Download Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood EN DIRECT

Download Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood EN DIRECT

Los Angeles, 1969. TV star Rick Dalton, a struggling actor specializing in westerns, and stuntman Cliff Booth, his best friend, try to survive in a constantly changing movie industry. Dalton is the neighbor of the young and promising actress and model Sharon Tate, who has just married the prestigious Polish director Roman Polanski…

The movie isn’t for everyone, of course, but it’s a fun ride back to the past with fantastic performances, hilarious comedy and beautiful aesthetics. Tarantino is the one director in 2019 that can get huge names without people referring to his films as “that Leo film“, and I think that’s worth something whether you’re a fan or not. It’s rare for a film like this to be a mainstream release, and in the lacklustre year of 2019 I think it’s about time we got something in cinemas that's original.
- Chris dos Santos

Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-another-tarantino-classic

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

Quentin Tarantino is one of the best filmmakers of all-time. He has undeniable talent behind the camera, and his movies are fated to leave a mark in each year they’re released. In addition to that, he’s also an extraordinary screenwriter, as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood proves once again. His knowledge of the early decades of film is vast, so every feature he produces is always going to be filled with references to those “fairy tale” years. And that’s precisely what this movie is: a fairy tale in Hollywood, hence its title. Let me just leave this here right off the bat: I’m not going to address any controversy surrounding this film (namely, the whole Bruce Lee depiction and the Manson Family, in general), as I’m always fair and impartial to the movie I’m reviewing. Moving on …

My knowledge of the 60s isn’t that good. Obviously, I know the whole Sharon Tate story, as well as the famous Manson murders, but when it comes to actual films from that decade, well … Probably, I only know a few by name, a classic scene, or a memorable soundtrack. Tarantino uses his large runtime to place tons of references to that period, and that’s one of the reasons the first act of the movie drags. There’s a lot of time spent with characters just driving cars while listening to music (references in the songs), wide shots of the city as they drive by (references in the buildings), or even just playing an LP and dancing to it (reference in the songs, again).

I understand that these mean something, but if they don’t develop the character in any way, then these are just Easter Eggs and have no impact on the actual narrative. The first hour or so is filled with sequences which sole purpose is to show how much Tarantino knows about that time, and there’s nothing wrong with it, as long as it tells a story. That’s the second issue I have with the first act: it takes too long to establish its characters, and there’s no apparent objective within the story. It feels like a person just strolling around with no destination, which in itself isn’t a bad thing. But if you put together repetitive sequences plus a story that no one knows where it’s going or how it connects to the only thing people are actually expecting (the Sharon Tate event), then you’ll bore the hell out of the audience (a lot of people constantly left my theater to get more food or something, and they weren’t in a hurry).

Nevertheless, from the moment we start understanding who Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth are, what they do, what they did, and what they want with their lives, then the film becomes incredibly captivating. It’s definitely a character-driven story. It’s a fairy tale where Rick tries his best to overcome his own personal issues to be the very best movie star, after being on an exponentially negative path. Cliff, as his stunt double, lives off of his buddy by doing everything he needs around the house and everywhere else. These two are inseparable, and their scenes are always filled with laughter and joy, even in the darkest moments. OUATIH works because of its beautifully-written characters.

If you don’t care about them, then you won’t enjoy the film at all. In addition to this, if you don’t know anything regarding the art of filmmaking, then you’ll probably hate it since it will become extremely dull. It’s one of those movies that anyone can like. However, for someone who knows and understands how films are made, it will always be a better time at the theater. You can love this movie, sure. But if you love filmmaking and you have knowledge of its techniques, you’ll love it even more. There are so many technical achievements worthy of appreciation that I can’t get to all of them, so I’ll just address two of my favorites. The first has to be the black-and-white flicks inside the actual film. Putting Leonardo DiCaprio acting on classic westerns with over-the-top performances is an absolute delight. Watching those features in a 4:3 black-and-white screen, filled with classic sound effects, and cheesy one-liners … Wonderful.

The second allows for my favorite scenes of the whole movie: the extensive one-take dialogues. I mean, 10 or 15-minute sequences where DiCaprio just gives it his all. This is how every single film should be done. There’s even a joke in the movie where Rick criticizes a particular type of filmmaking because they would film every character separately saying their lines and then editing them together. Unfortunately, that’s how most features are done today. Therefore, from watching a simple dialogue scene with DiCaprio and Julia Butters (a 10-year-old little girl!) to a bar sequence which belongs to a movie Rick is filming (this one even has Rick asking his lines, and the camera has to go back to its starting point), everything with no cuts whatsoever … What can I ask more from a director?!

Obviously, if this is a character-driven narrative, the cast has to be genuinely compelling. Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie … I mean, do I even need to explain how phenomenal they are? DiCaprio proves once again he’s one of the greatest actors of all-time. The ability that he has to put 200% in every single scene is unbelievable. I even started to tear up once his character is able to find his footing, solely due to the actor’s performance. The Oscar nom is guaranteed, let’s see about the win. Brad Pitt also has tons of nominations on his lap with an astonishing supporting display. He has a subtle performance, but it’s pretty incredible how much he can transmit to the audience by putting (apparently) so little effort. Margot Robbie doesn’t have that much screentime, but her character had the simple objective of showing how glamorous and dreamy an actress’ life could be at that time, so she didn’t exactly need to deliver her A-game.

It’s always good to see Al Pacino (Marvin Schwarz) on-screen, and I’m thrilled that Margaret Qualley (Pussycat), who I know from The Leftovers (one of the most underrated TV shows of the century), is finally getting some recognition. Technically, like I said above, it’s close to a masterpiece. It’s Tarantino, everyone knows what he’s capable of, but having in mind his most recent features, it’s a pleasant surprise and evidence of quality to the naysayers that he was able to produce a film with less bloody action. There are terrific demonstrations of great cinematography (Robert Richardson), and the editing is always impeccable in Tarantino’s features (this time due to Fred Raskin). The score is addictive, and it carries a very significant role in the movie. I would say that if Tarantino was able to shorten its runtime and control its pacing better, this would be a technically perfect film.

All in all, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood isn’t the best Quentin Tarantino’s movie, but it’s undoubtedly one of the year’s best. Filled with award-winning lead performances (second Oscar for DiCaprio, please), this character-driven story is packed with references to the 60s which will be the divisive point in whether people will enjoy the film or not. Its first act is slow and takes too long to set up its story, but from the moment it’s able to find its footing, it’s an entertaining ride. If you love filmmaking and you know the insides of the art, Tarantino delivers a near-perfect technical production. Its alternate ending to real-life events is meant to be controversial, but for me, it’s a vision of how everything should have happened if the world was fair or, indeed, a fairy tale … in Hollywood.

Rating: A-

I'm not here to explain _Once Upon a Time In Hollywood_, just to enjoy it.

_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

***Tarantino’s revenge on the Manson psychos***

In the late 60s, Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a popular TV Western actor, finds his career taking a downturn and tries to recover with the encouragement of his kick-axx stunt double and best friend, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Sharon Tate (Margo Robbie) & Roman Polanski are neighbors with Jay Sebring always hanging around (Emile Hirsch). Meanwhile the Manson Family nutjobs are lurking in the background, prepping to attack.

“Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood” (2019) is Quentin Tarantino’s 9th full film and, for me, ranks somewhere in the middle of his oeuvre. It may not be as great as “Pulp Fiction” (1994) and “Django Unchained” (2012), but it places well with “Inglourious Basterds” (2009), “Jackie Brown” (1997) and “The Hateful Eight” (2015).

A famous director once succinctly defined a great movie as such: Three good scenes, no bad scenes. While the second part of this definition is debatable with "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood,” seeing as how the movie could've certainly been tightened up (there are some dull sequences), there's no doubt that it fulfills the first part.

My three favorite scenes are: The amusing satirical Bruce Lee confrontation; the great Spahn Ranch episode, which effectively creates an underlying sense of menace; and, of course, the entertaining hippie attack in the final act.

