J. J. Abrams is directing Star Wars Episode VII

Eh? Eh??!!

So, after all the speculation, with names such as Matthew Vaughn (would've been awesome), Jon Favreau (might've been awesome), Brad Bird (also would've been awesome), Colin Trevorrow (have no damn idea, haven't seen Safety Not Guaranteed), as well as Zack Snyder's rumored Seven Samurai/Jedi spinoff (which could be awesome, or crash and burn like Sucker Punch), it appears now that J. J. Abrams has officially secured the directing gig of Star Wars Episode VII. And honestly? I feel that there's no better choice. Oh sure, Joss Whedon, Bird or Vaughn could have definitely made a killer Star Wars film, but Abrams is the obvious right man for the job, if a slightly safe pick. As evidence, I present Star Trek, by which I mean the 2009 franchise reboot/reset/prequel/sequel/whatever-this-damn-time-travel-fuckery-makes-it-in-terms-of-continuity which Abrams spearheaded. Within, he clearly retunes the idea of Trek by making it bigger, louder, more character-driven, less philosophically or technologically minded, and more commercially viable. And while you can argue that this devalued everything that Gene Roddenberry created the series to stand for, it also can't be argued that the film is a big load of good old-fashioned sci-fi blockbuster fun. As a matter of fact, I would argue, between its Han Solo-ization of Kirk, its Obi-Wan-ization of Old Spock, and its focus on character and pace, its not only a refreshing take on Star Trek, but it's also a better Star Wars film than the prequels. It has everything that those effects-driven emotionally-empty corporate monstrosities lacked. So, I think Abrams is a great choice, Fanboy worlds colliding notwithstanding. Seriously, how bizarre is it that the same guy may now be in charge of the two biggest sci-fi franchises of all time? Just wanted to say a little piece on why I love Abrams for this, so that's all. But if you're still not sure that he's worthy of the position, keep an eye on his upcoming sci-fi blockbuster, Star Trek Into Darkness. Maybe a little Benedict Cumberbatch will change your mind.

You think your world is safe... but you underestimate the power of the dark side. And deductive reasoning. By the way Kirk, your daddy issues are written all over your torn left sleeve.

Inglourious Basterds vs. Django Unchained

Well, 2013 has arrived, and while a "Best of 2012" list is certainly forthcoming (in which I will touch upon all the films I did not review this year as well, such as Argo, Lincoln, The Hobbit, and Skyfall), I'm not quite ready to make it yet, as there are still many highly touted films from 2012 that I have yet to see, including The Master, Silver Linings Playbook, and Zero Dark Thirty. But what I can and do feel compelled to talk about is the newest Quentin Tarantino film, Django Unchained, his sendup to the touchy subjects of American slavery, spaghetti westerns, and the usual quixotic Tarantino brand of  hilarious, crowd-pleasing, bone-crunching violence. However, I have decided to eschew reviewing Django Unchained on its own merits and save that for the "best of" list. Instead, I'm specifically going to talk about it in terms of its relation to Tarantino's previous film, his 2009 faux-World War II war epic Inglourious Basterds. Tarantino himself has said that the two films form the first two parts of a thematically connected period revenge trilogy, that he will seemingly complete with his next planned movie, another WWII feature titled Killer Crow, that will tie together the movies by bringing in the African American themes, and throwing the Basterds into the mix in a post-Normandy environment. I'm going to discuss the connections between the films by their similarities, differences, and overall quality. I should note that I'm a big QT fan, and that some may think that I'm fawning over these movies, but I genuinely think that few films convey such a sense of raw cinematic enjoyment. So, without further ado, I shall begin.

PART I: SIMILARITIES

We're gonna be risin' up and doin' one thing only: killin' whites.

