Django Unchained (2012)

Anyone who even remotely considers themselves a film buff should by now be well aware of how cinema itself has influenced the output of Quentin Tarantino. His movies are chock full of references and homages to the movies he loves, even if his personal tastes aren't always within the scope of the mainstream. This affection has even led him to make his own movies akin to the ones he enjoys so much, as he's directed a crime drama influenced by blaxploitation movies, tributes to wuxia and samurai movies, and a war movie. And now Tarantino's brought us a full-blown spaghetti western in the form of Django Unchained. Drawing inspiration (and part of its title) from the 1966 Italian movie Django, Django Unchained is one of those movies that absolutely must be seen to be believed. I don't like having to use that clichéd line, but it's the truth. So allow me a few moments to gush over the movie and explain just why I loved it so much.

Our story begins in Texas circa 1858, where Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) ― a former dentist who's since found a calling as a bounty hunter ― is looking for a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx). Purchasing Django from his owners in a rather unorthodox fashion, Schultz reveals to Django that he tracked him down because only Django can identify the members of a gang whose bounty Schultz looks to recover.

Schultz successfully claims the bounty with Django's assistance, and is impressed enough with his new friend's abilities that he offers to train Django in the fine art of bounty hunting. Django agrees on the condition that Schultz helps reunite him with his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who he was separated from when they were put on the auction block.

After a successful winter, Schultz and Django find a lead on Broomhilda's whereabouts, learning that she was sold to a wealthy plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Candie has made a name for himself by training his male slaves to fight one another to the death, while the female slaves are forced into prostitution. Schultz and Django formulate a plan that would lead to them buying Broomhilda from him, but their plan may find itself foiled when Candie's butler Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) begins to notice cracks in their story.

I've been sitting here for a good while trying to come up with a way to properly encapsulate just how awesome Django Unchained is. But these words unfortunately escape me. What I can tell you, however, is that the movie is quite possibly the best movie I've seen all year. You have to see this movie because there's no way that I can do it justice. Whatever I write here doesn't matter, because you should be going to a theater right now to buy yourself a ticket for the next available screening of the movie. (You can come back and read this later if you want. Go ahead, I'll wait.)

From a directorial standpoint, I have no problem calling the movie one of Quentin Tarantino's absolute best efforts. Tarantino's work is masterful, showing a real artistic flair that I felt was very impressive. And when I say "artistic," I mean the movie looks like a genuine piece of art. Shots are composed and scenes are edited in such a way that you'll be blown away by the look of the movie.

Tarantino also crafts the movie in a way that it never really feels like it's almost three hours long. The running time is roughly two hours and 45 minutes, but Tarantino keeps the movie going so fast that you never once notice the length. It has the right kind of energy that it renders such a thing a complete non-factor. If more ultra-long movies could take a hint from Djamgo Unchained, that would be great.

It helps that his screenplay is just as good as his direction. The script is chock full of memorable characters, awesome moments, and cool dialogue. It's practically everything you could possibly hope for from a Quentin Tarantino screenplay. He writes his characters in such a way that even the unrepentantly vile ones draw the viewer in and makes us care about everyone in some form or fashion. The primary characters are all built on strong foundations, allowing them to each make their own indelible mark on the movie as a whole.

And with the way Tarantino has the movie plotted, it's immensely fun to go back and watch how the gears are turning during the story. Not a single moment is wasted or rendered useless; everything contributes to the big picture somehow. If you're like me, you'll watch this movie and be glued to the screen, watching with curious fascination to see just where Tarantino takes us next.

Last but most certainly not least on my list are the actors, all of whom are amazing no matter how big or small their roles are. Among the supporting cast, Don Johnson is a lot of fun in his small role as a plantation owner that looks an awful lot like Colonel Sanders, while Samuel L. Jackson is awesome in his role as Candie's most trusted slave. Jackson's performance alternates between funny and intense, which is helped by the fantastic chemistry he has with Leonardo DiCaprio. Their back-and-forth repartee is so much fun to watch because both actors are at the top of their games here.

And I honestly cannot praise DiCaprio enough. He plays Candie as a horrible yet charismatic villain. He's likable and gentlemanly for much of the movie even as he forces his slaves to beat one another to death for fun, feeds runaways to dogs, and uses that one special racial slur more times than one could count, yet you just cannot turn away. It's a great performance from a great actor, and he very nearly steals the whole movie.

But the honor of the movie's best performance goes to Christoph Waltz, who is just once step ahead of DiCaprio in the "stealing the movie" category. I thought Waltz couldn't top his work in Inglourious Basterds, but he did. He actually did it. Waltz is at his most likable here, making his character an intelligent smooth-talker that's a lot of fun and makes the movie a lot more fun to watch.

And how can I talk about Django Unchaiined without talking about Django himself? Even though he's arguably overshadowed by Waltz and DiCaprio, Jamie Foxx is very cool as the movie's title character. He plays the role with absolute conviction, like his performance would completely make or break the movie, as if its success hinged on every word he says and every move he makes. Foxx's nuanced, layered performance is incredibly convincing; you get the feeling that years of slavery may break his body but never his spirit, and that he would burn the whole world if it meant he could be with his beloved wife again.

If you haven't seen Django Unchained, or if you've instead chosen to see The Hobbit or Les Misérables over the last few weeks, then you're missing out. It's not a movie that will play to everyone's sensibilities, but it is nonetheless worth seeing. I'd actually call it the best Quentin Tarantino movie since Pulp Fiction. Sure, the movie has faced some controversy over its repeated use of the "N-word," but that doesn't take a way from the fact that it's an awesome movie. It's a cool experience that's well worth the time and effort to check it out. So I'll give it four and a half stars and proclaim one thing: Spike Lee can suck it. 

Final Rating: ****½

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

If one thing is true about Quentin Tarantino, it's that he is one of the most unique storytellers in Hollywood. Nobody approaches a movie like Tarantino does. He had a style and a voice that few, if any, are able to duplicate. That's why when Tarantino announced that he would be making a movie about a group of soldiers fighting in World War II, it got people buzzing. They had wanted to see just how he'd make a war movie. The resulting flick, Inglourious Basterds, is a very different look at a war that's been depicted hundred of times.

The year is 1944, and Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) has recruited eight Jewish commandos who've dedicated themselves to mutilating, killing, and ultimately scalping as many Nazis as possible. Nicknamed "the Basterds" by the Nazis, the group's brutality and viciousness have left even Hitler himself frustrated by the German military's inability to stop them.

The British have learned that the heads of Nazi Germany ― even the big bad Adolf Hitler (Martin Wuttke) himself ― will be gathering at a small movie theater in Paris for the premiere of Nation's Pride, a propaganda movie celebrating the exploits of Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), a German sniper purported to have killed over sixty Allied soldiers. With everyone in charge in one place, it'd be the easiest opportunity to kill a whole bunch of birds with one stone. To that end, the Basterds are dispatched to infiltrate the premiere with the help of German actress and double agent Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger).

