Menu

Just for Movie Freaks

Movie Reviews & Editorials

header photo

Blog posts : "christoph waltz"

Throwback Thursday: Django Unchained [Review]

Verdict - "A Classic Tarantino Film!" / My Rating - 4/5

Directed by Quentin Tarantino, the 2012 American revisionist Western film, Django Unchained takes place in 1858, two years before the civil war, where a bounty hunter named Dr King Schultz takes Django under his wings and frees him from slavery. Consequently, after collecting few rewards Django leads Schultz on a mission to rescue his wife Broomhilda, who was treated as a slave under Calvin Candie, a ruthless plantation owner of Candyland.

Starting off with the positives, Quentin Tarantino, who is known for his astounding style and his remarkable writing skill, brought back the old western filmmaking techniques, with reference to few occasional pulpy quick zoom and some large amount of blood spilling out from the bodies during encounters. The screenplay was exceptional just like his previous movies and the soundtrack was impressive and was a perfect fit for the film's tone.

Advancing to the performances, Jamie Foxx plays the role of Django, a livid individual fueled with rage and vehemence against white people and portrayed his disgruntled character flawlessly. Christoph Waltz, who had been nominated for the Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars gave another brilliant performance as a good companion of Django. Leonardo DiCaprio is at his best as Calvin Candie, the brutal proprietor and is the main highlight of the entire film.

Nevertheless, Django Unchained is filled with incredible performances, tremendous screenplay, dialogue and was overall a classic Quentin Tarantino film.

-An Editorial by Surya Komal aka KM (@SuryaKomal)
Instagram Profile - 
@JustMovieFreaks | Twitter Profile - @JustMovieFreaks

Go Back

The Legend of Tarzan - Movie Review

Verdict - "Borefest!"

Directed by David Yates (known for his tremendous work in the last few Harry Potter movies), the Legend of Tarzan starring Alexander Skarsgård, Margot Robbie, Christoph Waltz, and Samuel L. Jackson commences in London, England in the mid-1880's where Tarzan now known as John Clayton III (Alexander Skarsgård) leads a peaceful life as a King in his mansion with his lovely wife Jane Porter (Margot Robbie). As he comes across a strategy proposed by Léon Rom (Christoph Waltz), John travels back to Africa to reunite with his friends and family not knowing of the fact that Rom had few evil plans that involve enslaving the entire country.

Now, judging by the trailers, I assumed that this will be an entertaining film assorted with humour and action. But, alternately we get a film which was over dramatic with limited action scenes and less fun. Why? The storyline progresses by giving us little flashbacks about Tarzan's childhood which was actually the most interesting part of the entire film.

Now that generates my question about why didn't they make this as a big budget origin film that we all intended to see on the big screen? The studio might have many reasonable answers, but when the film cut back to the ongoing storyline about Tarzan fighting against Rom, it felt dreary and mundane by taking the obvious twists and turns which we can analyse in the beginning of the movie itself. And the lack of elation and excitement tarnished the film's quality as the action sequences were improperly showcased. 

Alexander Skarsgård's portrayal of Tarzan was commendable because the man looks the part with his giant stature and immense physique. His chemistry with Margot Robbie felt authentic and I should say that the studio made the right casting call for Tarzan and Jane. Christoph Waltz had no moments to shine but was decent with his performance. Samuel L. Jackson had the most amusing character to play in the entire film and he never disappointed. 

Overall, considering the cast, crew and the director who worked with this big budget film, this could've been a better flick if the writers included more elements of fun and delightful action. I was anticipating to watch a good live-action Tarzan film for many years but this movie tired me out in the first fifteen minutes itself.

My Rating - 2/5
Grade - C (Meh! Probably a rental)
-By Surya Komal aka KM (@SuryaKomal)   

The Legend of Tarzan: Movie Stills and Posters - Click Here

This review is sponsored by the two kids who sat beside me in the movie theatre and yelled out every single animal name every time they appeared on the screen.

Go Back

Spectre - Movie Review

Verdict - "An entertaining and a fine-looking Bond film."

Remember the last time we saw a good 007 movie? Well, it's not too long ago when Skyfall came out in 2012. But, if you take a trip down to the memory lane, James Bond movies are always a hit or a miss, we've witnessed few great movies like Casino Royale and few trainwrecks like Quantum of Solace in the recent past. Therefore, my expectations for Spectre were much low, I sat alone in the theatre expecting nothing but a decent action movie and surprisingly, I enjoyed this movie a lot more than I expected. It might not be the best in the Bond franchise, but it's certainly not the worst.

After receiving an order through a video message from his former boss, M (Judi Dench), Bond starts to track down a secret terrorist organization known as the Spectre who are planning for multiple radical attacks in few major cities around the world. But, in the course of his inquiry, he realizes that these current attacks are some way linked to his previous encounters that took place in Skyfall and Casino Royale.

Now, I like when movies refer to its prequels, it certainly increases the significance of the franchise and makes the viewer immerse into the storyline a bit more. But when it comes to Spectre, it's been the total opposite, the writers had inexplicably failed in setting up these focal plot points, as it felt like a trendy sports car only used for displaying purposes. 

Also, the storyline aspect of the film was overall quite underwhelming, cause it did feel like an overly used premise that we've seen before in a spy-action movie. Especially, they're few significant subplots included in the film involving the characters C and M that didn't feel superior to me. Furthermore, the romantic angle between Madeline and Bond was just bland and wasn't give much time to ponder. As a result, when the couple act that they have feelings for each other, it felt quite inferior to me.

When it comes to technical aspects of the film, the cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema was outstanding, the way he shot the entire movie using wide-angle shots was soo remarkable and the scenery was totally jaw-dropping. The guy worked for the films Her and Interstellar before, so that wouldn't surprise me a lot. Likewise, another intriguing aspect of this film were the action sequences. Director, Sam Mendes made sure that these scenes hold up to the expectations that we all normally have for a Bond film and didn't disappoint a lot. The performances from the entire cast were satisfactory, overall, an impressive show.

Nevertheless, Spectre came off as a surprise to me may be due to my partially low expectations, I found myself appreciating the movie a lot mainly due to its technicality aspects, cause it's a spectacle to watch in a movie theatre. Excluding few apathetic aspects, I surely recommend watching this film even if you're not a 007 fan.

My Rating - 3.25/5
Grade - B (Worth a watch!)
-By Surya Komal aka KM (@SuryaKomal)

Spectre - Posters and Stills: Click here

Go Back

3 blog posts