Kill Bill Vol. 2

As the title of the film suggests, this is the second part of the Kill Bill series, and sees The Bride pursue the last two members of the Deadly Vipers before turning her attention to Bill. After the success and enjoyment that the first installment received, the second volume was always going to have a lot to live up to, and in my opinion it just falls short of the mark. It’s very good, but not as good as the first in terms of the engagement in the plot and the intricacies of the way it was presented.

Unlike the first film, Volume 2 takes place pretty much in chronological order. The Bride goes to visit Bill’s brother Buck, who tries to kill her and then calls Elle Driver to sell the Hanzo sword he obtained from The Bride. However, she escapes and confronts Elle, and then moves on to try and find Bill. Apart from a couple of flashbacks to explain the story a bit more, the plot is perfectly linear. However, this isn't necessarily a criticism because it is difficult to see how this film could have been jumbled up. There are a few twists and turns along the way, naturally, and the film is still fairly tongue in cheek. There is one scene where Bill’s daughter (no spoilers) asks to watch Shogun Assassin, which made me laugh. In this respect it is no different from the first volume, but for me it is missing something.

Naturally, things get a little bit more difficult for The Bride during this film as she is buried alive and shot at different points. Her quest for Bill seemed a bit too easy in the first film, and it was good to see that she actually had to struggle to get there in this film. However, when she does get there you are expecting an epic and climactic conclusion. Two films have led up to her facing off against her former lover and the amount of blood that has been spilt just to get to him leaves you expecting something sensational. As it goes, the final ‘battle’ is rather disappointing. I don’t think it was ever going to be as immense as the ending of the first film, and it’s a lot more sentimental. Regardless of her quest for revenge, there is obviously something between The Bride and Bill. There is a chemistry there which comes out perfectly in the interaction between Uma Thurman and the late David Carradine (who was the star of a number of martial arts films).

In terms of the blood and guts element of Kill Bill Vol. 2, there is much more and much less. While the murders that The Bride commits are both much fewer and much less violent, there is a pretty spectacular scene where she pulls out an eye and stamps on it. As with the ‘horrific’ scenes in the first film though, this is much more comical than gruesome. Another (sad) similarity between this and the first installment is the dialogue. During the scene where The Bride and Elle are fighting the conversation between them was so forced it became annoying. There are a few scenes where the dialogue isn't too bad (the scene with Esteban, and the final scene with Bill for example), but when it actually gets down to the fighting I think the delivery could have been a lot better.

David Carradine performs very well in Kill Bill Vol. 2. He makes a couple of appearances in the first film, but really has a major role in the second. He does very well to convey the air of a very powerful man, and despite never coming across as particularly ‘bad’, there is a sense of danger around nearly everything he does. For example, I found myself quite tense when he was making a sandwich in front of The Bride and his daughter and is waving the knife around. He is, in many ways, a very complex character, because although he shot The Bride in the head, he was obviously ‘very sad’, and realises that this is probably worth him being punished for. He could easily have stopped The Bride and had plenty of opportunities to kill her, but holds off. Either out of love or guilt, he realises that she deserves her revenge. This is fantastically put by his brother, played by Michael Madsen. Madsen plays Bill’s brother Budd, who is the bouncer in a strip club. He is a fairly non-descript character, but has a much darker side to him, as we see when he buries her alive. Anyone who has seen Reservoir Dogs will know that Michael Madsen plays ‘insane’ very well, and he does very well in bringing an element of this to Budd in Kill Bill.

Overall, Kill Bill Vol. 2 is a good film, but I didn't think that it was as good as the first film. However, if you have seen the first film then you simply cannot avoid watching it. It is as funny and entertaining as the first film, and brings everything together very nicely. I think that a third instalment has been announced, or at least Tarantino has been reported to be working on it, so it will be interesting to see where they take it from here. Watch the first one before this one, but after watching the first one you should not miss the next part. 

Other Tarantino films:
Reservoir Dogs - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/reservoir-dogs.htmlInglorious Basterds - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/inglorious-basterds.htmlDjango Unchained - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/django-unchained.html
Kill Bill Vol. 1 - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/kill-bill-vol-1.html

Kill Bill Vol. 1

They say that ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’. Kill Bill is the absolute epitome of this saying. It tells of ‘The Bride’ who is out to get revenge on the people who shot her in the head at her wedding rehearsal. It is directed by Quentin Tarantino and so has many of the hallmarks of a Tarantino film. The first part of Kill Bill sees The Bride wake up from the coma that she was in, track down and kill the first two Deadly Vipers. It is a very good film to watch, and any fan of Tarantino will enjoy it in much the same way that they (hopefully) enjoyed his other films.

