Pulp Fiction (1994)

       Hitting the world like a punch in the jaw, Pulp Fiction is a phenomenon of a movie that plays with itself as a genre film while simultaneously telling an excellent and fresh tale that never seems to get old with the passage of time or repetition. Featuring an all-star cast that includes John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Maria de Medeiros, Ving Rhames, Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Christopher Walken, and Bruce Willis, Pulp Fiction weaves together three separate tales taking place in '90s Los Angeles, featuring killer dialogue, graphic violence, and a lot of humor - all to the sounds of an eclectic and brilliant soundtrack.

       First off, it's important to point out what kind of film this is. It's first and foremost a genre piece, an exploitation film that is an homage to the kinds of films it has been inspired by. It's also a very successful black comedy, featuring a hilarious cast of characters, scenes, and dialogue that is as quotable as anything that's ever been put on film. Characters such as Jules (Jackson) and Vincent (Travolta) have great chemistry and provide us with excellent conversations to witness. Essentially, every character in this film is excellent in one degree or the other, be it Mrs. Mia Wallace (Thurman), Marsellus Wallace (Rhames), Butch (Willis), or Winston "The Wolf" Wolfe (Keitel). Roth and Plummer are notable as a couple who rob places, with an interesting chemistry and equally interesting dialogue and scenes. However, my favorite character has to be (of all the people) Jimmie, played by Quentin Tarantino himself. As is in Reservoir Dogs, my favorite character ends up being played by Tarantino; something about the way he looks, acts, and is makes it almost impossible for me to not make him my favorite character/person in whatever thing he may be in. In any case, Jimmie has my favorite monologue in the movie and some of my favorite lines as well; the scene that features him is also probably my favorite.

       When it comes to music, Tarantino knows his stuff. He does this sort of thing instinctively, carefully, with smart input and direction. The soundtrack for Pulp Fiction is classic, featuring assorted genres of music that also fit perfectly well in whatever scene they are featured it. While I would say the best use of music in this film is the opening and closing credits, the music is excellent all of the time and can sometimes really make a scene what it is, so it's almost unfair for me to single out a scene or two as being the best; all I have is my opinion, and not even that can be selective.

       I don't know what it is, but Tarantino is an incredible writer with an incredible knack for dialogue, be it unimportant or part of the actual over-arching story. He infuses each of his characters with personality, making them memorable for a variety of reasons. Essentially, any character that has notable screen time could be extremely well liked and memorable because they actually are characters, they are "people" who exist in this world (which is essentially a movie-like world, a theory which can be backed by Tarantino's love for movies in his movies). Tarantino's talent also goes for the stories he writes, but that goes without saying.

       Pulp Fiction is a true American masterpiece, the kind of thing that lives up to its name and manages to stay with you and have an impact on your life in some degree. Quentin Tarantino made something unique, yet old fashioned, and all brand new all at once. Movies like this don't perpetually exist. Movies as well written, as well acted, as well played as this one don't get made. As Jules might say, God came down and graced Tarantino with the will and mind to write this story down and make this film so that the world may see it and embrace it for what is: a perfect piece of pulp fiction.

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

How does a robbery turn out this badly?

       Bloody, violent, profane, and full of pop culture references, writer-director Quentin Tarantino's feature film debut is a masterpiece of crime and confusion, dialogue and characters, action and irony. The film stars the following: Harvey Keitel as Mr. White, Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde, Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink, Tim Roth as Mr. Orange, Chris Penn as "Nice Guy" Eddie, Quentin Tarantino as Mr. Brown, Eddie Bunker as Mr. Blue, and Lawrence Tierney as Joe Cabot, featuring the voice of Steven Wright as DJ K-Billy.

