Django Unchained (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,556 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Great film with the crazy passion of a great director
pedroborges-9088113 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Great direction, screenplay, performances, soundtrack, cinematography, costume design, production design, all the things you can expect from a Tarantino film.

Also like others Tarantino films, only those who really have a extensive knowledge of films are going to really appreciate some things, like the Franco Nero scene.
68 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great Mix Of Action And Comedy
CalRhys24 January 2013
Quentin Tarantino, one of the most iconic directors of the 21st (and late 20th) century, why? Simple. Because of masterpieces like this. Tarantino defies the laws of film, he shoots them in his own way, however he wants. Tarantino has always focused upon the action thriller genre from Reservoir Dogs up until Inglourious Basterds. However, Django Unchained is Tarantino's first look at the Western genre, his first attempt at it and he executed it beautifully. The scenes were shot perfectly alongside an amazing soundtrack as well as his own small cameo.

Django Unchained tells the story of Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who is soon picked up by bounty hunter Dr King Shultz (Christoph Waltz). The story follows on as Shultz takes on Django as his "deputy" during their tasks of bounty hunting, in return Shultz says that after winter he will help find Django's lost wife, Broomhilda. This takes them to a huge plantation in Mississippi owned by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), from here they plan up a scheme on how to get away with Broombilda.

The cast boast out amazing performances, particularly Christoph Waltz (also famous for his previous collaboration with Tarantino on Inglourious Bastards as Colonel Landa). Both Foxx and DiCaprio's performance are both equally amazing. All three are able to add some light-hearted humour in the mix to make sure it doesn't stay too serious, as well as having comic actor Jonah Hill play a member of the KKK.

There's a reason the film has been nominated for 5 Oscars.
270 out of 389 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Brutally hilarious and quite messy, but a total blast from start to finish
DonFishies23 December 2012
I only had one thought on my mind for this Christmas: see Django Unchained. Quentin Tarantino's latest opus, a Western set two years before the Civil War, concerns a former slave named Django (Jamie Foxx). He is freed by bounty hunter Dr. King Shultz (Christoph Waltz) in order to help him with a bounty. Quite quickly, Shultz takes Django under his wing and trains him as his partner. But he made him a promise: that he would rescue his wife from a plantation owned by the ruthless Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). And rescuing her is not going to be all that easy.

What pains me the most about Django Unchained, as a die-hard Tarantino fan, is just how sloppy it all seems. I enjoyed every minute of it, but I could never shake the feeling of how messy and thrown together it all feels. Portions of the film feel episodic (the search for the Brittle Brothers, mentioned heavily in the trailers, begins and ends practically within minutes), and some scenes just seem to play out just for the fun of it. Another scene from the trailers involving a lynch mob with bags covering their faces seems added for comedic purposes, and has no real point of actually existing. More than any of his films before it, Django feels like Tarantino simply making a movie for sheer pleasure and with no outside motivations or controllers.

The film threatens to go totally off the rails at any given moment, and lacks any real sense of direction or focus. It may sound ridiculous, but the loss of editor Sally Menke confirms a sneaking suspicion I always had about Tarantino – he needed a steady right hand to help encourage him as to what was needed and what was not. I do not want to criticize Django's editor Fred Raskin, but it is obvious he is no Menke and that works against the film heavily. It lacks the polish we have come to expect, and is practically stripped of the glossy/cool texture so prevalent in Tarantino's work up until now.

But then maybe that was his intention all along, and perhaps Tarantino is airing out his frustrations with life and film in general. Django is deliberately shot on film (or at least from the print I saw), and looks very gritty and messy at all times. It is significantly more brutally violent than anything he has worked on before (the borderline cartoonish Kill Bill included), and has a very go for broke attitude about itself. The film seems to revel in how brilliantly it can splatter all the blood and gore (done through the use of squibs and no digital!), and how uncomfortably numbing it can make the violence. I know he does not care what people think of his films, but this movie especially seems like an emphatically raised middle finger to the establishment. And for all of my complaints about how messy it all feels, I was never once bored or felt like the movie was dragging itself out. The staggering 165-minute running time shockingly flies by faster than you might ever imagine.

Acting wise, Tarantino stacks the deck with a number of recognizable character actors young and old for roles that vary in size. Most have very few lines, if any at all, and seem to just stand by, just as content as the audience is to watch the action unfold. It is a little off-putting, especially with how important some of these characters are initially made out to be. Washington as Broomhilda von Shaft (one of the most subtle references he's ever dropped) does well as the helpless victim and frequent dreamlike object – but she never really gets to show off any of her acting prowess outside of her facial reactions. They are increasingly effective, especially during horrific flashback scenes. But her work here feels ridiculously stunted in comparison to the other leads. Samuel L. Jackson, much like Tarantino himself, seems to just be having fun in his role as Candie's adviser Stephen. He plays on every ridiculous stereotype he ever has been associated with and then amps it up to a near ludicrous state. He is frequently hilarious, but the role seems to border on parody more than anything else.

Surprisingly, Foxx takes a very long time settling into the leading role. It may just be the character, but it is quite clear from the on- set that he is not very comfortable in Django's shoes, and leads credence to why Will Smith, amongst so many others, dropped out of the picture so quickly. But once he finds his footing, he does a fantastic job walking the thin line between empathetic and sadistic. It is not an easy character to play, but Foxx makes it his own, bringing a sense of style and grace that are virtually absent from the rest of the film. And of course, he gets all the best lines.

Waltz and DiCaprio are the clear standouts however, nailing every nuance of their sadly underwritten characters. While Waltz plays the straight man, DiCaprio is delightfully unhinged and vicious. Both are playing directly against type, yet are strangely comfortable in the roles. Watching them act circles around the rest of the cast, Foxx included, is the true highlight of the film. I just wish they were both given additional emphasis and more to do.

For all of its numerous faults, I had a blast watching Django Unchained. It is hilarious, it is a lot of fun, and is wildly enjoyable. I genuinely think it could have been a lot better if there was more focus and direction, but this is very clearly a picture Tarantino wanted to make on his own terms. And for that, I applaud him for the effort. It is not his best work, but certainly not his worst.