The plot of the film is incredibly engaging, and despite the high level of blood and violence, you are always rooting for The Bride (whose name is blanked out whenever it is spoken) to get her revenge. Now Tarantino’s tendency to break the plot up into chapters and jumble the story around a bit makes the first part a bit difficult to follow. We see her pregnant at her wedding where Bill (hence the title of the film) shoots her in the head. Then she wakes up in the hospital as one of the nurses is telling a man the rules for his rather horrifying way of making money on the side. She leaves the hospital (leaving two dead men behind her) and makes off in ‘the pussy wagon’. From here she goes to Japan, gets a samurai sword from the legendary Hattori Hanzo and takes on the Crazy 88s. In the film this is the big climax at the end (and it is an incredible scene), and so it is quite strange to think that this happens before the little knife fight between her and Vernita Green. Naturally, the heroine prevails and then leaves to seek her next victim.

Uma Thurman plays The Bride, and also wrote some of the script in what is her second collaboration with Tarantino. She is very good in this film and comes across (shockingly, given the nature of her mission) very convincingly as a woman out for revenge. She is very sinister and very cold, but if I have one criticism of her in Kill Bill then it will be that her delivery of her lines is quite poor. It never seems natural when she says that she has ‘unfinished business’, and some of the script writing isn't astounding. However, as ever with Tarantino I feel that this is intended and meticulously planned. Uma Thurman is incredibly believable in the role. The image of her in the yellow motorbike suit has become iconic and represents one of the best (and most incredulous) fight scenes I have seen.

As with every Tarantino film, the blood flows in plentiful supply. A woman on a murderous revenge-fuelled rampage directed by Tarantino is bound to be over the top, but Tarantino makes it very amusing in Kill Bill. For example, in the scene where O-Ren Ishii cuts the head off Boss Tanaka, the blood spurts up in a fountain-like manner, about two seconds after it should. However, this helps to make Kill Bill less dark and lightens the tone of the film quite a lot. I remember watching it for the first time with my flatmate, and we were laughing our heads off. Throughout Kill Bill the violence is very comical, and the gore is more amusing than disgusting.

The best part about Tarantino’s non-linear plot is that he re-arranges it in a manner that works perfectly in terms of suspense. The scene where Vernita and The Bride are having a cup of coffee and reminiscing is particularly tense, because all the time there is the lingering worry that something could spark off any moment. By leaving the big fight in Japan until the end of the film there is much more of a desire for Volume 2. For me, Kill Bill Vol. 1 marks the start of Tarantino’s move towards more comical films. The films before Kill Bill (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown) all seem much more realistic and gritty, whereas Kill Bill is a very tongue-in-cheek film, which comes across as Tarantino’s idea of ‘a bit of fun’. It says a lot that his idea of a fun film is equally enjoyable as his earlier films.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 is a classic Tarantino film, and is a thoroughly enjoyable film. It is very different to his other films, but in many ways, very similar. I found that it was very watchable, and I enjoyed the light atmosphere around it. The best thing about it though is that it makes you want to find out what happens in the second part. Usually I am quite skeptical about films split into two parts, but Kill Bill pulls it off perfectly. Definitely one to watch if you get the opportunity.

Other Tarantino films:

Reservoir Dogs - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/reservoir-dogs.html

Inglorious Basterds - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/inglorious-basterds.html

Django Unchained - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/django-unchained.html

Reservoir Dogs

One of my favourite types of film is the good old gangster film. Reservoir Dogs was one of the those films that people told me I needed to watch, but I had just never go round to it. Then I came across it in a shop for under £5 and thought it was too good an offer to pass up. So I watched it, and found myself amazed that I hadn't seen it before. It was incredible.

Some of my favourite films ever have been directed by Quentin Tarantino, and Reservoir Dogs joins the list of fantastic films he's directed. This was his first film, and shows so many of his characteristics, most notably, the violence and the story which does not take place in the order of time.

The film itself depicts the events around a diamond heist which goes wrong. We don't actually see the robbery itself, but the assembly of the team of men and the aftermath of the robbery are the focal points of the film. One character, Joe, is assembling six different men to do this robbery for him. These men don't use their real names, and none of them actually know each other. However, something goes wrong and Mr Orange gets shot. The rest of the film explains how the team was assembled, and then the attempts of four of the men to work out who it was that tipped off the police about their robbery.

