tarantino "Mexican Standoff"

Vincent gets up to go to the bathroom (remember he was visible over Honey-Bunny’s shoulder in the prologue) and a few seconds later the robbery starts. This time, Honey-Bunny’s line is “Any of you fuckin’ pricks move and I’ll execute every one of you motherfuckers.” It is slightly different from the “I’ll execute every motherfucking last one of you” she said the first time. This is another bit in the film often cited as a continuity error. Again, it doesn’t make sense that this is a mistake. Why would Tarantino have recorded the line of dialogue twice with different words each time? He also shoots the second half of the line from a different angle than in the prologue. This is another example of Tarantino having a little fun with his audience and suggesting that different perspectives and perceptions of the same event will produce different versions of the truth.

Honey Bunny is shot from a side angle as opposed to the front angle of the first scene in the film, suggesting the dialogue line change is related to differing perspectives.

"I Had What Alcoholics Refer to as a 'Moment of Clarity.'": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XXIII

Go to Part XXII: "I'm Winston Wolf. I solve problems."

Establishing two-shot of Jules and Vincent at breakfast.

Cut to the Hawthorne Grill where Jules and Vincent sit eating breakfast. We join them mid-conversation as they talk about The Wolf and how cool he was. Then they proceed to the famous “pigs are filthy animals” conversation. The two are shot in the same frame together until they begin talking about the possible miracle they witnessed in the morning. Now they are shot singly in profile, emphasizing their disagreement. Vincent reiterates his position that what they saw was a freak occurrence and Jules can’t agree.

"I'm Winston Wolf. I Solve Problems.": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XXII

Go to Part XXI: "Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face."

Jimmie is upset at the possibility that his wife will come home soon from her graveyard shift at the hospital to find a dead body in the garage. So the clock is ticking on these guys to get their mess cleaned up fast. Jules talks to Marsellus who lets him know he’s sending The Wolf (Harvey Keitel). Jules already knows Wolf by reputation.

JULES: You sendin’ The Wolf?

MARSELLUS: Don’t you feel better, motherfucker?

JULES: Shit, negro. That’s all you had to say.

Then we see The Wolf on the phone. Again (like Marsellus early in the film), we have a character whose face we don’t see right away, thus adding to the mystery surrounding the character. The Wolf is in a tuxedo at some kind of cocktail party early in the morning. In the background you can hear a dealer talking about laying down bets. More than likely this was some kind of all night gambling party.

"Oh Man, I Shot Marvin in the Face.": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XXI

Go to Part XX: "We should be fuckin' dead right now."

Driving along, Vincent and Jules disagree over the significance of all six bullets missing them. Jules sees it as a sign that God is sending him a message. As such, he has decided to quit working for Marsellus. Vincent sees it as nothing more than a freak occurrence. Turning around to ask Marvin what he thinks of it all, Vincent has the gun in his hand casually pointed in Marvin’s direction. This is another moment from the first time I saw this film that I will never forget. I remember noticing the gun was there and that something was going to happen. But I never could have guessed that Vincent’s gun would fire, blowing Marvin’s head to pieces all over the inside of the car. I still laugh hysterically every time and I’m certain that’s the reaction Tarantino wanted out of this scene.

The prominent positioning of the gun in the foreground foreshadows the tragic accident that is about to happen.

Jules calls his “partner,” Jimmie (Quentin Tarantino). Although it’s not entirely clear how Jules and Jimmie know each other, the “partner” reference seems to indicate that Jimmie used to work for Marsellus. He probably stopped when he married Bonnie.

Go to Part XXII: "I'm Winston Wolf. I solve problems."

"We Should Be Fuckin' Dead Right Now." Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XX

Go to Part XIX: "Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead."

We hear Jules’ voice yelling at Brett from early in the film. Tarantino has taken us back to where we left off. This time we’re looking at a fourth man in Brett’s apartment. He’s listening to what’s going on while holding a gun. In the middle of the Ezekiel speech we cut to Jules and we witness the murder of Brett. Then the fourth man barges out of the bathroom and opens fire on Jules and Vincent, not hitting them at all. Then, after a moment’s hesitation, they shoot the fourth man dead just as quickly as he appeared.

Notice, however, that before the fourth man opens fire on them, the bullet holes in the wall are visible. This is often cited as a continuity error. I’ve always maintained that this is very unlikely. Tarantino is a careful enough filmmaker not to make such a glaring error. Wouldn’t the art department put the holes in the wall only after they had finished shooting the sequence prior to the gunfire? This leads me to believe that there must be some reason behind the holes already being there. Perhaps it’s an indication that there was no miracle at all. The holes were there from the beginning and the fourth man didn’t actually have live ammunition in his gun. But remember I noted early in the film when we see this scene the first time, the holes are not there. What does that mean? Your guess is probably as good as mine. I would say that Tarantino is having a little fun with his audience and also suggesting something about differing perceptions of the same event. This may also explain why the first time we see this scene, Jules’ gun is emptied, but the second time around he still has bullets to shoot the fourth man. But I’m much more willing to write that off as a simple continuity error.

In this shot just before the fourth man comes out of the bathroom firing on Jules and Vincent, the bullet holes are already visible on the wall behind them.

Go to Part XXI: "Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face."

"Does He Look Like a Bitch?": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part IV

Go to Part III: "Let's get into character."

The mysterious orange glow emanating from the briefcase.

