ralph_2ndedition

OK, so yesterday I had a burger, and then went to see the Ghostbusters-movie. Sat front row, in the middle. Ate some tasty chocolate candy bars, drank my chosen beverage (tried a mineral water infused with a taste of a popular chocolate pastry – it was disgusting!).

It was a matiné showing, on a smoldering hot, picture perfect summer day – so no, it wasn't packed. Not by a long shot. Still, I did share that front row with three other people, and the theater was probably at least half full. It was insanely difficult to shake the feeling of slight trepidation, this was after all the first time I went to see a movie not ONLY because I thought it was going to be great (I did think that though), but also because so many people had decided to hate it – on general principle – that I wanted to see it just to make a statement; You CAN NOT judge a movie unseen!

There really is no end to the stupidity among the people calling themselves "real Ghostbusters fans". Oh they will say that it isn't the female leads that bothers them, it is the story, or the effects, or the humor, or simply the fact that it doesn't star Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis (†2014) and Ernie Hudson. But trust me, most of them are bothered – to one degree or another – by the female leads.

So, there I was. Expecting to be entertained, hoping that I would be THOROUGHLY entertained. And guess what… All these small minded people judging the film way before it ever came out – they are MORONS!

The opening scene set the tone pretty well, being somewhat eerie and having a nice jump scare, leading right into the title and the theme tune. Somewhat mirroring the original's librarian-scene. This follows throughout the movie, with humor added to the mix.

I'll skip walking you through the story, as I run the risk of spoiling things, and cut right to the chase… In the original I had to suspend disbelief when it came to Venkman getting as far as he did without studying, and the department they were at at the university staying open as long as it did. There was also the problem with the firehouse – as rundown as it was it would still have been a fortune, even back in 1984 – a problem dealt with in the reboot. There was also very little said about the four 1984 leads. You knew basically nothing about them, except that Venkman was a possible sexual harassment suit recipient. The characters of Ghostbusters 2016 actually got some meat, meaning I felt I got to know more about them, who they were, where they came from and why they ended up where they are. They also made more sense to me, in a way… I love the initial dynamic between Erin (Kristen Wiig) and Abby (Melissa McCarthy), you get a real sense of bitter history there, and it was great seeing Melissa McCarthy in a position of actual power. I also love the fact that they gave Patty (Leslie Jones) a real story, instead of letting her succumb to the Ernie Hudson fate of having basically no character. One of my favorite moments though, was right at the end, where (and I'm not gonna give too much away here) they let the awesome but basically cartoon character of Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon, rocking it out!) give a real tear jerker of a speech.

Also, Chris Hemsworth has to be mentioned! He plays the part of Kevin, the Busters air head receptionist. Kevin spends his time not answering the phone, trying to chose which photo of himself makes him look most like a doctor and drinking (and spitting out) coffee. I really like Hemsworth as Thor, but this was another side of him. The guy is hilarious! More comedies please, Mr.Hemsworth!

I know the effects have taken a lot of heat, what with them looking all glowing green and blue. But I really don't mind it – and the fact (yes, FACT, straight out of director Paul Feig's mouth in a Total Film interview) that there is very little CGI involved when it comes to the ghosts and monsters I find encouraging. The glowing doesn't bother me one bit, and in comparison with the original the effects are consistent – adhering to one style throughout!

The people whining – HATING – on this are usually very quick to claim that they wanted a sequel, not a remake, that they wanted the principal actors from 1984 in the lead roles, and also that this movie is basically feminists hating on men. What I don't understand is this; Ghostbusters 2016 is executive produced by, among others, Ivan Reitman (original director of Ghostbusters 1984) and Dan Aykroyd (one of the principal actors from the original). It is visibly supported (you figure it out) by Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts (all starring in the 1984 original) and the whole thing is dedicated to Harold Ramis (the only one of the four original leads to not be alive today).

SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!?

This wasn't the best movie I have ever seen, but it was pretty damn entertaining! Entertaining enough to make me laugh out loud several times, and it made me choke back a tear (believe it or not).

It has also made me make space on my shelf, right next to the original.