       The set-up is that a group of guys plan on stealing a jewelry store in a get-in-get-out heist. As one might expect, all goes to hell, tensions rise, people don't know who to trust, and blood is shed. While we never see the robbery in process (knowing only what happened by the various accounts given by the characters), the film's focus is on the people involved in the crime and not the main crime itself. This provides us with an interesting film which believes that, above all, characterization is king. Sure there's violence, blood, and death, but that all comes from the characters. There's never any moment of violence for violence's sake. Tarantino directs everything with finesse, never framing a bad shot, always knowing what he's doing. Even though it is a debut (not including his first short film), he knows what he's doing. Sure, you could say it isn't perfect, but there's no doubt that Tarantino knows how to direct.

       When it comes to who in this film is the better actor, there's almost no definite winner. No matter how much screen time a particular character might get, each and every actor in this film is excellent, believable, and naturalistic. Keitel is excellent as White, a veteran criminal who tries to keep his cool as things get chaotic. Buscemi is phenomenally likeably hilarious (in both senses of the word) as Pink, a guy who has trouble keeping is cool and is the first to believe that the robbers were set-up, meaning that there is a rat among them. He also doesn't like his alias. Madsen unnervingly and convincingly plays Blonde, a criminal fresh out of prison who might be calm and loyal but is also a complete psychopath (this is displayed best during the famous torture scene). Penn is great as Eddie, son of Joe (Tierney's character); both are fantastic in their roles as good ol' gangsters. Roth is probably my favorite (as far as the acting goes) as Orange, a guy who spends a lot of his screen time bleeding and screaming. Bunker (who plays Blue) and Tarantino (who plays Brown) do not get as much screen time, but they make their roles their own through dialogue and character traits. (For the record, Mr. Brown's my favorite Reservoir Dog, but as far as the main Dogs go, Mr. Orange is my favorite.)

       An important trait in this film (and all subsequent Tarantino films) is the writing. None of the dialogue in this film feels forced, wooden, or like something someone wouldn't say. Of course, this has a lot to do with the way the actors treat the material, but none of it would really matter if the actors were great but the writing wasn't. Tarantino infuses his script with rich reveals of his characters, from their general interests, to their relationships with other characters, to how they handled (or would handle) certain situations. For a film full of violence and blood, there are many scenes in which characters are merely talking to one another. It is in these scenes where Tarantino shows his real talent for dialogue and characterization.

     
       Style is also an extremely important part of this film, which also has to do with the film's soundtrack. From the black suits to the cars that are driven, these sorts of details matter to Tarantino and add to the film and its mythology. Small things from an old cereal brand to a scene specifically dealing with details needing to be remembered, Tarantino breaths his film with real people, real things, and real attention while also juxtaposing it with stringing moments of movie moments, movie situations, and movie awareness. The soundtrack adds to the style, featuring "super sounds of the seventies," which acts as soundtrack dissonance when mixed with violent moments. Above all, the soundtrack makes the whole thing a lot more cool/awesome while being a homage to older films from the 1950's and '70's. Homage is something Tarantino probably loves more than anything else, being a film buff first and a film maker second.

       Reservoir Dogs ranks as a classic crime film, as well as a classic independent film. The performances are top notch, the writing is top notch, the action is entertaining and also realistic. The soundtrack is classic and the dialogue is incredibly memorable and quotable. When it all ends, we are left with a sad scene of a heist gone awry, with a sad sort of ending that cuts to end credits featuring a song that gives off the opposite feelings that the film's end has provided. Reservoir Dogs isn't there to make us laugh (although there's plenty of laughs to go around) as much as it is there to tell a story about a group of criminals who get involved in something bad when it was supposed to have worked out all right. It's like an excellent crime novel that leaves you floored with its characters, situations, action, and understanding. When the end credits roll, I don't have any realization, I don't have any sort of feeling that I've learned something new or that I am emotionally effected (although that's possible). More than anything, I sit back, take it in, and enjoy what has been witnessed, revel in its greatness, and above all, feel satisfyingly entertained, even inspired. I wish I could put it into better words, but in all honesty, for something as simply done as this, I can't. It just is.