689 out of 1,078 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
arnieiam26 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Merry Christmas to all you Tarantino fans out there. I hope you made a Tarantino checklist so here we go.

Witty dialogue, check. Excessive profanity especially use the word 'nigger', check. Excessive violence including testicles getting blown off, check. Soulful musical score, check. Sometimes non-linear narrative, check. Shots of women's feet, check. Very great character driven plot, check. An actual spaghetti western, even though it takes place in the American South, check.

There are four standout characters played by the top billed actors.

Jamie Foxx plays Django, a freed slave who becomes a bounty hunter. Even though he is the titular character, he gets downplayed when in the presence of the other actors. Still he delivers a solid performance, in fact hes very convincing. We all know Jamie Foxx as this golden voice RnB singer and comedian with a very clean cut image. He was able to pull off the whole transitioning from a timid slave to a menacing bounty hunter. Not only that he had the whole look down too, with all the facial scarring and the messy hair.

Christoph Waltz plays Dr. King Schulz, a German dentist turned bounty hunter who frees Django so he could help pursue his previous owners who are targets. Waltz is a very charismatic actor, and thats how he does this role. Presents every line with finesse.

Leonardo Dicaprio is in his best yet. He plays a plantation owner, Calvin Candie, and is the owner of Django's wife. This is a very different role. We've seen Leonardo in gritty roles before but never did he play this lecherous antagonist. We were all used to Leo being this teen idol, who looked like a member of Hanson. Here he's this Southerner with discoloured teeth and a scruffy beard.

Finally Samuel L. Jackson who plays Steve, a house slave who you could say is the secret antagonist here. For all the screen time that he has he dominates. Sam usually plays boisterous roles as a tough guy, but it was very interesting seeing him play a devious and manipulative old man.

The only gripe here was that this film was a little too long exceeding the three act structure, but its an epic western film so I'll excuse Tarantino for that. Yet again he made another great film with a lot of flair and carried well by the four big hitter actors. Well done Mr. Tarantino.
425 out of 678 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Loved it! It's a hit.
masha_151226 December 2012
Absolutely loved every minute of this movie. Usually I'm not too crazy about Tarantino's movies, but this one is definitely the best one I've seen in a long time. The actors were picked perfectly. The overall experience of a movie is amazing. When we first went to watch it, I was a bit skeptical and thought I'd end up leaving an hour into the movie (it's a 3 hr movie), but it grabbed my attention from the very beginning and I didn't even wanna get up to go to the bathroom, afraid to miss something. I'm usually very particular about the movies, nothing can hardly satisfy me, but this one is definitely in the top 5. Soundtrack was perfect. When I got home, I've done some more research on it and loved it even more! Overall, I would highly recommend this film!
518 out of 851 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Brace yourself for True Tarantino
terrellrobinson7126 December 2012
Quentin Tarantino's 8th film "Django Unchained" is one hell of a movie. A brutal, bloody, terrifying, hilarious and awe-inspiring western disguised as a buddy movie that is so great that if John Wayne and Sergio Leone were alive now, they would've approve of this movie. It's designed to shock you, polarize you, test you and maybe even surprise you. But let me clear on this: If you are not a fan of bloody violence and the running length of 165 minutes, see a shorter movie. But if you love to see what Tarantino can do with movies like this, then you're in for a treat. Set during slavery in 1858, the movie follows Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who is found by a bounty hunter disguised as a dentist named Dr. King Schultz (The always reliable Christoph Waltz) who hires him as a bounty hunter and a free man to find the Brittle Brothers. After finding them and hunting them down at a plantation run by Big Daddy (a remarkable Don Johnson), they relax for the winter only for them to go on a mission to find and rescue Django's wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) who is owned by Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) a man who runs a plantation known as Candieland. He even has a renegade slave as a servant named Stephen (A nearly recognizable Samuel L. Jackson, hidden in makeup and some prosthetics), who will have a part to play in the last half of the movie. I think Quentin Tarantino has outdone himself once again. Being in the filmmaking game for 20 years now, you can't deny and even reject his style in what he is bringing to the screen (He also has a cameo in here as well). His dialogue is like reading a book that grabs you and makes you want to know what happens next. The look and scope of the film is magnificent, thanks to a brilliant Oscar-winning cinematographer Robert Richardson and the late production designer J. Michael Riva. The performances in this film are brilliant. Having won an Oscar for "Ray", Jamie Foxx continues with his breathtaking performances that wows us. Here as Django, he is certainly fearless, baring his soul (and body) playing a man who is free from slavery, but can't be free by the rules and limitations of slavery. Christoph Waltz looks like he was born to be a part of Tarantino's entourage after his Oscar-winning performance for "Inglorious Basterds". Here, once again he brings humor and vulnerability to Dr. King Schultz. Never before have I ever seen an actor go that far and doesn't go over-the-top like Leonardo DiCaprio. As Calvin Candie, DiCaprio is certainly Oscar-worthy as a man who runs a tight ship by running a place where male slaves fight to the death and female slaves are being prostitutes and he seems to be the kind of guy to like even though he is a villain and he speaks Tarantino's dialogue like a pro. When he has a scene in which he reveals three dimples from a skull that belongs to his father, he is literally terrifying. Kerry Washington is superb as Broomhilda and Samuel L. Jackson is the real scene-stealer. The supporting cast is great from Walton Goggins, Jonah Hill, Michael Bacall, Michael Parks, James Remar, Robert Carradine to a small cameo by Franco Nero. "Django Unchained" has a lot of things to say about slavery and how cruel it is. But at the same time, it provides the fact that if Tarantino rearranged history by shooting Adolf Hitler to a pulp while everything blows up at a movie theater, he can do it again by having a former slave whipping a man who used to beat him and his wife. Now, that's entertainment. This movie really is off the chain. It's not only one of the most captivating films of the year, it's one of the best films of the year. Go see it, it will be worth your time. Keep in mind though, there are characters, especially Django, Stephen, Candie and Schultz that uses the N-word numerous times in this movie. That seems relevant to the time period, don't ya think?
470 out of 802 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Perfect Movie
alexcole1016 June 2020
For anyone who isn't much into cinema, I would recommend watching Django Unchained and you will fall in love with films forever.