1. Both films operate on the same level of heightened reality.

It is clear within the context of both films that QT does not intend for these films to take place in "our world", so to speak. He has long said that his films operate in specific universes; There is the "Movie Universe", in which certain movies in his oeuvre (namely, Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, Pulp Fiction, Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds, and now Django Unchained) take place in a world with a very similar order to our own, and then there is the "Movie Movie Universe" in which the characters from the other movies view for entertainment (those being Natural Born Killers, From Dusk till Dawn, and the Kill Bill movies; Jackie Brown doesn't appear in either universe, due to being based on an Elmore Leonard novel). Most characters are confined to their own respective universes (As examples, the Vega Brothers, Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen) and Vincent (John Travolta) from Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, as well as film producer Lee Donowitz (True Romance), as well as his father, Eli Roth's Donny "Bear Jew" from Inglourious Basterds. None of these characters could arrive in Kill Bill or From Dusk till Dawn, but could potentially show up in any of the more reality-based films), with a few exceptions (those being, according to QT, Harvey Keitel's "The Wolf" from Pulp Fiction, and Michael Parks' Sheriff Earl McGraw, who has shown up in From Dusk till Dawn and Kill Bill, but also in Death Proof, as well as Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror). It's all a very confusing and under-explained modus operandi, but the general gist is that even though the two films in question take place in the more realistic universe, they still operate on a heightened sense of reality. Hence, in the version of history supplied by these movies, World War II ends with Hitler being shot by Sgt. Donowitz in a movie theater in Paris in 1944, while the theater in question turns into an exploding bloodbath. Also, the Ku Klux Klan is apparently fully organized two years before the Civil War even begins, AKA before it even had a reason to exist in the first place. Both of these examples, and the heightened reality itself, uncover the main theme of both of these movies, which is to rewrite history through a cinematic lens, dealing with important issues such as slavery and the Holocaust by satirizing them through the use of Sergio Leone-esque spaghetti western style of tension, as well as delivering QT's typical brand of pulpy entertainment thrills. People whine about the "stupid" anachronisms of these movies, such as Rick Ross rapping through Django's exploits, or David Bowie's "Cat People" playing over the premiere of Nation's Pride. But all of them feed into QT's aforementioned central theme. (I know this first one was so long, but it was generally my main point behind writing the article).

2. Both films share the same unique style and story.
Tarantino clearly, from the beginning, set out to make Django Unchained feel like the spiritual successor to Inglourious Basterds, from Robert Richardson's gorgeous cinematography to the stylized sets, as well as the usage of the aforementioned anachronistic soundtracks and blood-bursting violence. Both films also feature the same basic revenge tale, with the Basterds and Shosanna taking revenge on their Nazi nemeses, and Django and Schultz taking on Django's oppressors and Schultz's quarries, as well as the captors of Broomhilda and the traitors to Django's race (Namely, Stephen. More on him right now). My most important similarity remains.

3. Both films contain a complex antagonist whose motives are always uncertain.

This guy is neither one of them.

I put the picture of Calvin Candie above mainly because he is not one of the antagonists I am talking about. Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't bad in the role, and he certainly was a fun and colorful villain, but there wasn't much to him above his nasty slaveowner status. He had his nice "why don't they rise up and kill the hwites" moment, and he earned the eternal ire of Dr. King Schultz for his general disregard and unpleasant nature towards the issue of slavery, but he was NOT the main bad guy of the movie. No, much to my surprise, the main villain was, in fact, Stephen, Samuel L. Jackson's sycophantic head slave to Candie.

WHO DIS N**** ON THAT NAG??!!

