Miles Montego (Ja Rule) has it all - cars, boats, good looks, mansion, money, women, but more importantly, he has a past. Miles is a retired high level drug trafficker who is now completely legitimate. Even though Miles has turned over a new leaf, the DEA can't seem to let him out of their sights. Miles' only downfall is that he is extremely loyal to his circle of friends and former colleagues who are not retired from the lucrative business. Struggling to keep on the right side of the law, Miles meets the one girl of his dreams but she's not the usual type of girl that he's used to dating. Vanessa (Adrienne Bailon) is a church girl in every sense of the word. They are tested to their last ounce of faith and strength in God and each other. God continues to chip away at Miles through struggles from his past, having to live up to his reputation, feelings of unworthiness, the death of his mother, federal charges, his friends being indicted, the strain on his relationship with Vanessa, almost losing her in a near fatal car accident, and finally the spiritual breakdown and one on one with God that brings Miles to his knees. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Steve Race
Starring: Michael Madsen, Stephen Baldwin, Adrienne Bailon and others
Eric Roberts, Louis Gossett Jr., Michael Madsen, Steve Guttenberg, all in one movie? That should set off a few alarm bells!
The movie as it turned out is also quite a bad one. It has a TV like quality to it but what is worse is that it handles its story and drama extremely poorly.
Instead of a movie that's focusing on a young girl trying to cope with the loss of her father and who's trying to bond with the mother, that she never knew she had, the movie decides to focus on horse racing. Yep, forget about any of the drama and emotions, this movie seems to believe that horse racing is far more important- and interesting to watch instead. It's quite ludicrous how this movie slowly starts to shift and stops being one about real life emotions and issues. Not that the movie was great before that but I at least still was interested in seeing where it would be taking its story to and how its characters would continue to grow and develop.
What's all the more ridicules about the movie its concept is that we, as the viewers, are supposed to believe that this girl, who doesn't like horses at all, suddenly starts to have a very strong bond and connection with one particular horse and not only that, she turns out to be an amazing horse racer as well. This movie its second half more feels like a girly fantasy tale, instead of an effective, 'real life', drama, as this movie was originally clearly intended to be. It besides doesn't ever play out in an original and surprising enough way. The movie is an extremely predictable one, from start to finish, in which everything is very black & white. It even has a ridiculously evil James Bond-type of villain in it, played by Eric Roberts.
There is never a good buildup to anything. Not to the drama, not to the romance, not to any of the characters. This is probably also due to the fact that the movie is trying to do a bit too much at times. It has far too many needless distractions in its story and far too many characters as well. The amount of characters actually makes this movie a quite confusing one to watch at times, also since the movie doesn't give all of them enough back-story, so you never know what they are all about and why they are supposedly important for the story.
And in case you are wondering whatever happened to Dean Cundey, the man who was the director of photography on a lot of classic Spielberg, Zemeckis and Carpenter movies in the past, well, he's mostly doing movies such as this nowadays. Such a waste and weird to see how some amazing and promising careers just fizzle out. Not that I'm a big Cundey fan but he deserves to work on better movies than this! It's like letting da Vinci do a Bob Ross type of painting.
I just can't see how anyone could ever enjoy- and be taken by a movie such as this one.
All things considering, this movie could have been a lot worse!
A movie with a title such as "Garbage" should already raise a few eyebrows, especially when you read what its concept is all about. But in all fairness, the movie is a pretty decent and cute one within its genre.
it isn't the silly type of comedy that you perhaps expect this movie to be. Won't say that it's a subtle one as well but still, the movie never goes overboard with its comedy and doesn't go for the cheap, simple and predictable sort of laughs. It puts a bit more effort into it than, lets say, the average genre movie of this caliber.
It's simply an enjoyable and cute sort of movie, with some likable characters. The main premise of the movie isn't all that original but I have to say that it handles its concept well and does a good job with its storytelling. There are a few things in it that they could have explored a bit further and better but on the other hand, if it did, it could have potentially provided the movie with some needless and pointless distractions, so perhaps it's a positive thing that this movie remains mostly a simple and underdeveloped one.