The casting in this film is brilliant. Tarantino himself makes an appearance as ever portraying Mr Blue, but the rest of the cast includes Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Harvey Keitel and Lawrence Tierney. It's a great collection of actors who all work so very well in their roles. I thought Tim Roth, who spends most of the film lying on the floor surrounded by an expanding pool of blood, was brilliant, and Michael Madsen was entrancing as the psychotic Mr Blonde. For the majority of the film Tim Roth is in a state of pain, and he portrays this, as well as his fear of dying so exceptionally well it is astounding. Michael Madsen is also terrifying and his dancing in the build up to the stand-out moment is horrifying in the light of what he is about to do.

Every great film has a stand out moment which everyone will recognise. Star Wars has "No, I am your father", Pulp Fiction has the image of Samuel L Jackson and John Travolta with the guns. In the case of Reservoir Dogs it's the infamous 'ear scene'. Michael Madsen is so convincingly psychotic that I was a little bit scared of what he would do to the policeman he's captured, and I was right to be. Cutting off his ear with a razor blade and then talking into it, asking if he can hear? Terrifying.

The shoot-outs in this film are epic. At the end of the movie, Joe, his son, and Mr White are all pointing guns at each other, and all three end up being shot. The relationship between Mr White and Mr Orange was brilliant. Mr Orange is 'just a kid' whereas Mr White is older and more experienced. There's clearly a bit of father-son chemistry between the two after Mr Orange has been shot, to the extent that Mr White 'bonded' with him, and told him his real name, which was forbidden. Also, Mr Orange reveals that he is the mole to Mr White just before the end. This clearly impacts on Mr White, and understandably affects Mr White who has thrown away everything in defence of this kid, who turns out to be a traitor.

After the robbery, Mr Pink takes the diamonds and stores them in a 'safe' location. At the end of the film we see him take the diamonds and sneak out after everyone has been shot. It is assumed that he makes off with them and successfully avoids capture. However, this is not the case, and if you turn the sound up really loud after he walks out you can hear him being captured.

Reservoir Dogs will be popular with any one who likes Tarantino, like gangster films, likes a twist in a movie, and doesn't mind a bit of violence. It's definitely not a quiet night in film, but it's well worth watching it.

The 85th Academy Awards Special

Well it was the Academy Awards last night, and while I wasn't able to watch the ceremony, I was following avidly on twitter. There were a few surprises, a few obvious winners, and a few questionable decisions, but that was to be expected. Life of Pi turned out to be the big winner, bagging 4 awards having been nominated for 11. I’m going to attempt to give you a few of my thoughts on the winners and losers, and I’m going to skip over a few of the awards that it would be wrong for me to talk about.

So, not having seen any of the films in the category, I don’t feel suitably qualified to talk about Best Live Action Short Film, Best Animated Short Film, Best Feature Documentary, Best Short Subject Documentary, or Best Animated Feature. What I will say though is that it didn't surprise me that Brave won this award.

In terms of the award for Best Visual Effects there was only going to be one winner for me. While the visual effects in The Hobbit, The Avengers and Prometheus were incredible (and I haven’t seen Snow White and the Huntsman so I can’t comment on that), Life of Pi absolutely eclipses anything that these films could do. This was perhaps the most obvious winner of the night for me, and it completely deserves its success. Life of Pi also won the award for Best Cinematography which I thought was interesting. This was perhaps one of the closest awards of the night, because any of the five nominees (Life of Pi, Anna Karenina, Django Unchained, Lincoln and Skyfall) could feasibly have won. After I saw Anna Karenina, and after slating the film because I thought it to be very weak, the best thing I could say about it was that the cinematography was brilliant. However, that doesn't mean that the cinematography of Life of Pi wasn't  and so this is another deserved award. In terms of Best Original Score, I thought Life of Pi was, again, a deserving winner. The other films in this category just didn't quite match up for me, and Mychael Danna deserves the credit (and the award) for creating the soundtrack for Life of Pi. Finally, Ang Lee won the Best Director award for Life of Pi, and I have to say I was a bit surprised at this. I was sure Steven Spielberg would be nailed on for this award for Lincoln. However, having seen Life of Pi, I’m sure there are very few that would begrudge Ang Lee his second award for Best Director.