Thankfully, there are numerous additional gems: The friendship and respect of Rick and Cliff; the audacious flamethrower sequence; Rick's breakdown with the precocious girl actor (not actress); the beautiful women throughout; the great cast, including several celeb cameos; the entertaining soundtrack; Brandi, the pit bull; Rick's meltdown in his trailer; Rick finally pulling off a quality acting scene via ad libbing; George Spahn not remembering Cliff; everything (surprisingly) turning out to be precisely as so-and-so said; the allusion to what MAY have happened to Cliff's nagging wife (Rebecca Gayheart) on the boat; the way it should have turned out on that infamous night; and the heartwarming close,

The film runs 2 hour, 41 minutes, and was shot in the Los Angeles area.

GRADE: A-

Well, the last 15-minutes were great, the first 2.5 hours on the other hand was... uneventful. I have an interest in Hollywood, more from the 1980s though, so some of the slower scenes still kept my attention, but there's no real plot and minimal character development.

That said, DiCaprio and Pitt both give great performances and Margot Robbie of course had her moments, however I could only chuckle during the theater scene when she kicked her bare feet up. Okay, Quentin, lol. **3.0/5**

Download 1917 FULL HD 1080p

Watch 1917 FULL HD 1080p

At the height of the First World War, two young British soldiers must cross enemy territory and deliver a message that will stop a deadly attack on hundreds of soldiers.

I really wanted to give this film five stars, but there is a curious introspection that prevents me from calling it perfection. Nevertheless, ‘1917’ is a brilliant piece of art, and clearly a personal project for Sam Mendes. Blending groundbreaking technology with detailed production components, it's sure to entertain audiences and garner respect from critics for its execution. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you when the Oscar nominations come out.
- Charlie David Page

Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-1917-sam-mendes-personal-war-story

Without a doubt, cinematically this is a visual tour de force. The one-shot approach becomes a distraction, at times, especially when one ponders "how did they do that?", but generally not enough to take away the wow factor.

The story, and dialogue, not to mention logic are the real problems that take this movie from great, to merely good.

The initial concept of sending two men on an imperitive mission to save 1600 men is ludicrous in itself, especially in a war where men were gassed and gunned down by the thousands. Sending only two of them into unknown situations, in no-man's-land was illogical.

Then there was the fact the hero seems to never get shot by enemy soldiers, despite being in dead-duck situations. When he does get injured, his wounds seem to magically heal and disappear instantly. Director Sam Mendes must have never had the concussive effects of explosions explained to him, because while some fall from explosions, the heroes seem immune to physics.

The most ludicrous scene involves booby-trapped explosives, and a collapsed ton of rocks leaving not only no visible injuries, but no effects at all on clothing or hearing. But there was dust in the eyes.

There are many more scenes involving lack of logic, or credibility.

Over-all, the movie is worth it for the cinematography, attention to detail, costumes and acting, but the trite story, and credibilty problems drag it down from what it should, and could have been.

Finally yesterday I was able to experience 1917 and I ended up doing it at IMAX, something I didn't plan on, but after seeing it there, I can say this film deserves to be seen and heard in an IMAX room to remember why movies still need to be lived on a big screen.

The visual odyssey of Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins is an incredible journey. Yes, the story is very thin but that's something that made 1917 a somewhat different film
It's not a war epic, nor does it try to be one. It's kind of a lone wolf war story, though at the beginning it wasn't like that, and that's good because despite everything that happens, the film doesn't lose that sense of camaraderie at the task that remains after the loss.

1917 is a story of survival and that although it could not be considered completely original, that's totally the least of its problems because after all the experience is just spectacular.

I admit the film has certain rhythm dropouts that I didn't like, especially the scene where Schofield loses consciousness, but at that point we are given the extraordinary night sequence, so my discomfort ended up disappearing.

1917 is not a perfect film, but it's a reminder of how wonderful is to enjoy a film as they should be, even if it's a film that deals with the horrors of war.

This is the kind of film that should be lived and experienced that way, otherwise it loses its resonance, so if you have the chance to see 1917 at a big screen do it.

**_Although partly a technical showcase rather than a story, it's still a terrific Great War movie_**

>_In the newspapers you read: "Peacefully they rest on the spot where they have bled and suffered, while the guns roar over their graves, taking vengeance for their heroic death". And it doesn't occur to anybody that the enemy is also firing; that the shells plunge into the hero's grave; that his bones are mingled with the filth which they scatter to the four winds – and that, after a few weeks, the morass closes over the last resting-place of the soldier._

- Kanonier Gerhard Gürtler (Königlich Bayerisches 3. Feldartillerie-Regiment Prinz Leopold)

>_Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,_

>_Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,_

>_Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,_

>_And towards our distant rest began to trudge._

>_Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,_

>_But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;_

>_Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots_

>_Of gas-shells dropping softly behind._

- Wilfred Owen; "Dulce et Decorum Est" (1921)

>_No tactical or strategic gain was made on the Somme front that was worth the cost in lives. Even had the British and French achieved their breakthrough on the Somme, the Germans had plenty of room to manoeuvre and, unlike the French at Verdun, no national interest in staying where they were. During the winter of 1916-17, the Germans simply withdrew to the Hindenburg Line, east of the Somme battlefield, and it all had to be done again._

- Robin Neillands; _Attrition: The Great War on the Western Front – 1916_ (2001)

>_In the Somme valley, the back of language broke. It could no longer carry its former meanings. World War I changed the life of words and images in art, radically and forever. It brought our culture into the age of mass-produced, industrialised death. This, at first, was indescribable._

- Robert Hughes; _The Shock of the New_ (2004)

My paternal grandfather fought during the Great War. Corporal Edward J. Campbell was with the 9th Battalion of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, 48th Brigade, 16th (Irish) Division and took part in the capture of Ginchy on September 9, 1916 during the Battle of the Somme. My dad was born in 1933, and in all the years that came afterwards – even when he himself joined the RAF – his father never spoke about those years.

The Great War broke men in ways the likes of which had never been seen before, and perhaps have never been seen since. It exposed men to psychological horrors inconceivable to most people today. The nature of trench warfare and the concomitant use of artillery on a scale beyond anything in human history did such things to men's minds that even thousands of those who returned never really left the battlefields. We've all seen "Shell shocked soldier, 1916", one of the most haunting photographs ever taken, and the picture it paints is a disturbingly vivid one. But what makes the Great War, the so-called "war to end all wars", so much worse than it had to be was that it pitted old school tactics against modern weaponry. Generals on both sides believed the war could be won, as others had been, by sending wave after wave of men "over the top" in an attempt to overwhelm enemy positions. However, such tactics failed to take into account advancements in weaponry, with combatants defending their trenches with miles of machine-gun emplacements and fields of landmines, reinforced with the war's most successful killer – endless artillery barrages. The technology had advanced. The tactics had not. Which led to the nine-month stalemate of the Battle of Verdun (February 21 to December 18, 1916), during which the Germans lost 143,000 men and the French lost 163,000. Which led to the first day of the Somme (July 1, 1916), when the British suffered nearly 20,000 loses in less than 12 hours. Which led to the unimaginable slaughter of the hell-come-to-Earth that was the Third Battle of Ypres, better known today as Passchendaele (July 31 to November 10, 1917), where at least 400,000 men died, maybe as many as twice that.

Every soul who fought in those battles is gone now. The last surviving combat veteran, Chief Petty Officer Claude Choules, who joined the Royal Navy in 1915, aged just 14, died at the age of 110 in 2011. And unlike conflicts such as World War II or Vietnam, The Great War has largely dropped from the popular consciousness. Not just the reasons why it was fought, but the conditions in which it was fought. Even celebrated films such as Lewis Milestone's _All Quiet on the Western Front_ (1930) or Stanley Kubrick's _Paths of Glory_ (1957) aren't all that well known. And that's one of the reasons that films like 1917 are important – they ensure we don't forget.