I also liked the settings of the movie. It was a pretty good and clever move to let this movie take place in the middle of Hollywood, where tons of celebrities from the movie industry live. Some of them even appear in this movie, in some small cameos, as themselves (Michael Madsen, Daryl Hannah, William Baldwin, Steven Bauer, etcetera). Because the movie is set in Hollywood but the story is seen and told through the eyes of garbage men, the movie turns into a bit of a parody of Hollywood and some of its celebrities, without having to truly ridicule anything or anyone. Just some small references and quick pieces of dialog are enough for this movie and its comedy.
The acting was also pretty decent. The two main leads, Jed Rees and Jon Huck, aren't the best know actors but they simply did a good job with their roles and the comedy. Besides, they are convincing buddies, even though they have some very different personalities. Some of the other character remain a bit too much in the background but that's not a big issue, since its two main leads are perfectly capable of carrying this movie on their own.
Just go ahead and give this movie a shot. It's a pretty fun one overall!
Yay! A low budget zombie flick! OK, scrap that yay part...
A zombie movie always sounds like some great fun, no matter how low its budget is. This movie however is anything but fun to watch! The problem? It hardly has any action or other zombie related stuff in it, which is of course an odd thing to note for a movie that advertises itself as a typical zombie and horror flick.
I really have no idea what they were thinking. How is it possible for a zombie flick to be such a totally boring one! Most of the movie consists out of a whole bunch of uninteresting people talking to each other. You can't even call this a survival flick really, since there never is a true sense of danger in this movie. As a matter of fact, it takes ages for them to finally figure out that all of the strange occurrences around them relate to a sudden zombie outbreak, even though all of the early signs were pretty obvious ones, if you would ask me.
And even once the movie turns into a more typical horror zombie flick, it's far from a great one. The one thing that's especially bad and annoying about this movie is that once it's action starts to kick in and the movie makes it seem that things are finally going to get crazy and interesting, the movie ends. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the movie doesn't become anything good or interesting to watch, until its final 10 minutes, which is basically one big tease for something that never comes. Who knows, perhaps they are aiming for a sequel but I doubt that it ever gets made.
It's probably true the film-makers were aiming for something different and more serious. A type of movie that focuses on the origins of an outbreak, rather than on the actual outbreak and mayhem. That's all fine but the problem is that the movie never becomes an interesting or original enough one to follow, with any of its themes, plot lines or characters. It basically has absolutely no idea how to handle its concept and therefore goes for the most formulaic and less daring or original approach imaginable.
So no, don't watch this movie when you expect to at least get some gory zombie, horror, fun out of it. Sure, it has Michael Madsen in it and he's always fun to watch but his presence still isn't capable of lifting this movie to greater heights.
This thing is not even worth talking about. Surely they couldn't have
been serious with this? It's not just bad, it's amateur like bad and by
saying that I'm probably offending a whole bunch of amateur film-makers
out there, fore this movie is absolutely horrible, in just about every
regard.
There's more talent and effort to be found in any given average Ed Wood
production really. Seriously, I have seen plenty of Z-grade trash from
the '50's but this movie is still a notch beneath that really. It's
truly one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life and I'm not
one bit exaggerating.
Don't even know where to begin, everything is so bad about it. While
watching this movie I had no idea what the story was supposed to be all
about, or who exactly were the good- and the bad guys. Guess the guy
with the black suit and horse was the bad guy but why and how exactly,
I still have absolutely no idea about. But i also still don't know what
the good guys wanted in this, or why I was supposed to cheer for them.
All characters seemed like killing outlaws to me and it really wasn't
following a clear enough main plot line.
But there obviously is plenty more wrong with this movie. The dialog is
some awful stuff and all of the characters are pretty flat. In fact,
all of the character seem exactly alike and they have absolutely
nothing distinctive about them. I also just don't understand why this
movie felt the need to have about 10 different characters in it, which
made things only more confusing to watch.
The acting is equally as bad and I doubt that most of these guys were
real actors to begin with. Don't be fooled by Michael Madsen's presence
in this. He does about 10 movies each year, of which by far the most
are absolutely horrible and obscure ones, that you haven't even heard
about, such as, most likely, this movie as well. And you should keep it
that way. Just erase this movie its title from you memory and don't you
dare to search it out!
