Quentin Tarantino's latest film is neither as stylized as his previous work or as interesting. Instead, the filmmaker has made what very well may be his most normal film, creating a Western that is as traditionalist and American as the Coen Brothers' True Grit. Now, this is by no means a bad thing; however, Tarantino is capable of making something that is much more entertaining and off the wall than this film. At its best, the movie is an exhilarating and well acted western, and at its worst it is a disappointingly middle of the road film by a well respected director.
The plot concerns the plight of Django the slave. Through a lucky turn of events he comes across the bounty hunter Dr. Schultz, who is looking for the Brittle brothers, and he believes Django can help him. After Schultz kills the slave trader that are holding Django in chains, the two set out to find and kill the Brittle brothers. After this feat is accomplished, Schultz learns that Django wants to save his wife Broomhilda. Schultz offer his assistance in exchange for Django to continue working with him. Eventually they make their way to Mississippi where Broomhilda is a slave on the massive plantation of Candyland, owned by the ruthless and insane Calvin Candie. From there the movie is a revenge flick, just like the last four movies by Tarantino.
The highlight of the movie is certainly the acting. Jamie Foxx plays Django with an honesty and passion that has gone unmatched in his previous work. He gives the role a true hero quality and does a great job of getting the audience to really root for him. Not that his opposition is particularly likable in anyway. Cristoph Waltz plays Dr. Schultz, which is essentially a much nicer version of his character from Tarantino's previous effort Inglorious Basterds. Here, he takes on the role of the wise old wizard who helps the hero gain his full potential. The performances by Samuel L. Jackson as a mean and bitter house slave and Don Johnson as a womanizing plantation owner are also great. But the best performance would have to be from Leonardo DiCaprio as Calvin Candie. Here he plays a deranged and flamboyant plantation owner who is very easy to hate. DiCaprio, Foxx, and Waltz are phenomenal, and the rest of the cast bring a lot to the table, creating some of Tarantino's most interesting characters yet.
The acting is great, and for the most part this is what saves the movie. However even this has its slight flaws, including a scene involving Australian slave traders (one of them played by Tarantino) who have maybe the worst Australian accents ever.
As for Tarantino's writing and directing, this almost seems like the antithesis of Kill Bill, his two part film that encompassed nearly all genres and was so ridiculous that it is probably his greatest work. Here, however, Tarantino goes for a much more subdued approach. It has been said that Django Unchained would be a spaghetti western, much like the classic films by Sergio Leone and the original Django. However, Tarantino's style is much more in line with traditionalist American westerns, which is fine in and of itself, but he isn't very good at making that kind of movie. This is by far Tarantino's most conventional film, and as a result his most boring. Even Basterds, which this reviewer found underwhelming, had a lot of interesting aspects to it. But Django is so normal in its plot and its style that the other aspects that are quintessential Tarantino become a drag. Even the music choices seem less inspired than any other movie he has made.
As for the film's commentary on slavery, it brings to the forefront some serious and complicated ideas that every Hollywood movie has avoided or dumbed down. For this alone the film deserves a vast amount of credit. Tarantino doesn't shy away from the cruelty and the malice of the racism that dominated the south in the mid 1800s. The film is unsentimental and unheroic in its depiction of the treatment of slaves, and the film is more damning of the institution than any other movie that has been made on the subject, perhaps because Tarantino is not interested in forgiving the government for allowing such a horrible affront to human rights to occur for such a bitterly long time. However, some of the humor Tarantino puts into the film undermines the seriousness of it all, much in the same way a Broadway showtune undermines the misery of being imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread.