Rope (1948)

       Alfred Hitchock's Rope (adapted from the play by Patrick Hamilton) is particularly famous for one special novelty: the use of long takes with little to no editing, making it appear as though the film is shown in one long continuous shot. While the film has a few cuts here and there, the way the film is shot happens to be only the second most impressive thing in the film; the other thing is the acting. The stellar performances and the camera continually rolling (for the most part) compliment each other in a way that is almost always reserved exclusively for the stage. Indeed, given that it's based off a play, this film acts like one completely, featuring one setting during its entirety and taking place in real time. It also features minimal music and relies only on the dialogue of its actors, as well as the ever growing tension that permeates throughout the course of the film.

       The film's plot is fairly simple: It starts with the murder of David Kently, strangled with a rope by Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Philip Morgan (Farley Granger). The reason why they kill David is not explained immediately but becomes clear during the course of the film. As it turns out, they're hosting a cock tail party the same day they kill David, but as one will find out, all this was intentional and carefully planned. I won't go into much detail, since explaining any more will spoil the film and its surprises. We see that the character's motivations seem to stem from various things, from possible jealousy to simply the thrill of taking the life of another individual. The characters of Brandon and Philip (played phenomenally by both Dall and Granger) are so different from one another it almost seems like it was meant to be that these two would concoct such a heinous act together.

       However, the actor who gets top billing here is James Stewart, playing the former head master of Brandon and Philip, Rupert Cadell. Brandon believes that of all people, Rupert would be the one to understand his reasoning behind murdering David. Stewart's character is incredibly important and unique and his acting is also top notch, with his best scene being the final monologue he delivers at the film's end. Stewart's trademark dialect also makes its appearance and actually adds to his character in a way I didn't think possible (although in a way, his dialect always adds to whatever character he plays to some degree).

       The rest of the actors do an excellent job, but the standouts are without a doubt Dall and Granger. The character of Philip is such a nervous wreak throughout while Brandon is so smug and proud of what he's done he can't hide his excitement. His explanation for murder and his reasoning for doing what he does is so convincing and evil it's more than just thrilling in itself to witness; it's outright disturbing. To see Philip go from concerned to just completely losing it is also something wonderful to behold. The suspense attached to the possibility of anyone knowing what these two have done is another thrill the film does expertly and it wouldn't be half as exciting if not for the fine performances taking us through this nerve shattering event.

       Without a doubt in my mind, Rope is one of the greatest thrillers I've ever seen. As a film in general, it is also one of the best I've ever seen, packed with amazing performances and stellar camera effects that keep us on the edge wondering what will happen next. It may not be the most known film out there, but it's most definitely worth at least one viewing. And if you've already seen it, why not see it again, for thrill's sake?

Superman II (1980)

       Superman and Superman II were originally to be filmed back-to-back, but ultimately, production on II was halted to complete Superman. Once it was completed and a success, the crew went back to finish II. However, Richard Donner, the director of the first film, was not asked to finish the film (that job went to Richard Lester); the reasons vary, but the main reason seems to be creative differences. At this time, Donner had already filmed what he says was 75% of the film, so what ended up happening was Lester re-filmed certain scenes and changed up some stuff, which led to the film being, technically, co-directed, with 65-75% of the film being shot by Lester and the reaming being done originally by Donner. To this day there is still controversy on the whole thing. Donner's true vision was never shown to the public until him and some of the crew restored and made Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut in 2006. Regardless of the controversy and problems, Superman II was a big hit with fans and critics alike, with some saying it surpasses the original. 

       Indeed, Superman II manages to be better than its predecessor - as a movie, anyway. What I mean to say is this: Superman had a better story but Superman II was a better movie overall. Much of this has to do with the fact that Superman II is really a continuation and conclusion (of sorts) to the story that began in Superman. The film stars everyone who was important in the first film (except Marlon Brando) and the cast do an excellent job again. While some characters don't get as much spotlight as they did in the first film (Lex Luthor, Perry White) the film makes up for it (and makes you forget about it) with three characters that first appeared in the original: General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O'Halloran). These three are the main villains of the movie and are the best part of Superman II. But what would Superman II be without the Man of Steel himself? Christopher Reeve returns, being just as great as he was in the first one and Margot Kidder also returns as Lois Lane, who is much more likable this time around.

