Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (2022) Review

Time: 102 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, coarse language, some scenes may scare very young children
Cast:
Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots
Salma Hayek Pinault as Kitty Softpaws
Harvey Guillén as Perrito
Florence Pugh as Goldilocks
Olivia Colman as Mama Bear
Ray Winstone as Papa Bear
Samson Kayo as Baby Bear
John Mulaney as “Big” Jack Horner
Wagner Moura as the Wolf
Da’Vine Joy Randolph as Mama Luna
Anthony Mendez as the doctor
Director: Joel Crawford

Puss in Boots discovers that his passion for adventure has taken its toll when he learns that he has burnt through eight of his nine lives. Puss sets out on an epic journey to find the mythical Last Wish and restore his nine lives.

I was surprised that Puss in Boots of all things was getting a sequel, especially over a decade after the first movie. I enjoyed the Shrek movies and the initial Puss in Boots spin off, but I wasn’t really thinking that I was going to rush out to watch the sequel. So I was curious that it quickly became one of the most popular movies of 2022. I decided to check it out, and I can at least say that it is way better than it had any right to be.

So I had been hearing about how special and different Puss in Boots 2 was, it’s really not that different from what you’d typically expect. It’s a very straightforward and linear story with familiar story beats. However, it handles this familiar structure very well. Unlike the first Puss in Boots which was serviceable, but clearly banking on the success from the Shrek brand, The Last Wish feels like there’s actual passion behind it, and the story is heartfelt and genuine enough. I wouldn’t call the movie dark at all, but it does have some somewhat heavier aspects that you wouldn’t expect in a Puss in Boots movie, with themes involving mortality and inevitability of death. However, it’s done in such a way that the film is appropriate enough for children, while having enough things here for adults to enjoy. Some jokes don’t work, but most of them do, and there are particularly some really funny running gags.

Overall, the voice acting is strong and the cast does well at portraying the memorable characters. Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek reprise their roles of Puss in Boots and Kitty Softpaws, with Banderas having the best outing of his character yet. Many of the other actors including Florence Pugh, Ray Winstone, and Olivia Colman voice their roles very well. I thought all the characters were pretty good and worked in their roles, though a comic relief character in the form of a dog I was less amused by. The film also benefits from some memorable villains. One of these villains is Jack Horner voiced by John Mulaney, who is a blatantly and cartoonishly evil character and all the more fun for that. However, the standout is a wolf named Death, voiced by Wagner Moura, who is hunting Puss in Boots over the course of the movie. Any time the character showed up he had such a strong presence, and he was definitely a highlight.

The animation is really the strongest aspect of the movie, so fresh and unexpected. It doesn’t go for a shiny photorealistic look like most animated movies nowadays. A very fair comparison has been made between this and the animation in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse; there are a lot of similarities between them, but The Last Wish does enough to make it not just a copy or riff on Spider-Verse. The colours are vibrant, exaggerated and gorgeous, the camera movements are fast and dynamic, the movements of the characters are swift and particularly shine in the snappy and exhilarating action scenes. It’s really helped by a good score from Heitor Pereira.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is surprisingly good. The story may be familiar, but its handled very well, it is entertaining, funny, creative, and benefits strongly from its stunning animation and great action. It’s also potentially the best movie in the whole Shrek franchise, at the very least it is in competition with Shrek 2. Well worth checking out.

Advertisement

House of Gucci (2021) Review

Time: 129 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, offensive language & sex scenes
Cast:
Lady Gaga as Patrizia Reggiani
Adam Driver as Maurizio Gucci
Jared Leto as Paolo Gucci
Jeremy Irons as Rodolfo Gucci
Salma Hayek as Giuseppina “Pina” Auriemma
Al Pacino as Aldo Gucci
Jack Huston as Domenico De Sole
Director: Ridley Scott

When Patrizia Reggiani, an outsider from humble beginnings, marries into the Gucci family, her unbridled ambition begins to unravel the family legacy and triggers a reckless spiral of betrayal, decadence, revenge — and ultimately murder.

