Django Unchained: Tarantino's Most Indulgent Film Yet

Only a handful of filmmakers have final cut rights in every contract they sign. What that means is that the financier or studio can make as many suggestions about what could be change or tweaked to the script, cast, or finished film, but the director has no obligation to listen to a single thing. In short, these directors have 100% control over what they're doing. As a concept, of course, this sounds like the ideal setup for making movies. After all, what do studio heads know about movies? They're businessmen, not artists, right? Quentin Tarantino began in the independent circuit and by the time his second movie (Pulp Fiction) was released to huge profits and acclaim, it was clear that this man was one of the rare artists who would forever get final say on everything he did from now on. In the beginning, he had final say over a series of low budget, low risk projects, but as the 2000s rolled around, the budgets grew increasingly higher and Tarantino became one of the even more extremely rare few who could make blockbusters and take no criticism from anyone giving him money.

Now, that is not to say there was no one giving him opinions throughout that time on how to improve his work, be it through pacing, what plots could be expanded on or taken out, or even music choices. From the very beginning with Reservoir Dogs, Quentin Tarantino got this valuable advice from a woman named Sally Menke, his editor. With Menke, Tarantino found a genius to shape his massive narratives into tightly woven, fatless products. That's not to say every project the two collaborated on was a masterpiece; I'd argue that their 90s work towers far above the post-2000 films with the exception of Inglourious Basterds. However, it was clear that Menke had the sensibilities that a studio head may not; she could take an objective look at what Tarantino made and turn it into the best product the story had the potential for. Tragically, Sally Menke died in 2010 at the early age of 56. A year later, Tarantino began work on Django Unchained, his most expensive project to date and ultimately his longest.

Happy End of the World, Everyone!

I figured it'd be a crime to not post something today for those of you convinced tomorrow is the end. Of course, on the show we've had just about every guest bring up opposing viewpoints on the 2012 issue. My take? Nothing's going to happen other than people freaking out. This post originally was going to be a countdown of my favorite apocalypse movies, but my criteria included the world actually ending in them. Anything where Ben Affleck saves the day was immediately disqualified. So that left about four movies I actually like, and no list just has four movies. If you're really looking for some quality apocalypse entertainment, you don't have enough time to read The Stand so let me suggest you pop in Dr. Strangelove or Seeking a Friend for the End of the World. Those are some solid movies.

If this is, in fact, the end somehow, thanks for reading and have a wonderful apocalypse.

The Hobbit: Three Hours You'll Never Get Back Again

I'm not really big into fantasy. Let me get that out there straight away. That being said, I'm certainly a sucker for great storytelling, compelling characters, and narratives packed with more than enough story to justify a long runtime. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey exhibits none of these qualities. It is, of course, inevitable to compare this latest film to The Lord of the Rings, a trilogy that I hardly fawn over, but can appreciate. Middle Earth has never fascinated me, but with The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson showed that well cast and developed characters can certainly make you buy all the silly bits in the story. Certainly with those films you cared about the overall goal. In fact, the story was pretty simple: if that ring doesn't get destroyed, we're all going to die. Okay, sure. I get it, I guess.

Enter the horribly convoluted "plot" of this first in the Hobbit trilogy, a prequel taking place 60 years before the story we all know so well. Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellan), feeling especially snotty, decides to barge in on Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) with 13 oafish, uninteresting dwarves looking to reclaim their mountain home. The Lonely Mountain was the dwarf kingdom before a gold-craving dragon named Smaug came in and snagged it for himself. Apparently the dragon wasn't much interested in using the gold to buy things for himself, because he's taken to just sleeping under piles of gold as a hobby. So, why Bilbo Baggins? Well, these incompetent and stubborn dwarves don't really get it, and neither do I. The group begins the journey and encounters endless chase scenes where danger is constantly around the corner and no one can ever save themselves.

Watch the First Trailer for M. Night Shyamalan's After Earth

Here, Kitai Kitai.

Is there anyone out there who still heavily anticipates every new M. Night Shyamlan release? If so, this is the movie you've been waiting for since you apparently loved The Last Airbender. I'm working on a much longer editorial on the rise and decline of M. Night Shyamalan, so I'll save that for the next few days when that gets posted. Anyway, here's the plot description for his latest, After Earth:

After Earth is set one thousand years after cataclysmic events forced humanity's escape from Earth and Nova Prime has become mankind's new home. General Cypher Raige (Will Smith) returns from an extended tour of duty to his estranged family, ready to be a father to his 13-year-old son, Kitai (Jaden Smith). When an asteroid storm damages Cypher and Kitai's craft, they crash-land on a now unfamiliar and dangerous Earth. As his father lies dying in the cockpit, Kitai must trek across the hostile terrain to recover their rescue beacon. His whole life, Kitai has wanted nothing more than to be a soldier like his father. Today, he gets his chance.