Revenant *rev–uh-nuh nt*

noun

a person who returns. a person who returns as a spirit after death; ghost.

There is a lot that can be said for the unfairness in Leonardo DiCaprio never receiving an Oscar, despite his tremendous performances in quite a number of movies. I have a sneaking suspicion that some people still think of him as the pretty-boy from Titanic and The Beach, and that is really a shame. Because DiCaprio is one of the hardest working actors today (he averages just over one film per year, ever since his breakthrough in What's Eating Gilbert Grape in 1993, and has as of today 36 projects listed as "in development" on IMDb… 36!). And not only that – he is one of the best actors out there, the man seem able to play almost anything, and after seeing him in The Revenant, I have come to the conclusion that Leonardo DiCaprio will from now on be able to make me buy a movie ticket based on his involvement alone.

The Revenant tells the (inspired by true events) story of Hugh Glass, an explorer leading a small team of surviving fur trappers through the vicious winter wilderness that is 1820's America, after they have been attacked – and most of them killed – by native Americans. On a scout tour in the forest, Glass finds himself standing between two grizzly bear cubs and their mother, and he is brutally attacked…

I will say no more, even though there is a LOT more that could be said, you will have to (and I encourage you to) see for yourself!

Let's get a few things out straight away. This IS DiCaprios film, he plays Glass and it is his story we get to follow. The pain, misery, fear, frustration and anger are all very palpable for me as the viewer. I can see it in DiCaprios face and I can hear it in his voice – what little he has left of it, after the bear tore out his throat. He embodies all the emotions to such a degree that I actually felt the freezing cold water and the snow, sitting there in the theater – dressed in my thick sweater. The camera is right there, in his face… His dirty, banged up, tired and determined face. This is a film about survival, about determination and about not succumbing to any sort of fate. It is also about revenge – but that is very much a secondary point. -This is DiCaprios tour de force, and there should be no hesitation about that.

That being said, I would not be surprised if Tom Hardys performance as John Fitzgerald is mentioned in as equal high regard. Hardy has always been a fascinating actor, who seem able to play everything from the leading man in romantic comedies (This Means War, 2012) to super villains in superhero-movies (The Dark Knight Rises, 2012). But what he does best though is play lunatics… The kind of trouble stirring lunatics that stand on the wall, screaming, banging their chest and rally everybody to get the revolution going! But if you look in their face, you can see that all they really want is chaos, violence and disorder. Tom Hardy is fantastic in this film, relishing in playing a character that you instinctively hate, already from the start! -It's in the eyes…

The Revenant moves seamlessly between intimate (and sometimes painful) closeups, to sweeping landscape shots, showcasing not so much the beauty as the isolation and the relentlessness of nature, interspersed with Glass' dream like hallucinations of his wife and child. The movie is shot using real light (as in no stage lights) and it has a very gritty and real feel to it – a style not unknown to director Alejandro González Iñárritu, who's breakthrough was the fantastic Amores Perros (2000). Making my way through the movie, after the fact, I find it hard to imagine anyone else, other than Alejandro, directing it – and certainly no one else other than DiCaprio starring in it…

-Make no mistake about it, this movie is a MUST SEE!

One last thing, because the scene where Glass is attacked by the grizzly bear absolutely needs to be mentioned! I have seen a ridiculous amount of movies where characters are attacked by large animals/creatures. Everything from acid spitting aliens, dinosaurs and toxic waste enhanced spiders to lions, tigers and bears – oh my. But the bear attack in The Revenant is the most horrific, panic filled and – for lack of a better word – REAL I have ever seen! I cannot remember blinking, or even breathing at all during that scene! When you go see this movie (and you REALLY should), it will grab you from the get go, and you will have forgotten all about the bear attack – until it happens, and then you will wish you could forget it….but you never will!

The Hateful Eight is Quentin Tarantino's 8th film – and no there is no room for argument regarding Kill Bill 1 & 2 counting as one singular film, especially as the words "The 8th film by Quentin Tarantino" is seen during the opening credits.