But what they don't know is that someone else is planning to ruin the premiere too. The theater hosting the premiere is owned by a young French Jew named Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Lauren), whose family was personally butchered by SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) a few years earlier. Living in Paris under an assumed name, Shosanna is rather perturbed by the fact that Zoller's developed a pretty major crush on her. Annoyance quickly turns to fury when she learns that not only has Zoeller convinced Joseph Goebbels to use the theater she owns to host the premiere of Nation's Pride, but that Landa will be the event's chief of security. Burning with rage, vowing to avenge her family's deaths, and unaware of the efforts of the Basterds, Shosanna formulates her own plan to eliminate the Nazis herself.

Unless you can dig up some obscure propaganda movie from the era, Inglourious Basterds is probably the most unique World War II movie you will ever see. And I doubt that anyone other than Quentin Tarantino could have created such a movie. I honestly don't believe that it's his best movie nor would I call it my personal favorite, but I do think that it's still an absolutely fantastic piece of work that everyone involved should be very proud of.

Even though Inglourious Basterds isn't my favorite Tarantino movie, it's still some of the best evidence regarding how much he's evolved from filmmaker to artist. His directorial efforts here are tremendous, boasting some gorgeous cinematography and a vibe that makes the movie feel bigger than it actually is. It's unfortunate, though, that a flaw or two creep into the movie.

The main flaw I'm referring to is that the movie suffers from the same flaw that plagued the movie Tarantino made before this one, Death Proof. The problem is that Tarantino occasionally seems so enamored with his own dialogue that he can't bear to trim down some scenes before they wear out their welcome. It's particularly bad in the scene in the bar where some undercover Allied soldiers play a party game with a couple of Nazis. It's a fun scene, but the scene honestly lasts twenty minutes before there's any payoff. The whole thing is drawn out to the point that I just wanted it to hurry up and move along.

As far as the screenplay for the movie goes, it's about as verbose as you would expect from Quentin Tarantino. But unlike the previously-mentioned Death Proof, there are very few scenes that don't add something to the movie. The first half of Death Proof was a sluggish bore with practically no forward progress, but with Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino constantly keeps the movie going. Practically every scene advances the plot, develops the characters, or provides something crucial to the overall movie. Yes, the script gets a little wordy at times, but it still keeps trucking along and I won't fault it for that.

It also helps that Tarantino's managed to assemble a fantastic cast to bring his movie to life. Brad Pitt is hilariously entertaining as the leader of the Basterds, bringing a sense of joviality to the character even as he has his commandos do things that would probably get them thrown out of the military (for starters). Pitt is a charismatic actor to begin with, which only makes Aldo Raine more fun to watch than if another actor had played the role.

Diane Kruger plays her role with conviction, while Mélanie Laurent does an excellent job conveying her total disgust and contempt for the Nazis that have overrun her theater. Among the other supporting cast, Eli Roth ― yes, the same Eli Roth that brought the world Cabin Fever and Hostel ― is actually really good as one of the Basterds. But every single member of the cast is completely overshadowed by the Oscar-winning performance of Christoph Waltz. Waltz is truly amazing as Hans Landa, playing the character as simultaneously charming and as an utterly reprehensible slimeball. If you haven't seen Inglourious Basterds at any point over the last three years and you need a reason to finally check it out, Waltz should be enough for you to watch the movie. This might sound like hyperbole, but I thought it was one of the best performances of the entire decade.

Before I watched it today in preparation for this review, I hadn't seen Inglourious Basterds since its theatrical run in 2009. Back then, I thought it was okay, but not great. But revisiting it now, I realized the movie is a lot better than I initially thought. The acting is amazing, the direction and writing are fantastic, and the whole package is a great watch. So if you're a fan of World War II movies or Quentin Tarantino and you haven't seen Inglourious Basterds, you're missing out on a great flick. And besides, it'd make a great primer if you're planning to see Django Unchained in two weeks. And I'm totally looking forward to that. 

Final Rating: ****

Death Proof (2007)

Quentin Tarantino is, without a doubt, one of the biggest movie nerds in Hollywood. His movies are loaded with homages and references to movies from around the world, from the famous to the obscure. And I'd be willing to bet that he's probably forgotten about more movies than most people have actually seen. But while he may be a faithful student of cinema as a whole, Tarantino is a quite vocal fan of old exploitation movies. And it was because of this affection that he teamed up with fellow director Robert Rodriguez to create Grindhouse.

A pair of pseudo-exploitation movies directed by Tarantino and Rodriguez and released theatrically in the United States as a double feature, Grindhouse wasn't exactly a box office success. Frankly, it was a big fat bomb. In an apparent attempt to recoup some of their losses, Dimension Films and the Weinstein Company separated the two halves — Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Tarantino's Death Proof — and gave them individual releases when they landed on DVD. Though I loved Rodriguez's contribution, Tarantino's half left me disappointed. Why? Because Death Proof is a long-winded, self-indulgent snoozefest that, in spite of a handful of great elements and moments, is really just one big sour note.

"Jungle Julia" Lucai (Sydney Tamiia Poitier) is the hottest DJ in all of Austin, Texas. And to celebrate her birthday, Julia and two friends, Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito) and Shanna (Jordan Ladd), are hitting the town. They spend the day and night at a bar, getting drunk out of their minds, rebuffing the advances of some overeager frat boys, and exchanging catty remarks with Pam (Rose McGowan), a childhood rival of Julia's. But what they don't know is that they're all being studied from afar by a guy who identifies himself as Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), a scarred Hollywood stunt double. Though he's a bit off-putting, Stuntman Mike charms the four girls, spending the evening flirting with them and having some fun.

The night goes on and everyone begins to go their separate ways. Julia, Arlene, and Shanna catch a ride with Julia's pot dealer Lanna Frank (Monica Staggs), while Stuntman Mike offers Pam a ride home. Now this is where the real fun begins. It turns out that Stuntman Mike's customized muscle car is "death proof," allowing him to crash into a brick wall at 100 miles an hour and walk away. Unfortunately for all five girls, surviving only happens if you're in the driver's seat of his car. Before long, Stuntman Mike has killed Pam, then takes out the other four in a violent car crash.

Fast forward fourteen months later to Franklin, Tennessee. It is here that we are introduced to a new group of girls: Abernathy (Rosario Dawson), Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and Kim (Tracie Thoms). With a few days off from the set of a movie they're working on, they decide they're going to have a little fun around town. They pick up a friend, Zoë Bell (playing herself), at the airport, and hit up a local diner. It is here that Zoë informs the others that she's heard about someone selling a 1970 Dodge Challenger in the area. Turns out it's a nearly exact replica of the car from her favorite movie, Vanishing Point, and she wants to test drive it.