House of Gucci was one of my most anticipated films of 2021. It would be one of two Ridley Scott films coming that year (this and The Last Duel), it would have a large and talented cast with the likes of Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, and Al Pacino, and it would be about the Gucci family, which was something I didn’t know much about. It certainly had the potential to be one of Scott’s best, and while I wouldn’t go so far to call it that, I do think it’s quite good.

The story was intriguing, I didn’t know where it would go outside of some key moments. Essentially its about a rich family at war with itself, and it was interesting seeing the scale and progression of everything. Something you will have to know early on is that the movie is definitely campy and silly, its over the top and occasionally leans into soap opera and melodrama. This joyful campiness might not work for everyone, but I thought that it made the movie more fun to watch. I do feel like it couldn’t seem to fully decide whether it was going to be a serious drama or a campy comedy, and it mostly jumps between the two throughout. I think that the movie would’ve been better served by leaning more into the camp elements (like many of the performances do, mainly Gaga’s and Leto’s). It is a very long movie at 2 hours and 40 minutes and honestly I think it would’ve been better if it was longer, I am hoping for an extended/director’s cut from Ridley Scott in the future (since he’s known for them). The pacing is definitely steady and slow, there is a lot to cover (literal decades) and it builds up gradually over time. Sometimes the focus on particular elements was a little messy. It feels like it skips over some very important moments that would’ve helped to make the story make more sense. I did need to look up online about the real story so that I could get some context and understand some things. It also felt surprisingly very abrupt at the end, especially with how slow the film takes its time. It definitely would’ve benefitted by the third act being at least 20 minutes longer.

One of the things most known about House of Gucci are the big names involved, and they are all good in their parts. Lady Gaga is great in the lead part of Patrizia Reggiani, she really gets into her role and shows a wide range of emotions throughout the whole film. She gets plenty of opportunities to chew the scenery and shines in all her scenes. Adam Driver is reliably good and relatively restrained, Al Pacino is great, Jeremy Irons is in less scenes than many of the other actors, but he’s really good in his scenes. The most divisive performance is probably going to be that of Jared Leto. He is sporting a lot of prosthetics to make himself unrecognisable, and has a very over the top Italian accent. He is very much the comic relief of the film, and in a way his ridiculous performance really works for the campy nature of film. The scenes between him and Pacino were particularly great. Other actors like Jack Huston and Salma Hayek also bring it to their respective parts.

The direction by Ridley Scott is reliably great, and he provides the style that this film needs. It’s fantastically shot, and the production design and costumes are incredible as to be expected. The score from Harry Gregson-Williams and the soundtrack choices were great.

The reaction to House of Gucci has certainly shown the movie as being divisive amongst a lot of people. It does have its issues, it could’ve been longer to flesh out some elements, and the movie would’ve benefitted from leaning further into the campier elements. On the whole though, I was engaged with the story, Ridley’s direction was solid, and the performances were great. So I think it is at least worth checking out.

Eternals (2021) Review

Time: 157 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Gemma Chan as Sersi
Richard Madden as Ikaris
Kumail Nanjiani as Kingo
Lia McHugh as Sprite
Brian Tyree Henry as Phastos
Lauren Ridloff as Makkari
Barry Keoghan as Druig
Don Lee as Gilgamesh
Harish Patel as Karun
Kit Harington as Dane Whitman
Salma Hayek as Ajak
Angelina Jolie as Thena
Director: Chloé Zhao

The Eternals, a race of immortal beings with superhuman powers who have secretly lived on Earth for thousands of years, reunite to battle the evil Deviants.

My interest in the MCU has been gradually decreasing ever since Endgame, and while I still enjoy the post Endgame instalments (especially the recently released Shang-Chi), there were only a few movies I was really looking forward to. One of these was Eternals, mainly because it’s a very different kind of Marvel movie focussing on completely different characters. Not only that, but it also has a great cast, and the director is Chloe Zhao, who earlier this year won Oscars and acclaim for Nomadland. Then the trailers eventually were starting to release and it looked rather disappointing, looking much blander than I was expecting. Then strangely, the reviews for Eternals turned out rather mixed, and if anything that got me excited for the. There was clearly something different about this movie from the others, and I was very interested to see it for myself. While it definitely has issues, I really liked Eternals on the whole.