His seven previous films all tries out (or tributes) different genres, he takes a stab at everything from gangster dramas to blaxploitation, via kung fu and western and many other styles, always twisting them to his own quite unique style. The Hateful Eight is no exception. It has a go at Sergio Leones love for long, slow shots, especially during opening scenes – and The Hateful Eight does just that, starts off with an incredibly long shot, going from extreme closeup (Leone again) to a wide landscape shot of a stage coach approaching through the blistering snow. All set to a totally AWESOME "impending doom"-score by master craftsman Ennio Morricone. That score though, hints at the other genre-of-sorts Tarantino takes a stab at with this movie. The Hitchcockian genre – if that could be called a genre. Because as soon as the stage coach reaches it's goal (a restaurant/bar/thingy in the middle of nowhere called Minny's Haberdashery) it turns into a mystery-thriller, where you are not sure of who is the bad guy and who is the good guy (or if indeed there are any good guys at all).

Set design, lighting and the overall gritty look of the film is stunning. Tarantino is perhaps known as a film maker, but he is in equal amount a stylist. He knows what he wants to see, and makes it so. And that is good, because The Hateful Eight combines the long slow takes of Sergio Leone with an Hitchcockian attention to minute details. It is quite interesting to behold…

And therein lies the only real problem I have with this film, that you're not really watching it – you're beholding it. This time around it doesn't feel like Quentin Tarantino made a film for an audience, he just made it for himself. His films are expected to have a few key ingredients; an obscene amount of usage of the "n-word", drawn out monologues (preferably spoken by Samuel L Jackson) and violence. Brutal, unflinching, over- the-top violence, including blood and brains splattered everywhere. Everyone is just sitting there kind of waiting for these things to happen…and Tarantino just can't help himself. It doesn't matter that the scenes doesn't really require all that blood, or – for that matter – that they are not even improved by it (rather the opposite), he puts it there anyway.

I'm not squeamish in any way, and the violence doesn't make me look away – or even flinch, but I do tend to find it boring if it has no purpose. Same thing with the long, slow – albeit artistically marvelous – shots. If they serve no purpose, they are simply something long and slow and pretty to look at.

In Pulp Fiction there is a long take where Jules (Sam Jackson) and Vinnie (John Travolta) is walking through the corridors of an apartment complex, talking about foot massages and weather or not they mean something more than just the massaging of feet. The shot is long – impressively long – as it follows the two hit men along these corridors. The winding camera and the fact that they are on the move almost the whole shot distracts from the fact that the conversation they are having is mostly pure nonsense. Funny every now and again, perhaps. But ultimately it is just two guys letting their mouths run wild, nonsense. The Hateful Eight has quite a few of these long monologues/dialogues, but it is combined with a long, borderline stationary camera, that does very little to distract you from any eventual pointlessness. It is pretty to look at, though.

In Django Unchained there is this long, drawn out scene of just total mayhem, right after Dr Schultz (Christoph Waltz) gets himself killed and Django (Jamie Fox) starts shooting…well, everybody. There's blood EVERYWHERE and people coming in the door getting shot and landing in a big pile on top of each other. One guy not dying from his first shot, or his second, or third or fourth and just continues getting shot – by Django and his own peers alike. There's so much blood the whole room changes colour! But it works, because it has a purpose! The purpose here – as in most Quenting Tarantino movies – is to entertain. There is nothing resembling tension here. Django is the superhero of the movie, and by that time you are no longer fearing for his life. He'll make it, because he's supposed to! The Hateful Eight saves up, building tension, and then lets the violence rip… Or rather let the blood flow. In spades! But the vast amount of blood isn't necessary. It doesn't entertain, or to put it another way, if you find it funny and laugh (and I did, at times) it means the tension is gone. Everything built up during the past two hours is now gone, and you are left with a final 45 minutes of pointless violence. You no longer care about the characters, and thus no longer care about the story.

Quenting Tarantino sells movie tickets on his name alone – and that is a HUGE responsibility. Granted, his worst movies are not at all bad, and neither is this one. It is, after all, beautifully shot, it has some really cool dialogue/monologue and a handful of really good actors doing a really good job. It CANNOT be bad! But it certainly doesn't rank anywhere near his best