But once they get behind the wheel, Zoë reveals her true intentions. The truth of the matter is that she didn't want to just test drive the car; she wants to use it to play a dangerous game called "ship's mast," where someone hangs onto the hood of a car while someone else drives it at high speeds. Though skittish about it, her friends agree to play along. Zoë's a trained stuntwoman, what could go wrong? Lots of things, but one in particular. Stuntman Mike has been following the girls, and chooses this moment of vulnerability to strike, chasing them through the hills of Tennessee. But little does Stuntman Mike know that his prey are no ordinary victims, nor does he know just how vicious they will be when they strike back. 

Death Proof is a shining example of what wasted potential looks like. The movie has some elements that could make it great, but its flaws are too great to overcome. What really grinds my gears about Death Proof is that, prior to it being released theatrically, I kept hearing that it was supposed to be a slasher movie. I don't know what movie the guys taking care of Grindhouse's promotional material were watching, but Death Proof isn't like any slasher movie I've ever seen. It isn't even like any horror movie I've ever seen. Had Tarantino followed the typical slasher movie formula, it might have been a damn good movie. But no, he had to go and ignore the tried and true formula that worked for hundreds of movies during the '80s. The result? Tarantino's made perhaps the worst movie of his career. And that's terrible.

Tarantino has never really been the most technically savvy director. He usually has the camera stuck somewhere and lets the actors do their thing. He got a little braver with Kill Bill, and continues that with Death Proof. He even does all the cinematography too, and his work is actually pretty killer. The movie looks really good, with some great camera shots and a real sense of energy during the key scenes.

There is one weird thing I picked up, though. Part of Grindhouse's gimmick is the idea that the film prints were going to look damaged, full of blemishes, choppy editing, and general wear and tear. And that's what's in the first half. It's not to the extreme that Planet Terror takes it to, but it's there to an acceptable degree. But once we move to Death Proof's second half, that all changes. Except for two very brief instances, the gimmick all but disappears with no explanation. At least, no explanation that I could find. Why drop the gimmick for no reason halfway through the movie? Even if it served no purpose, at least it could have been kept there for consistency.

But while I otherwise liked Tarantino's work as the director, it's his script that really grinds my gears. Seriously, this has to be one of the most poorly-written movies I've ever seen. There's nothing resembling any sort of structure or anything like that. It's like Tarantino just sat down and wrote everything that came to mind, then cobbled it all together and called it a script. There's no development at all, neither with the characters or the plot. It's pitiful. The characters sit around and have conversations that go absolutely nowhere, which goes on for about an hour before Stuntman Mike shows up and attacks them. For all they're worth, Tarantino could have spent two hours filming a sign saying "please go see Vanishing Point and Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry," and it would have accomplished the exact same thing.

Seriously, these extensive talking scenes contribute utterly nothing at all to the movie. You think I'm kidding? I'll point to two examples. One is in the first half, where they spend five minutes setting up that Jungle Julia has pulled a prank on Arlene, with the punchline showing up later in the movie. This five-minute scene could have been cut down to two, but at least the punchline helps establish Stuntman Mike as an even creepier weirdo than we already see him as.

Heck, the whole first half is just people sitting around talking, not doing anything to push the movie forward whatsoever. It gets worse, though. In the second half, there are two scenes that run a grand total of fifteen minutes, just to establish that Zoë Bell wants to drive a particular car. Fifteen minutes just to set up the car! They could have done this in a ninety-second scene where Zoë shows up in the car and says she rented it at the airport when she got into town. Simple as that!

To tell you the truth, the second half just might be worse than the first, because although the characters in the first half are thoroughly unlikable, the characters in the second half are just rotten people in general. Specifically, look at how quickly the girls decide to kill Stuntman Mike. The audience knows he's a serial killer, but do the girls? No, they don't. They just think he's some whackjob that tried to run them off the road while they were in the middle of playing an incredibly stupid game. They shoot at him and chase him away, which you'd think would be enough. But do they report him to the police? No, he's got to die! That's a pretty strong reaction to some loony that rammed your car, isn't it?

If Tarantino had made a regular slasher movie by having Stuntman Mike pick them off one by one over the course of the movie, then it would have been okay. But for them to randomly decide to murder someone in a fit of road rage simply makes the characters look like really awful people. And it didn't hit me until now, but with some psycho ramming their car at 100 miles an hour with their friend hanging for dear life onto the hood of the car, wouldn't it have been common sense to try and pull over so their friend could get to the relative safety of the vehicle's interior?

And then there's the cast, a mixed bag of decent and downright bad performances. Among the first half's featured players, Vanessa Fertillo is the only member of Jungle Julia's posse that I didn't want to smack upside the head, while Rose McGowan hands in a very amiable, charismatic performance. Tarantino also shows up as a bartender and is quite funny, while Eli Roth, who plays a frat boy trying to pick up Jordan Ladd's character, should never act again. Moving on to the second half, Rosario Dawson is the most talented actress amongst the four would-be victims, and her performance is as good as you'd expect from her. I also liked Mary Elizabeth Winstead's sweet performance, though her character drops off the face of the earth after a couple of scenes.

And I know I called out Eli Roth's bad performance, but it's nowhere near as bad as Tracie Thoms's. I'm not sure if I've ever seen her in anything else, but after seeing Death Proof, I don't want to. She is horrendously awful, one of the most dreadful performances I've ever had the misfortune of watching. Thoms's performance is repellant from start to finish, which isn't helped by the fact that her dialogue primarily consists of profanities, sexual references, and a particular racial slur. If I never see her in another movie, I'll be set for life.

However, all the bad performances make Kurt Russell's performance look even better. Go watch Death Proof, and I'm sure you'll agree that he's absolutely awesome. Though he starts off as just an off-putting weirdo, his transformation into an utter madman — and then into a simpering wuss once he realizes he's not in control — really makes the movie. Russell is, without a doubt, the best part of Death Proof, and is probably the only reason you should watch it.

What I'd like to know is how this movie has people defending it. Not just defending it, but saying it's some of Quentin Tarantino's best work! It's one thing to like it, but to actually say that it's a good movie is preposterous. Are the people defending Death Proof just über-devoted Tarantino fans that simply can't admit when he's made a bad movie? I mean, it's perfectly okay for Tarantino to make a bad movie once in a while. It happens to everybody. Take Grindhouse's co-director Robert Rodriguez, for example. From Dusk Till Dawn and Sin City were fantastic, but just because those movies are good doesn't mean that The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D is good too. Does it?

You know, I actually have an idea that could have improved Death Proof, at least in my eyes. There's a scene between the first and second halves where the police figure out that Stuntman Mike is a killer, but can't arrest him on a technicality. What would have been great is if they'd had one rogue cop hunting Stuntman Mike down, kinda like Dennis Hopper's character in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. That would have been an awesome second half, but no, that might have made the movie pretty good. Instead, we get this piece of crap. One awesome character and a great car chase just can't save Death Proof from me giving it two stars. What a disappointment.