Lincoln bagged two awards last night, after having been nominated for 12. For many people, Lincoln was the favourite to sweep the board and win more than it did. Now I haven’t seen Lincoln, so I’m going to have to keep this relatively brief. In terms of Best Production Design I’m sure the production of Lincoln was fantastic, but Life of Pi, Les Miserables and The Hobbit are all films which are fantastically produced. I’m sure that this decision is justified, but I need to see it to make a judgement. Believe me, Lincoln is high up the ‘films I want to see’ list. I didn't think the decision to hand Daniel Day-Lewis the Best Actor award was particularly surprising. At the end of the day, Bradley Cooper was never going to win for a rom-com, and Hugh Jackman for me, didn't do enough to be considered a deserving winner. From the bits I have seen of Lincoln, Daniel Day-Lewis is marvellous and is definitely deserving of this award.

Ben Afleck’s film Argo won three awards, including the big one, Best Picture. Again, I haven’t seen Argo, but I mean to, and so my comments will have to be speculative. Best Film Editing is probably deserved, and I didn't think that Zero Dark Thirty or Life of Pi should have won it (as these two were the second favourites for me). I have no major objections to Argo winning Best Adapted Screenplay, but I thought Life of Pi was unlucky to miss out. The adaptation of Argo from the sources that it is based on is fantastic, and likewise, Life of Pi is fantastically adapted from the book. Now Argo was widely tipped to win the Best Picture award, and of the front runners (I thought that Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty were all in with a shout) any of them would be deserving winners. It is a fantastic achievement for Ben Afleck, and settles much of the debate around the Zero Dark Thirty versus Argo arguments. This year though there were a couple of surprises on the nominations list. Silver Linings Playbook raised a lot of eyebrows for its inclusion, as did Amour, and I don’t think either of these were in with a chance. Django Unchained deserved its nomination but it was a bit too controversial to ever really win, and in the end, Argo is probably a very good winner.

Now there are a lot of awards that I don’t really have anything to say about at all. Anna Karenina won Best Costume Design, and yes, the costumes were good in it. Les Miserables won Best Makeup and Hairstyling, and yes, the makeup and hairstyling is very good. Les Miserables also won Best Sound Mixing, which was good. Best Sound Editing caused a bit of a stir as it was the sixth time in the history of the Academy Awards (85 different ceremonies) that two films have been tied for an award. Skyfall (the first Bond film to win an OSCAR) and Zero Dark Thirty won this award, and of the other nominations (Argo, Django Unchained and Life of Pi) I think any of them could have won, because the sound editing was very good in all of them. Skyfall also won the award for Best Original Song, adding another award to Adele’s growing list. This can’t have been a surprise as it was in the charts for such a long time that it was bound to win. Amour won Best Foreign Language Film which isn't surprising considering it was the most widely known on the list. Anne Hathaway won Best Supporting Actress for Les Miserables and this was so unsurprising that I’m fairly sure that if I were a bookie I would have paid out on this before the ceremony began.

On a more positive note, Christoph Waltz won Best Supporting Actor for his role in Django Unchained, and I feel this is definitely deserved. He is simply glittering in the roles that Tarantino writes for him. His mix of humour and incredible acting means that he stands out from the other nominees as the best supporting actor from 2012. This represents a much more light-hearted victor from the Academy, with Tommy Lee Jones many people’s (including mine) favourite choice for the award. Another tip of the hat goes to Quentin Tarantino and Django Unchained for winning Best Original Screenplay. This was up against a number of excellent films like Amour, Flight and Zero Dark Thirty, and winning this award is a move towards a greater appreciation for the comedic yet controversial bloody movie that Tarantino specialises in. I think Zero Dark Thirty was unlucky not to win this award, but Django Unchained is definitely the one to lose out to.

Finally, I thought the decision to give Jennifer Lawrence the award for Best Actress for her role in Silver Linings Playbook was very strange. While it will guarantee her a successful career more than her role in The Hunger Game could ever do I thought that Jessica Chastain was fantastic in Zero Dark Thirty. Now I’m not saying that she did not deserve the award, and I haven’t seen Silver Linings Playbook, so I can’t possibly comment, but I guess when you have nominations for the film in the Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Supporting Actor categories the film is doing something right.