That's right. The two main characters in After Earth are named Cypher Raige and Kitai. Now, onto the trailer!




After Earth gets released on June 7, 2013.

The Star Trek 2 Bad Guy Is. . .John Harrison?

(Left to right) Zachary Quinto is Spock, Benedict Cumberbatch is John Harrison and Chris Pine is Kirk in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS from Paramount Pictures and Skydance Productions.

I honestly don't like Star Trek including the original series, the spinoff series, or the movie series, with one notable exception: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Really, that's a great movie. If I taught a film seminar about that really rare occurrence known as "good blockbuster writing," it would be absolute blasphemy to do anything other than praise the first Star Trek sequel. That one really understood what it is that makes big movies so dumb. Most franchise films have no sense of danger (of course no one dies, right?), bland characters/dialogue, and are predictable beyond belief. Khan throws all the cliches of an extremely cliche-filled series out the window and brings a balls-to-the-wall thrilling revenge story to the series that is not afraid to kill off anyone as the ruthless Khan makes things much more personal and series than you'd ever expect.

Last year, as J.J. Abrams' then-untitled sequel to his 2009 Star Trek reboot/reinvention/sequel thingy began casting, we had no information about the plot other than Benicio del Toro had been approached to play the villain. Well, it didn't take long to throw out a few reasonable guesses about what villain Abrams could possibly want another Latino actor for, especially a Latino actor with a resemblance to Ricardo Montalban. It's KHAN! Things were lining up for a sequel that could potentially bring the franchise back to its, well, only high point. My interest went from apathy to excitement in a second. Abrams is no dummy. I trust what would essentially be a remake of the great sequel to him. Then, del Toro could not agree on a price so he dropped out of negotiations, only to be replaced by a lanky British fellow - Benedict Cumberbatch.

Be Curry-ous, Buy Curry

Experimentation can spice up your life in many regards, including in the culinary sense. Whether you normally cook for just yourself or for others, trying new things
in the kitchen can be extremely gratifying. And especially around the holiday season, it offers you all sorts of pronounced reactions that you’re looking for, as well as those you’re not: everything from “Mms” and puckered faces to flatulence and heartburn. So tread softly, friends.

Should I Give to Hobos?

Ahem. This question has often circulated within religious and intellectual communities, not that the two are at all mutually exclusive. Since people inevitably fall pretty nicely into one of the categories, (that is, their actions are governed either by rational thought and ethical principles or by rational thought and moral dictums) let’s explore both sides.

We’ll start with religious people. I've seen countless examples of industrious Christians asking if they should share their hard-earned dollars with beggars, and the overwhelmingly popular answer is no. With “charity” and Christianity being so closely associated, it is an interesting phenomenon. The argument is as follows. Some people think that since Christ often begged himself and performed generous acts, he was all for charity. He didn’t just hand out cedar walking sticks and try to teach lame men how to adapt, he actually healed them. Or I guess we could just go with the whole “Give a man a fish; he’ll eat for a day. Teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” expression, because he did that, too. Jesus gave people fish, okay? Yet others point out that saving that dollar bill handout is actually doing society more of a favor. Having that industrious Christian spirit and contributing instead to larger charities and institutions is promoting help for those who deserve it, who want to better themselves and will put the work in like the rest of us. The Bible stresses the importance of work to human existence and how staying away from idleness contributes to all people in society.

RIP Dave Brubeck (1920-2012)

Dave Brubeck, one of the leaders in the progressive jazz movement, died today at age 91. Jazz fans everywhere recognize the wonderful contributions Brubeck and the Dave Brubeck Quartet brought to the world. I know I play my vinyl copy of the album Time Out more than anything else in my record collection. Brubeck was truly a treasure to music in general. Here's the Brubeck family's statement:

Our much loved and revered father, Dave Brubeck, died of cardiac arrest today, December 5, 2012, one day before his 92nd birthday. He died peacefully with family present. The news spread before we even left Norwalk Hospital and our family is deepy appreciative of the phone calls, messages of condolence and continuing tributes in the media and those received personally, certainly a reflection back to us of Dave's powerful and positive impact on the world. He specialized in long relationships; married to our mother for 70 years, had few changes of personnel in his outstanding quartets or in professional management and many of his fans became personal friends he new for decades. We thank you all for your appreciation of him and the respect you have shown our family.

Darius, Chris, Dan, Catherine, and Matthew Brubeck.  

If you're not familiar with the wonderful tunes Brubeck brought to the world, you owe it to yourself to give him a listen or two. In fact, here's the quintessential Brubeck piece. A master has passed on, but his music never will.