       The story continues from Superman, bringing along with it slight allusions to the story of Christ (Resurrection) and great themes concerning the idea of self-fishness and accepting one's destiny. Like I said, the story isn't as good or as epic as the first film, but it's continuing a story so it's understandable and forgivable, especially when the action makes up for it. That's something Superman II has that Superman didn't seem to have too much of: action.

       The bad guys are great and true individuals: Zod is an arrogant egomaniac who keeps telling people to kneel before him and plans to rule the planet Earth (because he can, right?); Ursa is Zod's second in command and she is a sexy and cold foe with moves of her own and an attitude that shows she cares not for human life (her outfit is also the only one of the three that has opened slits on it's arms and legs, revealing her skin, which didn't seem like a surprising choice of style in her costume's design); Non is a brute that is -what else?- mute, but still a force to be reckoned with. The three Kryptonian villains wreak havoc whenever they're around and it's their interactions with Earth and it's people that is, in my opinion, the best part of the movie. Every scene involving them is excellent and arguably their scenes alone can make the film worth watching. As for Superman? He's just as super as ever: saving the day and being the good guy he was born to be. Clark Kent is also just as fantastic, maybe even better than how we was last time, but that's debatable (not to mention a pointless thing to debate). Lois Lane seems to be the most improved here, not being as annoying and being more entertaining. Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman, receiving top billing once again) is just as arrogant and hilarious, but like I mentioned before, he isn't in the movie as much (some of his scenes were cut). Even so, he still has scenes that are true highlights (one scene involving him and Ursa is a particular favorite of mine).  

       Sadly, I don't have as much to say about this film as I did for the first (probably because it's not as epic and doesn't have as much depth), but I do have some other things to say: The film is a bit shorter than Superman. II also features a main title sequence nearly identical to the first film (with some scenes from the first movie thrown in). The score isn't composed by John Williams this time, but it still features some of his original compositions. Unlike Superman, II doesn't seem to take place in a specific year, but we can only assume it's '79 or '80. The film has plenty of humor but didn't make me laugh as much as the first film did - maybe because I saw it in the morning in a college library as opposed to how I saw the first film: in my house at night with a glass of soda. There's also a scene that I thought was awesome for no reason involving Superman and a cellophane S (you might even know what I'm talking about). Also, Marlboro has its brand shown more than once throughout the film, but is only obnoxious about it in one popular sequence; this is because Marlboro was II's biggest sponsor. The one scene I found a tad unnecessary involves Zod and Ursa using their blow-wind-from-my-mouth power to blow people and cars away. There's nothing wrong with the scene itself, I just think it went on longer than it had to. Also, it should be mentioned that the special effects in this film are spectacular.

       Superman II is a film that doesn't so much improve on its predecessor as much as it takes a slightly different approach and makes a better film overall. While the story isn't as grand, the film has more action, more enjoyable characters, a great ending, and terrific dialogue, featuring some of the best quotes I've heard in any movie ("Lex Luthor, ruler of Australia"). The action is great and the romance between Lane and Kent builds up to gather interest (or at least some interest). And even with a less than amazing story, the film still manages to address grand themes of sacrifice and destiny that, if elaborated on in this review, would surly spoil the film. Overall, Superman II is an excellent picture that rivals the original and has still to this day garnered respect and praise by fans and critics alike. 

Superman (1978)

       Noted as the first superhero film, the one that started the trend, and still noted as one of the best of all time, Richard Donner's Superman (also known as Superman: The Movie, which is more of a marketing title, since it's just called Superman in the credits) is a tale of epic proportions. With a beautifully orchestrated score by John Williams, excellent performances from the cast, amazing special effects (for it's time and even today), and a timeless story who's influence is dabbled in religion and mythology, this film stands head and shoulders above the majority of comic books films.

