Trailer Breakdown: DJANGO UNCHAINED

It's been three years since his last film, but Quentin Tarantino looks to come back with a vengeance with the Christmas 2012 release of Django Unchained. The first trailer for the film has finally been released, and I've taken the liberty of watching it a few times through to try to get a decent sense of what we may be getting once the film hits theaters. For starters, let's take a look at the trailer itself, shall we?

And now, let's talk about it a bit. I've come up with a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer, and I'll do my best to answer them as accurately as I can. 

1. What is Django Unchained?

Although I'm sure many of you already know the basic plot outline, I'll recap what we're given from the trailer: 

A bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) enlists the help of a former slave (Jamie Foxx) to find a number of slave owners with bounties on their heads. In return, the bounty hunter will help the former slave free his wife (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of an evil plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio) who now holds her captive. 

Knowing Tarantino, there's definitely going to be a bit more to the plot than that, but there's a good starting point for those of you curious about the film's storyline. The film is inspired by the 1966 spaghetti western Django.

2. What's up with the music in the trailer?

The first thing I noticed is that the trailer holds quite a bit of more contemporary music than one would imagine for a film of this genre. Normally, I'd think nothing of it considering Tarantino's normally brilliant music selections, but after his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds, which utilized a number of more rustic scores for the soundtrack, I had a feeling he might be going down that road again this time around. Still, this is only the trailer, and we'll have to wait and see just what Tarantino has in store for the film's soundtrack, but we can be sure it'll fit seamlessly into his storyline. 

3. Christoph Waltz is back. Is this the start of an ongoing Tarantino/Waltz collaboration?

Christoph Waltz has been acting for years and years, but most of his work prior to 2009 took place in either Germany or his native Austria. His supporting role in Inglourious Basterds, which landed him an Academy Award, revitalized his career and brought him into the international mainstream. Since then, he's appeared in sub-par films like The Green Hornet, The Three Musketeers and Water for Elephants as well as the stellar Carnage, but his role in Django Unchained looks like it might rival the one he crafted for his Oscar-winning turn. And we all know that Tarantino has a penchant for keeping some actors around his films. We can see Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi in both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And I think everyone knows about the continued collaboration between Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson, who will also appear in Django Unchained. So, if Waltz wants to continue working with the director, I honestly have no problem with it.

4. Will this film revitalize Jamie Foxx's career?

I've generally liked what Jamie Foxx has managed to do as an actor, but since his Oscar-winning turn as Ray Charles in 2004's Ray, he's had much less success in garnering critical praise despite appearing in larger films like 2005's Jarhead and 2006's Dreamgirls. His last role was in 2011's Horrible Bosses where he portrayed a man named - and I kid you not - Dean 'Motherf---er' Jones. If anybody is in desperate need of a push, it's Foxx, and hopefully the role of Django can help push him back over the hill.

5. Is Leonardo DiCaprio playing a villain? 

All signs point to yes, although this isn't exactly a revelation. Tarantino hasn't been shy about letting the world know he's bringing the three-time Oscar nominee into the fray as the film's antagonist, and everything I've seen thus far makes it seem as though this could prove to be one of DiCaprio's best roles yet. It will also mark the first time in his acting career that he'll have portrayed a film's villain. Sure, he's played shady characters before, but to be the outright bad guy is something a little out of his area of expertise. But with his talents and with Tarantino's direction, this could be the surprise performance of the film.

6. What genre will Django Unchained fall under?

That's actually a pretty good question. It's currently being listed as a dramatic western, but if the trailer is any basis, then there should be an ample amount of comedy. Tarantino's screenplays often hold a legitimate level of humor, and that's part of what makes his films so entertaining and engaging. For example, the trailer shows two clips that offer the following two lines uttered by Foxx's Django: 

(when asked whether he enjoys bounty hunting)

"Kill white folks, and they pay you for it? What's not to like?

(when asked his name)

"Django. The 'D' is silent."