This film is a classic western full of drama, suspense and tension with a tremendously unpredictable plot but with a sense of realism taken into consideration.

I believe it would be hard to dislike this masterpiece as it has it all: action, adventure and even a sense of romance and the occasional humour.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Freedom and Choices and Tarantino
salbelmondo-570-5128671 January 2013
In Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained, there is a scene in which Django (Jamie Fox), soon after being freed by the incredibly likable dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), shops for new clothes to wear.

Schultz tells Django to pick out whatever he likes. Django looks at the smiling white man in disbelief. You're gonna let me pick out my own clothes? Django can't believe it. The following shot delivered one of the biggest laughs from the audience I watched the film with. After the white man confirms that yes, he is indeed letting the black man pick out his own clothes, we cut to a wide shot of Django riding his horse, now decked out in his very own (outlandish) cowboy outfit—an all blue with white ruffle get-up.

It's a great little scene that provides humor and allows the viewer to further warm up to the two main protagonists. But it also does more than that. It's a simple scene that speaks for the whole film. It's an affirmation that this man of color is now free and able to make his own decisions. The choice he made concerning his extravagantly loud outfit acts as a warning to those that plan to stand in his way—watch out, here I come, I ain't gonna be quiet no more.

And the humor the scene provides echoes the entire film—it wants us to get comfortable with our hero. Tarantino knows that a man of color makes an unconventional hero in a revenge- flick—that's why he made the film. When was the black man going to get his revenge film? It's been long overdue. With Django Unchained, that film has finally arrived and it has arrived in style. Beautifully shot, wonderfully acted, and meticulously written, it's Tarantino at his most epic.
273 out of 459 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the best movies this year
chinohillsjohn26 December 2012
At first I didn't want to see this movie because of some political remarks made by Jamie Foxx and Samuel Jackson, two of my previously favorite actors, but Quintin Tarentino is a great director, so I broke down and saw it. Glad I did. This was absolutely one of the best movies of the year. Although Jamie Foxx has top billing, this film would not have been anywhere as good without Christoph Waltz. He stole every scene he was in. Brilliant acting and great comedic delivery. Leo was great too. Lots of blood, something expected in most of Quintins movies, but a great story. Also expect to hear the N word about 2000 times. Cristoph Waltz should get the Oscar for his performance. Should get nominated for best picture. This is absolutely a must see.
429 out of 756 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Holy Sh*t!
hugo_gamboa25 December 2012
I rarely bother to give reviews after watching a movie. But holy crap this was a good movie. I'm pretty sure it is the best movie i've seen all year. and yes i saw dark knight rises, avengers, flight, Argo, hobbit, etc... Tarantino delivers and then some.. Every actor is on point. Awesome performances, great story, it will definitely take you on a ride full of surprises. I would recommend everyone to go watch this film, it is truly a great film.. unless you're a little kid.. don't go watch this movie if you're a little kid. I've seen all of Tarantinos movies and I have to say this has been my favorite. It is just awesome in every way. I'm usually very harsh on movies. I mean ill watch just about anything, but for me to think a movie was actually "good", takes a whole lot. DiCaprio was like i've never seen him before, and being one of my favorite actors, it was a little weird at first. But he does an outstanding job at selling his role within seconds of his first appearance. Waltz delivered as i knew he would. and Jaime Foxx, well he did not fall behind. Last but not least Jackson was hilarious and also did an amazing job... Go watch the movie, it is worth it.
395 out of 700 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Tarantino's Best, A Must See
brendanboyle8-565-34654027 December 2012
I know claiming "Tarantino's Best" is quite a statement with such films as "Pulp Fiction" and "Inglorious Bastards", however I truly believe it is. Django Unchained is superb from start to finish, it's a 2 hour and 45 minute movie yet you're on the edge of your seat, eyes glued to the screen for the whole ride. It's the closest thing to a flawless movie I have ever seen. Before I continue my praise of this movie, let me say this "the movie is not for everyone." Clearly its rated R and it has several gruesome violent scenes, it also contains vulgar language and numerous uses of the "n" word. Some may claim it's excessive, but I personally appreciate how realistic it portrays the horror and tragedy of slavery. That being said, I am torn if I am more impressed with Tarantino as a writer of this movie or its director. He simply is a cinematic genius. The casting of this movie alone deserves an Oscar. Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, and Leonardo DiCaprio all put on Oscar worthy performances, and frankly, I would be astonished if they all did not win. I truly can't picture any actor on this planet being able to play any of those three roles as magnificently as these three actors did. I sum this movie into three general thirds, First: where Waltz steals the show, Second: where DiCaprio steals the show, and Third: where Foxx steals the show. I have only seen Waltz in "Inglorious Bastards" other than "Django Unchained" and he is rapidly climbing my favorite actors list. Leo is my personal favorite actor ever since his performance in "The Departed" and it was incredible to see him take on the challenging role as his first villain, Calvin Candie, possibly the most evil character I've ever seen in a film. Finally Jamie Foxx from start to finish played his best performance in any movie to date. Simply phenomenal. I loved how the audience sees his character evolve from a powerless slave to a confident powerful man. In addition to these three remarkable performances, Kerry Washington and Samuel L. Jackson also deliver. Washington goes through living hell yet remains a strong woman throughout. Jackson plays a very interesting role as Stephen, Leo's loyal house slave. Trust me, you will hate him yet at the same time he is hilarious. Now's a good time to mention, this movie is funny! Tarantino perfectly tosses in frequent bursts of pure laughter throughout the movie to lighten up from the serious aspects of the movie. There is one scene in particular, involving Jonah Hill and Don Johnson, which had the crowd roaring in laughter for a solid full minute. Which brings me to my next point, the cast is absurd! The rather small roles for such big actors such as Jonah Hill and Don Johnson, just shows how honored actors are taking any role no matter how small for a Quentin Tarantino film. I recognized famous actors and actresses throughout the entire movie. There is one brief scene, where I believe I even saw famous rapper "Childish Gambino" for literally just a few seconds as a slave in Mississippi. This movie was done perfectly to a tee; even the remarkable soundtrack caught my attention, nicely combining songs of the past with modern day songs. This movie is a western, a drama, a tragedy, a comedy, an action, a thriller, and at it's deepest roots a romance. If you haven't already, stop what you're doing and see this movie today. Whatever you're doing can wait but this movie can't. Just make sure your 17, have your license, and have a stomach for more of the most gruesome violence I have yet to see on a screen. In conclusion, I've heard rumors of Tarantino pondering the idea of retiring as a director and Oo what a sad day that would be for movie lovers like myself, but if they are true at least he's going out with one hell of a BANG!
354 out of 668 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Tarantino Epic
mistarkus26 December 2012
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.
215 out of 402 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Entertaining Mess
cultfilmfreaksdotcom30 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Modern exploitation guru Quentin Tarantino serves up historical revenge once again. His last film, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, had the German Nazis getting theirs, and now, with a good German on board (in fact he's the villain from the last film) we're out to set things right in the American Deep South, two years shy of the Civil War…