Final Rating: **

Grindhouse (2007)

Of all the different styles of filmmaking out there, one of the most broad yet oft-neglected is the exploitation film. Popularized in the '60s and '70s, exploitation movies were low-rent affairs that, due to their inability to produce a big-budget blockbuster or even afford a cast or crew with anything resembling talent, served as something of a counterculture movement by attempting to give viewers something they more than likely wouldn't get out of mainstream movies, whether it be through graphic violence, lots of sexuality, or something shocking to grab your attention. These B-movies — covering nearly every possible genre you could think of — would often travel from theater to theater, the prints getting worn out, beaten up, and abused while being screened as double or triple features at drive-ins or sleazy urban theaters known as "grindhouses."

Though while exploitation movies and the grindhouse experience have been turned into ancient history due to a variety of factors (e.g. theaters shutting down, the rise of the home video market, etc.), many cinephiles still show plenty of affection towards the movies of that era. Perhaps the most notable of these fans are cult directors Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, who teamed up to create Grindhouse, a loving homage to the double features that have gained their adoration. With each directing their own over-the-top B-movie and bridging them with fake movie trailers directed by Rob Zombie, Edgar Wright, and Eli Roth, Rodriguez and Tarantino's modern-day double feature makes for one of the most entertaining theatrical experiences in years.

First up is Rodriguez's segment, Planet Terror. When a deal between a mad scientist and a shady military platoon goes bad, a noxious green gas ends up being released into a nearby town. And needless to say, that causes a pretty big problem. This gas ends up transforming most of the town's citizens into deformed, bloodthirsty zombies. A ragtag group of survivors, led by one-legged go-go dancer Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan) and mysterious criminal El Wray (Freddy Rodriguez), are forced to band together and fight for survival against the infected horde.

The second half of the movie is Tarantino's contribution, Death Proof. It focuses on Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), a misogynistic stuntman who is the proud owner of a "death proof" muscle car. While that might sound cool, the car is actually a tool with which he stalks and kills young women. Stuntman Mike has chosen his next victims, but they're no ordinary prey. Little does he know how vicious they'll be when they decide to stand up for themselves.

Though it was released to much fanfare, Grindhouse was a tremendous failure at the box office, pulling in less than half of its budget. The fact that the movie flopped is a little disheartening, but I can't say that it's really all that surprising. Exploitation movies and double features are completely foreign concepts to the general public nowadays, and if nobody "gets it," they're not going to see it. Only nerds like me really bought into the whole aura, and since a movie specifically for people such as myself to enjoy doesn't guarantee any sort of financial success, that's probably why it bombed like it did.

It's a shame, though, because Grindhouse is some of the most fun I've had in a movie theater in quite a long time. The whole thing looks like the film prints got into a fight with a batch of steel wool, certain actors show up in more than one segment (to the point that it almost becomes grounds for creating a drinking game), and entire scenes are missing in some instances. Grindhouse utilizes its gimmick to the fullest extent, and makes for one fun (if not a little long) time at the movies.

It's really hard to break Grindhouse down into specific things to talk about, because it's so much more than the sum of its parts. But oh, what parts they are. I guess I'll have to begin with Planet Terror, since that's what starts the movie in the first place. Planet Terror is the far superior half of Grindhouse, constantly up in your face with a frenetic, high-octane intensity that doesn't let up. It works largely as a satire of exploitation movies, operating with its tongue planted firmly in cheek as it riffs on as many clichés as it can.

Robert Rodriguez is obviously having fun in creating the ultimate B-movie; there are far too many over-the-top scenes and moments to mention, and he pushes Grindhouse's gimmick as far as he can. As such, Planet Terror looks scratched and grainy, as if the print had been shown by an untold amount of projectionists who were willing to take a few liberties with it while it was in their possession. This is especially noticeable during the movie's lone sex scene, which leads to a gag that is absolutely hilarious every time I see it.

Planet Terror also features fantastic makeup effects handled by KNB Effects (the makeup is almost too good, actually), as well as some great music composed by Rodriguez. The movie's music hearkens back to the awesome music featured in John Carpenter's early movies, which adds to the movie's effectiveness. And we can't forget the cast, who look like they're having just as much fun as their director. Rose McGowan is the biggest standout amongst them, with Freddy Rodriguez, Marley Shelton, Josh Brolin, and Michael Biehn chipping in fun performances as well.

However, I didn't believe the second half of Grindhouse held up as well. Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof is, as I said before, the lesser half of Grindhouse. But I'd even go as far to say that it's the weakest movie that Tarantino has directed thus far. The really odd thing about it is that if Grindhouse is a double feature, then Death Proof is a double feature within a double feature. It is practically two different movies with two different casts, with only the Stuntman Mike character to link them. Both the first and second halves of Death Proof feature a group of girls who are terrorized by Stuntman Mike, though with vastly different results.

However, while the tales of the two groups of girls end differently, there are many similarities between them as well. The endings of both of them are great, but there's way, way, way too much talking. I know Tarantino likes to have boatloads of dialogue in his movies, but come on now. This is bordering on excessive. I wouldn't be complaining if the dialogue actually contributed to the plot or something like that, but outside of establishing Stuntman Mike as one of the creepiest guys ever, none of it really goes anywhere. If the scenes featuring Stuntman Mike weren't so darn great, I'd give up on Death Proof altogether.

Before Grindhouse was released, I kept hearing about how Death Proof was supposed to be a slasher movie in which the killer used his car instead of a knife. Unfortunately, I don't know if I'd call that completely accurate. Sure, I'll concede that a typical slasher movie features plenty of scenes with useless talking, but they at least spice things up by featuring some killing every five or ten minutes. But with Death Proof, you have to wait... and wait... and wait... before anything really menacing begins to happen. I thought Tarantino was supposed to be making an exploitation movie, not a half-assed version of the movies he usually makes. It doesn't even seem like he was bothering to try. He uses the "missing reel" gag, but it isn't as funny as it was in "Planet Terror," and even the appearances of making the movie worn out — the scratches, the blemishes, the jarring jump cuts — is dropped halfway through. Why do it halfway? It should have been either all or nothing.

Now I guess I shouldn't rag on "Death Proof" so much. There are actually some elements that I liked. Though Tarantino's script is weak in regards to just about everything that doesn't involve Stuntman Mike, he makes up for it with some good direction, a fantastic soundtrack (as usual), an awesome car chase that runs nearly twenty minutes, and a cast that does a pretty decent job. Well, some of the cast does well. Vanessa Fertillo is the only member of the initial group of girls that I didn't want to smack upside the head, while Rose McGowan also turns up in the first half and hands in a very amiable performance. Amongst the men that's how up, Tarantino himself is quite funny, but Eli Roth should never act again.