First and foremost, Eternals is not a traditional MCU movie and in a way, it is a welcome break for the franchise. I will say though that it is a bit of a mess. It is refreshing seeing a different structure than the one we see in pretty much every other MCU movies. There is a lot of worldbuilding, especially as if it’s for a side of the MCU we’ve not seen or known about before. While I was interested in it, it’s not like it didn’t come with its problems. It feels like there’s so much information that needed to be conveyed, and a lot of this is done through numerous flashbacks over the course of the movie, specifically focussing on the Eternals. You could say that Eternals has something of a non-linear narrative, and it doesn’t always work. It’s not unusual for a Marvel movie to have flashbacks but the Eternals are 10 immortal beings who have lived for centuries, and so there’s many moments that are presented to us, and most of the time it interrupts the flow and pacing. I really do feel like they could’ve pulled back on the flashbacks, an example of this is one involving Brian Tyree Henry’s character which lasts less than a minute and doesn’t end up adding anything. All this exposition is probably why it’s the second longest Marvel movie at around 2 hours and 40 minutes long. It doesn’t help that much of the main plotline is the Eternals reuniting, so it feels like its on repeat until it approaches the third act.

The plot itself isn’t the best, essentially it’s about the Eternals trying to save the world from ending. Not only is the premise very simple and familiar, but it’s also feels meaningless at this point given the countless other “save the world” plots from the other Marvel movies. With that said, I was still invested in the plot, and I think its to do with everything around the plot. For one, despite the overload of information, I was interested in the lore and the worldbuilding. There’s particularly a scene where Gemma Chan’s character is being presented a lot of information, and I loved the way that it was shown on screen. The characters also got me invested, and it really helped that despite the large scale and stakes, Chloe Zhao approaches the story from a very human angle like Nomadland (and presumably The Rider which I haven’t seen yet). She deliberately focuses on the human emotions and the relationships between these beings who have lived many centuries and generations. The downside is that it unfortunately clashes with the Marvel formula that Eternals still partly follows, and in a way it makes this one movie feel like two very different movies struggling to meet a compromise. For what its worth though, it made the story a lot more interesting to watch. The reason I was still invested in the third act was because of the characters, making the stakes feel more personal despite the scale. I also appreciate the subtle moments and it actually seems like its taking the audiences seriously in a way. As expected the MCU has humour that’s hit or miss, and being placed in this movie makes it play even worse and out of place. I feel obligated to mention that Eternals has two credits scenes as expected, teasing a follow up if it ever happens. However it will be disappointing if Eternals doesn’t get a sequel, because even before the credits roll, the film ends on a cliff-hangar. While it does make an effective hook for the sequel, it is tempting fate if we don’t see a continuation.

One of the biggest selling points of this movie is the huge and talented cast. A lot of attention has been going towards the diversity and representation with the cast and characters, and its very well earned. Some characters get more focus than others, but when you essentially have 10 main characters that’s to be expected. There’s a lot of relationships between a lot of the Eternals that feel very real and genuine. I also like how a lot of the characters are very distinct and different from each other. Unfortunately, two of the weaker performers/characters are the leads, Gemma Chan as Sersi, and Richard Madden as Ikaris. Sersi is the closest character to being a main protagonist, and despite Chan’s solid performance I found her rather boring and not that interesting. I also found Madden quite underwhelming as Ikaris (who is pretty much Marvel’s Superman in terms of powers), and he was not that interesting especially when he’s placed alongside the other Eternals. With that said, there is a point later on in the movie where Madden and Ikaris do vastly improve and become more interesting. Also while I earlier mentioned that the relationships between the Eternals are believable, the relationship between Sersi and Ikaris felt very weak. It just feels fake and stiff, Chan and Madden barely have any chemistry, and annoyingly it’s the most prominent on screen relationship in the film. Salma Hayek plays Ajak, the leader of the Eternals, and while she’s good in the part, she has the least amount of screentime of the 10 main characters. So while its established that she means something to each member of the Eternals, its hard to get emotionally connected to her.