Although the first half takes place on the road from Texas to Mississippi as bounty hunting dentist Dr. King Schultz recruits a slave named Django to help him find three outlaw brothers (Django alone knows their appearance). These are the more spirited and deliciously cutthroat segments as our heroes partner up and, as Django puts it, "Kill white people for money." Christoph Waltz (Schultz) and Jamie Foxx (Django) are a good team, and while making mince meat out of their targets, the bloodshed is something to marvel.

But Tarantino throws in awkward bouts of humor, derailing the intensity of the moment. One particular scene where a group of rednecks complain about not seeing through masked eyeholes (including a very distracting cameo by Jonah Hill) feels like Mel Brooks clumsily intruding Sergio Leone.

After Django helps Schultz with his job, it's time for the doctor to aid his more-than-capable partner rescue Django's wife Broomhilda, who resides at "Candyland," an infamous Antebellum plantation run by the sinister though much too youthful Calvin Candie.

While Leonardo DiCaprio has more than capable acting skills, and savors the gloriously tyrannical racist dialog, there could have/should have been a backstory on why the owner of a plantation looks fresh out of finishing school.

For a man who's supposed to have a lifetime of seething venom oozing from his veins, those desperately piercing blue eyes seem more confused and frustrated than cold and calculating, making Tarantino's purposely overboard racism more of a crutch than weapon for the DiCaprio character (perhaps Don Johnson, who played a wily brothel owner in a previous scene, could have taken this role… he had the age going for him and with that, soulless eyes that look like he's seen – and been through – pretty much everything).

But Leo's not alone. He's helped along by the most wicked of Uncle Tom's played by Samuel Jackson, whose spitefully cantankerous Stephen figures things out before his boss. This is a nice role for the QT stock actor, who has sleepwalked through many roles post PULP FICTION and JACKIE BROWN. Although his feeble mannerisms often slow down the performance.

The main problem with UNCHAINED is how long Tarantino stretches scenes with dialog. While the actors, especially Waltz and DiCaprio, have a blast with colorful monologues, you'll often forget there are other characters on board – and most of the speeches fail to serve the plot. That being: the duo pretending to buy Mandingo slave fighters when they really want the girl.

With all the deals and discussions going on, the much-anticipated reunion of Django and Broomhilda is lost in the mix. Not even Django's surreptitious trigger finger (whenever she's treated badly) adds worthy suspense, which, during this overlong stint at Candyland, is very much needed.

But there's not all downtime at the mansion: a particular Candie lecture involving a slave's skull does successfully perk things up, providing DiCaprio a good five minutes of sheer unapologetic villainy. Then, after a shocking twist, it's Django alone who must save his girl.

Jamie Foxx, having played a quietly brooding second fiddle to Waltz so far, makes up for lost time with heated gusto. This third and final act involving a group of Australians being duped by Django, who's learned the art of waxing poetic, is replete with the bare-knuckle action we've anticipated all along: although the large chunks of bloody guts flying off each gunshot victim seems like Tarantino doing an imitation of himself.

There are some really neat montage sequences and beautiful locations, but some of the music, especially that of the rap nature, seems too modern for the time portrayed. And the editing feels somewhat limp without QT's longtime collaborator Sally Menke, who died a few years back: Particular flashbacks and hallucinations are often confusing and awkward.

A pretty good ride, much better than Quentin's last two films (BASTERDS and DEATH PROOF), yet there needed a much tighter/sharper vehicle for our title hero to deserve the fanfare of the literally explosive finale.

For More Reviews:
161 out of 299 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Little Too Much
aharmas31 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Let me make it clear. I did enjoy most of it, but I also found myself looking at my watch and hoping it would end sooner. If there was a film this year that more than deserves the adjective excessive, this is it. It's a decent film, with plenty of action, some very funny scenes, and three of the best performances of the year: Jackson's house slave is almost as good as Washington's performance. He's an interesting and complex character, somehow who we can't even imagine existed. He's the darker twin of Scarlet's mammy in "GWTW", way darker and just as fascinating. There's of course, another star turn by De Caprio, puzzling, magnetic, depraved, and ruthless, and Waltz creates another memorable character, a foreigner who can't comprehend what's going on in his world, but who doesn't stop from taking advantage of the situation without losing his soul.

"Django" is a hybrid of Westerns? and a very strange take on slavery, looking at it through Tarantino's special lens. He's unable to edit himself, and while he builds the tension and almost never loses our interest through Django and Schultz quest to rescue their "lost princess", I kept wondering why he overindulges all the time. Things don't clash here, they explode with such magnitude that I was wondering why wasn't 3-D involved in the process. I kept looking for guts flying and what happened to the NC-17 rating.

There is much praise to give to the fact that he takes risks with his use of language, and there is not a boring conversation in the entire film, but when there is confrontation, you almost feel like ducking or you'll be hit by some of the flying organs. Much of the praise here should go to the way the Old West comes alive with the costumes and art direction. There is also the amazing job Robert Richardson does with his camera, making the film look and feel like one of those Spaghetti Westerns he's paying tribute to. I loved the way he brings in Franco (the original Django) and interacts with this movie's hero. There's of course, some Ennio Morricone, and a few other touches that show Tarantino's adoration of the genre.