Written by Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, _1917_ is very loosely based on stories told to Mendes by his grandfather Alfred Hubert Mendes, who was a front line messenger during the war, and who, at 5'4", was able to use the low-lying No Man's Land mist as cover without having to stoop or crawl, and thus was much faster compared to other messengers. The film is directed by Mendes (_American Beauty_; _Revolutionary Road_; _Skyfall_), and unless you've been living under a rock, you'll know that it's done in such a way as to give the impression that it all takes place in two single shots (the marketing material says one shot, but it's two – there's a cut-to-black time-jump about midway through the film where no attempt is made to hide the transition). In reality, of course, there are a lot more than two shots (the longest single shot was just over 8 minutes), but the edits have been digitally 'hidden', much like Alejandro González Iñárritu's _Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)_ (2014) or Erik Poppe's _Utøya 22. Juli_ (2018). Working with legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins (_Kundun_; _No Country for Old Men_; _The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford_; _The Reader_; _Blade Runner 2049_), Mendes wanted the film to be the most immersive war movie ever put on screen, with the story designed to take place in real-time so as to ensure the importance/relevance of the single-shot aesthetic. And although I have some issues with it, and I certainly don't think it's the greatest war movie ever made, by and large, I think Mendes has made an exceptional film, one in which form and content are unusually tightly matched, with the style extremely effective at delivering the story in a thematically justified manner.

April 6, 1917; the Western Front. Two young British Lance Corporals, Will Schofield (George MacKay), a veteran of the Somme, and the younger, more idealistic Tom Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are summoned to a meeting with General Erinmore (Colin Firth). Recently, German forces have fallen back, and Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) of the 2nd Battalion, Devonshire Regiment believes that if he attacks now, he will break the line and turn the tide of the war. However, he's unaware that the retreat is a tactical gambit – the Germans have fallen back to the heavily fortified Hindenburg Line and are lying in wait. With communication lines cut, Schofield and Blake, who has a brother in the 2nd, are given a simple but dangerous mission – to physically carry an order from Erinmore to Mackenzie calling off the following morning's attack, a mission which will involve them crossing into No Man's Land and traversing the Germans' former position. If they fail, 1,600 soldiers will be slaughtered. Mackenzie is six miles away. They have ten hours.

So, the film's big selling point is its aesthetic design. The use of the single-shot format is such a noticeable and idiosyncratic type of form that whenever it's used, it automatically places pressure on the content, which must justify why the film is shot this way, why it would lose something inherently thematic if shot conventionally. If the content can't do that, in other words, if the content can't justify the form, the form becomes gimmicky, drawing attention to itself. Think of, for example, Alfred Hitchcock's _Rope_ (1948), which was edited to look like one shot, or Sebastian Schipper's _Victoria_ (2015), which was legitimately one shot. Very little in either film justifies the stylistic design – shoot them conventionally and they're still broadly the same film thematically. Compare this with genuine one-shot films such as Mike Figgis's _Timecode_ (2000) or Alexander Sokurov's _Russkij Kovcheg_ (2002), and edited one-shot films such as Gustavo Hernández's _La casa muda_ (2010) or the aforementioned _Utøya 22. Juli_. Whether it's the spiralling nature of events in _Timecode_, the elegant cause-and-effect historical sweep of _Russkij Kovcheg_, or the real-time pressure and escalation of _La casa muda_ and _Utøya 22. Juli_ these films tie form to content in such a way that they become indistinguishable – form _is_ content, content _is_ form. And I think Mendes achieves like synergy.

Is the one-shot effect distracting? At first, yes, it is a little, especially if you're playing the game of trying to spot where editor Lee Smith (_Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World_; _Elysium_; _Interstellar_) has hidden the transitions. But after sussing two edits in the first twenty minutes, I stopped looking, because I realised I was just pulling myself out of the film unnecessarily. In essence, once you go with the aesthetic on its own terms, you forget about trying to spot the edits and asking yourself, "_how did they do that_", instead of letting the cinematography do exactly what it's supposed to do – immerse you. This is a film that wants to try to convey what it was like to live and fight in those trenches, with Mendes stating, "_I wanted people to understand how difficult it was for these men. And the nature of that is behind everything_". And, it does about as good a job as any war film I can think of in evoking the psychical reality, if not necessarily the psychological (more on that in a moment).

Generally speaking, the majority of the film is shot in one of two ways – either the camera is behind Schofield and Blake, following their path, or it's in front of them, facing back towards them as they 'follow' its path. There are some minor deviations from this (a few drone shots, some side-on footage etc), but irrespective of that, the film never for one second leaves their presence. And because the two men are almost perpetually in motion, it means that the camera is almost perpetually in motion, lending not only a tremendous fluidity to the blocking, framing, and movement, but so too a natural motivation – if they're walking along a trench, we're walking along a trench; if they're moving stealthily through a bombed-out town, we're moving stealthily through a bombed-out town. Almost everything the camera does is because one or both of the protagonists are doing the same thing, further emphasising the correlation between form and content.

The opening scene serves as a superb introduction not just to the visual design, but to the reasons for employing that visual design and the effectiveness of doing so. The film starts with a shot of a daffodil field, before pulling back and revealing Schofield and Blake taking a break against a tree before being summoned to the meeting with Erinmore. They rouse themselves and begin walking, first past more resting soldiers, then a camp where food and laundry are being prepared, then down a ramp into the trenches, the bucolic opening moments giving way to barbed wire and dirt. Geographically, it's a short walk, but thematically, it covers considerable ground. In a film that's all about scale and scope, this sequence perfectly encapsulates one of the main thematic reasons behind the single-shot – to accurately convey the importance of geospatial relations. We see the tactile transition from Edenic to hellish because we're moving in real-time through the _milieu_ with the characters; we see the boundary between peace and war because the characters walk along that boundary. You shoot this opening sequence conventionally, and you undercut this sense considerably.

Along slightly more conventional lines, one also has to commend the work of production designer Dennis Gassner (_Bugsy_; _Waterworld_; _Into the Woods_). Every location is visually unique – from a German bunker to an abandoned farmhouse to the bombed-out remnants of Écoust-Saint-Mein, and every location feels authentic and lived in. His design of No Man's Land is especially laudable, not just in terms of the expected mess of barbed wire and debris, but in the use and positioning of dead bodies, dead animals, and semi-destroyed machinery, with the whole thing having an almost post-nuclear desolation feel. Indeed, the film's No Man's Land is designed thematically. Mendes has said, "_the first World War starts with literally horses and carriages, and ends with tanks_", and this is mirrored in Gassner's designs. When the men first crawl into No Man's Land, they immediately encounter a rotting fly-covered horse carcass. Gradually, however, the battlefield becomes more mechanised, until they eventually pass through a German artillery position.

Also in a slightly more conventional sense, one has to mention Deakins work during the nighttime scenes in Écoust-Saint-Mein. The entire village has been reduced to nothing but the shells of buildings, and as we pass through the town, the only source of light is from the flares arching through the sky, which create very hard shadows in constant motion. The whole thing is almost otherworldly, and as the garish light traverses the sky, it's as if the ground itself is in motion, almost liquid-like, with the protagonists desperately trying to time their movements to ensure they stay hidden in the constantly shifting shadows. It might be a little too aesthetically beautiful for a film aiming for such gritty realism, but for aspiring cinematographers, you won't find a better study in how to compose an image using light and shadow.

Thematically, by its very nature, _1917_ is far more focused on the micro than the macro – you might learn something about life on the front, but you'll learn nothing about the politics behind the conflict, or even a sense of who's winning. Partly because of this, the film avoids, for the most part, the overwrought patriotism found in so many American World War II movies, the kind of cartoonish jingoism that made Steven Spielberg's _Saving Private Ryan_ (1998) so obnoxious. Indeed, it's relatively unimportant which side the protagonists are even on – their mission could have come from any of the combatants. Their nationality is largely anonymous, which is not something you can usually say of a war film, but which does illustrate just how irrelevant lofty political issues were at ground level, with everyone simply trying to survive as best they can.

