Saw it yesterday. Very Tarantinoesque, a strange mismash of genres that work surprisingly well together. It's more of a "Southern" than a "Western," and it owes a lot to Blaxploitation flicks. It's got some great laughs, my favorite moment being where Don Johnson (with the help of a surprise guest star) leads a pre-cursor to the KKK on a raid, a scene which, though quite hilarious, comes perilously close to Mel Brooks territory. Of course, there are some QT-brand dialogues, though it's not as talky as Inglourious Basterds was. Oh, and it's violent and bloody as hell. Django (Jamie Foxx, who plays his character's arc nicely) is a slave freed by bounty hunter King Schulz (another terrific part for Christoph Walz, this one with much more humanity) to help track down three fugitives. Once that's done, Schulz agrees to help Django rescue his wife (Kerry Washington), a slave on the plantation of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio, effectively evil here). Posing as interested buyers of slaves for gladiatorial style fights, Django and Schulz show up at Candies to rescue the wife, but the head slave of Candies' household, Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson, having a motherf**king good time in the part), has suspicions his master is being duped... Some have complained about the frequent usage of the n-word here, but I'd say two things about it: (1) it's probably reflective of how real people spoke (and, alas, some still do); and (2) it's almost always said in conjunction with some other abominably racist idea, so it always makes you wince a little. Although everyone recognizes how awful slavery is, Tarantino gives the audience a potent lesson, showing examples of brutality, degradation, and humiliation which can be a little troubling to watch. The injustice of it will make you mad and help you sympathize with Django during the exceptionally bloody finale, when--minor spoiler--the bad guys get what's coming to them in a cathartic paroxysm of violence. Entertaining but brutal and bloody, Django Unchained is a rescue and revenge tale closer to Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds than most of Tarantino's other work. Other than it's unshrinking depiction of slavery and slaveowners and its unusual main character, I don't think the plot brings much new to the table, but Foxx, Walz, DiCaprio, and Jackson keep us riveted. 7.5/10. Oh, here's a fascinating tidbit that I noticed during the film, but had a hard time believing it until I checked afterwards:
Same. I like his first effort, and thought ulp Fiction was quit clever, but now everything has gotten tedious and repetitive.
Tarantino's "ooh-look how clever and naughty/provocative I am" style leaves me weary after 1/2 hour into just about anything he's ever done.
I saw it too and was about to post a thread myself. For me, this was the most fun I had in a theater all year. IMHO, this is Tarintino's best yet. I know it sounds like a cliche at this point, but Django Unchained really brings on a variety of emotions. There were several times where I was disgusted, winced, laughed out loud and was extremely sad, but all in all, it was a great ride. Foxx was great, DiCaprio was even better. He really should look into playing the antagonist more often. Jackson was superb. Regarding the copious use of the n-word, I think it will upset a lot of people, but once you understand that the movie is set in 1858, these people are mostly vile people and its just a fucking movie, you get past it. Paladin, I know the surprise guest star you're speaking of and for the longest time I was just sitting there starring at him trying to figure out if was actually him or just a look-a-like. That was a hilarious scene, but my favorite occurs early in the film during Django's "acquisition" by Schulz. During and before the transaction, Django and his fellow slaves were all different types of niggers, but after the tables are turned, they were "fellas" and "reasonable men." That was hilarious! 8.0/10
It's set in 1958? That explains a bit. As I don't ever watch television anymore, and if I see a movie, I don't watch the trailers, I didn't know there was a movie out called Django. But, driving home tonight, I saw a billboard advertising the movie. Since the area isn't thriving anymore, hardly anyone drives down that way, I thought the movie was old and the owners of the billboard never changed the poster.
The most apt thing I read about Tarantino lately is that Tarantino the director is unable to reign in the excesses of Tarantino the writer. This would seem to be more of the same.
I don't like movies that seem to revel in violence or try to make it "stylish". If I'm going to watch a violent movie, I prefer something like "Taken" where it seems simply "business like". The minimal amount of violence necessary to accomplish an objective with no effort to pretty it up. Considering in "Taken" for example, Liam Neeson's so called "martial arts" basically involved grabbing someones head and bashing it into a hard object.
I have no problem with violence as long as there is distance between the adversaries. Keeping everything anonymous and impersonal.
So... nice, clean, fun death and destruction where nobody has to see the icky results on actual people?
You're kidding/trolling right? That's the WORST kind. Violence has consequences, though they can vary depending on the situation. Regardless, lots of pain + blood + drama are involved every fucking time.
Of course, but if I'm spending money on a movie I want the violence to be enjoyable. Ships exploding in beautiful light displays. Good. People getting riddled by gunfire and slowly dying screaming as the blood drains out of them. Bad. Very messing and depressing.
I kind of agree with Dayton. Seeing nameless, faceless crew explode inside a ship means a lot less than watching a couple of characters you know something about get tortured.
Intentionally avoiding exposure to the consequences of violence so you might better enjoy said violence? That's messed up.