Kumail Nanjiani as Kingo is quite funny and of the cast probably brings the most amount of levity. Lia McHugh as Sprite was a mixed bag, I oscillated between liking and not liking the character. The rest of the Eternals I will be mentioning really needed a lot more screentime than they received. Angelina Jolie as Thena had an interesting character setup especially as she’s on the more unstable side, but she’s strangely underutilised outside of the action. She is good at the action, I liked her powers, and Jolie is really good at the silent warrior thing, but unfortunately that’s really all there is to the character outside of her relationship with Gilgamesh, played by Ma Dong-seok. Gilgamesh was enjoyable and likable, and I liked his powers, and I wish we saw more of him. Brian Tyree Henry as Phastos was also one of the highlights of the film for me. Barry Keoghan as Druig was probably the most interesting of the Eternals, especially how he’s quite different in both personality and powers. Lauren Ridloff as Makkari is definitely held back by her lack of screentime but makes a strong impression, especially with her speed powers.

There’s a few other supporting actors I want to mention. One of the cast members is Kit Harington as a guy named Dane Whitman, who early in the movie is Sersi’s boyfriend. He’s really only in the movie for a few scenes but he’s likable, and shares believable chemistry with Gemma Chan. He’s basically just in this movie to establish him here before he plays a more prominent part in future instalments (if they ever happen). There’s also Harish Patel as Kingo’s manager who is along for the ride with the Eternals for much of the film, and he’s quite fun to watch. The villains aren’t special but I didn’t have a problem with them, with the exception of one. Many of the physical enemies the Eternals are up against are Deviants, monsters they were sent to fight and destroy. They work well enough as physical threats, even if they are nothing special. However there is one deviant voiced by Bill Skarsgard that’s focused on and given some prominence, and I don’t really get why. I only mention this because he’s forced into the third act for some reason, and he just distracts if anything.

Chloe Zhao’s work as the director of Eternals definitely helps the overall film. You do get to see the massive scope and scale of the film. The cinematography is really nice, it’s a beautiful movie to look at, especially with some stunning landscapes. The action sequences are quite good, even if there’s not a lot of them. The visual effects could be disappointingly average a lot of the time, but I was able to look past them. I like how a lot of the Eternals’ powers are represented, a highlight being Makkari’s speed power. The score from Ramin Djawadi is great as expected, and it really elevates the movie.

Eternals has its fair share of issues, some of the characters needed more screentime and fleshing out, and there is an overload of exposition which results in the narrative being a little messy and disjointed. With that said, it’s one of the most interesting MCU films in a while, if only in terms of how it differs from the other movies. While the central plot is nothing special, the characters and their relationships made it easy for me to get invested in what was happening. Additionally, Chloe Zhao’s direction also really made it one of the most unique MCU entries. It would be a shame if Eternals doesn’t get a follow up because its genuinely showing signs of the franchise somewhat changing, even if it makes them at odds with the formula it unfortunately still needs to somewhat follow. I would not put it in my top 10 favourite movies in the franchise, but I do think it’s at least worth checking out.

The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard (2021) Review

Time: 116 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, sexual references & offensive language
Cast:
Ryan Reynolds as Michael Bryce
Samuel L. Jackson as Darius Kincaid
Salma Hayek as Sonia Kincaid
Frank Grillo as Bobby O’Neill
Antonio Banderas as Aristotle Papadopoulos
Morgan Freeman as Michael Bryce Sr.
Director: Patrick Hughes

The world’s most lethal odd couple — bodyguard Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) and hit man Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson) — are back for another life-threatening mission. Still unlicensed and under scrutiny, Bryce is forced into action by Darius’s even more volatile wife (Salma Hayek). Soon, all three are in over their heads when a madman’s (Antonio Banderas) sinister plot threatens to leave Europe in total chaos.

The Hitman’s Bodyguard was a relatively okay action comedy which I only checked out when its sequel, The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard, was coming soon. Going into the sequel I wasn’t expecting a different movie, just more of the same. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson would be fun to watch, there would be some mixed action, and a generic plot. The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard was that, but just a little bit sillier, for better and for worse.