In the second group of girls, three of them aren't too bad at all. Rosario Dawson is the most talented of them, and her performance is as good as you'd expect from her. Mary Elizabeth Winstead isn't around for long and is practically a non-factor, but she's likable when she's on-screen. Zoë Bell, meanwhile, delivers the most surprising performance. Known more as a stuntwoman than as an actress, Bell is charming in her role, and I wouldn't be surprised if she shows up in more of Tarantino's movies in the future.

I already called out Eli Roth's bad performance, but his crappiness is far eclipsed by Tracie Thoms. She turns in one of the most annoyingly dreadful performances that I've ever had the misfortune of watching in a movie theater. Her dialogue is mostly comprised of profanities and a particular racial slur (the one that rhymes with "digger"), which would be bad enough if Thoms's acting wasn't so utterly repellant. If I never see her in another movie, I'll be set for life.

But of the Death Proof cast (and of the Grindhouse cast as a whole, really), the absolute best performance comes from Kurt Russell. Go watch Death Proof and try telling me that he isn't awesome. Though he starts off being just creepy, he transforms into an utter madman that completely makes the movie. Russell is this flick's greatest asset, and I hope his performance here gets him cast as more villains down the line.

And I'd be remiss if I talked about Grindhouse and failed to mention the four mock trailers. Rodriguez's Machete (a "Mexploitation" action movie featuring Danny Trejo and Cheech Marin) opens Grindhouse, while Rob Zombie's Werewolf Women of the SS (the title says it all), Edgar Wright's Don't (a pastiche of British horror in general), and Eli Roth's Thanksgiving (a stereotypical holiday-oriented slasher movie) play during the intermission.

All of them are fantastic, with Thanksgiving particularly standing out for me. How sad is it that an 85-second preview for a non-existent movie is better than all of Roth's feature-length movie's combined? I also have to give Zombie props for the bit of inspired lunacy that is Nicolas Cage's cameo in Werewolf Women of the SS. I swear, I'd go see Werewolf Women of the SS a million times if it were turned into a real movie, just for Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu.

Now I understand that I expressed displeasure with Death Proof, but as a whole, Grindhouse is fantastic. With the damaged, world-weary look, incredulous plots, a high amount of violence, and a three-hour running time, Grindhouse is most definitely an experience that is not for everybody. For those of you who would be into this sort of thing, this would definitely be something up your alley. I'm planning individual reviews of Planet Terror and Death Proof very soon, but when viewing them as originally intended, I'll gladly give Grindhouse four stars and a proud seal of approval.

Final Rating: ****

Jackie Brown (1997)

The runaway success of Pulp Fiction in the autumn of 1994 rocketed Quentin Tarantino to stardom, earning him the Cannes Film Festival's highest honors, an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, and a reputation as one of the most imaginative writer/directors in Hollywood. However, as the buzz surrounding his sophomore project cooled, Tarantino spent the next few years on other projects. He wrote and directed a segment of the 1995 comedic anthology Four Rooms, then wrote and starred in the awesome 1996 vampire film From Dusk Till Dawn.

He returned to the director's chair in 1997 for his third feature-length film, a loose adaptation of Elmore Lenard's novel Rum Punch that Tarantino titled Jackie Brown. An homage to the blaxploitation films of the 1970s, Jackie Brown is a solid movie that, although it isn't as famous as some of Tarantino's other work, is a fantastic film worth watching.

Our story primarily follows Jackie Brown (Pam Grier), a flight attendant for a crappy Mexican airline. Though the job is awful and the pay is meager, it allows her to smuggle money into the United States for gun runner Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson). Ordell has attracted the attention of the ATF, who've recently arrested one of his employees, Beaumont Livingston (Chris Tucker). Working on a tip from Beaumont, ATF agent Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and local cop Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen) catch Jackie as she arrives in Los Angeles with Ordell's latest shipment of funds. Initially refusing to deal with the agents, Jackie gets sent to jail pending trial.

Ordell, having already disposed of Beaumont after bailing out of jail, fears that Jackie too may be inclined to talk to the ATF like Beaumont did. He contacts Max Cherry (Robert Forster), the bail bondsman who arranged for Beaumont's release, and convinces him to bail Jackie out too. Max gets her out, and is smitten as soon as he lays eyes on her. He offers a ride home, and on the way to her house, offers to help determine her legal options. Jackie isn't home long before Ordell shows up at her house to silence her, but she gets the drop on him. She pulls a gun that she stole from the glove compartment of Max's car, and cuts a deal where she'll pretend to help the ATF while still managing to smuggle half a million dollars to Ordell.

To accomplish this, Ordell employs a few others, mainly ditzy stoner Melanie Ralston (Bridget Fonda) and Louis Gara (Robert De Niro), a bank robber recently released from prison. Nicolette organizes a sting to catch Ordell, though Ordell believes that Jackie will double-cross him by diverting the money before he can make an arrest. But unknown to any of them, Jackie plans on keeping the money for herself with a little help from Max. Everyone has their eye on that 500,000 dollars, but only Jackie knows how it's going down.

That synopsis may look relatively simple, but the movie is a complicated one. Fail to pay attention, and you'll probably get a little lost. But that's the beauty of Jackie Brown. It's hard to avoid getting pulled into the movie. It's a shame that it is, for all intents and purposes, the forgotten movie on Quentin Tarantino's résumé, because it's a fascinating watch. There are no wasted moments with Jackie Brown; everything serves to either develop the characters or move the plot forward. It's fascinating to watch where things go and how they're getting here.

Tarantino's direction, as always, is fantastic. Though his technique in this particular flick is no different than anything you'd see in any of his other movies, he at one point utilizes a technique straight out Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon. Instead of following one important sequence through one point of view, we see from three. Though I'm not sure how much of this was necessitated by the plot, it's intriguing to see just how this scene is perceived from each party involved. I don't really know if I'd call it an innovation or anything like that, but it's still pretty neat.

Where Tarantino really succeeds, however, is his screenplay. I haven't read Rum Punch so I can't vouch for any similarities or dissimilarities between the book and Jackie Brown, but the script once again shows Tarantino's knack for writing dialogue. However, it differs from his usual style because of its mostly straightforward narrative that isn't as frenetic as we would come to expect from him. It's a rare move on Tarantino's part, but he still manages to keep his audience guessing. He's successful in including plenty of twists and turns, making us wonder just how things will turn out until it's all revealed in the grand finale. So I guess it's a variation of a typical Tarantino theme: making sure we never really know how we're getting from Point A to Point B until we actually get there.

Let's not forget the cast, either. Nearly everyone puts forth an amazing showing. In the title role, Pam Grier is absolutely superb. She displays the strength that made her characters from Foxy Brown and Coffy so memorable, yet makes Jackie Brown distinguishable from those two by giving Jackie a certain vulnerability as well. She really makes you care about Jackie; she makes you believe that she could amount to more than just a washed-up stewardess on some crappy airline. Meanwhile, Samuel L. Jackson is, as always, fantastic as the swaggering arms dealer that talks a good game and tries backing it up.