       Divided into three parts, Superman begins on the planet Krypton, with Jor-El (played wonderfully by Marlon Brando) banishing General Zod (Terence Stamp) and his gang (only two other people) into the Phantom Zone. He later tells the council he's a part of that the planet will be destroyed soon and they will all die if they do not evacuate. Of course, no one listens to him, but Jor-El takes the necessary precautions and sends his infant son Kal-El to the planet Earth, were he will have extraordinary powers, due to Kryptonians being light-years ahead of human beings (or something like that). He sends him in what resembles a star (noted as a Biblical reference), but not before also placing a green crystal in his ship (the ship is made up of white/clear crystals).

       The second part has us seeing Clark Kent (played by Jeff East but dubbed by Reeve) as an 18 year old living in Smallville. He wishes he could show everyone his amazing abilities, but of course, he can't, so he's no where near as popular in school as he could be (but Lana Lang takes a liking to him). His Earth father Jonathan (Glenn Ford) and Earth mother Martha (Phyllis Thaxter) are a great influence to him and stay in his heart and mind for the rest of his journey. The green crystal eventually shows it self to Clark in the family barn and he goes off to the North (where there's nothing but ice and glaciers). Once there, he throws the crystal into the distance, and it lands in the ice, changing the land area and forming the Fortress of Solitude. It is here where Clark sees his father in the crystals, and where the answers to his questions are found. After 12 years of learning and training (which we mainly hear and sort of see in a montageesque sequence, featuring excellent dialogue from Brando which still packs a punch and has grand influence today) he sets off to help the world in any way he can in a blue and red outfit.

       The third (and longest) part thus begins with the mild-mannered and bumbling Clark Kent getting a job at the Daily Planet. It's here we meet the characters Jimmy Olson (Marc McClure), hot-tempered boss Perry White (a hilarious Jackie Cooper), and professional, yet prone to misspells, writer Lois Lane (Margot Kidder). While I've already talked about the film's plot (in embarrassing detail), I'll say very little regarding the rest of it. As is expected, a bad guy by the name of Lex Luthor (a hysterical and evil Gene Hackman) comes up with a plan to make the West coast his own by drowning half of California. The people he mainly interacts with are his bumbling henchman Otis (Ned Beatty) and girlfriend Eve Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine). Their interactions with one another are some of my favorite parts in the whole movie; seeing the apathetic Eve deal with Lex's actions and seeing what happens when Otis messes up an order by Lex are always a delight to watch.

       The main star of the film (no matter what the main credits and end credits might tell you) is, of course, Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent/Superman. Let it be known, till the end of time, that Reeve is Superman. He's also excellent as Clark Kent, pulling off both personas as if he were born to play the roles. While many actors before and after him have played the part of Clark Kent/Superman, it's no surprise that, even to this day, Reeve is the one most remembered and revered in the role. I have absolutely no problem with seeing different actors interpret the role of an iconic hero in their own way (truth be told, I love it), but I think Reeve will forever be engraved as the Man of Steel. (One reason for this probably has to do with the fact that he played him for all 4 movies, not counting Superman Returns.)

       The rest of the cast (as aforementioned) is great. Just like how Reeve is Superman, Brando is Jor-El (but again, I'm all up for different interpretations by other actors). Brando's Jor-El is so well done and respectable, it's no wonder his quotes and monologues are referenced and mentioned to this day. Margot Kidder does a great job as Lois Lane, a woman who's mainly concerned with work but falls head over heels for Superman. Jackie Cooper as the head boss provides some of the funniest moments in the film. But the main scene stealer is Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, who seems to be having a lot of fun playing an arrogantly intelligent and evil character; you could even say his acting is campy or over-the-top. Either way, it's a great performance and maybe even the best one in the whole movie -- but that's all up to debate.