The movie isn't all bad. In fact, far from it. Tarantino's classic dialogue is exquisitely done, especially at the tense and intentionally overlong dinner scene. The final set of shootouts are exhilarating and bloodier than anything that has come out in a long while. However, there seems to be something missing from this film that is present in almost every other Tarantino flick. Perhaps that something is originality; because, lets face it, this movie is a revenge movie, Basterds was a revenge movie, 2007's Death Proof was a revenge movie, and Kill Bill was a revenge movie. It seems strange to say this, but Tarantino could benefit greatly from branching out.
http://thatguythatlikesmovies.blogspot.com
The plot concerns the plight of Django the slave. Through a lucky turn of events he comes across the bounty hunter Dr. Schultz, who is looking for the Brittle brothers, and he believes Django can help him. After Schultz kills the slave trader that are holding Django in chains, the two set out to find and kill the Brittle brothers. After this feat is accomplished, Schultz learns that Django wants to save his wife Broomhilda. Schultz offer his assistance in exchange for Django to continue working with him. Eventually they make their way to Mississippi where Broomhilda is a slave on the massive plantation of Candyland, owned by the ruthless and insane Calvin Candie. From there the movie is a revenge flick, just like the last four movies by Tarantino.
The highlight of the movie is certainly the acting. Jamie Foxx plays Django with an honesty and passion that has gone unmatched in his previous work. He gives the role a true hero quality and does a great job of getting the audience to really root for him. Not that his opposition is particularly likable in anyway. Cristoph Waltz plays Dr. Schultz, which is essentially a much nicer version of his character from Tarantino's previous effort Inglorious Basterds. Here, he takes on the role of the wise old wizard who helps the hero gain his full potential. The performances by Samuel L. Jackson as a mean and bitter house slave and Don Johnson as a womanizing plantation owner are also great. But the best performance would have to be from Leonardo DiCaprio as Calvin Candie. Here he plays a deranged and flamboyant plantation owner who is very easy to hate. DiCaprio, Foxx, and Waltz are phenomenal, and the rest of the cast bring a lot to the table, creating some of Tarantino's most interesting characters yet.
The acting is great, and for the most part this is what saves the movie. However even this has its slight flaws, including a scene involving Australian slave traders (one of them played by Tarantino) who have maybe the worst Australian accents ever.
As for Tarantino's writing and directing, this almost seems like the antithesis of Kill Bill, his two part film that encompassed nearly all genres and was so ridiculous that it is probably his greatest work. Here, however, Tarantino goes for a much more subdued approach. It has been said that Django Unchained would be a spaghetti western, much like the classic films by Sergio Leone and the original Django. However, Tarantino's style is much more in line with traditionalist American westerns, which is fine in and of itself, but he isn't very good at making that kind of movie. This is by far Tarantino's most conventional film, and as a result his most boring. Even Basterds, which this reviewer found underwhelming, had a lot of interesting aspects to it. But Django is so normal in its plot and its style that the other aspects that are quintessential Tarantino become a drag. Even the music choices seem less inspired than any other movie he has made.
As for the film's commentary on slavery, it brings to the forefront some serious and complicated ideas that every Hollywood movie has avoided or dumbed down. For this alone the film deserves a vast amount of credit. Tarantino doesn't shy away from the cruelty and the malice of the racism that dominated the south in the mid 1800s. The film is unsentimental and unheroic in its depiction of the treatment of slaves, and the film is more damning of the institution than any other movie that has been made on the subject, perhaps because Tarantino is not interested in forgiving the government for allowing such a horrible affront to human rights to occur for such a bitterly long time. However, some of the humor Tarantino puts into the film undermines the seriousness of it all, much in the same way a Broadway showtune undermines the misery of being imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread.
The movie isn't all bad. In fact, far from it. Tarantino's classic dialogue is exquisitely done, especially at the tense and intentionally overlong dinner scene. The final set of shootouts are exhilarating and bloodier than anything that has come out in a long while. However, there seems to be something missing from this film that is present in almost every other Tarantino flick. Perhaps that something is originality; because, lets face it, this movie is a revenge movie, Basterds was a revenge movie, 2007's Death Proof was a revenge movie, and Kill Bill was a revenge movie. It seems strange to say this, but Tarantino could benefit greatly from branching out.
http://thatguythatlikesmovies.blogspot.com