Michael Keaton is fine as the trusting ATF agent, and Robert De Niro and Bridget Fonda are both acceptable as the dimwitted duo that backs up Ordell. Not to make any accusations, but I think Fonda is only in the movie to satisfy Quentin Tarantino's foot fetish. Seriously, Reservoir Dogs is the only one of Tarantino's movies that doesn't have a close-up of the bare feet of one of his actresses. The guy likes what he likes and I won't knock him for that, but come on, Quentin. Not everybody's into feet, dude. Could you cool it in your next movie?

But perhaps the most surprising performance comes from Robert Forster, who earned an Oscar nomination for his appearance here. The majority of the characters that Tarantino has created over the years have been either irredeemable scumbags or over-the-top people that wouldn't exist in the real world. But Forster's character is different. You could believe that someone like Max Cherry exists, both due to how Tarantino has written him and how Forster portrays him. Forster gives Max a heart and soul while having an extremely amiable and believable chemistry with Grier, and I'll say he deserved that Oscar nomination.

And I'd be remiss if I neglected the excellent soundtrack Tarantino has put together. The soundtracks for each of his movies are great, and this compilation of '70s R&B and soul is no different. The opening title sequence alone, set to Bobby Womack's theme song for the 1972 movie Across 110th Street, was enough to sell me on the music. But there are so many wonderful songs in the movie, it's hard not to find at least one song to like. The only exception to that is "(Holy Matrimony) Letter to the Firm" by rapper Foxy Brown. This song is really out of place when compared to the rest of the music, and I think the only reason Tarantino uses it at all is because Foxy Brown's stage name was inspired by a certain movie starring Pam Grier.

Of all the movies Quentin Tarantino has directed over the years, Jackie Brown is the only one that feels like it could take place in the real world. Maybe that's why it's his most underrated piece of work. Everyone is used to Tarantino giving us characters and situations that are bigger than life, but everyone and everything in Jackie Brown could truly exist. It might be what makes it so underrated, but it might also be what makes it such an entertaining film.

Final Rating: ****

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Way back in 1991, a video store clerk from California wrote and directed his first movie. The movie was the talk of the Sundance Film Festival, it became a cult classic after its 1992 theatrical release, and it made its director one of the hottest underground filmmakers in Hollywood. That director is Quentin Tarantino, and that movie is Reservoir Dogs.

The movie opens on a nondescript diner, with our main characters finishing breakfast and discussing pop music. One analyzes Madonna's "Like A Virgin," claiming that it was all about a sexual veteran who hooks up with a well-endowed man. Another, totally oblivious to the conversation at hand, flips through an old address book trying to put a face to one of the names inside. This quick opening scene introduces us to our cast, then leads into the story itself. Through a series of flashbacks, we get to know Mr. White (Harvey Keitel), Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi), Mr. Blue (Eddie Bunker), and Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino).

The six total strangers have been hired by Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney) and his son "Nice Guy Eddie" (Chris Penn) to steal a shipment of diamonds from a local jewelry store. Each have been given their odd codenames with the intention of nobody knowing anyone else's real identity. That way, if any of the thieves are arrested, they'll be unable to implicate their accomplices.

The flashbacks help to fill in the gaps in the main story. From the dialogue, we learn that the diamond heist went bad. An employee pulled the alarm, Blonde started shooting random people, and the cops were on the scene before anyone had time to blink. We learn that Brown is dead from a gunshot to the head, nobody knows what happened to Blue, Pink stashed the diamonds in a safe hiding place, and Orange took a nasty shot to the stomach and has passed out on the floor of an abandoned warehouse that serves as the group's rendezvous point. Pink theorizes that the police had the jewelry store staked out, and that a member of the group is actually an undercover cop. As Pink, White, and Blonde look back at the events that transpired, it becomes more and more evident that Pink's theory just might be right. But which of the six was the mole?

A quasi-remake of one of Tarantino's favorite movies (City on Fire, a 1987 movie from Hong Kong starring Chow Yun-Fat), Reservoir Dogs is the kind of movie that might take multiple viewings to completely get what's going on. That's how it is with most Tarantino movies, so if you're unfamiliar with his work and decide to go rent his movies after reading this review, be warned. Tarantino's trademark out-of-sequence scenes actually help to further the plot here, because if we'd seen them in order, the entire context of the movie would have been changed. The movie would have gone from a "whodunit" to a "when will they find out" movie.

Tarantino's script is well-crafted, yet the characters don't do a whole lot besides stand around and talk. The script's dialogue and character development are frequently entertaining, though those offended by excessive profanity will be turned off. And although it isn't apparent on first viewing, or even on second viewing, Tarantino uses the opening scene in the diner to firmly establish our characters. Mr. White butts heads with Joe, at which point Mr. Blonde offers to shoot White for him. Mr. Pink protests when the others say he should leave a tip for the waitress, after he stubbornly refuses to leave one. Mr. Orange squeals on Mr. Pink when Joe notices the tip is short. Nice Guy Eddie establishes himself as a daddy's boy. All of these characteristics are reprised over the course of the movie. But the idea here is that except for Joe and Mr. Blonde, all of the characters are bluffing. They act tough, but aren't exactly great at handling themselves in desperate situations. The majority of the movie features the group panicking and jumping to conclusions.

The script is supported by the stellar cast. Having a small cast means that those involved have to work harder, and the cast does that and more. Michael Madsen, Harvey Keitel, and Steve Buscemi carry the entire movie on their shoulders. Buscemi is hilarious as the paranoid Mr. Pink, Madsen is both humorous and disturbing as the calm-yet-psycho Mr. Blonde, and Keitel is strong as Mr. White. Having Keitel in a crime drama should be a license to print money, because he's awesome here. Tim Roth is fine as the apprehensive Mr. Orange, and is really good in the scenes that don't require him to be unconscious and covered in blood. Also noteworthy are Lawrence Tierney and Chris Penn, though they don't exactly drive the movie or anything.

Along with the profanity-laden dialogue, people may also may be turned off by the violence. While the majority of the violence is implied, the idea of such carnage is enough to make squeamish members of the audience squirm. Meanwhile, I loved the soundtrack as well. Punctuated by a mock '70s rock station featuring deadpan comedian Stephen Wright as the DJ, the movie has some of the most memorable use of music I've ever seen. Michael Madsen's big scene, in which he tortures a police officer while "Stuck In The Middle With You" by Stealer's Wheel plays on the radio, is proof enough of that.

Reservoir Dogs is, for all intents and purposes, a low-budget B-movie that viewers will either like or hate. While his work improved with his subsequent movies, It is most definitely fun, though, and it was a great debut for Quentin Tarantino. If you claim to be a Tarantino fan and have yet to see Reservoir Dogs, you owe it to yourself to at least run out and rent a copy of it right now. I'm sure you won't be let down.