       When it comes to themes, Superman has a lot of them, maybe even too much, so I'm just going to brush over the main ones. The story of Superman parallels with the story of Jesus Christ (as well as Hercules if you want to go that far): a man sends his only son to Earth so that he may find his destiny and do good and help the people of Earth. Jor-El even says some lines that talk about him always being in his son and his son always being in him, further alluding to the Biblical story. Other Biblical allusions include the banishing of Zod and his gang into the Phantom Zone (seen as God banishing Satan out of Heaven) and Kel-El having adoptive parents on Earth who couldn't have a child of their own (alluding to Mary and Joseph). Another thing I'd like to note is that the crest on Superman's outfit (which resembles an S) turns out being the House of El crest (making it the El family crest). This is never directly stated, but apparent in the council scene near the beginning of the movie where Jor-El and his fellow Kryptonians are discussing his doomsday theory; all of the Kryptonians in this scene have different crests on their outfits.

       John William's score (conducted by the London Symphony Orchestra) is amazing, nearly tying for Best Superhero Score Ever with Tim Burton's Batman. Right from the opening main titles (which is easily one of the best main title sequences in motion picture history) the score makes its presence and importance known as credits flash across the screen. The music in Superman is extremely important, since it emphasizes moments that are epic (main titles), romantic (Superman flying with Lois Lane), imminent (Superman facing kryptonite), or inspiring (the last scene of the film).

       Other things to note: The film happens to take place in a specified year (1978, the year of the film's release), but the movie never out right tells you what it is; you'll have to piece it together (which, I promise you, is not hard to do). Due to it taking place in the late '70s, certain trends of the time show up in some of the scenes containing extras walking the street or hanging around (plain looking clothes and collars popped outside of coats, for example), but somehow, it makes the film look modern as well as retro all at the same time. Those types of things can sometimes bother me, since it can make a film look dated, but in the case of Superman, I didn't care -- especially since it takes place in a specified year (like in the Back to the Future films), which helps the film not look as dated as it could have looked. The special effects in this film were completely innovative at the time and looked amazing back then, but even today, they still look incredible and still hold up. They have a magic charm that I don't think could be replicated today, due to the excess use of CG these days. I sometimes thought Kidder's Lois Lane came off as annoying, but for the most part she came off as a city girl with a strong attitude and state of mind. There's a scene I found particularly amusing and a nod to the old-fashioned style of Superman: When Clark Kent first becomes Superman publicly, he's outside as Clark and needs a place to change; he looks at a phone booth (his most famous and iconic changing place) only to realize it's a lot more modern with no booth surrounding the phone. Something I'd really like to mention is how the film starts up: A white image (old Warner Bros. logo) with accompanied lettering lets us know that Warner Bros. released this movie; I guess since this wasn't a Warner Bros. produced film, they had no reason to display their main logo (the colored badge-looking one) at the start of the film. After that, curtains show up and pull a part a little bit to uncover a 4:3 screen showing us a brief black and white interlude (starting with the words June 1938) talking about the Great Depression and how it affected the Daily Planet. I honestly have no idea what purpose this interlude has, but within the screen between the curtains the film unexpectedly segues into the main titles, and that I must say is really cool. Still, the interlude caught me off guard (was that the intention?) and no matter what explanation I might find that explains it's purpose, I'll still find it oddly unnecessary -- but the terrific segue makes up for it.

       As a piece of pop culture or as a comic book adaption, Superman is an excellent film that transcends its initial superhero genre by telling a timeless tale with class and genuine drama, making it unlike any other superhero movie I've ever seen (although this might have something to do with it being the first real superhero movie ever produced). It has its share of action, romance, danger, and most surprising of all, comedy. The film never takes it self too seriously, but at no point does it become a campy parody. The symbolism, the themes, and the overall lesson and tale Superman weaves, along with its brilliant casting, effects, and music, make this classic film a masterpiece in its own right. Trust me when I tell you that, when you watch this movie, you'll believe a man can fly.