I fully believe that Jackson will go down as the most overlooked actor in this movie. Stephen is the most "un-SLJ" role that the actor has played in quite some time, and once again proved that Jackson is always at his best when working with QT (Jules Winnfield from Pulp Fiction, of course, and the undervalued and totally batshit scary Ordell Robbie from Jackie Brown remain two of Jackson's finest performances to date). Jules was a soldier of fortune whose life was changed by what he perceived as a message by God to change his ways, while Ordell was a nasty and dangerous criminal who would off basically anyone that threatened his self-perceived idyllic lifestyle. Stephen, however is an entirely different beast. He is an old slave, having served the Candie family plantation, Candyland, for 76 years, and in this time, he has earned a modicum of confidence from the family. In sharp contrast to the other slaves, Stephen is given duties to manage and even punish the other slaves, has earned a modest level of respect from the otherwise slave-derisive Candie, and is even able to sass his master or persuade him to speak to him in private when need be. When you see Candie and Stephen both sitting in armchairs in the library, it's almost as if they are equals. Unfortunately, this has made Stephen sycophantic to Candie's needs, laughing faux-jovially at basically anything his master says, as well as making him an Tarantino-ized Uncle Tom figure, a submissive sellout to his own race, betraying Broomhilda and Django to Candie for his own personal gain. And once Candie (SUPER MEGA SPOILER) is gunned down, Stephen takes his rightful place as the central antagonist, being clearly in charge despite his submission to Candie's surviving sister Lara. In the depths of his mangled soul, Stephen even considers himself white, not realizing the complete betrayal of his race and their current political situation will eventually lead to his downfall. He is a symbol of what an oppressive culture can do to a people, given enough time, and Jackson pulls off Stephen's delusions with aplomb. However, he still is not quite as complex as the labyrinthine mind that inhabits the central villain of Inglourious Basterds:

I will make you cry, given enough time for polite conversation.

With an Academy Award under his belt, and another possibly forthcoming, no actor has benefited more from these films than the German thespian Christoph Waltz. Dr. King Schultz is without a doubt the most enjoyable character in Django Unchained (you basically are grinning any time he opens his mouth), being a clear anchor for Django to latch onto, as well as a central figure to root for until Django has matured enough as a character to take over the lead role. He is also a wonderfully complex character, being strongly opinionated about slavery and having a very unique code of honor. However, in the annals of film history, most will probably remember Waltz more for his Oscar-winning villain from Inglourious Basterds, SS Colonel Hans Landa. Landa is easily the most complex character QT has ever created. At first glance, he simply appears to be an extremely clever, high-minded manipulator who uses his skills of persuasion and persistence to bend others to his will; seemingly, his will is to hunt out the remaining French Jewish population for his Führer. There is an unusual air of menace about him; every single character he has an extended conversation with eventually has a nervous breakdown simply from being in his presence (that is, until he meets his match in Lt. Aldo Raine). However, he is later revealed to mostly be acting out of an extreme sense of self-preservation; he will join whatever side suits him the best. As soon as cutting a deal with the Americans becomes his best option, he abandons the Nazi ideology and jumps ship for better waters (namely, the shores of Nantucket Island). Luckily, Raine and Utivich make sure he doesn't get away so cleanly. So, as you can see, there are many similarities that help connect the films, making their unified thematic message more clear. However, there are some differences that separate them as well.

PART II: DIFFERENCES

1. Django Unchained features a far more straightforward narrative.
The title says it all. Though there is a jump in time around the first hour, Django Unchained abandons the almost vignette-esque structure from Tarantino's previous works in favor of a simpler, more pointed story. Schultz finds Django, Django and Schultz find the Brittle brothers, Schultz trains Django, Django and Schultz operate as partners for the winter, they go after Calvin Candie, Stephen captures Django, Django escapes slave traders, Django destroys Candyland and saves Broomhilda. The End. Inglourious Basterds, on the other hand, has a story that jumps all over the place (not so much as in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill, but still less than a straight arrow). Chapter 1 takes place in 1941, Chapter 2 in a similar timeframe before suddenly and abrupting jumping ahead, while the remaining three chapters take place in 1944. However, part of Chapter 4, where Lt. Hicox meets with Gen. Mike Myers and Winston Churchill, almost certainly takes place before the remainder of it, while Chapter 5 all takes place in one night. The story twists and turns and becomes continually labyrinthine, with the Basterds' plans and Shosanna's plans tangentially forming as the story develops, before Hans Landa returns late in the story and ties it all together in Chapter 5. All story developments are closed in the climax where the cinema burns down, and that leaves the coda with Raine, Landa, and Utivich to provide a satisfying resolution, in which we finally see Landa lose in cool in the face of the Basterds' uncompromising devotion to their punishment of Nazis. It's all a little muddled, but in general, it comes together quite nicely, somewhat cartoonish ending notwithstanding.