So I would say be prepared to laugh. At the same time, however, there should also be quite a bit of action. Django, the film that inspired this particular venture, was once billed as the most violent film of all time, and we all know just how much bloodshed Tarantino is willing to spill. Is it going to be the most violent film of all time? Certainly not; however, I would be prepared for a rootin', shootin' romp through the Southern countryside. 

*****

Ultimately, none of us will know just how good or bad the film might be until it hits theaters this Christmas. That being said, I personally have to say that I'm ecstatic to see this film. Having only in recent years come to the see the brilliance of Quentin Tarantino's filmmaking, I'm sure that Django Unchained will fit right into the canon of his filmography. I simply cannot wait.

Movie Review: JACKIE BROWN

JACKIE BROWN

1997

R

"Half a million dollars will always be missed."

-- Max Cherry

Jackie Brown is a 1997 crime drama written and directed by Quentin Tarantino that served as the follow-up to his 1994 smash hit, Pulp Fiction. When flight attendant Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is stopped by A.T.F. detectives Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen), they desperately try to press her for information regarding a small arms dealer named Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), for whom she traffics money. Initially, she gives them nothing in terms of intel, and the two men ensure she's imprisoned. Ordell posts her bail, and after meeting with her, the two devise a plan that will allow her to bring the rest of his money - over half a million dollars - back into the country from Mexico. At the same time, however, Jackie makes a deal with the A.T.F. agents that will keep her out of prison as long as she can give them Ordell. In addition, she teams with her bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster) so that they can reap the rewards and bring home the money for themselves. As all three factions put their plans into play, a number of things go wrong for each side, only leading to further complications.

If someone would have asked me my thoughts on Quentin Tarantino only a few years ago, I probably would have dismissed his work as ridiculous and too far off the mainstream. It took his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds to bring me around to his style of filmmaking, and after giving a few of his other ventures another viewing - namely, Pulp Fiction and 1992's Reservoir Dogs - I have to say that I've come full circle and can now call myself a full-fledged fan of the director. That being said, I had always wanted to give Jackie Brown a view, and I've only now been able to do just that.

The first thing I have to say is that one should not expect this film to measure up to some of Tarantino's greater films. As the first film post-Pulp Fiction, Tarantino had set quite a bar for himself, and it was going to be difficult to reach that lofty goal regardless of the type of film he created. It garnered generally positive critical reviews upon its release, and it currently holds an eighty-six percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, where one can find the following consensus:

Tarantino's third film, fashioned as a comeback for star Pam Grier, offers typical wit and charm -- and is typically overstuffed.

What comes out of Jackie Brown is a legitimate film that still stands head-and-shoulders over most of what hits theaters nowadays, but in relation to the director's other efforts, this one's definitely on the lower end of the spectrum. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its merits.

The film's screenplay proves to be engaging and entertaining, and although it's lacking in the profundity that some of Tarantino's other films enjoy, it still offers a few twists and turns to keep the audience guessing. We're given our nearly-obligatory scenes of mixed-and-matched timeline, but it's not quite as fresh as it has been in other films. Still, I have to say that there were a few moments where I thought I knew what was going to happen and was quickly proven incorrect. And for that, I have to commend Tarantino for not falling into the rote ideas that Hollywood had by that time established. Instead, he made a realistic film in which the bad guy often manages to take home the cake.

The film's cast proves to be decent, but I think we could've gotten a little bit more from some of the stars here. Grier has never been known for her acting prowess, but she does well as our lead in this one. She managed to nab a nomination at the Golden Globes for her performance, so that's saying something, I suppose. Jackson is fine as our central villain, but he's definitely been better before and since. Robert Forster might be the best on the screen this time around, as is evidenced by his Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Also be on the watch for some bigger names like Keaton, Chris Tucker and Robert De Niro to offer some interesting turns.

At the end of the day, Jackie Brown is a serviceable film that proves to be entertaining, but it just doesn't quite have that Tarantino "feel" to it. In a way, Tarantino almost seems "Tarantino-esque" this time around, almost as though he's trying to mimic himself in the hopes of crafting something extraordinary. It doesn't quite fire on all cylinders, but you'll still manage to be entertained throughout. That's why I say it's worth a watch, if only if you need to kill a few hours.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You See It? Yes