I remember one of the main issues of the first movie was that it didn’t seem to know what kind of tone it was aiming for. It was either too serious and dark, or it was too silly and goofy, and it could’ve helped by leaning towards one or the other. So one thing that the sequel does well is that it sticks to one side, that being the silly side. It’s on a larger scale, with a rich Bond-esque villain with a plan for large scale destruction using some machine. That aside, for the most part it does seem to be going through the same motions as the first movie, more of the same but even messier. One disadvantage of this decision to go in this direction however is that the plot is just so over the top silly. As soon as I picked up on the what it was going for, I stopped paying attention to the plot at all. The plot of the first movie wasn’t that good, but having it be a simple “get the hitman to the court alive” plot worked well enough. With Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard, it really just falls apart if you even think about it, and it is definitely less well constructed. The dumb plot is hard to ignore, packed with every dumb trope, including a weapon to blow up stuff on a large scale, flashbacks explaining characters’ backstories, you name it. Even the plot is surprisingly convoluted and barely comprehensible looking back at it, all the while still feeling like a plot is barely there. It’s clear that it’s the jokes that are the real focus. The characters are even more cartoonish too, it feels like literally every character is angry and screaming at each other at times, it really is such a loud movie. So while I’m not really the type of person to say to turn your brain off when watching a movie, I’d say try to not think too hard about what’s happening while watching. With that being said, I think the movie is deliberately parodying itself, and looking at the movie from that perspective does help. There is particularly a backstory for Ryan Reynolds which is so ridiculous that it’s actually quite funny, and I’m assuming that this was intentional. The humour is about the same level, mildly funny, however probably even more over the top and juvenile. Not all the jokes work out, but on the whole I was satisfied with the humour here. One of the best moments is actually the final moment of the movie, so if you’re two thirds into the movie and aren’t finding it funny, it’s worth sticking to the end at least.

As usual the leading pair of Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson return, and while not everyone likes their on screen chemistry, I do enjoy it and think it works. I will say that it does feel a little contrived that their characters are bickering so much in this movie, considering that in that both of them grew to like each other over the course of the first movie. However this time it’s not a leading pair, but rather a trio. Salma Hayek returns from the previous movie as Jackson’s wife, this time being upgraded to a co-leading role, and she definitely stands out among the movie. Her wackiness can get on the nerves at times but in all fairness, out of all of the cast she has the most energy and gives the most to the movie. There is a pretty strong chemistry between the three actors and once again this is the highlight of the movie. Antonio Banderas is the film’s villain, and he is committed to being intense, however a bit too serious in a movie this cartoonish. However character-wise, he does seem to work better in this movie as a D-level Bond villain compared to Gary Oldman’s dictator villain in the first movie.

Patrick Hughes returns to direct this one, and the direction is at about the same level as the first movie. The action is mostly competent and gory, if too heavily edited and chaotic. It does go for more over the top comedy action, physics basically have no meaning in this movie. It is departing from some of the more grounded and serious action from the first movie, which even had some surprising tension. I remember that the first movie lingered on the grimness of some of the violence, which initially seemed out of place in a movie with that much comedy, however I think I still prefer the action of the first Hitman’s Bodyguard movie more. The CGI is quite bad, especially when it comes to the explosions. Still, I had some fun with the action in this movie.

The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard is another mixed bag really, better and worse than the first movie. It is more self-aware and silly, but sort of at the expense as itself. The chemistry between Reynolds, Jackson and Hayek was fun, and some of the action was enjoyable but that’s it. The ending of this indicates seems like there’s going to be a third movie, and I’m not really sure what they can really do with it. If you disliked the first movie, I don’t really see a situation where you’ll like the sequel. However, if you enjoyed the first movie and are interested in a sequel on the same level, albeit much sillier, then maybe check it out.