Final Rating: ***½

Kill Bill: Volume Two (2004)

We've all seen movies that end in cliffhangers, endings that are essentially advertisements for the next chapter. It happened with the second and third installments of the Back to the Future and Matrix trilogies, and it happened with Quentin Tarantino's would-be epic Kill Bill.

While the Back to the Future and Matrix cliffhangers were intended to be two separate movies from the start, Kill Bill was different. Believing that nobody would want to sit through a four-hour movie, Miramax had Tarantino chop Kill Bill in half, leaving us with Kill Bill: Volume One and Kill Bill: Volume Two. I've already reviewed Volume One, so let's get to Volume Two.

In Volume One, we learn that a group of assassins had crashed a wedding, killing everyone but the pregnant bride (Uma Thurman), who was left in a coma. She awakens four years later, missing her baby and swearing revenge on the five people who attempted to take her life. The bride crossed two names off her hit list in Volume One, and in Volume Two, she hunts the other three: Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), Budd (Michael Madsen), and her main target, Bill (David Carradine).

Along with the bride's vengeance, we're also treated to the back story. Via flashbacks, we see what exactly took place at the wedding four years earlier. We also see how the bride prepared for her life as a mercenary-for hire, as Bill delivers her to Pai Mei (Gordon Liu), a harsh sensei who hates white people, Americans, and women. Flashbacks also show us how Elle lost her eye, and how and why the bride decided to abandon her life as an assassin.

Like I mentioned in my review for Volume One, Quentin Tarantino once said Volume One was "kill, kill, kill," and Volume Two was "Bill, Bill, Bill." He was right. While Volume One features two hours of action and violence, Volume Two centers around the intricacies of the relationship between Bill and the bride (whose real name we learn during Volume Two). Despite being one long epic, the two volumes are quite different. Volume One is a high-speed kung fu flick, while Volume Two is a slow-moving spaghetti western, reminiscent of the work of Sergio Leone. In fact, some musical cues from Leone's classic A Fistful of Dollars appear in Volume Two.

While I didn't care too much for Volume Two at first, since I hadn't admittedly seen Volume One yet, it's to grow on me to the point where I actually prefer Volume Two. First off, I really liked the cast, and the way they portrayed their characters. Uma Thurman and David Carradine were absolutely brilliant as the revenge-fueled bride and her intended target Bill, while Daryl Hannah was good as Elle Driver and I really liked Michael Madsen as Budd. The fight choreography is also good, despite the small amount of actual fights.

The final confrontation between the bride and Elle is a sight to behold, as the two practically tear down Budd's run-down shanty of a trailer. I also thought The RZA's score for Volume Two was quite possibly better than Volume One's. No stranger to the "karate western" genre (having scored Forest Whitaker's 1999 movie Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai), The RZA's score gives the movie the same epic feel as Volume One.

Finally, Tarantino's direction is still wonderful. A sequence in which Budd buries the bride alive is proof of that. Tarantino plays with various styles in the scene, switching between black-and-white and color. He also plays up the claustrophobic confines of the bride's casket, shrinking the screen down from the 2.35:1 widescreen aspect ratio to a smaller 4:3 ratio. Tarantino's script is also excellent. Budd giving the bride the choice of either a flashlight or a shot of Mace is both cringe-worthy and humorous, while a scene where Elle details the dangers of black mamba snakes is wickedly funny. Tarantino's crowning achievement in the dialogue department comes near the end of the movie, when Bill gives his comic book monologue.

When I first saw Volume Two, I probably would have given it three stars on my usual scale. But after having time to ruminate on it, I'll go ahead and give it four stars. However, it should be watched back-to-back with Volume One, or it doesn't have the proper impact that it should. As I said in my review for Volume One, I hope that Miramax will eventually release Kill Bill in its full uncut form. But until them, Kill Bill will be two excellent films instead of one.

Final Rating: ****

Kill Bill: Volume One (2003)

A film's quality can be drastically altered by the enthusiasm of its participants. For example, a movie like Evil Dead 2 might only be sub-par if it weren't for the dedication of those involved both in front of and behind the camera. Such is the case with Quentin Tarantino's energetic homage to spaghetti westerns and '70s kung-fu flicks, Kill Bill. Originally clocking in at somewhere in the neighborhood of four hours, Miramax had Kill Bill halved during post-production, and the results were Kill Bill: Volume One and Kill Bill: Volume Two. Two separate films, released with a six-month interim. This review's gonna cover Volume One, so let's get cracking.

In Volume One, the story is exquisitely simple. When a pregnant female assassin (Uma Thurman) decides to leave her team of fellow mercenaries-for-hire, the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad (or "DiVAS" for short), in order to get married and start a new life, her former crew shows up at the wedding rehearsal and takes out everyone there, including the bride herself. Fortunately for her but unfortunately for her attackers, the bride lives, but remains in a coma.

She awakens four years later, only to discover her child is gone and that a nurse at the hospital (Michael Bowen) has been pimping her comatose body to his friends for 75 bucks a go. She kills the nurse and his latest client, then heads to Japan to meet a legendary maker of swords, Hattoro Hanzi (Sonny Chiba). The bride convinces the long-retired Hanzi to craft her a sword because she has "vermin" to kill, and sets forth with her Hattoro Hanzi steel on a quest to get revenge on the DiVAS and their leader, Bill (David Carradine). Volume One follows the bride as she hunts down the first two names on her hit list: Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu).

In an interview, Quentin Tarantino described Volume One as "kill, kill, kill" and Volume Two is "Bill, Bill, Bill." I think that's a pretty accurate description, because Volume One is all about the action. Since Volume One's share of the plot is so simple (the bride shows up and kills people), it can concentrate entirely on the bride exacting her bloody vengeance on those who tried to kill her. It's a fast-paced, visceral kung-fu movie, no bones about it.

Even though most of the cast doesn't really get to do anything until Volume Two, the acting in Volume One isn't bad at all. Though she spends most of the movie fighting, Uma Thurman is great in the scenes in which she actually gets to play a character. I also really liked Lucy Liu as O-Ren. There should be more "former teenage assassins that become patronizing yakuza bosses that will decapitate you for questioning her" in movies.

Meanwhile, the fight scenes were really enjoyable. The choreography is just mind-blowing, so thumbs up to the stunt guys that put them together. The opening fight between the bride and Vernita is good, yet was improved on in the bride's awesome climactic fights with O-Ren and Gogo Yubari (played by Chiaki Kuriyama).

I also really enjoyed the massive fight with the Crazy 88s, yet I disliked the fact that most of it was in black and white. Even though it worked as a form of censorship (screw you, MPAA!), it also served as an homage to the censorship done when bloody kung-fu movies used to air on television. I personally feel it was an homage that could have been done without. Considering the almost cartoonish nature of the Crazy 88s fight, the MPAA should have allowed at least the majority of the scene to slide. The most graphic violence was animated anyway (the bride's anime-style story about O-Ren's life), so maybe the MPAA should lighten up.