As I mentioned, the big winner was Life of Pi with four awards. However I feel that everyone associated with Zero Dark Thirty can be disappointed not to have won more. There is no doubt that this year’s Academy Awards was incredibly close and many films appeared in several different categories, meaning that one would always come off worse. Before I finish writing I would just like to mention the In Memoriam part of the ceremony. Jack Klugman (appeared in 12 Angry Men and Quincy ME), Ernest Borgnine (the original voice of SpongeBob), Eiko Ishioka (winner of Best Costume Design for Bram Stoker’s Dracula in 1992), Richard Zanuck (Driving Miss Daisy) and Larry Hagman (Dallas) all passed away this year, and all will be remembered for their contributions to cinema. Finally, and if nothing else, spare a thought for Michael Clarke Duncan whose most notable film is The Green Mile. He passed away in September at the age of 54 from a heart attack, and he will be sorely missed.

Inglorious Basterds

Inglorious Basterds is another film from the imagination of Quentin Tarantino. The combination of humour, blood and storyline (all trademark Tarantino) combine to produce what I consider to be a classic Tarantino film which is unmissable for any film fan.

The film follows a group of Jewish soldiers who kill Nazis, who meet up with a German film star in a plot to kill a number of high ranking Nazis at the premier of a German propaganda film. The owner of the cinema has the same idea, and driven by the murder of her family by the Nazis, plots to burn down her cinema. What none of them know though is that Hitler himself will be at the premier.

The Basterds, as the group of Jewish soldiers are known, often ambush Nazi soldiers, and deliver their scalps to their leader in ‘payment’. This provides the majority of the signature blood in the film, and by Tarantino’s standards it’s quite a tame film. Compared to the recent Django Unchained, or the Kill Bill films, there is a lot less blood. The story is told masterfully, and as usual, it all comes together to produce a fantastic finale. With some hilarious characters, some serious and some sinister ones, Inglorious Basterds is very enjoyable.

Brad Pitt stars as the leader of the Basterds, and his trademark of cutting a swastika into the heads of the Nazis that survive his ambushes provides the last laugh at the end of the film. His acting is fantastic, and the accent that he puts on throughout the movie absolutely completes the character he plays. The scene where he is masquerading as an Italian had me in stitches.

Throughout the film Brad Pitt is a source of humour, but he does have a serious side to his character, and this is refreshing to see. Also, the characters of Donny Donowitz (the Bear Jew) and Hugo Stiglitz add a level of violence to the group which perfectly reflects their ferocity, as well as producing that little bit of humour that Tarantino seems to revel in.

The most sinister character in the film is undoubtedly Colonel Hans Landa. Christoph Waltz magnificently pulls off the changeable nature of the character he is portraying. I found myself a little bit apprehensive about what Landa’s reaction was going to be in many different situations, and this is a reflection on how good Waltz is. Landa is the kind of man who just looks out for himself, and is also a source of amusement at times. However, he is at his most sinister in the beginning. When the young Jewish girl escapes the mass murder and runs across the field, Landa draws and aims his gun. I found myself thinking he was genuinely going to shoot her from such range, and this is both brilliant acting and fantastic direction. Having since seen Django Unchained, I began to realise how incredible Waltz is as an actor, and upon a tip from a friend, I’m going to endeavour to see more of his films.

There are a number of other big names in Inglorious Basterds, such as Michael Fassbender, who plays the British lieutenant initially charged with meeting the German film star for the attack on the premier. For me he does very well in this role, and the scene where he is conversing with the German soldier in the bar is very tense. His stereotypical British character is also quite amusing and I was disappointed that his character was killed off when he did because I was enjoying seeing him in the film. Similarly, Diane Kruger was a joy to watch as the German film star Bridget von Hammersmark, and in my opinion she was flawless in this role. Another surprise appearance was Mike Myers, who popped up as the British General and added a little more classic Tarantino humour to the movie.

As a quick note to previous Tarantino viewers looking out for the roles of Samuel L. Jackson and Tarantino himself in this film, they both make an appearance of sorts. Samuel L Jackson provides the voice narrating the film, and although there is very little narration, it is unmistakably him. We see Tarantino's hands in Inglorious Basterds, around the throat of Diane Kruger, because apparently, he wanted to make the strangulation as realistic as possible. A little bit weird if you ask me...

If you like the movies of Quentin Tarantino then Inglorious Basterds is definitely a film that you should be watching. If you’re interested in the Second World War then you should watch it, but don’t be expecting a ‘true story’ film. It’s a funny, bloody and brilliant film which isn't as complex as his other movies, but is every little bit as enjoyable.