The Hitman’s Bodyguard (2017) Review

Time: 118 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence & offensive language
Cast:
Ryan Reynolds as Michael Bryce
Samuel L. Jackson as Darius Kincaid
Gary Oldman as Vladislav Dukhovich
Salma Hayek as Sonia Kincaid
Élodie Yung as Amelia Roussel
Joaquim de Almeida as Jean Foucher
Kirsty Mitchell as Rebecca Harr
Richard E. Grant as Mr. Seifert
Director: Patrick Hughes

Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds), a protection agent, is tasked with protecting Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson), one of the world’s most famous assassins. The two must then set aside their differences to tackle several dangerous events.

I heard about The Hitman’s Bodyguard when it came out, an action comedy with the pairing of Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson in the lead roles. I didn’t watch it when it came out, it looked fun enough despite the mixed reviews, but it wasn’t something I was actively pursuing to watch. However with it getting a sequel this year, I decided I should probably get around to it. The Hitman’s Bodyguard was about what I expected it to be, it’s not that good and it’s a little generic but I had fun with it.

The plot doesn’t really have much to it. I didn’t care much about what was happening, but it was simple enough and not overly convoluted. It’s also not particularly original, two people who have a lot of differences between them are stuck with each other but put their differences aside by the end. It’s very similar to the plots of other buddy action comedies. It’s very familiar, by the numbers and predictable but it’s still quite enjoyable. The movie does exceed when it’s the two characters getting in shenanigans, more so than its actual generic plot. The writing can be funny. Not all of it worked and for the most part I didn’t find it to be laugh out hilarious or anything, but the comedy was alright. One unexpected issue was that tonally, The Hitman’s Bodyguard is a bit inconsistent. It has the goofiness as expected but also has its fair share of tonal shifts into dark moments and plays some scenes a hair too seriously. I’m not saying the mix of the two can’t work, but they certainly don’t pull it off in this movie. It probably would’ve been better leaning into the silliness. Finally, the movie does run on for too long. It’s around 2 hours long and you do feel that length, and the inconsistent pacing doesn’t help matters.

The main draw of the film is Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson in the lead roles, it’s what most people who watch the movie are here for, and thankfully they deliver. The movie plays into the personalities that each lead has cultivated over their careers, and it certainly felt like each of them were playing themselves. The two of them are funny, have good chemistry and play off each other well. However I do feel like the writing wasn’t quite all there to utilise them the best and it could’ve been a bit better. The rest of the supporting cast are fine but they all feel wasted in a way. In fact, when it’s not focusing on the two leads, the majority of the characters are just sitting down and waiting for stuff to happen. Gary Oldman plays a generic dictator villain, and all he does is just sit down looking menacing and giving out orders to kill Samuel L. Jackson’s character. Salma Hayek is a standout in her scenes as Samuel L. Jackson’s character’s wife, but generally she spends much of the movie just in a prison cell and doesn’t do anything really. Elodie Yung is a disgruntled former lover of Reynolds’s character and doesn’t do a massive amount in the plot outside of waiting for Ryan Reynolds to show up at the final location with Samuel L. Jackson.

Patrick Hughes is the director of The Hitman’s Bodyguard, and initially I was sceptical going in since his last movie was The Expendables 3, which I found to be quite lacklustre. I will say however that the action here is definitely better than the action in Expendables 3, if only because it doesn’t feel forcibly toned down to get a PG-13 rating. The fight scenes are pretty decent and overall, the action is fun and entertainingly dumb, if nothing unique or special. However, some aspects take away from them. It has a little too many cuts and edits, the visual effects aren’t that great, and the scenes weren’t shot the best. I previously mentioned about the tonal inconsistencies and that especially is the case when it comes to the action scenes, specifically the violence. The violence at times can be surprisingly graphic and bloody and even lingers on gruesome images, but there’s also some very silly and comedic action scenes. Again, gore aside, I think the issue is that some of those scenes are played a little too seriously that they feel out of place even if they are going for dark comedy.