Thing that also gives this movie especially an amateur like vibe to it
is because it feels unfinished. Some shots should had been re-shot, for
instance when there suddenly gets a bush or a hat in the way of a
character who's talking. But what's even way worse than all of that is
the fact that there is no good audio mix or sound effects in this. The
fake guns, firing blanks, all look and sound like fake guns in this.
Seriously, how hard is it nowadays to legally grab some free gunfire
sound off of the internet and put it under your movie. But literally
all of the sounds effects are missing in this movie. I especially love
it when a character gets slapped, the entire movie suddenly goes silent
and in the next shot they show you a bloody face, or some lame reaction
shot. They at least did some ADR recoding but even that is absolutely
awful sounding and doesn't sound like it even belongs in this movie. I
don't know, perhaps it's because it wasn't even done by the original
cast members? I don't even know for sure but it certainly sounded wrong
all.
Of course this is not a good movie! But what else did you expect from a movie called "Piranhaconda", about an half snake, half piranha, that loves to crush and eat people. At least everyone in this movie knew what they got involved with and never took things too seriously. This is often a good thing and it at least still keeps the movie somewhat fun and tolerable to watch.
Basically all of these movies play out the same; a killer animal is on the loose and randomly kills a bunch of people you don't even care about, with always a guy and girl, who used to be or still are in love, trying to kill the creature. Really, once you have seen one of these Roger Corman/Syfy channel movies, you have seen them all and know actually how things are going to play out. They don't even attempt anymore really to come up with some original moments. And it also seems that all of these movies got shot at the same locations, no doubt because they were the cheapest to film at. It basically makes this movie just like any other one, that came out recently, done by Corman.
People that enjoy movies will still get a kick out of it. There is plenty of cheese and camp to enjoy, coming from the hands of the actors and filmmakers. It isn't trying to be more than it is and it makes no assumptions about it that this is being even a remotely good movie.
The one thing that always stands out about these movies, in terms of horrible quality, are its special effects. I don't know who keeps doing these special effects from his mother's basement on his home computer but it's absolutely horrible and I sincerely hope they start putting some more money and effort into it in the near future, since it will most likely make the movies less annoying and cringing to watch.
And I really don't know what Michael Madsen is doing in this. He got top billing, probably because of his name and fame but in fact he is only being a supporting character, that could had been played by anybody really.
Only somewhat watchable and enjoyable if you like cheesy bad movies. Everybody else will only be annoyed and amazed at how bad this movie in fact is.
(Review originally written at 3 January 2009) Well, at least this movie was better than the first. This is because of the simple reason that this movie is so entertaining to watch. It doesn't try to impress but it just brings some simple and good B-movie horror fun! It must be also due to the movie its settings that this movie is such a fun one to watch. The entire movie is set at an amusement park. The Ghoulies are more like Gremlins in this movie. In the first movie they were only walking around without serving a real purpose. In this movie they are the heart and soul of the entire picture. They are causing some mayhem and each and every Ghoulie has a distinctive character of its own. It's a good thing the movie doesn't take itself too serious. It gives the movie a good campy feel and look over it. The movie is often being plain silly and it doesn't try to make sense or create a believable story. Something that the first "Ghoulies" movie didn't do. So really, this movie is surprisingly better and much more watchable than its predecessor. Perhaps the movie is being a bit too silly and not serious enough at times. This really goes at the expense of the movie its horror. I feel that as if this movie would had been more effective with its horror as well, this movie would had been an even better one to watch. The movie doesn't really have any scares or gore in it. Of course nothing of this movie really impresses. The acting and story-line are all weak and kept thin. Perhaps you have to be really into the genre to appreciate and enjoy this movie simply for what it is; some simple, fun entertainment! 5/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 9 August 2008) Over the years many film-makers had provided new movies with new stories inspired on the famous Mary Shelley novel. They often are about the son of Frankenstein or his great-great-great-son or anything else of the sort but they all have in common that they have a mad doctor who is trying to create a new monster. This movie is a Frankenstein movie set in the modern age, which by default already is a very bad idea.
The Frankenstein-creature is a classic character. Putting him in this modern day and age already takes away much of his class and heart.