Is there a story? Well, barely. A lot of the film is about the feel of it, like getting on a ride without expecting much depth, and to be fair, there shouldn't be a IQ test or some confusing plot twist to ruin the entertainment, but I think Spielberg knew how to control himself in "Saving Private Ryan" by limiting the massacres to the first 20 minutes. A little restraint would have helped here. Who knows? Tarantino might have achieved his masterpiece.

Another detail that is puzzling me. We're hearing all this praise for the movie, like it's the second coming of Peckinpah or the latest collaboration between Benton, Penn, and Carpenter. It's as much fun as the best '60's B movie, but I am not sure about those accolades out there. Where was all this praise for the "Indiana Jones" films? Maybe they should have included more flying body parts and some more colorful language? Still enjoy it for what it is... a ride that has plenty of movie syrup in it.
124 out of 227 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Tarantino Has A New Masterpiece
LoveYourMovies25 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I do believe it goes without saying that Quentin Tarantino is without question one of, if not, the finest film maker of the past 20 plus years. His latest effort, Django Unchained does many things but chief among these being, it solidifies Tarantino's place as a great, GREAT film maker. His unique style of fantastic specifically worded dialogue and impeccably perfect scenes is undoubtedly his trademark along with unusual yet perfectly used soundtracks.

Django Unchained has every single element of a perfect Tarantino movie with the added pleasure of being done almost better than he has ever done before. Pulp Fiction is without question his calling card film and it has since become a piece of Hollywood lore and for good reason. That being said Django Unchained may go down at some point as Tarantino's greatest film.

This is the story of Django a slave in the south 2 years before the eruption of the Civil War. Django is soon acquired and given his freedom by bounty hunter Dr. King Shultz played to perfection by the always entertaining Christoph Waltz who is quickly becoming Tarantino's muse much like a Scorsese/ De Niro type relationship, which I would say was one not many people got sick of. When King Shultz asks for Django's help hunting down his 3 former slave owners he quickly discovers Django's knack for the bounty hunting game. After agreeing to help King Shultz hunt criminals through the winter and teach him what he knows Django soon finds the help of Shultz to help him find his wife and bring her into freedom with him. After they discover her new owner is the prominently rich plantation own Calvin Candie they form an elaborate scheme to acquire Django's wife, Broomhilda.

With absolutely expert story telling, Tarantino manages to get Oscar caliber performances from every major principal in the film, from star Jamie Foxx to a short lived character of Big Daddy played by Don Johnson.

Django is Tarantino literally at the peak of his craft. With several elements from other films from rarely seen westerns to his own films such as Reservoir Dogs. Django is a very much stripped down effort from him but it never feels like it is lacking in any aspect of the film. With not one camera angle out of place or one song that doesn't feel perfectly used.

Tarantino has a cast assembled that has the chemistry and feel already that you can imagine no one else playing every single role. He has masterfully directed every aspect and while Inglorious Basterds was the film that was thought to be his opus prior to release, it is clear Django Unchained simply will blow and cinephile away and casual fan of westerns and/or action will be enthralled. It should be noted the violence can be extreme and even leave a jaw open once or twice much like he did with his Kill Bill films, but this will in no way be it's defining mark at all.

With several recent Golden Globe nominations by the Hollywood Foreign Press, who has always shown him great love, there is no doubt Django Unchained is a serious contender in every category and will be so once the Oscar nods come out in a few weeks.

This may be his year. He has a best screenplay Oscar on his mantle already but it may have some company and more than one as well.
212 out of 400 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Went for Tarantino. Was let down.
erbeme1 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Tarantino's name was enough to get me to the theater. And his trademarks are noticeable throughout--from the spaghetti western style opening to the use of varied musical styles. I was let down, however, by the film as a whole. There were multiple instances of long, drawn out scenes that seemed to be intended for style and emotion, but resulted in a pointless, tiresome straying from purpose. And character development was sorely lacking. Chris Waltz's cold, methodical, calculating, bounty hunter is all-of-a-sudden nauseated by witnessing death at the teeth of dogs. But he shouldn't have been. His character should have seen it coming. And he certainly shouldn't have so openly quivered. I think the intent was to strengthen the Django character at that time, but it wasn't believable. Also unbelievable was the ultimate climactic scene where DiCaprio and Waltz barter for Django's wife. The movie hinges on this conflict, but it was a farcical clash since either party could/would have gladly resolved the dispute. Candie would have gladly taken $12k for the "$300" girl. And the Dr. would have gladly paid for what they came there for in the first place! I understand that pride and besting one's opponent comes into play, but it's not believable that either man would have sacrificed themselves at that point of limited personal investment. The scenery and costumes were as good or better than other Tarantino ventures, but I felt the lack of the signature Tarantino dialogue. Maybe the argument over the eye holes cut into the masks of the raiding party approaches the Reservoir Dogs argument over tipping waitresses, but that was sadly about all.
105 out of 192 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very Disappointing
mcnaps7625 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I saw Django Unchained with the expectation of any Tarantino fan. But I left shaking my head in disappointment. This is not a bad film, but I'm not saying it's a good one.

The length of the film is one of the main flaws. There are many scenes that do not serve a purpose to its characters and story. Which leads to its pacing problem. These irrelevant scenes exist in the film that often slows it down. It is very unbalanced.

Mostly, it's the characters and performances. Many are giving praise to Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio. Waltz, first of all, is in similar territory when he was in Inglorious Basterds. He and his character served their purpose and Waltz was just fine in the role, but nothing to highly praise. DiCaprio as Calvin Candie was nothing worth noting. Either its in the performance or the script, I never really invested in him. It's as if Tarantino wanted to write a great movie villain and that's what DiCaprio took as his only direction. There is a scene where he gets the evil monologue, but it comes very forced with ultimately ends up destroying the character.

Jamie Foxx, first of all, was the right choice for Django, but I believe that Tarantino did not trust his protagonist. It takes a long while to get invested in him, but at that point, why bother? BUT, the standout for me was Samuel L. Jackson. He takes his character Stephen is able to go beyond the material that is given. There is fun in his performance which is what the film should be.