While the number of edits in this scene is still far less than the average film, they come at an average of one cut every four seconds, far quicker than the average for this film. Only one other scene in the film has quicker editing. This has the effect of altering the tone in such a way that the audience feels uneasy. Granted, the subject matter makes us feel that way, too, but Tarantino and his editor, Sally Menke, use editing to their advantage. They don’t simply show reaction shots, there is none of the traditional two-shot followed by medium-close followed by close-up. This scene builds upon itself until the explosion of gunfire that ends it.

"Let's Get Into Character": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part III

Go to Part II: "Royale with cheese."

A classic Quentin Tarantino shot.

Here Tarantino uses one of his signature shots – the camera-inside-the-trunk shot. Jules and Vincent ready their weapons for the hit and discuss the fact that they should have shotguns because of the number of guys that could be up there. They figure there could be up to five or six guys “counting our guy.” Their guy is Marvin, we learn later, their man on the inside. This scene starts the building of tension before the violence that is to come. We are left wondering what’s happening. We know there are two hit men on their way to a job where they could be dealing with as many as six guys, one of whom is “their guy.” We have no way at this point of interpreting what this means, so the anticipation is high.

"Royale With Cheese": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part II

Go to Part I: "Everybody be cool, this is a robbery."

Vincent and Jules discuss trivial matters before going on a hit job.

The first scene in the next sequence is probably the most famous scene from the film, certainly the most parodied, and possibly (time will tell) to become one of the most famous scenes in film history. As Jules Winfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent Vega (John Travolta) drive along they discuss trivial matters regarding the “little differences” between Europe and America. We don’t know where they are headed at this point, but we will find out they are two hit men about to carry out a job. Tarantino puts this scene in because it’s something we’ve never really seen in a film about hit men. What do these guys do on the way to work? They talk about the same things regular people discuss. Revisiting the film for his Great Movies series, Roger Ebert notes that “it is Tarantino's strategy in all of his films to have the characters speak at right angles to the action, or depart on flights of fancy.”[i] Whereas many screenwriters use dialogue simply to further the plot, Tarantino uses it to add color to his characters and vitality to the story. For Jules and Vincent their job is just a job, even though to us it is an extraordinary profession.

---

[i] Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times, 10 June 2001.

Next chapter: "Let's get into character."

Reordering Convention: Introduction to an Analysis of Pulp Fiction

Following is the introduction to a full shot-by-shot analysis of Pulp Fiction that I did several years ago. This is not meant to be an essay or thesis, but rather an examination of the way Tarantino uses shot setups and narrative devices to effectively tell his story. I will try to post one new section a day over the next few weeks.

Since its release in October 1994, I have seen Pulp Fiction about eighteen times from beginning to end, including six times during its initial theatrical run. No viewing has ever compared to the first time when I was sixteen years old and not yet aware of what the film medium could accomplish. I was not yet versed in film history and I hardly knew from where director Quentin Tarantino was deriving most of his inspiration. All I knew after that first time was that movies did not merely have to be plot-driven. To borrow from Gene Siskel, movies aren’t what they are about, but how they are about it. Movies can be inventive, witty and can change the way we look at motion pictures.

Modern Classic Movie Review: Pulp Fiction

As a special treat to celebrate my 100th movie review posted to this site (I've actually written more than 100, but they haven't all been posted here) I decided to write a full length review of the film that got me interested in film in the first place.

Additionally, over the next few weeks I will post, in pieces, the full analysis I did on the film several years ago. Keep your eyes open for that starting this week.

It’s amazing to me that after roughly twenty viewings from beginning to end plus an exhaustive shot-by-shot study of it, there are still moments in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction that make me smile, chuckle or even downright surprise me: The Wolf’s smile of appreciation for the delicious coffee served up by Jimmy; Mia Wallace’s tomato joke to break the tension after an intense scene. Incredibly, watching it again for this review, I even pulled out something new that I had never picked up on before. And it wasn’t even a minor detail, but one that ties into one of the major themes of the film.

Mother and Child Movie Review

The Colombian director Rodrigo García is something of an Alejandro González Iñárritu-light. Not in the sense that his films are worse than Iñárritu’s, but because they utilize a similar approach to interconnected narrative threads without the same gravity. It should come as no surprise then that Iñárritu served as executive producer on García’s Nine Lives and his most recent film (and subject of this review) Mother and Child about the realities of adoption and the consequences imparted on all parties involved.

Three women figure in three stories joined thematically. Annette Bening is Karen, a middle-aged woman so fixated on the daughter she gave up for adoption after becoming pregnant at fourteen that she has never allowed anyone to get close enough to have a meaningful relationship. She is full of regret and there’s an unspoken animosity toward her elderly dying mother who, the movie makes implicit, forced her into her decision. Naomi Watts is Elizabeth, the now grown daughter Karen gave up 37 years earlier. Karen is a career lawyer, working her way up the ladder hoping for a future Appellate Court appointment. She keeps nothing to tie her down to one place, no lasting relationship, adopted parents gone. Kerry Washington is Lucy. She is unable to bear her own children so she and husband Joseph (David Ramsay) have decided to adopt.

Iron Man 2 Movie Review: A Preview of Our Coming Attractions

I was not one of the legions of critics who fawned over the first Iron Man. I thought it was a top-notch superhero film, but hardly the revelation that many thought it to be. It benefited greatly from a charismatic lead actor (Robert Downey Jr.) in a role of aching narcissism, egotism and bravado. Now along comes the sequel this year and like many a superhero movie sequel that preceded it, comes more bloated with extra characters, extra plot and extra baddies.