This movie basically of course doesn't have a lot to do with the famous Mary Shelley novel or any other previous Frankenstein movie. Yet it of course chooses to carry the name "Frankenstein", while it really isn't deserving to. The movie is more a one that concentrates on the police detective work to hunt down 'doctor Frankenstein', in this movie known as Victor Helios, played by Thomas Kretschmann and his creature(s). It isn't really about the creature trying to be good, though there are certainly still some parallels with the Mary Shelley novel. The good old doctor and the creature are more evil villainous ones, for movie purposes, which in my opinion just was a bad choice. They try to make the creature look sympathetic but the creature just remains too much a mysterious one for it to really work out.
I liked the movie its cast with actors such as Parker Posey, Thomas Kretschmann, Adam Goldberg and Michael Madsen involved. The only deserved a better concept and script to work with.
No, it's not like this movie is horrible and it's definitely a watchable one but it's just that the story mostly remains uninteresting and really isn't an involving one to watch, while previous, much better Frankenstein movies, obviously were. The movie is lacking a heart and a good true main character you get to care for. Watching this is an enjoyable yet also very shallow experience. Oh well, at least it all isn't as bad and tiresome as the 2004 TV mini-series, with the same name.
The movie had a good look and atmosphere. No wonder, since it had director Marcus Nispel at the helm, who is an expert in the genre. He did the "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and is currently working on the "Friday the 13th". So when is he going to do an original horror movie on his own? He seriously needs to start looking for new and original scripts, if he truly wants to become a respected and acclaimed director. He certainly has the talent for it to become one I think. So far none of his movies has been based on original material.
And for those wondering why this movie its ending is so abrupt and feels so incomplete; This movie was supposed to be a pilot for a TV-series. Doubtful that this will ever still turn into a TV-series, since it's now 4 years later already and still no word on it.
OK so it's watchable but it's not really a movie I would just recommend.
(Review originally written at 26 May 2008) For some reason I've always loved watching "Species", even though I very well realize that it isn't a particularly good movie. Still due to its approach and handling of a really unoriginal concept and story, the movie can be regarded as one of the best science-fiction movies from the '90's. If you need to compare this movie to something, you can easily compare it to any of the "Alien"-movies. Of course over the years "Alien" and its sequel "Aliens" have been ripped-off countless times and film-makers often tried to cash in by making basically "Alien" and "Aliens" clones, using the same concept, settings, characters, locations, complete sequences and whatever more that it was that made these two science-fiction movies such an highly acclaimed success. Yes, in my opinion "Species" can definitely be seen as an "Alien" clone but out of all the movies that ever tried to rip off the "Alien" movies in any way possible, this is easily the best movie, that at times even makes you forget how unoriginal it actually truly is. Also no big wonder that the movie should remind you of "Alien" at times, also since the alien in this movie got designed by the same man who designed the original alien for "Alien" and all of its sequels. So perhaps this is also part of the reason why you so easily can forgive this movie from ripping off "Alien" in parts. It's a surprising movie from Roger Donaldson, who had never done any science-fiction or horror before and he also hasn't done any ever since. Donaldson is these days mostly known for directing more serious movies. It's perhaps its horror that also makes this movie work out so well. The movie is not just a science-fiction movie about an alien on the loose but truly knows to create a dark moody atmosphere as well and puts in a couple of true great and effective horror moments, which makes the movie tense and in a way also unpredictable to watch, also since the movie is not too afraid to kill off its main characters. There is also some gore in the movie that is good looking, with its often graphic killings. Also the make-up effects are great and the movie uses some early special effects, that especially for 1995 standards seem like pretty good ones, even though the movie itself somewhat feels and looks like a low budget production. The movie makes a choice not to only follow the team that is called in to hunt down the alien but also shows things from the perspective of the alien herself. She's constantly learning things, which she uses to adapt and blend in and to eventually get what she wants. This approach gives "Species" a nice extra dimension. It's like "The Day the Earth Stood Still", only with a not so friendly alien. The movie also has an amazing cast with actors such as Ben Kingsley, Michael Madsen, Alfred Molina, Forest Whitaker and Michelle Williams involved. Whenever I hear the name- or a thinking of Ben Kingsley, I'm not thinking about "Schindler's List" or "Ghandi" but I'm thinking about "Species". I don't now, I just find it to be a very amusing role by him, despite the fact that he plays his character totally death serious. I love this movie! 8/10 Watch trailer
Lets face it, all of the best gangster movies were all made before the '90's. That however doesn't mean that some good gangster movie are stopped being made. "Donnie Brasco" is such a good movie, that's a typical gangster movie with most of the usual ingredients, with as an extra touch some drama added to it.