On the other hand, however, because the film is so tightly focused, you shouldn't expect too much psychological insight. If you're anticipating an existential treatise along the lines of Terrence Malick's _The Thin Red Line_ (1998), you'll be severely disappointed. Malick's masterpiece is, for my money, the greatest war picture ever made precisely because it subverts at every moment what a war picture is supposed to be. It's about the war within rather than the war without, about nature's indifference to humanity's self-destruction, about the damage war does not to the mind or the body, but the soul. _1917_ is nowhere near this kind of thematic complexity, it's not even playing the same game, but I would value its simple individualised insights above something like the empty temporal trickery of Christopher Nolan's _Dunkirk_ (2017), which leans far too heavily into the "keep a stiff upper lip chaps" style of British filmmaking for my liking.

In terms of problems. I've seen some critics argue that the one-shot structure is a gimmick which draws attention to itself, and thus, rather than being immersive actually has the opposite effect. I admit that the film does take a little getting used to, but you soon settle into its rhythms (or lack thereof). I would agree that the story is paper-thin, but that's pretty much by design. One criticism I did have, however, is how well-groomed Scholfield and Blake constantly are, each with a perfect set of teeth. One only need watch Peter Jackson's _They Shall Not Grow Old_ (2018) to see how unrealistic this is. Indeed, for most of the runtime, the duo look like they've just stepped out of the makeup trailer, and it's glaring enough on a couple of occasions to pull you out of things.

All things considered though, I thoroughly enjoyed _1917_. I thought the single-shot strategy worked exceptionally well, and even if the film is weak from a character/storyline/theme perspective, it didn't really matter when the form and content are this well matched. This could have become an empty technical exercise predicated on nothing, but Mendes hasn't allowed that to happen, and instead, it's a war film that does justice to its subject. The more one knows about the Great War, the more one realises that it was hell on Earth. _1917_ doesn't make us feel what that hell was like. Because no film, no art form, can do that. But it's a damn good approximation.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

Let me just take a deep breath... Wait, one more... Uff, I have no idea how I survived this IMAX screening of 1917. Usually, I don't delve deep into technical stuff since most people don't know or don't care about these attributes, but it's impossible not to address Roger Deakins' cinematography. It's not the first time a film has been edited to appear as "one shot" (a continuous take), but it never fails to impress me.

Alejandro G. Iñárritu's Birdman, Silent House starring Elizabeth Olsen, or the famous Rope from the one and only Alfred Hitchcock... all produce the same trick. Even Mr. Robot and The Haunting of Hill House have brought us two phenomenal "one shot" episodes, edited as well with the so-called "stitches," meaning that the actual cuts are made to look invisible to the viewer, hence giving that feeling that it's all just one continuous take. Cuts are often applied when a random character is passing in front of the camera; when the latter "pans" (movement similar to a head-turn) over a wall or an object that occupies the whole screen; or when the characters are simply going through a dark area.

Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, and Lee Smith (editor) all work together to deliver the most immersive war movie (probably) ever. Yes, it has a simple premise, and the main narrative is basic, but the remarkable technical achievement elevates this film so freaking much. Even if you don't know the slightest thing about filmmaking or how movies are made, it's impossible to watch this film and not think "something feels different about this one." This is a movie meant to be watched at the biggest, best screen possible. Watching 1917 at home on a TV or a laptop is not going to work at all.

Throughout the whole runtime, I felt like I was there with Schofield and Blake. It feels like we are a third soldier going with them on a vital mission to save thousands of lives. I believe 1917 is the best "one shot" film to date (I've been using the quote signs for a reason, don't mistake it for an actual one shot movie), with Birdman as a close second. If the latter deals with a lot more dialogue and acting, the former has dozens of nail-biting sequences featuring shootouts, explosions, and a lot of running/walking/swimming through mud, dead corpses, blood, and way too many nasty rats.

I really have no words to describe Roger Deakins' cinematography. It's not merely a film, it's a whole experience. It's not just another cool technical achievement. It's the entire foundation of 1917, and the main reason why so many people are rushing to the theater. However, a lot of people are completely ignoring Lee Smith's work. Don't forget, this isn't an actual one shot movie. If it's been edited to look like one continuous take, and if it actually does appear to be a single take, then the editor should get as much recognition as everyone else. Yes, he doesn't have to work with thousands of cuts (I counted 14, but I'm sure there's more), but they still exist, and he has to make sure no one feels them. And he did so perfectly.

My last paragraph concerning the technical aspects has to go to Sam Mendes and Thomas Newman. As the director, Mendes is able to deliver precisely what he envisioned and seamlessly coordinate his actors. Not only has he directed my favorite Bond film (Skyfall), but he also offers one of my favorite war movies of all-time. As for Newman, I just wish that Joker had been released in another year because 1917's score is fantastic. Hildur Guðnadóttir is likely taking the Oscar for Best Original Score, but if Thomas Newman takes it, I'll still be delighted.

A lot of comparisons are being made with Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk. They're similar films regarding the fact that their main goal is to provide the most immersive war experience. Story and character-wise, both movies don't really develop that much. Nolan's film is loved by most critics and audiences all around the world, but one common complaint about it is the lack of character building. I didn't mind that at all because the movie never actually tried to make their characters important. They were just soldiers caught in the worst of situations, similar to 1917. However, I do think the latter does a better job of making us care for the protagonists.

George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman's characters have small arcs, but they exist. In the beginning, Blake is the emotional-driven character, while Schofield seems to be the rational one. We, as the audience, care about the mission first, but as time goes by, we learn about their personal traits and motivations. By the end of the film, I was crying. Both play off of each other really well, but it's their dialogue that impresses me the most. What seems to be just a random talk while strolling through an open field of grass, it truly isn't. If it's not meaningful at the time, it's going to be. The acting is more physical than anything, and both deliver outstanding performances.

I would say I love 1917 as much as I love Dunkirk. I might be tempted to choose the former due to the "recency effect," but there's one small aspect that negatively affects both. Their replay value is not as high as other films since their technical achievements don't work as well on a regular TV in the comfort of our own home. You will never feel or understand that "immersive experience" that everyone talks about. You won't know what made people to be blown away. You won't love it as much as everyone else. So, please, do NOT miss 1917 in theaters!

Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, and Lee Smith. Director, director of photography, editor. Three key filmmaking roles in the creation of one of the best WWI movies of all-time. Edited to look like one continuous shot, 1917 is a mind-blowing technical achievement, elevated by Deakins' always jaw-dropping cinematography, Thomas Newman emotionally powerful score, Mendes impeccable directing, and Smith's seamless editing. George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman deliver outstanding (physical) performances, but it's the astonishing filmmaking that steals the spotlight. Production design, costume design, sound, you name it. Everything is absolutely perfect. It's meant to be seen at the biggest screen near you since this is an incredibly immersive experience that you won't get at home. It's going straight into my Top10: Best Movies of 2019, and I hope you'll love it as much as I do.

Rating: A

Watch The Lighthouse FULL HD 1080p

Download The Lighthouse FULL HD 1080p

Two lighthouse keepers try to maintain their sanity while living on a remote and mysterious New England island in the 1890s.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

I love weird movies. The seemingly awkward moments, the apparently nonsensical ambiguity, or simply the pure WTF sequences... All of these leave me deeply captivated by what the story and its filmmaker are trying to transmit to their viewers. The Lighthouse is the most recent addition to the group of psychological horror films that will make you think, "what the hell am I watching?" Nevertheless, this is one of the most accessible "weird flicks" since most of the story is easily explainable.

Therefore, I hope this Robert Eggers' movie gets a successful home release. Usually, the general public heavily dislikes ambiguous films. Nowadays, people want everything at the palm of their hands before they even watch the movie (aka trailers). So, a film about two lighthouse keepers who go crazy, where dozens of scenes apparently make no sense (they do), can fail to catch the viewers' attention. However, it found mine. Filmed in black-and-white and with a 1.19:1 aspect ratio (almost squared), Eggers delivers a gorgeous-looking piece of cinema.