I am well aware that I will be in the minority, when it comes to disliking the film. How people will try to tell me that there was more to the story than meets the eye, how it's a great revenge tale, how the characters were great and well written etc. But this is not a good Quentin Tarantino film.

The film is too long, with characters that hold the most minimal of interests. I will be really dishearten to see this film receive awards and praise. Maybe it's the love of Quentin that will jade people. I know it will. But after coming out of a strong year for film, Django falls flat.

The movie lacks the confidence of character(s) and story in a hyper active world. It loses it's identity somewhere along the line and the little scenes of greatness cannot save it. Most of all it does not have the joy of film that often add life to Tarantino films.
336 out of 656 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a big bore
muslit2 January 2013
Critics are giving Tarantino way too much credit for saying anything meaningful in this film. His references to 60's spaghetti westerns or 70's black exploitation films don't go beyond cheesy film titles and the interpolation of icky songs on the sound track - the social relevance of these films could hardly matter to him; he doesn't have much to say about slavery, other than it was bad; his emotional palette ranges from revenge to more revenge - anything else is beyond him; his lengthy dialog scenes are becoming predictable -dull, too-cute. The only real difference between the films Tarantino is emulating and his film is a fetish for mixing violence with comedy. I can't help but think that Tarantino sees himself as a liberal-cool-auteur-artist; but it is pretty easy to see through what critics call his social 'deepening' as a recent tendency to patronize: Jews kicking ass (last film) and Black slaves taking care of business (this film).

He also might consider finding a good editor with his next film. The editing here is atrocious, and the length interminable. In addition, could he locate better camera angles to make his boring dialog less boring? (perhaps nothing could do that).

Viewers unfamiliar with Tarantino might find this film weird; his fans will find it amazing; his detractors will find it boring and emotionally juvenile.
169 out of 323 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bad taste gone worse
lgorenc8 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
First I must say that I rarely write reviews. Most are already there to help a viewer decide whether to see the movie or not. An experienced moviegoer can always tell if the reviewer knows what he's talking about. But with Django unchained, that was such a horrible flick with sky high ratings, I just felt the urge to write down how disturbingly flawed and deeply deranged this movie is and not in a good way. It's been a long time since I have seen a good Tarantino movie. This era ended with his story and his part in Four Rooms. And after Kill Bill, things went downhill never to crawl back up. Every once in a while, Tarantino's flashy and expensive garbage is being spilled on theater screens all over the world, and the somewhat schizophrenic director surprisingly picks up even more fans along the dodgy way. I expected more from this movie, since I couldn't even sit through that dreary Inglorious bastards, so things had to get better. And yet, even though he had a perfect plot setting in a cruel time and place for black people in American history, he casted the still boyish looking I-must- be-the-bad-guy-in-that-movie DiCaprio who really gives his best to sell it but falls short, and you get yet another long term drug use flashback in a form of give-me-back-my-money drive-in movie, with an hour long boring film within a film - during the visit to Candie Land that starts with what can only be described as the first MMA fight ever held in a living room. In this openly racist movie, and not because of the excessive use of the n-word, whose star later promotes gun ban while making good money by shooting every white creature in this film that has sudden twists from serious to absurd, from grave to bizarre. Here we get a bad writing, bad music, bad casting, mediocre acting from an all-star cast and awful, awful direction. The dynamic sound makes you jump off your seat when someone slams the door on screen. How cheap is that? Well, the music was OK, but not for one playlist and certainly not for one western. You just can't mix Rio Bravo style songs and Elvis impersonator with modern rap music and get away with it. Unless your main character can spill buckets of blood with just one bullet or massacre crowds of armed rednecks just after practicing his gunslinger skills by shooting down a few bottles. We also see a drawer slide mounted Derringer save the day one time too many. We see black slaves speak fluent German. But this is a love story, and yet these extreme action scenes are the high tide here with tons of ketchup spills all around, with over the top gore that would make a B-slasher-movie look like British rom com, and the drab dramatic part will bore you to death and make you consider leaving the theater. Twice. What Quentin tries to achieve here, style wise, is the bleak mix of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and Jesus Christ Superstar. But someone should've told him both movies are bad. Also, Samuel L. Jackson's pathetic make-up as well as his cartoonish role do not make things any better. I didn't expect to see Open Range, but this charade is a kind of rich gumbo, made out of all the bad ingredients from previous hyped Tarantino grindhouse style obsession movies or his dull WWII affirmative action fairy tale, that was oddly not enough spiced with finger licking good hot sauce from Leone, Hawks or Peckinpah, hence completely ruining this bad taste cinema and rendering it inedible. Now seeing these ratings, no wonder Gangnam style is the most viewed YT video ever. No wonder Hobit, Harry Potter, Batman, Spiderman and Lord of the Rings top the Best 250 list.
135 out of 255 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A movie that shoots itself
julianwest743 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have never been a fan of Quentin Tarantino, but I know that other people think he's great so I decided to give him another chance and actually paid $3 to see "Django Unchained." I was surprised to find that I liked the first part of the movie. It was interesting, funny, suspenseful, and actually seemed to have a point. Some of the story strained credulity (look it up), but it stayed within the bounds of believability... until the German bounty hunter shot DeCaprio. Then believability went out the window.

The movie didn't even make sense within itself. The entire film built up Dr. Schultz as not only a great shot, but also an extremely cunning strategist. And yet, he shot DeCaprio and then just stupidly said, "I couldn't help it!" and stood there waiting to be killed. (Which he was.) But his derringer had two barrels, which presumably means two bullets, so why didn't he whirl around and shoot the guy who was standing there with a gun?

He could have, but then there wouldn't have been the bloodbath that follows, which I guess is Quentin Tarantino's "signature." The movie quickly degenerates into a stupid, pointless bloodbath. White guys come out of nowhere to be shot, blood gets spattered everywhere, and so what?