Perhaps that the movie tries to be a bit too dramatic at times. Some moments feel too forced and fabricated, just to enhances the movie its dramatic moments. It's just not always interesting and distracts from the movie its main plot. Still lot of things work out, such as the growing sympathy, from Donnie Brasco/Joseph D. 'Joe' Pistone for the small time gangster Lefty, who has never really made it- and gets drawn into the gangster-life. But lots of things also don't. Such as the whole plot with Pistone's wife and children.
The main story is good and compelling. Its all the more interesting since its a true story. Its a typical gangster movie story that is solidly written, with all of the much needed ingredients and characters in it. Genre fans will most definitely be not disappointed with this movie.
Al Pacino is as great as you would expect from him, in a this sort of movie. Johnny Depp also suits his role well. James Madesen also plays a rather big role in the movie but I don't know, he sort of feels out of place in a this sort of gangster movie. Works for Tarantino movies but just not the 'Scorsese type' of movies, so to speak. Further more the movie also has Paul Giamatti and Tim Blake Nelson in small roles, before they were really known.
Too bad that at the time of its release this movie never really got the praise it deserved. The people mostly ignored the movie, myself included. Luckily now more and more people start to 'rediscover' this movie and are given it the praise it deserves. For "Donnie Brasco" is a well made gangster movie, that perhaps was made at the wrong time, when the gangster genre was already presumed death and dried up. It's the same reason why "Casino" failed. Who knows, if this movie was made in the '70's, people might regard it as a classic by now.
Seems to me that the actors had no idea what they were filming and where it would end up in the movie, halve of the time. I'm not sure if even the director had a clue. It was like he shot the movie in just in parts and on the automatic pilot. A waste, since David Zucker was a real capable genre director once, with movies such as "Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad" on his résumé. Seems like the movie wasn't put together until it hit the editing room, who randomly just put sequences in order. This definitely shows in the movie, since it gets messy and disjointed to watch. It also makes the movie overlong and tiresome at times. You just want all these people to leave and get things over with. Seems the movie doesn't know when to end things and when things just seize to be funny. You're better off watching "The Party", starring Peter Sellers, which has a sort of similar concept as this movie.
Terence Stamp was really great in the movie and he is the reason that still most of the comedy works out. Here we have an actor who has had a great career- but no-one has really heard off. I know Ashton Kutcher has gotten a lot of crap over him but he's capable at what he's doing. I just like him as an actor. He's a good comedy actor and besides has got the right looks for his roles. The movie also has some well known actors in the supporting cast. The most surprising name was Michael Madsen. You don't too often get to see him in a comedy. Other are actors such as Jeffrey Tambor and Carmen Electra.
The movie love story between the Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid characters, which forms the central core of the movie doesn't ever become realistic in the movie. I mean what is that draws these two people together? They have no chemistry and its a real mismatch.
But admittedly the movie is entertaining. Some sequences and moments make the movie worthwhile, although as a whole I wouldn't really recommend this movie to anybody.