People tend to (wrongly) associate the use of black-and-white with "old movies," but it's really just another color palette. For example, Blade Runner 2049 and Mad Max: Fury Road use the color yellow in such a beautiful, eyegasmic way. Color can affect us emotionally, psychologically, and even physically, often without us becoming aware. The Lighthouse's black-and-white establishes the film's mood from the very beginning. A very somber, sad, dark environment, filled with creepy seagulls, and brutal weather conditions.

If I try to imagine the movie with color, it's not going to be very different from what it actually is. There's no sun, only tons of rain, wind, and waves. It's always cloudy, and inside the house, it's still dark and cold. So, even if Eggers decided to film with color, black, grey, and white would be the predominant tones either way. That's why the decision to make this film in black-and-white is so perfect. Every shot is dripping with visual beauty. Amazing wide shots of Robert Pattinson working like a slave, getting hit by the relentless weather, all accompanied by a haunting score which elevates every sequence.

In my point of view, it's a story about how solitude can make anyone run away from reality. Lack of human contact never contributes to a good way of living. Imagining a better life or literally run away to a remote place with a non-stop job to make you forget who you are or what you did, are not going to help anyone overcome what is, in fact, a personal issue. It's a narrative given to many interpretations, so no one is right or wrong. Depending on our life experience and on our distinct personalities, each and every one of us can have a different perspective and understanding of what this movie tells through the Eggers brothers' brilliant screenplay.

One thing is certain: Robert Pattinson and especially Willem Dafoe should be considered for the awards season. However, this film is too weird and ominous to be awarded any nominations, unfortunately. Dafoe is 64-years-old, and he crawls on the muddy ground, he gets hit with rain and literal sh*t in the face, besides delivering a versatile performance. Both he and Pattinson offer a dynamic range of acting, going from absurdly hilarious to intensely dramatic displays. It's probably Pattinson's best performance to date, but Dafoe shines as a crazy old ex-sailor.

Their accents are perfect, and Dafoe's ability to "sing" complex (linguistically speaking) sea poems for whole uncut takes is worthy of every single Oscar. That's something I wasn't expecting: there's a lot of long takes that become even more impressive due to the actors' undeniable talent. It's been a long time since I had to read subtitles to actually understand what the characters were saying, especially Dafoe. Besides the strong accents, the dialogues are extraordinarily intricate and wordy, which definitely captures my attention since I have to be twice as focused.

Incredible cinematography, great editing, and a subtle but powerful score. It's a shame if people ignore this movie's existence. It's not getting released in my country, so I'll try my best to make people see it. Unfortunately, it's being ignored by every major award ceremony, which is pretty unfair, having in mind it's one of the best films of 2019. I don't have a single issue with it. Some people might not enjoy its ambiguity or its slow pacing. Still, I genuinely love how everything falls into place, culminating in a shocking, suspenseful, and tense third act that makes the massive build-up worthy of merit.

All in all, The Lighthouse is one of my favorite movies of 2019. It's definitely going into my Top10, and way up there. Filmed in beautiful black-and-white with a claustrophobic aspect ratio, Robert Eggers delivers a story about loneliness and isolation that takes the weirdest, craziest route. It's one of those WTF films that will leave everyone thinking about it. I love its ambiguity, even if most of its story is pretty accessible. Packed with suspense and tension, mostly due to the excellent cinematography and the brilliant decision to use black-and-white to set the dark, cold environment. Robert Pattinson delivers his career-best performance, but Willem Dafoe steals the spotlight with an Oscar-worthy crazy display that will be ignored due to the known genre bias. It's tear-inducing hilarious at times, but powerfully dramatic as well. I have not a single complaint, and I love it more the more I think about it. Please, watch this at home if you get a chance. Don't miss it!

Rating: A+

“𝐾𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑠, 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑦𝑒?”

Time to spill the beans…’The Lighthouse’ is a masterpiece! I loved loved loved loved it! I loved every minute of it. One of my favorite movies of 2019 and I honestly don’t think anything can top it. A slow descent into madness that creeps into your subconscious and won’t be leaving anytime soon.

From the very first frame, I immediately knew this was going to be special. I was hooked throughout until the end credits.

Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson both deliver career defining performances. They play off each others insanity beautifully. I could tell just from the accents and dialect that plenty of homework went into making an authentic portrayal of the time.

Robert Pattinson is fantastic as a quiet and private lighthouse keeper that witness the madness slowly unfolding, but also feeds the audiences curiosity on revealing the strange happenings on the island. Pattinson is a chameleon when it comes to portraying characters.

Willem Dafoe, on the other hand, was mesmerizing as the old sea dog captain with a love for farting. His long and insane monologues are the main highlights, because it was so electrifying to watch it was hard not be captivated. He’s strict and often unpredictable, but once you see it, you won’t forget it.

I hope Robert Eggers continues making horror movies in the future, because right now he’s one of the best living directors working today. The slow-burn tension and lack of conventional scares seems to be his trademark so far. Every choice he made was so carefully thought out and the results is masterful. According to Eggers, they actually built a lighthouse from scratch and everything we see, including the weather, is genuine. Even if some tricky was used, it was so seamless I couldn’t tell what was fake.

I loved how the movie was shot; the dim black-and-white with the claustrophobic aspect ratio, giving it the appearance of a silent film born like a German expressionism - something you would’ve mistaken for a 1920/30’s horror folklore. Perfectly captures the time period and the overall dread. You really do feel cut off from the outside world and abandoned on this spectral-like island, and this black sheet of cloud strongly looming over the two men. A dark force in all directions, unseen but very eerie. The cold and heartless weather is a character itself. A big bully with salty intentions.

I adored the use of lighting through out, as the only light source is either natural light during daytime or candle lit lanterns, which cast many shadows that adds to the unease. There’s some gorgeous looking cinematography on display here. Seriously, even as am writing this right now I can memorize every single frame of this strange nightmare of a film. Absolutely breathtaking.

While the movie is mainly horror, but there is comedy sprinkled throughout that was actually pretty hilarious. Everything from Dafoe farting and some creative insults the characters would often spit at each other, which would later expand into long monologues that I sat back and watch in awe with a stupid grin on my face, because how something so silly can be so poetic. Never have I seen a movie that perfectly balances more than one genre so fluently. You can laugh at the moments where it’s suppose to be funny, but also take it seriously whenever it’s suppose to be taken seriously, which is sometimes all in one scene. The writing from Eggers is so excellent.

After only one viewing there was a lot I could easily dissect in terms of interpretation. There's masculinity and Greek mythology imagery that demonstrates a striking sense of power. There’s also a certain idea of sexuality being a sacred thing and the frustration it may bring. Or maybe it’s just a simple story about two guys on a rock getting drunk and then getting even drunker while holding each other until they drift off to sleep.

Overall rating: One of the best looking horror comedies of 2019.