Django Unchained

There was quite a lot of anticipation for the latest film from Quentin Tarantino. With some already excellent films behind him, Django Unchained was always going to be successful. However, its released was surrounded by a number of articles damning Tarantino for his comic use of violence and how he doesn't take serious issues such as slavery or the Holocaust seriously. I find that the best solution to this is as follows. If you don’t like the look of a film, don’t go and watch it. If you think it’s too violent, don’t go and watch it. If you think you might get offended because the film has slaves or Nazis in it, don’t go and watch it. It’s simple really.

The plot of Django Unchained is very enjoyable, and there’s no doubt that it’s an edge of your seat thriller, if you like Tarantino’s movies. However, there are some very similar plot lines to in his other movies, such as Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds, where there’s a main character who has a grudge to settle and kills a lot of people in settling that grudge. A man is freed from slavery, joins with a bounty hunter, kills people, and then tries to free his wife from slavery. The difference with Django is that it happens in a completely different setting. Imagine a Western which Tarantino would walk into and stamp his mark all over. Despite parallels to other films, Django Unchained is a different film, and it is a very good way to spend a couple of hours.

Having seen Jamie Foxx in ‘Ray’ and absolutely loving him, I was very interested to see how he would do in a Tarantino movie. He is very good, and has a very sinister air to his character. When the audience can almost ‘feel’ the character getting angry, and is anxiously waiting to see what happens, you can tell that the actor is doing something right. He delivers some of Tarantino’s one-liners perfectly. However, I did find the development of his character a little bit unrealistic. However, I then realised that it was Tarantino, the guy who can have a girl shot from one direction and have her fly off in a completely different direction. I found myself (unsurprisingly) rooting for Foxx, and overall liked the character he played.

I loved Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, and in Django Unchained he was every little bit as wonderful. His character, the bounty hunter, was quick-tongue, witty, sly, and determined. The scene where Django finally sees his wife again and she faints in shock is absolutely made by Waltz’s delivery of his punchline. I thought his character was very interesting too. The scene where he is making the deal with Candie just shows how principled his character is. I’m not sure he deserves his Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor though. Either way I don’t think he’ll win it, and I’m not trying to deny that he was fantastic in this film. It’s almost worth going to see just for him, which is saying something.

Leonardo di Caprio is one of my all-time favourites. Not because I think he’s an amazing actor, but because I just enjoy his films and his characters. He shows incredible versatility, and Django Unchained is no exception. As the wealthy Francophile owner of a vast number of slaves, he is very confident and arrogant. He hates to be made a fool of and seems to be very different to the historical view of slave owners, treating many of his slaves as his friends. However, there are some scenes which are just grim. He doesn’t bat an eyelid at one man being torn apart by dogs, and is more than happy to let two men fight to the death to see who is the better fighter. His acting is fantastic, but his character is better, and once again I found myself enjoying the time he spent on screen. He’s definitely one of Tarantino’s more interesting characters, and parallels can be drawn to Hans Landa in the way that he doesn’t show the typical historical attitude to the people Tarantino poses his character against.

Can anyone say a bad word about Samuel L Jackson? He is once again, absolutely incredible in Django Unchained, and the audience is left a little bit unsure as to what his role is in Candie’s life. He raised him, and also runs his house, but Candie seems to respect his opinion over and above many of the white men he employs. Jackson is as funny as Waltz in this film, and his sheer shock at seeing Django on a horse (and the following exchange between him and Candie) had me in stitches. However, his character is much more serious than that, and represents a major influence in the life of a white man, which at the time would have been largely unthinkable.  I largely agree with this article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/01/08/samuel_l_jackson_in_django_unchained_deserves_an_oscar_as_stephen_quentin.html) which promotes Jackson for the Supporting Actor nomination over Waltz, purely because he shows off his acting skills to the fullest in Django.

In terms of other Tarantino films, Django will never be considered as one of the best. That title will always, in my eyes, go to Pulp Fiction, with Reservoir Dogs a close second. I also don’t think it is as good as Inglorious Basterds, but I think it could give Kill Bill a decent run for its money. Having not yet seen Jackie Brown, I can’t comment on this, but Django Unchained will definitely be considered a classic Tarantino movie, and it’s definitely worth a watch. If you liked his other movies you will like Django, but if you don’t like violence, comic or otherwise, I’d steer clear.