2. The protagonists in Inglourious Basterds really aren't that important to the main plot.
Really, in the grand scheme of the story, how important was Raine? They scalped some Nazis in Chapter 2, were involved in a Mexican standoff in a basement bar in Chapter 4, and helped Landa contact General "Voiced by Harvey Keitel" in Chapter 5. Donny and Omar are the only Basterds who accomplish anything in terms of Operation Kino, succeeding in taking out Hitler and blowing up the cinema. Also, wouldn't the theater still have exploded if Shosanna hadn't plotted to burn down the cinema? The only thing accomplished by her side of the story is that none of the high-ranking Nazi officials can escape due to Marcel's sealing of the exits. Also, the fact that Hitler is gunned down in a burning cinema further emphasizes Tarantino's desire to re-conceive history on a heightened cinematic basis. No, in this movie, the plot is its own main character, with the machinations of Landa, Raine, and Shosanna all colliding in the cinema in "Revenge of the Giant Face". Meanwhile, in Django Unchained, Django, Schultz, and Broomhilda are clearly and specifically the focal points of the story, with the Brittle brothers and Candie merely serving as obstacles for them to overcome.

3. The two films feature vastly different styles of resolution.
Once the endgame of Inglourious Basterds was in place, in takes about ten minutes in grand total for everything to wrap up, and it doesn't completely stick the landing. QT clearly wrestled with this ending, with everything so brilliantly plotted up to this point, and it's clear that he eventually went "F*** it, let's blow reality to smithereens". Thus, all the major Nazi players die in a cinema in 1944, ending WWII with Hans Landa, freshly swastika'd, being handed over to American forces in order to finish his arrangements for personal security. Meanwhile, Django Unchained features a 30-minute coda that, instead of simply resolving the plot in a stylish manner, fully showcases how much Django has truly grown as a character. He is able to successfully escape from his captors, in a very similar manner as to how Schultz freed him at the beginning, then infiltrates Candie's plantation one last time, avenging himself on Broomhilda's oppressors, before (seemingly in a nod to the previous film's ending) blowing up Candyland. Stephen also notes that Django will now become the one hunted by bounty hunters, or rather he would, if there had been any evidence that he'd ever been there post-explosion. Django then rides off into the sunset (or in this case, moonset) with his beloved, much like the hero in the westerns that clearly give Tarantino inspiration in all of his films.

PART III: OVERALL QUALITY
So, how good are the films compared to each other, and to Tarantino's entire canon? Well, for starters, I think they're both masterpieces in their own unique ways. Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino-War, while Django Unchained is Tarantino-Western. Neither probably matches up to his most seminal work, Pulp Fiction, which is basically Tarantino-Universe, but I'd probably rank them second and third in his canon. But which is over the other? In conclusion, probably Inglourious Basterds, but by just a hair. There wasn't quite as much going on in Django Unchained, and Hans Landa is the best character in the two by a long shot, but Django has the better ending, and features the more likable and identifiable protagonists. I didn't even mention how quietly great Jamie Foxx is in showing the hard-edged evolution of Django. By contrast, Aldo Raine is just kind of a caricature, while Shosanna is a revenge fantasy. Django Unchained was slightly more bombastic, with the quieter moments in Inglourious Basterds coming from the intense undercurrent beneath scenes like the opener on Perrier LaPadite's milk farm, or the entire bar sequence. Django Unchained has only one scene with this ferocity, when Candie talks to Stephen and brings out the skull of Old Ben. There's also slightly more excess in the latter film. Longtime QT editor Sally Menke appears to be sorely missed, as Fred Raskin (Fast Five) appears to have more difficulty in reigning in Tarantino's craziness.

Nevertheless, I enjoy the hell out of both movies. QT is truly a unique filmmaker, and these films represent him at his best, and sometimes his worst. But I'll take all of him as he is, as without his flaws, he wouldn't be the creative voice he is today.

Both Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained get a perfect 10.