(Review originally written at 23 January 2007) It's a well made and constructed movie that entertains and again perfectly blends several styles into one unique movie Unfortunately the movie is not as good as "Kill Bill: Vol. 1". "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" was a way more entertaining because it was way more crazy mixture of style and because of that also very unpredictable and overwhelming. "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" spends more time on the story development and the emotional aspects of it. It perhaps makes "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" a better constructed and build up movie but I still prefer the more entertaining approach of "Kill Bill: Vol. 1". In that regard "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" perhaps was a bit disappointing to watch but in this particular case that doesn't mean it was a bad movie. "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" mostly mixed Asian cinema styles, "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" mostly uses a Western style. Of course the story alone of taking revenge always has been a popular generic concept for Westerns. The movie also uses some of the genre camera techniques and editing tricks and even adds in some cheesy dialog when two characters are standing across each other, ready to kill. Quentin Tarantino obviously did his homework again but what can I say, Western just isn't my favorite genre. Its style also makes the movie slow at times, so please don't expect another over-the-top going, non-stop spectacular, visual, gory, action spectacle that "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" was. Of course "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" also still features lots- and over-the-top action but it just didn't impressed as much, due to the different style and approach. The movie features some great acting and dialog. Yes, this movie does feature some great typical Tarantino's dialog at times. Something I really missed in "Kill Bill: Vol. 1". Also the movie as whole, in terms of its style and build up, is perhaps more 'Tarantino-like' than "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" was. The story, again, is for part told non-linear and this time that style works out fully, unlike in "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" sometimes wasn't the case. David Carradine is really superb as Bill! What a comeback for an actor! The same goes for Daryl Hannah by the way, lets please not forget her. David Carradine really steals the show in the movie and at times he even puts the main character, played by Uma Thurman, in the shadow. Also Michael Madsen was great and so was Sid Haig in a small but amusing role. The Samuel L. Jackson was also one of the highlights of the movie. The movie is amazingly good looking and has a good visual style, also with the help of Robert Richardson's cinematography, obviously. Tarantino again successfully succeeds at mixing several styles of film-making into one unique great movie, with an own great one of a kind identity. Mission accomplished Mr. Tarantino! There isn't as much blood spilled in this movie but yet the action does not disappoint. Like I said before, the emphasis of this movie is more put on its story and characters, rather than its action but still the action works out greatly in the movie. The movie features some highly memorable action sequences and also the ending does not disappoint. A really great and unique movie, that could had been more entertaining and perhaps also better, had it been made more in the style of "Kill Bill: Vol. 1". 8/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 10 January 2007) This movie is a visual experience of different styles, all combined with also some trademark Tarantino elements. The movie is obviously a case of style over substance. In essence the movie is just a basic revenge flick without too much depth or meaning. This however is exactly like how Tarantino intended it to be. "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" is simple, straightforward, completely over-the-top but above all beautifully shot and superbly directed. The movie its story comes totally secondary, as Tarantino used this movie as an experimental tool to mix several, mostly Asian cinema, styles together and blend it into one big visual experience of violence and unusual over-the-top looking sequences. His aim was style and with that this movie most certainly does not disappoint. Always when looking at a Tarantino movie, it becomes obviously that he's a big movie buff and movie lover. Tarantino really shows his love for- and pays homage to Asian cinema and especially anime. Most notably of course in the animated segment (that is great by the way) but also in almost every action/fight sequence in the movie and its violence. It gives the movie its own unique style and an overall atmosphere of 'coolness'. The violence is definitely brutal and straightforward, as gallons of blood are spilled in this movie. But all of the violence is done in such a, deliberately, over-the-top and fake looking way, that it becomes entertaining, rather than shocking or stomach turning. It even becomes poetically beautiful to watch at times. The action sequences are definitely the best parts of the movie and they are well choreographed and shot. When things get too graphic the movie simple conveniently switches to black & white or turns to other creative cinematic solutions. The power of this movie is definitely in its visual style and overall style of directing. The movie uses different themes throughout the movie but yet the movie manages to create one big unique identity. The movie never feels incoherent or disjointed in its style or storytelling, though it all widely differs from each other at times. I think that this is mainly thanks to Tarantino's directing, who keeps the movie and different styles all on one and the same line. Visually the movie is also definitely helped by Robert Richardson fantastic cinematography, who should at least had been rewarded with an Oscar nomination for it. The movie is filled with some big name actors, though not all play a significant part in the movie yet (see "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" for that). Uma Thurman is truly superb as the Bride and I can honestly say that this is her best role out of her career. She also was rewarded with a Golden Globe nomination for it. Also really superb in her role was Lucy Liu. Again, also her best role yet. Not of all the trademark Tarantino elements work out well in the movie I definitely missed the typical trademark Tarantino dialog in this movie and for also for most part the trademark non-linear storytelling felled pointless and didn't really served a purpose for the story. It therefor really isn't Tarantino's best but it's definitely his most experimental and most visually orientated, style-full, splendid movie. Unusual, over-the-top but strangely intriguing, entertaining and overall brilliant. Yet another Tarantino must-see! 9/10 Watch trailer
