Eight years after the Joker's reign of anarchy, the Dark Knight, with the help of the enigmatic Selina, is forced from his imposed exile to save Gotham City, now on the edge of total annihilation, from the brutal guerrilla terrorist Bane.
Former dentist, Dr. King Schultz, buys the freedom of a slave, Django, and trains him with the intent to make him his deputy bounty hunter. Instead, he is led to the site of Django's wife who is under the hands of Calvin Candie, a ruthless plantation owner. Written by
The film did not receive a rating from the MPAA until over a week before its wide domestic release. Nevertheless, Quentin Tarantino decided in the best interests of audiences to tone down the film's violence. According to Tarantino, "[the MPAA] actually gave an R rating to a rougher version than I ultimately ended up presenting to the public...I could handle a rougher version of the movie than what exists right now. I have more of a tolerance for it, but I kind of realized that when I watched that version of the movie with audiences, that I was traumatizing them too much. It's just that f**king simple. And I want people to enjoy the movie at the very end of it." See more »
During the opening credits, the Speck Brothers have Django and five other slaves in chains. When Dr. Schultz catches up to them after the credits, there are only four other slaves. However, this is because the slave march depicted in the opening credits takes place over a week or more. At least one of the actors is different, because slaves were swapped out along the march, possibly including death. It has been stated in interview that this was deliberate, to depict the way a slave march would actually be. See more »
Who's that stumblin' around in the dark? State your business or prepare to get winged!
See more »
The font used in the opening credits is the same font as in the original Django's credits. See more »
By incorporating a multitude of thematic Tarantino elements Django is the best Tarantino movie SINCE Pulp Fiction. Not as good as that great movie since this one is a little more bloated and less novel, it nonetheless is Tarantino's second best movie. This was great because it used many of the best aspects of the other Tarantino films. Such as the friendship between a black and white antihero (a hit-man like in Pulp Fiction but now the male bonding is as bounty hunters), also the violence art similar to Kill Bill and the Gut Warming, heart pounding, pulpy thrill of revenge against an evil like in Inglorious Bastards. There were many other aspects of Tarantino's movie in this one.
To start off the complete unpredictability is what really draws you in. You really do not know what is going to happen next which is refreshing to those that frequently see movies. The episodic scenes have such a high degree of unpredictability that it mesmerizingly keeps us on the edge of our seats.
There were some really amazing characters created which was not wholly due to the writer/director but the great actors who infused their talent into the roles. These characters' eccentricities were so unique that you might have never seen characters like this before. A trademark oddity in how they spoke, what they said and their ultimate actions reflected without any creative barriers the moviemaker's soul. If you thought Christopher Waltzes and Jamie Foxx's character were great wait till you get to DiCaprios and Samuel L Jacksons. You really wanted to see more of these characters despite the nearly 3 hour length of this Tarantino epic. Dicaprio's character was probably the best; he was so amusing with his warped, semi-depraved, megalomaniac eccentricity. DiCaprios acting was really good here too. Samuel L Jackson can blurt out the necessary profanities with the appropriate rawness making him the perfect actor for some of Tarantino's parts.
The greatest thing is the psychological aspects to these characters and how that plays out in the scenes. There is actually a lot of psychology going on which builds multi-dimensional characters and creates scenes of intense unpredictability. There were other scenes of brilliant hilarity mocking the dark side of the old south, or genre film itself.
As the movie progressed and where it could have ended well and uniquely alas a contrived scene was thrown in to showcase Tarantino's signature brand of violence art, reminiscent of Kill Bill. This weakened the movie as a whole and made it drag however it was pure fun to witness the slow motion blood splattering and detailed depiction of body parts being shot with blood shooting out like geysers drenching the place in red.
I think I heard Tarantino is criticized for rehashing old movies or copying from other films. I guarantee whether or not that is the case you've never seen something like this before.
181 of 333 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?