Then the film gets even worse! The black guy who killed so many white people is in the hands of his oppressors, yet instead of torturing and killing him, they decide to send him off to a (allegedly horrible) mine, thus giving him the opportunity to escape and wreak his horrible vengeance. Does this seem believable to ANYONE?

After that, it's completely predictable. I don't need to tell you what happens because you can figure it out for yourself. But think about this: the movie makes a big deal about how nobody in the South back then was used to seeing a black person on a horse. For most of the film, the white Dr. Schultz accompanied Django and helped smooth the way. But at the end of the movie, Django and his (black) wife ride away on horses -- in Mississippi before the Civil War! So they'll just wander through the South to freedom? Really?? What a great happy ending! I could criticize this piece of sh*t on many more levels, but I've wasted enough time on it.

I actually liked the first 3/4 of this film. I absolutely HATED the last section. And ultimately, Quentin Tarantino's popularity says something troubling about the state of American culture.
272 out of 534 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Murder, hate and boredom - what's not to like?
embedrei13 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I know there is a law against talking about internal logic with regard to QT-movies. But I'm quite a bit fed up with sloppy, dyslexic screen writing and I'm feeling kind of outlawish, so here I go: Initially Schultz (Christoph Waltz) asks for Django's help, because Django is an acquaintance of three fugitives, the bounty hunter Schultz is after. A "Dead or Alive"-handbill with its sketchy description and drawing is not very reliable and shooting the wrong guy can easily happen and it will just as easily get yourself hanged. Therefore the recruiting of Django does make perfect sense. Looking for another wanted man Schultz enters the next town, where he's never been, meets him, who is now the sheriff of this town and whom he's never seen, and kills him after a few seconds, without even talking to him. This is the moment "Django Unchained" stops making sense.

Schultz is a cold blooded serial killer who murders people because some sheet of paper tells him that he's got the right to do so. He is a hypocrite, he gets mad at someone who also executes his state approved right to kill, but with sadistic pleasure. Murder is fine as long as the state tells you so and you do it for business, not for fun. In the original Spaghetti Western a guy like that would have always been the villain, many of the heroes were "Wanted Men" themselves. In "Django Unchained" he is the only human and sympathetic figure and without any doubt the main character. In many ways the spirit of "Django Unchained" is the exact opposite of that found in the movies Tarantino tried to emulate.

The story of the bland eponymous Django's development from slave in chains and rags to sharp dressed gunslinger with sunglasses is above all ridiculous and boring. So after Schultz's exit this excessively overlong movie becomes even more of an ordeal, although you get to see the explosion of a queer, ugly old geezer, who really deserved to die. He is played by QT himself and that's only something to look forward to and no spoiler, because naturally it has little plot relevance.

"Django Unchained" is about hating a whole ethnic group, just like "Inglourious Basterds", where Tarantino made sure to avoid the impression that there could be a German (a "Nazi") who wasn't devilishly evil. The nice young Zoller turns out to be a wannabe rapist and the clever detective Landa (Waltz) turns into a monster, strangling a helpless woman to death. After all Tarantino wanted his viewers to enjoy the butchering of hundreds of Germans in a cinema hall. In "Django Unchained" the murderous Schultz is the only decent white guy. All the others are preoccupied with torturing and humiliating blacks, so there is no need to dehumanize them any further. Will some savior please rise and rid the world of this evil?

"Django Unchained" tells the sentimental education of this savior, Django, that ends with the exit of his teacher. Now the Hate is strong with this one. He uses it for the righteous cause, to kill white people. All of them. The murders of the self-righteous are always cool and justified, right? Hypocrisy is the new religion. Tarantino is one of its high priests, "Django Unchained" is a High Mass. Enjoy!

"Once Upon a Time in the West", "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", "Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid" - those are masterworks. "Django Unchained" is the work of a slave, designed to debase its audience.
532 out of 1,071 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An all time new low for all involved
dixie-353 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Jesus, where to begin. Completely juvenile, rabbit trails galore, slow moving, get to the firkin point. The way the scenes drag and the endless explaining and talking. This movie was so distasteful, predictable and irritating. First of all, Foxx was miscast, he does not do period well, at all, totally unbelievable here, after years of slavery he's suddenly the fastes gun in the west, PLEASE!

The music, what are we to make of the modern day music with the period events here, you can't take any of it seriously. I had to laugh was so absolutely silly and out of place. I have lost all respect for writer/director, the actors I can only hope were in it for the money, but they lose my vote now too.

Open your EYES folks, for god sakes this is all about bringing division, "I wanna shoot white people and get paid for it". WOW, talk about the globalist elite wanting to distract and divide, this is one of their vehicles. Good for you Hollywood and Washington DC, add another notch to your ugly crown.
182 out of 351 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Walked out of this truly disgusting revolting movie
richwgriffin-227-17663530 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Quentin Tarantino is a case of arrested development at 12 who keeps on making revenge fantasy movies, my guess against bullies who picked on him as a child. This film is a combination of spaghetti western and blaxploitation. I know I am odds with others, but I don't find hearing the "N" word at least 100 times entertaining; watching two men fight to the death as "entertainment" (the hammer used to kill one of the two wrestlers); the murder of a black man by a pack of vicious dogs; constant whipping, etc., etc., etc. - and with all that said, my least favorite character, by far, was Django - he's supposed to be "hip" and manly and blah blah blah, but he's really just a despicable macho jerk. I was very disappointed by Leonardo Di Caprio's performance (I didn't see the last 40 minutes of the movie; I had enough of the constant violence).

I get that others just love guns, violence, the "N" word, and find it oh so funny when the Klu Klux Klan can't see through their sheets (hilarious - not!) - I get that others just love violence against others. Let's see: Aurora, Newtown, Columbine, drone planes murdering innocent children, women and men in countries we are not at war with - hmmm - could there be a connection? A society in love with violence can't quite reconcile the kharmic blowback that inevitably occurs.

Yes, this film is well-photographed; there is one interesting performance (Christoph Waltz); the music, while weird, has its moments - but that's it as far as I'm concerned.

Tarantino is always infuriating. If he could get away from his adolescent revenge violent fantasies he clearly has a knowledge of film history and has the money to hire fine movie technicians. But this film is a complete waste of time and money.