I was worried that my enormously high expectations for 'The Lighthouse' would set me up for inevitable disappointment, but to my relief and awe, it somehow exceeded them. This is an extraordinary, baffling, hypnotic, maddening, hilarious, disturbing, disorienting, arousing, absolute mindfuck of a film, drenched in mud and sweat and salt and booze and shit and semen and piss and blood, primal screams of rage and terror, the laughter of madmen and the sobs of the damned, the cry of seabirds and the roar of the sea and the cataclysm of gods and men at war. It haunts you long after it is over, swills in your mind like an aged whisky, and in the days since seeing it, I can't tell you how desperately I want to dive back in again. After delivering arguably the greatest horror film so far this century, Robert Eggers has created another insane American masterpiece, the kind of film dreams and nightmares are made of. It was worth every single second of the wait.
- Daniel Lammin

Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-lighthouse-robert-eggers-delivers-another-staggering-american-classic

_**A superbly made film about madness, isolation, alcohol, a pissed off one-eyed seagull, and farts**_

>_But, as we near'd the lonely Isle;_

>_And look'd up at the naked height;_

>_And saw the lighthouse towering white,_

>_With blinded lantern, that all night_

>_Had never shot a spark_

>_Of comfort through the dark,_

>_So ghastly in the cold sunlight_

>_It seem'd, that we were struck the while_

>_With wonder all too dread for words._

- Wilfrid Wilson Gibson; "Flannan Isle" (1912)

> _Lighthouses are endlessly suggestive signifiers of both human isolation and our_ _ultimate connectedness to each other._

- Virginia Woolf; _To the Lighthouse_ (1927)

> _The isolation spins its mysterious cocoon, focusing the mind on one place, one time, one rhythm – the turning of the light. The island knows no other human voices, no other footprints. On the Offshore Lights you can live any story you want to tell yourself, and no one will say you're wrong: not the seagulls, not the prisms, not the wind._

- M.L. Stedman; _The Light Between Oceans_ (2012)

A manic fever dream fusing Greek mythology, Jungian psychology, and German Expressionism with Herman Melville and H.P. Lovecraft, by way of George Kuchar, Mike Kuchar, and Guy Maddin, _The Lighthouse_ is about isolation, insanity, competitive masculinity, alcoholism, and farting. The second film from writer/director Robert Eggers, who exploded onto the scene with the masterful _The VVitch: A New England Folktale_ (2015), _The Lighthouse_ was co-written with his brother, Max Eggers, and is very loosely based on the "Smalls Lighthouse Tragedy" (1801), in which one of the two assigned keepers died, and it was over four months before relief could be sent. By the time someone did land, the still-living keeper had been driven completely insane. A bizarre film in just about every way, from its glorious visual and aural design to its grandiose acting to its jet black humour to its wonderful ambiguity to its avenging angels/seagulls, if you thought _The VVitch_ was somewhat inaccessible, then you'll most likely despise every second of _The Lighthouse_, insofar as its subtlety, slow pace, and narrative abstruseness will surely frustrate those who prefer their horror in the mould of jump-scares and chainsaw-wielding escaped mental patients. However, if you favour the cerebral, difficult-to-define, and always slightly off-camera terror that was the foundational principal of _The VVitch_ and films such as Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez's _The Blair Witch Project_ (1999), Jennifer Kent's _The Babadook_ (2014), and Emma Tammi's _The Wind_ (2018), or if you enjoy the oppressive dread of classic German Expressionist films such as Robert Wiene's _Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari_ (1920), Fritz Lang's _Der müde Tod: ein deutsches volkslied in 6 versen_ (1921), and F.W. Murnau's _Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens_ (1922), then you'll find much here to appreciate.

In the late 1890s, Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson) and Thomas Wake (Willem Dafoe) arrive on an outcropping off the coast of New England to begin their four-week rotation manning the lighthouse. Bombastic, spirited, and flatulent, Wake is a veteran – a former sailor who's been a wickie for the last fifteen years. Withdrawn and taciturn, Winslow is new to the job, having previously worked as a logger in Canada. Wake assigns Winslow the menial tasks – cleaning the floors, emptying the chamber pots, carrying kerosene containers, repairing the exteriors, oiling the gears in the basement – whilst he himself attends to the Fresnel lens, telling Winslow that he is never, ever to approach it, and not to concern himself with its maintenance. And so things go for a while. However, soon enough, Winslow begins to have strange experiences – a one-eyed seagull starts pestering him; he has visions of a mermaid washing up on the shore; he thinks he sees Wake standing in front of the light, completely naked; he has dreams of erotic tentacles; he has a vision of Wake as a barnacle-encrusted titan; he imagines wading out into the water amidst hundreds of logs, which close over top of him and drown him. Although he's unnerved, the four weeks pass without too much incident, but on the night before their relief is due, the wind suddenly changes, and the island is hit by a violent storm. The following morning, their ferry doesn't arrive, and with no way of contacting the mainland, the duo attempt to pass the time attending to their duties, whilst their drinking becomes ever more excessive, their loathing of one another ever more pronounced, and their hold on sanity ever more tenuous.

The first thing that jumps out at you in _The Lighthouse_ is the aesthetic. _The VVitch_ was a good-looking movie, no doubt, but _The Lighthouse_ is a rarefied masterclass in visual and aural design. Opening with the old monochrome Universal logo, the importance of Damian Volpe's incredible sound design is indicated immediately, as before we see anything, we hear the wind blowing and a foghorn rumbling in the distance. That horn is omnipresent throughout the film, and to say it gets under your skin is an understatement. You know the siren from the _Silent Hill_ games that sounds right before the town transitions from the Real World to the Otherworld? Well, imagine that sound bellowing out every minute or so for an entire film. It's unsettling, it's disturbing, and it makes it impossible to ever really acclimate yourself to this strange _milieu_. There's only one sequence in which we don't hear the foghorn, the pivotal opening scene of the third act, and the silence is oppressive – it's one of those instances where you don't realise how loud something was until it suddenly goes quiet and you're left with a ringing in your ears.

The sound design is matched by the stunning monochrome visuals. Working with cinematographer Jarin Blaschke, who also photographed _The VVitch_, Eggers shot _The Lighthouse_ on 35mm black & white Eastman Double-X 5222 celluloid in the relatively unheard format of 1.19:1. Usually, if a filmmaker shoots in a non-widescreen format, they use Academy ratio (1.37:1), as seen in films such as David Lowery's _A Ghost Story_ (2017), Paul Schrader's _First Reformed_ (2017), and Jennifer Kent's _The Nightingale_ (2018). On the other hand, the use of 1.19:1 (sometimes called Movietone) is extremely rare, especially in modern films, and for good reason – it was a transitional format that was only used briefly during the shift from silent cinema to sound (1926-1932). And that is exactly why Eggers and Blaschke chose it. Yes, they do match form to content insofar as the nearly square format traps the characters within the frame to an even greater degree than 1.37:1 would have, thus enhancing the already oppressive claustrophobia of the lighthouse itself. But where the genius in choosing this format really comes to light is when one considers to what the film aspires. This is a folktale, a fable from a by-gone age, so what better way to present that fable than by replicating the way the film would have looked had it been made during the early years of sound filmmaking? At the same time, although shot with modern cameras, Blaschke used period-specific Baltar lenses and an off-cyan filter custom-made by Schneider Filters to more accurately emulate the look of late 19th-century photography. Taken together, the black & white images, the square frame, the lens design, the patina, and the haunting sound design all work in glorious tandem to create the sense that the film is a disturbing artefact, an antique vestige from a different era, into whose very DNA dread has burrowed.

One also has to praise Craig Lathrop's production design. The lighthouse used in the film wasn't an existing structure, but was custom-built to scale on Cape Forchu, an outcropping off the coast of Nova Scotia. However, you'd never know it. Most of the interiors were shot on soundstages, but all exteriors were shot on Forchu. And Lathrop has imbued every inch of the building, both inside and out, with an existentialist dread – from the industrial hell of the gears in the basement to the almost Eden like peace of the lantern room high above, from the cramped and crude bedroom to the squalid kitchen. Malevolence stalks every nook and cranny.

Eggers also does something interesting with the narrative itself. I've seen some critics refer to Winslow and Wake as unreliable narrators, and whilst such critics are on the right track, to call the characters narrators is, in strict narratological terms, inaccurate. Both characters are, in fact, focalisers, to use the term coined by Gérard Genette – the world is filtered entirely through their perspective, but they don't narrate. Indeed, although we shift from one character to the other, meaning there is a narrative presence at the extradigetic level, Eggers never leaves their perspective, nor does he present any kind of omniscient or overt heterodiegetic narration; we're imprisoned within their perspective for the duration of the film. Also important here is the use of what Seymour Chatman refers to as "fallible focalisation" (he actually uses the term "fallible filtration", but filtration and focalisation are the same thing). The story is one of madness, and it's abundantly clear from early on that neither man is a reliable witness, so everything filtered through their perspective (i.e. the whole film) could be tainted or unreliable (which is why critics erroneously refer to the duo as unreliable narrators). As things begin to fall apart, this sense becomes ever more prevalent – for example, in an important scene near the end, we see Wake do something, and in the next scene, when Winslow confronts him about it, a confused Wake points out it was actually Winslow who did it. Is Wake lying? Is Winslow projecting his own actions onto his companion? Who exactly is misleading who here? And if there's madness in this tale, where does it land – Winslow, Wake, the audience, or all three of us? It's a wonderful use of a defamiliarising technique which works to keep the audience constantly on edge and constantly second-guessing everything they see insofar as we know that some, none, or all of it could be the figment of a failing mind.

The dialogue is also beautifully written. Whereas in _The VVitch_, Eggers used pre-colonial Early Modern English lifted from court transcripts of actual witch trials, here he doesn't take the dialogue from anywhere specifically, but there's an obvious debt to writers such as Sarah Orne Jewett, who often wrote about whalers working off the southern Maine coast. Winslow's accent is based on a Maine farming dialect, while Wake's is based on that of Atlantic fishermen, and although their idiolects are more recognisable to our modern ears than those used in _The VVitch_, inflections and sentence structure ensure we never forget this is a tale of the past – for example, Wake declares, "_I'm a wickie, and a wickie I is_" and during an argument about his cooking, he asks Winslow, "_Ye is fond of me lobster ain't ye?_" And needless to say, the acting is immense, with both men turning in career-best work. Whilst Pattinson slowly morphs from a docile and subservient worker into something more assertive, aggressive, and altogether more sinister, Dafoe goes as big as he can, in a performance that wouldn't be out of place in classic German Expressionism.

The film's storyline is slight enough as to suggest several themes without really going too heavily into any of them. For example, one could certainly read Winslow and Wake's relationship as homoerotic, maybe a study of the suppression of desire. Paranoia is also never far from the surface, nor is the societal construct of masculinity, particularly as manifested in competitiveness, with Eggers mocking male bravado and posturing. Another reading would be that the film is an allegory for class struggle _á la_ J.G. Ballard's _High Rise_ (1975) – the lighthouse represents society; the lantern room high above is the upper class, with Wake doggedly protecting the room, literally locking Winslow out; meanwhile, the bowels of the lighthouse is the working class, with Winslow spending much of the film performing menial tasks assigned him by Wake. Alcoholism is also omnipresent – from Wake telling Winslow that "_boredom makes men into villains_", and that alcohol is the only medicine for it, to the duo progressively drinking more and more each night, until they run out of rum, and so try to mix turpentine and honey, so dependent have they become on the numbing effects of drink.

_The Lighthouse_ definitely isn't for everyone. It's challenging and rewarding in equal measure, but it does ask much of the audience, with meaning to be found between the lines, rather than within them. Eggers does some of the legwork, but he still leaves the audience with a distance to go. Personally, I loved every crazy minute of it – whether it be the rising sense of dread, the unrelenting tension, the oppressive suspense, the fierce battle of wills, the consuming paranoia, the descent into insanity etc. There's a lot that has gone into making this film what it is, both in terms of crafting the folkloric story and in the more mechanical sense of putting the finished film together – it's an aesthetic marvel in pretty much every way. Thick with mood and atmosphere, _The Lighthouse_ proves that _The VVitch_ was no fluke.

Download Django Unchained FULL HD 1080p

Download Django Unchained FULL HD 1080p

With the help of a German bounty hunter, a freed slave sets out to rescue his wife from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner.

America, mid-nineteenth century, just prior to the Civil War. Winter. Two horsebacked slave-traders are leading half-a-dozen manacled negro slaves through a large, unspecified section of Texas. As they move one night through a wood, they cross paths with an affable, charming German fellow identified by the hokey model tooth affixed atop his carriage by a spring as a travelling dentist. He greets the traders cordially but he's struggling to be understood; not because English is his second language (although he deferentially concedes as much when instructed - more than once - to "Speak English!") but because his vocabulary is far wider than that of the simpler men here before him. It's not a chance passing, either; this German fellow, who identifies himself as Dr. King Schultz (played by Christoph Waltz with the same smiling, deadly menace that earned him an Oscar statue for his part as Col. Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds) is looking for these traders. More specifically, their inventory of negro slaves. Even more specifically, one of those slaves in particular. Django (Jamie Foxx, Collateral, Ray). Attempting to buy Django, Schultz is met with short, suspicious shrift and ordered at gunpoint to be on his way. Within a second, one trader lies dead and the other lies incapacitated underneath the bulk of his dead horse. Schultz unchains Django, instructs Django to take the dead fellow's horse and coat, and pays the remaining trader for all that he's taken. He then tosses the manacle key to the other slaves and posits two choices to them, as he sees it: Carry their injured master thirty-plus miles to the nearest town for medical assistance, or unchain themselves, blow the injured slave-trader's head off with the gun Shultz has left them, bury the corpses and use the Pole Star to run for the Northern states, where slavery had been abolished, and for more than fifty years in some areas. Funnily enough, they take up the latter option.

So begins Django Unchained, an oater set in the slave states of the Deep South and the latest rollercoaster by Gen-X movieland wunderkind Quentin Tarantino. Always clearly a man heavily informed by the grindhouse subgenre of the Spaghetti Western, he's finally made one himself, and if Quentin's your thing it's a blast, though I doubt it'll convert many Tarantino sceptics; in fact it'll almost certainly reinforce those things that people dislike about him, about which more later.

It transpires that Dr. Schultz ISN'T a dentist ("I haven't practised dentistry in five years," he confides to Django over a beer) but a bounty hunter, and a lethal one at that. He's chasing down the Brittles, a murderous gang of brothers currently plying their trades as plantation overseers. He doesn't know what they look like but he knows they were recently employed at the Carrucan plantation, which is why he was searching for Django - a slave recently sold by that very plantation - in the first place; Django can point them out for him. Schultz is no fan of the South's backwards-thinking propensity for slavery though, and he offers Django a deal: help Schultz find and kill the Brittle Brothers, Schultz will treat Django like a free man, pay him $75 (a decent little wedge in 1858) and rubber-stamp his freedom. Along the way, he'll also teach Django a thing or two about the art of gunfighting and about the macabre trade of bounty-hunting (both in which Django proves to be a natural). On the trail of the Brittles, Schultz wonders aloud as to Django's plans once this endeavour is over and he's free. Well, as it happens, Django is a married man and his intention, once free, is to find his wife and buy her freedom. They'd tried to run from the Carrucan plantation together but they'd been caught, branded (both Django and his wife - played with all of her nerves exposed by Kerry Washington - sport R-For-Runaway scars on their cheeks) and sold on, separately. So he doesn't know where she is but that's what he's going to try to do. Schultz, feeling responsible for Django as the man granting him his freedom, proposes a further deal: If this Brittle bounty goes well, he'll honour Django's freedom but if Django stays with him through the winter as partners, taking on bounties and earning money, he'll help Django locate his wife.

What we have here is a large sequence of set-pieces - some funny, some tense, some action-packed - stretched across very-nearly three hours (though, like most QT films, it moves like a bullet train and those three hours just fly) strung together by a fairly simple revenge/rescue tale set against a geographically sprawling backdrop; a reasonably similar template to many of Quentin's movies and an almost identical template to that of previous outing Inglourious Basterds, to which Django Unchained could almost be considered a companion piece despite the wildly different global and historical settings. Like Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained is quite a bit longer than the story need be, and like Inglourious Basterds that is because each scene is treated by Tarantino as a mini movie, a contained set-piece all of its own. Every scene is fleshed out and deepened for either heightened comic or dramatic effect by lengthened sequences of characters going about the mundane or by characters delivering enormous monologues - rambling shaggy-dog stories, usually - to one another, for context. Not every scene is entirely necessary, either. I wouldn't call that a flaw though, I'd call it a trait typical of Quentin Tarantino; whether it's a flaw or an outright treat depends entirely on whether that's an element of Tarantino's writing that the viewer appreciates. Personally, I love Tarantino's writer's voice and I could watch these scenes for hours (indeed, I watched Django Unchained three times over the course of yesterday), but I can fully undersand what those lamenting the decent 90-minute film that's lost somewhere within the sojourns and speeches of Django Unchained are saying.

Performances throughout are utterly mesmerising, from stars Foxx and Waltz but also - in fact, maybe more so - from principle antagonists Leonardo DiCaprio as "Monsieur" Calvin Candie, the horrifying owner of the "Candyland" plantation currently holding the ownership deeds on Django's wife, and Samuel L. Jackson in an if-anything even more monstrous role as Stephen, Candie's elderly head house slave, a man who has utterly abndoned the culture and torment of his people in return for a few material trappings as the slave-in-chief. Playing to superb comedic effect is Don Johnson as Big Daddy, a strutting, peacock-like Tennessee dandy and owner of the plantation currently employing the Brittle Brothers, and delightful in cameo roles are (among many others) James Remar (The Warriors, Dexter), Jonah Hill (Superbad, The Watch), John Jarratt (Wolf Creek, Rogue) and Michael Parks (Red State, Kill Bill). Quentin himself makes a cameo as usual and, as usual, he's not as charming as he probably thinks he is, but he's also not as bad as many think he is, either. There's even a quick cameo (raising an involuntary cheer from me!) by Franco Nero, the original Django from the magnificent 1966 film of the same name by Sergio Corbucci (that's not the only nod back to the first Django movie; the opening credits to Django Unchained are presented in exactly the same way as the original, and the theme song to Quentin's film comes directly from the Corbucci film too).

Django Unchained is likely to come under fire on a couple of counts; possibly for it's incredible levels of bloodshed (one particular gunfight is the most blood-splattered scene I've seen in a movie since those elevator doors opened in The Shining), and much more probably for the liberal use of what guilty white folks like to refer to as "The 'N'-word", uttered literally hundreds of times from first scene to last. However, neither criticism is warranted in my humble opinion. The bloodshed is of the overexaggerated cartoon quality. Heads, arteries and extremities explode upon bullet impact like detonated watermelons to a gloopy, "BLAAAPP!" sound effect, the blood itself translucent, syrupy and intentionally unrealistic. And if a tale is set against the backdrop of slavery in the 19th century deep South, you're going to hear the word "Nigger" in that tale. Often. Be assured though that just as Inglourious Basterds was a revenge fantasy of the downtrodden Jewish war refugees over the stupidly evil Nazi Germans, this is a tale of empowerment of the enslaved black man over his sadistic, pig-ignorant white overseers.

If you like Tarantino, you'll probably like Django Unchained. If you like Westerns (and the blood-drenched Spaghetti Westerns of the late sixties in particular), you'll probably like Django Unchained. If, like me, you're an admirer of both Tarantino AND westerns, this is a no-brainer. Get and see it, it's a blast.

I'd like to have seen him pull a Gatling gun out of a coffin, though.

A highly entertaining yet disturbing film with superb cast and performances for an audience who would likely never consider watching a film fundamentally about slavery, where Tarantino is masterfully and emphatically navigating and exposing the complex layers of the violent and dehumanizing system of slavery.

**ENTERTAINING from start to finish !!**

Given I am a big fan of **Quentin's** works i knew this movie would be a treat to watch.But what i didn't know was violence can be so **COOL**... The movie is a treat to watch(including the blood and gore) from starting to end.The acting is superb.And the cinematography is just too good! The whole cast played their parts to perfection...Especially **Samuel L. Jackson** and **Jamie Foxx**..**Leo and Christopher Waltz** were superb too..And as Christopher said in the movie - "It was hard to RESIST".A must watch for everyone who likes QUALITY cinema..Even the ones who cant stand BOOMs and BANGs, you wouldn't regret spending about 3 hours watching this well written, well directed and well acted GREAT movie !!

This is one of the best movies I have watched in a long time. It is a pure Tarantino blast. The somewhat unexpected and quite hilarious start of the movie catches your attention from the start and from then on it is 3 hours (almost) of pure enjoyment.

The main actors are playing their roles very well. The Dr. King Schultz character (Christop Walz) is incredibly funny without being ridiculous, Jamie Foxx is excellent as Django and Leonardo DiCaprio is doing his role well as a plantation owner and slave trader. None of the rest of the crew stood out as particularly bad. Well with the possible exception of Tarantino himself then when he made his usual in-movie appearance a’ la Hitchcock. Not that he was particularly bad but he is no actor either.

The movie starts of by Dr. Schulz liberating Django and proceeding to a small town showing Django what he is in the business of doing. Those first minutes of the movie are somewhat unexpected and very funny to watch. After that the movie gets more serious as Django gets to learn to be a bounty hunter and finally gets on with his quest to rescue his “Damsel in distress”. It still has quite a bit of “Tarantino humour” sprinkled around in it though.

During the movie we are treated to a long series of stereotypical people with, let us say, an “attitude” towards African people. It is tempting to say “nigger haters” but that would not be true since a lot of these people did not exactly hate them. They just did not consider African people to be people but more than live stock for them to use as they wished. Unlike a lot of movies portraying these events this one never comes across as boringly finger pointing or overly morally lecturing. Nor does it in any way support or glorify the way things were at this time. It is a movie made to entertain set in a period where bad shit happened and using it for the story. Nothing more and nothing less.

As usual with a Tarantino movie there are some violent parts, some more violent parts and some bloody violent parts in it. The ending fights are a glorious show of destruction and blood splatter. I am sure some people are complaining about the “unnecessary violence”. I am not one of those people. Without these parts it would not be a real Tarantino movie. As always it is made with the usual exaggeration that Tarantino is so good and which reminds you that it is “only a movie”.
This is one of the few movies that I have given 10 out of 10 stars in a very long time. I enjoyed it immensely.

When Django is unchained (pronounced JANG-oh, not Duh-JANG-oh)

Released in 2012 and directed & written by Quentin Tarantino, "Django Unchained" stars Christoph Waltz as an ex-dentist who befriends an ex-slave, Django (Jamie Foxx) in West Texas a couple of years before the Civil War; they team-up as bounty hunters once they realize how good they jell. The second half focuses on their attempt to infiltrate a Mississippi plantation owned by pompous Southerner "Monsieur" Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) in order to rescue Django's wife (Kerry Washington). Samuel L. Jackson plays Candie's overly loyal house slave.

This is an excellent American Western with Spaghetti Western elements featuring Tarantino's typical artistic flourishes. It takes place in the West AND in the South, which is reminiscent of the underrated "Nevada Smith" (1966), one of my favorite Westerns. Waltz is magnetic as the nonchalant protagonist and he & Foxx have good chemistry. There's a nice mix of interesting dialogues, amusing moments and over-the-top action. Unfortunately, but to be expected, Tarantino goes overboard with the 'n' word and the blood-letting, the latter to the point of cartoonish-ness.

Nevertheless, this is an original Western that is vibrant with creativity, including stunning locations, cinematography and a great amalgamated soundtrack/score, which includes cuts by Ennio Morricone, like the excellent "Hornets' Nest," the imaginative "The Braying Mule" and the moving "Ancora Qui." It's all-around superior to "The Hateful Eight" (2015) because it's not limited by a one-room whodunit plot (although "Hateful" has its unique points of interest).

The movie runs 165 minutes and was shot in Jackson Hole, Wyoming; Evergreen Plantation & New Orleans, Louisiana; and several locations in California (Lone Pine, Alabama Hills, Semi Valley, Melody Ranch, Santa Clarita, Independence & Los Angeles). The cast includes numerous peripheral notables, e.g. Ato Essandohs, Don Stroud, James Remar, Bruce Dern, Ato Essandoh, Franco Nero, Don Johnson, Amber Tamblyn and several others.

GRADE: A