Speaking of the Crazy 88's fight, the makeup effects by KNB EFX are brilliant. I've long been a fan of KNB and their work, and they didn't let me down in Volume One. The score (composed by Wu-Tang Clan member The RZA) is also great, with an oriental sound that enhances the movie in a fine way. Finally, Tarantino's direction is the definition of wonderful. He crafts both volumes in a way that even viewers that aren't fans of the genres that Kill Bill fall into will probably find something enjoyable. All of Tarantino's films are enhanced by their enthusiastic director, and the two volumes of Kill Bill are no exception. Tarantino is probably the biggest movie geek in Hollywood, and the movies he makes obviously show that.

Even though it's the first half of one long film, Volume One is absolutely wonderful as a stand-alone movie. The cast's enthusiastic charm and Tarantino's creativity work wonders, so I'll give Kill Bill: Volume One four stars. While better viewed back-to-back with Volume Two, it's still a good movie that should be seen. My only hope is that one day, Miramax will release both volumes edited back together as they were meant to be seen.

Final Rating: ****

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Q: What do two hitmen, a mob boss and his cocaine-fuled wife, a glowing briefcase, a down-on-his-luck boxer, S&M freaks, dead body cleanup, and a wristwatch have in common?

A: Quentin Tarantino's sophomore project, Pulp Fiction.

After scoring a cult hit in 1992 with Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction would go on to win the coveted Palme d'Or award at the Cannes Film Festival, get a bunch of Oscar nominations (including a nomination for Best Picture), and be one of the most celebrated films of the decade. It's one of the most important and influential movies of the 1990s, but is its reputation more hot air than anything?

The film's plot is actually three interweaving stories that follow a related cast of characters in Los Angeles over the course of a few days. The first story, titled "Vincent Vega & Marsellus Wallace's Wife," begins with Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), a pair of hitmen discussing Vincent's recent visit to Amsterdam while heading to an apartment to acquire a briefcase for their boss, Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames).

After getting the briefcase and dispatching the guys in the apartment, the story proper begins. It centers around Vincent, who has been asked to show Marsellus's wife Mia (Uma Thurman) a good time while he heads out of town on business. Vincent is understandably nervous, as Jules had told him a story about Marsellus throwing a man from a four-story balcony for merely massaging Mia's feet. Throw in a dance competition at a '50s nostalgia café, Mia mistaking Vincent's stash of heroin for cocaine, and Vincent arguing with his drug dealer (Eric Stoltz) over how to save someone in the middle of a drug overdose, and you've got story one.

The second story, "The Gold Watch," centers around Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), a washed-up boxer that's been ordered to throw a fight by Marsellus. However, Butch decides that he's going to win instead. And win he does, to the point that his opponent actually dies in the center of the ring. Butch, fearing the consequences of both killing his opponent and going against Marsellus's wishes, flees the arena and escapes to a hotel with his airhead French girlfriend Fabienne (Marie de Medeiros).

The next morning, Butch awakens to discover that Fabienne left his prized gold watch, his only memento of his late father, at their apartment. He sneaks back to the apartment, retrieves the watch after a quick shootout with one of Marsellus's goons, then heads back to the hotel. Along the way, he ends up coming face-to-face with Marsellus, and the two brawl into a pawn shop. They couldn't have picked a worse place to fight, because it's at the pawn shop where they encounter two redneck rapists and an S&M freak known only as "The Gimp."

Story three, "The Bonnie Situation," follows, showing what happened between Jules and Vincent retrieving the briefcase and Vincent's ordeal with Mia. They kill the guys in the apartment, pick up the briefcase and Marvin (Phil LaMarr), their informant, then go to meet Marsellus. Unfortunately for Vincent and Jules and very unfortunately for Marvin, Vincent's gun goes off and splatters Marvin's head all over the rear windshield. Vincent and Jules panic, seeking help from Jimmie Demmick (Quentin Tarantino), a former employee of Marsellus that has gotten out of the business.

Jimmie isn't too thrilled with the idea of Jules and Vincent showing up at his house with a dead body, so he pressures them to leave before his wife Bonnie gets home. A few phone calls are made, and Winston Wolf (Harvey Keitel) arrives at Jimmie's front door to handle the problem. He instructs Jules and Vincent to clean up the inside of the car, makes a few phone calls, and gets a junkyard to demolish the car (with Marvin in the trunk for good measure) for them. After getting things settled, the two hitmen head to a nearby café for breakfast, where we see an extension of the movie's first scene. Two thieves, calling themselves "Pumpkin" (Tom Roth) and "Honey Bunny" (Amanda Plummer), hold up the café, only to realize they've gotten in way over their heads.

Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite movies, and for good reason. While almost all of the characters are portrayed as unlikable, it's hard not to think some of them are cool. The cast's portrayal of their characters is stellar, and their director is at the top of his game here. John Travolta is phenomenal here as Vincent, the hitman who can get himself into situations that he can't figure out how to get out of on his own. He's sort of like the jewel thieves from Reservoir Dogs. He talks tough, but loses his cool when bad stuff goes down.

Samuel L. Jackson is also wonderful as Vincent's partner-in-crime Jules, the scripture-quoting hitman that can barks orders like the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket, yet can calmly and quietly reflect over situations as well. To be totally honest, every actor does his or her job perfectly, and I couldn't ask for better. I actually wasn't too big on the character of Fabienne, but that's not the fault of Marie de Medeiros. I just didn't think Fabienne was all that great of a character.

Also perfect was the script, written by Tarantino and Roger Avery. A lot of the movie's charm is how some of the dialogue and predicaments the characters find themselves in are so outrageous. The non-linear construction of the movie (which has become something of a trademark for Tarantino) is such that you can see the movie a dozen times, and still be surprised by what happens next. The stories all overlap and intersect, but a chronological edit of the movie would destroy the whole flow and feel of the movie. It would probably make even less sense if viewed that way.

As with all of Tarantino's other movies, the soundtrack plays a big factor. Here, the movie is scored with lots of surf music and other old songs. Many of the songs have become connected with the movie in such a way that hearing a particular song from the soundtrack can remind faithful viewers of the scene in which it was featured. In a way, it's like how the Stealer's Wheel song "Stuck In The Middle With You" has become forever attached to the torture scene from Reservoir Dogs. This time, it's numerous songs that have become attached to scenes from the movie.

Many consider Pulp Fiction to be one of the best movies ever made, and I won't disagree. Tarantino's knack for creatively telling crazy, off-beat stories is fully revealed here, and he's seemingly developing the same storytelling reputation that legendary director Orson Welles had at one time. In fact, one could call Pulp Fiction Tarantino's Citizen Kane. The creativity in his movies are light-years beyond other movies, and is at a level most writer/directors never reach throughout their entire careers. So I can't give Pulp Fiction any rating other than five stars. I know it will sound like hyperbole, but if you haven't seen it yet, you should.

Final Rating: *****