Did you really find all the violence "fun" to watch? It turned my stomach. Films I enjoyed had violent scenes in them but they did not glorify violence.
222 out of 436 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
How about we all get honest?
robinbishop347 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is, among much else during its leisurely 165-minute running time, an adolescent male revenge fantasy about an omnipotent mass shooter wreaking carnage upon dozens of victims. I suspect the film would have appealed profoundly to the late Adam Lanza.

You might think that this wouldn't be the best time for a quasi-comic daydream/bloodbath about a deadeye gunman who always fires first and is immune to the thousands of bullets shot at him. But the recent unpleasantness in Sandy Hook has gone almost unmentioned in the critical hosannas greeting Django…because, you see, the invulnerable hero is a black gunman shooting bad (i.e., Southern white) people.

It's not much more complicated than that.

For example, in the The New York Times, the scholarly and mild-mannered A. O. Scott declares Django:

"a troubling and important movie about slavery and racism."

According to Tarantino lore, the former video-store clerk is a dyslexic with a 160 IQ. It's hard not to be amused by how easily this semi-literate junior high school-dropout dupes 21st-century intellectuals.

The reason Tarantino has had the time to watch so many bad movies is because he doesn't like the written word. Most people of Tarantino's intelligence discover that reading is a higher bandwidth way of finding out about the world than watching straight-to-video dreck. But the auteur's learning disability has left him defensively proud that he's ill informed about everything other than movies.

Slavery is a potentially fascinating topic, but to have something interesting to say about it would require Tarantino to read a book. And that was never going to happen. After all, white men were the only men to abolish slavery but who cares about that little tidbit of truth?

Tarantino may not know how to spell, but he knows how you are supposed to think: solely in terms of Who? Whom? The only thing that matters anymore is whose side you are on.

Just as Tarantino is being praised today for empowering blacks by having them slaughter whites, he was praised for empowering Jews by having them slaughter Nazis in Inglourious Basterds and empowering women by having them slaughter men in Kill Bill.

As you may have noticed, Tarantino isn't black, Jewish, or female. Nor has he shown much genuine interest in those designated victim groups. Instead, Tarantino's favorites have always been middle-aged movie tough guys.

A cynic might suggest that what Tarantino really likes is the slaughtering. He's happy to make the details of who slaughters whom conform to the current prejudices, just as long as he gets to keep up the gore level. All Tarantino has had to do to critic-proof himself is identify the zeitgeist's sacred cows (so far, women, Jews, and blacks, but not gays) and have them massacre their foes. (Someday we may be treated to a Tarantino ABC Afterschool Special about the plague of bullying in which a CGI version of Charles Bronson show up at school to take out the homophobic trash.) The premise of Tarantino's latest film is that "young Django," a slave played by 45-year-old Jamie Foxx, teams up with the loquacious Christoph Waltz, 56 (once again dripping with Gemütlichkeit before he suddenly guns everybody down) to kick white butt. In 2009's Inglourious Basterds, Waltz played a Nazi bad guy, while in Django he's a Viennese anti-slavery good guy, but he's always the same character, Tarantino's talkative alter ego.

Indeed, Basterds' Jewish revenge plot was essentially a front to allow Tarantino to indulge his fascination with National Socialist (Nazi) cinema. What would it have been like, Quentin wondered, if he had been Goebbels to Harvey Weinstein's Hitler? In Django, a similarly vast amount of the dialogue is turned over to Waltz. Unfortunately, Tarantino's Teutonophilia can't get much traction in Django. He has a vague notion that in 1858 Richard Wagner was contemplating The Ring cycle—thus Django's wife is named Broomhilda—but has no idea what Waltz ought to do with that. (The excessively articulate Waltz would be better suited to playing Wagner,but the composer never killed anybody and lived before the invention of movies, so don't look to Quentin for biopic ideas.) All these distractions leave poor Foxx with little to do except shoot white people.

In 2013, is the black gun violence Tarantino espouses really such a fascinating new phenomenon? For generations now, American media have been encouraging blacks to take violent retribution. We're coming up on close to a half-century of whites in the media egging on black badassery.

How's Tarantino's macho minstrel show working out for black males, anyway? According to a 1967 government report sponsored by the Surgeon General, the black homicide rate began to rise in 1962 after a long decline. Mostly, though, whites just move out of the way and blacks kill each other. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that for the 30 years from 1976-2005, there were 276,000 African-American homicide victims, 94% of them murdered by other blacks. They also hold the title in interracial rape with an average of 37,000 black on white assaults per year while the white on black is listed as "less than 10," which we all know means zero.

But who cares about a quarter of a million murdered black people and interracial rape? What matters is white-on-white moral status striving. And in that eternal war, even Quentin Tarantino is a welcome recruit. Enjoy.
192 out of 375 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Twisted violence from an overrated director with nothing new to say
sean_howsyourfather19 January 2013
This is nominated for best picture? You got to be kidding me. Where are the sweeping themes, the original ideas, the unique contribution to cinema? This is just a remake of a spaghetti western/blaxploitation movie, with the same old funky soundtrack, the same old movie homages, plot tricks, blood splatter, etc. It was fresh and original in Pulp Fiction, but half a dozen movies later, it is becoming formula. But, wait, I forgot, this is a savage indictment of slavery. Hahahaha. This is movie nerd Tarantino stealing other directors' ideas and painting the world in ludicrously simplistic black-and-white, in Technicolor, so that the bad guys are so detestable you'll cheer graphic violence and mass murder. This time it was slavers, last time it was Nazis, what cliché bad guys will be next? Terrorists? Vampires? In a musical homage? How long can this juvenile director keep spinning the same old blood-spattered revenge theme in a genre remake? This is not cutting edge cinema, folks. Using the N-word does not make you a daring film genius. Now if Quentin spent his multi-million budgets on a movie about, say, a father whose daughter was gunned down in a mass shooting, and goes on a killing spree at the NRA headquarters or a Hollywood studio, I'd be just as disgusted but at least I'd call him original. Well, no, it would be just more twisted cliché, like all Tarantino movies these days.
149 out of 287 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed