Django Unchained

Probably the best Tarantino film in my opinion. But let's be fair, it's really close. Regardless, Django represents everything I appreciate about this director. Drama, comedy, amazing dialogue, extreme violence, etc. I named my dog after this masterpiece, so remember the D is silent!

I just saw this film and I confess that I am completely satisfied. I am not an admirer of Tarantino but I have little to say about this film, inspired by a character from the sixties western-spaghetti films and mixing western with blacksploitation. Tarantino's style (exaggerated, showy, extravagant and excessive) is all there before us, but unlike other films I didn't feel that this was a problem or transformed the film into a kind of parody.

The plot is about the search that Django, a former slave who is unexpectedly released and becomes a bounty hunter, will do for his wife, a slave who was sold and disappeared. He has the help of a German, responsible for his release. Together they discover that she is at the home of a rude slave-owner called Cotton Candy who, among other businesses, profits from death fights between slaves. So they decide to disguise themselves as experts in the field to go to his plantation and try to buy her freedom without Candy realizing what they want.

The film is very good and, despite being almost three hours long, it has no dead moments and entertains wonderfully. However, although Tarantino's exaggerations and histrionic vision were not a problem this time, there are some points that were really uncomfortable, mainly concerning historical rigor, which, we already know, is not something that he really takes seriously (another reason why I don't like him as a director). To begin with, such Mandingo Fights never existed. We are not in Ancient Rome and the slave owners, however bad they were, did not like to throw money out the window and kill for pleasure their best pieces! Tarantino went to get that silly idea from another film he liked and pasted it here. Another problem is the use of dynamite, which would only be invented a few years after the period in which the film takes place. The clothes also do not match the time or place of the action. The outfit of the Club's black maid, with that miniskirt, is particularly bad in that it sexualizes the character and imports a 21st century scent into the middle of the 19th century. I will not go on much longer, I think I proved my point. Another thing I have to say is that this is a very violent film, Tarantino style, that is, with a ton of blood for each bullet, spectacular shootings, some nudity and high doses of brutality. The dialogues are also full of racist insults and profanity, but I think that was something the film asked for, in support of its own credibility. In short, this is not a movie for anyone. With Tarantino, this is often taken for granted.

The main role was given to Jamie Foxx, and he is superb and gives the character a strength and toughness that I liked, and which contrast nicely with the polite sensitivity of Dr. Schultz, brilliantly played by Christopher Waltz. This actor had already done an extraordinary job in "Inglorious Bastards" and now he was even better, with a character that seems tailor-made for him. I was particularly impressed with the work of Leonardo Di Caprio, who rarely manages to make villains. He is an actor with a rare talent and has managed to be worthy of our contempt in this film. Another actor who shines in this film is the veteran Samuel L. Jackson, in the role of a black butler so fond of the owner that he becomes more slavish than whites. I also liked the brief cameo of honor of Franco Nero, the actor who played Django in the original films. It was an elegant and honorable way for Tarantino to bow to the actor and the work that inspired him. Much less impressive was the performance of Kerry Washington, who has little time and material to show what is worth.

Technically, it is a film full of notable aspects that require our attention and that, to a large extent, are part of the director's brand image. It is the case of cinematography and the use of strong colors and slow motion footage in action scenes, features of a strong visual style that Tarantino loves. The sets are good, and also the costumes despite the anachronisms that I have mentioned. The film has a pleasant pace, but the first half was generally better yet more restrained: it seems that Tarantino gets lost in his own style as he approaches the most violent scenes. The soundtrack is great and takes advantage of several songs by various composers. Personally, I enjoyed listening to the original song from "Django" by Luis Bacalov, and the songs composed for this film by Ennio Morricone, a name that will always be associated, in collective memory, with the great western-spaghetti of the past. It was a careful, effective and honorable selection in the way it honors the genre.

A German bounty hunter flees a Slave, Django, and the pair embark on a mission to find Django's wife.

As soon as I heard Luis Bacalov's Django, I was hooked.

This remains my favourite Tarantino film, and let's be fair there are many classics in that particular catalogue.

Django is equal parts shocking, entertaining, dramatic, bold, funny and original, to this day no other film exists that is remotely similar. It's a western, action packed love story, it really is a one off.

Three hours passed by effortlessly, it's one of those films where I wasn't aware of time passing by, I was engrossed and absorbed into it.

Some of the humour is hilarious, and in the context of the film works to perfection, the humour is as good, as the violence and misery of slavery are guy wrenching.

The music is absolutely wonderful, the perfect soundtrack accompanies this great film. Indeed the whole production is exemplary, it's a skilfully crafted film, the visuals are jaw dropping, it's very skillfully put together, with costumes, sets and lighting all on point, with the unbelievable staging as well.

Now I am sometimes quick to highlight who stands out in a film or TV series, but how can you do that here, every single performance is on point, Waltz, Foxx, DiCaprio, Jackson, I honestly don't think it gets better than this assembly of greats.

It's no wonder it gave us so many memes, who hasn't seen this masterpiece. If you haven't grab your remote, and improve your day.

10/10.

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.

8/10.

This is a movie that wouldn't work with every other director other than Tarantino. Just like all of his movies, film making top tier. Every aspect of this film is amazing