The Hitman’s Bodyguard was pretty much what I expected, a very flawed action comedy with some mildly entertaining action and the highlights being Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson. Much of the plot is very generic and underwhelming, and even for a standard buddy action movie could’ve had more to it (or at least been a little more fun). However, the chemistry of the leads completely carry the movie. I’m just hoping that The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard is better than the first movie.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) Review

Time: 108 Minutes
Age Rating: contains violence
Cast:
George Clooney as Seth Gecko
Quentin Tarantino as Richard “Richie” Gecko
Harvey Keitel as Jacob Fuller
Juliette Lewis as Katherine Fuller
Ernest Liu as Scott Fuller
Salma Hayek as Santanico Pandemonium
Cheech Marin as Border Guard/Chet Pussy/Carlos
Danny Trejo as Razor Charlie
Tom Savini as Sex Machine
Director: Robert Rodriguez

On the run from a bank robbery that left several police officers dead, Seth Gecko (George Clooney) and his paranoid, loose-cannon brother, Richard (Quentin Tarantino), hightail it to the Mexican border. Kidnapping preacher Jacob Fuller (Harvey Keitel) and his kids, the criminals sneak across the border in the family’s RV and hole up in a topless bar. Unfortunately, the bar also happens to be home base for a gang of vampires, and the brothers and their hostages have to fight their way out.

I remember watching From Dusk Till Dawn years ago, it had a big reputation for starting off as a crime movie and then halfway through turns into a bloodbath of a vampire movie. It wasn’t that much of a surprise to me, I knew that going in. And in knowing that, it really worked for me and was a very entertaining movie. It’s a violent and bloody grindhouse/B movie that’s a lot of fun.

From Dusk Till Dawn is a very B movie and it wholeheartedly embraces that. As I said, From Dusk Till Dawn is known for basically being two halves of very different movies. The first half is a violent crime movie (probably a typical Tarantino crime film) following the Gecko Brothers (George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino) as they take a family hostage. The second half is a bloodbath of a vampire movie. I guess I would hide this as for some it was an absolute surprise but its practically a well known fact at this point that it’s not really worth it. As for which half you’ll prefer, I don’t really know. I will say that going in I was more expecting the vampire movie, so I was kind of waiting for that section to come up for a while. Quentin Tarantino wrote the script and you can really feel like it’s his writing throughout, especially with the dialogue. In a way, Tarantino’s writing and Rodriguez’s direction were a perfect match for this kind of story.

The cast for the most part does well. George Clooney gives quite possibly my favourite performance of his. Gone is the charismatic and charming Clooney that would be appear in even his criminal roles like Danny Ocean, here he is a straight up ruthless criminal who still remains likable despite it. Quentin Tarantino despite being a very talented writer and director does get a bit of a bad wrap when it comes to his acting, especially in this movie. I personally think he was actually alright here, no he’s not really that great of an actor but his character Richard Gecko who’s an unstable psychopath, he pulls it off well enough. Maybe other actors could play the part and do it better but he does the job okay. The hostage family is played by Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu, who really play the only redeemable characters in the whole movie, and they did quite well (although Liu is a cut below Keitel and Lewis). We do get some other actors in smaller roles but do their part to stand out, with Danny Trejo, Cheech Marin and Tom Savini being some of them. And of course we have Salma Hayek, who is only in a couple scenes but is one of the most memorable parts of the movie (granted its mostly because of a dance she does around the halfway point but still).

Robert Rodriguez directs this movie, and as typical of (non Spy Kids) Rodriguez, the action is entertaining and really bloody. Early on, when the violence is present, its bloody but it’s kind of disturbing at the same time. In the vampire segment however, it goes really over the top with the gore and its just really entertaining to watch. There is a lot of practical effects used for the gore and its very creative and impressive. These representations of vampires aren’t the Dracula kind of vampires, these are the absolutely grotesque and monstrous kind of vampires. The reason that this movie didn’t get an NC-17 rating is that they turned the vampire blood from red to green, and I guess it worked (and made it stand apart from the other representations of vampires even more).

From Dusk Till Dawn probably isn’t for everyone. The switch from crime to horror in the halfway point did put off some people, you might end up digging one segment much more than the other, I can’t say for certain. If you’re up for a weird and violent action horror movie written by Quentin Tarantino and directed by Robert Rodriguez however, I’d say give it a go.