Django Unchained

**Warning, the following review contains the uncensored N-Word. If you are easily offended by this, please do not read this review about an over-the-top unrealistic spaghetti western fantasy. Thank you**

"How do you like the bounty-hunting business?"

"Kill white people and get paid for it? What's not to like?"

-Christoph Waltz, Jamie Foxx "Django Unchained"

- -

Released in 2012 under the direction of Quentin Tarantino on a budget of $40 million with distribution from Columbia Pictures; "Django Unchained" is Tarantino's newest genre mash-up and his ninth directorial release. Naturally, the movie is a revenge fantasy tale, just like Tarantino's previous World War II fantasy "Inglourious Basterds,"Tarantino, for anyone who is as unaware of this guy as you are about the character Django, is a filmmaker who takes influence and ideas from other movies and manages to give nods to these genres he pays homage to. His early work began in the neo-noir field with films like "Reservoir Dogs," "Pulp Fiction," and "Jackie Brown." It wasn't until he finally got his name out in Hollywood was he able to get the budget to make movies in the genres of movies he adored, becoming a household name in 2003/2004 with "Kill Bill Vol.1 and 2." After "Kill Bill," Tarantino's movies began to feature characters seeking revenge, from Abernathy, Kim, Lee and Zoe Bell chasing after Kurt Russell to Shosanna Dreyfus burning down her own theater to kill the Nazis. Regardless, I've been anticipating this movie since I even heard the title back in 2011, was it everything I was hoping for and more?

Plot: Two years before the Civil War broke out, Django (Jamie Foxx) a slave is being transported to a plantation in Mississippi when he is approached by a Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) a German Dentist turned bounty hunter buys his freedom under the condition that Django helps him locate The Brittle Brothers (Cooper Huckabee, Doc Duhame, M.C. Gainey), a trio of ruthless criminals. They manage to complete this plot in the first, hmm, 45 minutes before Schultz learns of Django's plan to rescue his German-speaking wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) and buy her freedom as well. The current owner of Broomhilda? Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) slaveowner and francophile of the plantation Candyland (no, really, that's it's actual name) that is looked over by house slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson). Will Django get his wife back before Calvin realizes the ruse?

This was what I waited a year and a half for? Plotwise, the movie is a little too familiar, but I don't blame that on Tarantino's part, this film is after all supposed to be a homage to Spaghetti Westerns, this movie in particular is loosely based off an obscure Italian film barely anybody bothers to look up. The movie that spawned nearly 50 unofficial sequels: 1966's "Django" a spaghetti western ripping off of Sergio Leone's "Fistful of Dollars" from 1964, which is an unofficial remake of Akira Kurosawa's "Yojimbo" from 1961 (Yeah, see? I did my homework too). But in the sense of a narrative, the movie feels like two stories written separate from each other, one meant to be the main plot while the other was meant to be the plot to entice the studio to produce the movie. You can pretty much tell the movie makes the transition from the Brittle Brothers plot to the Rescuing Broomhilda plot when Django and Schultz go up into the Mountains and the soundtrack plays "I Got A Name" by Jim Croce. I personally feel that Tarantino could have corrected this problem if he had the characters kill them off one by one periodically throughout the movie, what do I mean by that? Well, let's say instead of killing them all in one setting, Django kills the first Brittle Brother while the others escape, then the characters go into the mountains to hunt down the second Brittle brother and then the third Brittle Brother is hiding out at Candyland. This would make the two plots converge together perfectly if Tarantino had a second writer, like Roger Avery, Tarantino's co-writer for "Pulp Fiction," whatever happened to him I wonder… I feel I should bring this up, this one little gaping plot hole made near the end when Calvin discovers Schultz and Django's ruse, Calvin threatens violence unless they pay him $12,000 for Broomhilda's freedom and Schultz just happens to have that money in his wallet, thus buying her freedom. This raises the question, why didn't they just tell Clavin that they really wanted to buy Broomhilda and were willing to pay 12 grand for it, boom, conflict resolved.

As for the dialogue, well, I've made it no secret that I look up to Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" as my dialogue writing bible, but it seems there have been a sh*t storm of controversy over the film's constant usage of the term "nigger," from major film critics to even Spike Lee, it seems that everyone is getting upset over this movie's usage of the derogatory phrase. To that I say "why is it a show like "The Boondocks" which has characters saying 'Nigga' more times than the characters in "Jackie Brown" get a free pass and this film doesn't?" to which you would reply "it's because the people who make "The Boondocks" are black and Tarantino is white, therefore it's considered racist." Yet, when a director like Steven Spielberg directs "The Color Purple" or Craig Bewer writes and directs "Hustle & Flow" they are praised for the racial boundaries they cross despite the fact that both filmmakers are white. With that argument in mind, one would think, "oh, well Tarantino is being deep by making this movie exploring the horrors of slavery at the time" that would be the case except Tarantino doesn't exactly explore that. In fact, the whole aspect of slavery boils down to "man slavery sure was bad, wasn't it?" Hate to break it to you Tarantino, but you don't need to do that, we have the 1977 television ABC miniseries "Roots," a show that told the story of three generations of slaves from the capture of an African youth and his trials to when he is forced into slavery as the story moved from him to his daughter to her son. Sure, that was a television miniseries, but "Roots" had a story to tell, "Django Unchained" has two under the guise of one. Just like "Inglourious Basterds" it's a film that's not at all realistic or historically accurate, it's blatant wish fulfillment aimed at the African American audience to empower them and make them say "boy, if only we had a gunslinging negro back in the day." Though considering how few African Americans there were in the audience for this screening I went to, I don't think it's working Tarantino. Ironically, in 1974, Mel Brooks release "Blazing Saddles" a film that was praise for it's comedy and yet criticized for it's use of the word "nigger," yet, 38 years later, it's considered a comic masterpiece.

Characters:

Jamie Foxx: He's good, he's stoic, he's tough and when he initially gains his freedom, he gives the right reactions of confusion and uncertainty before he finally adjusts to the concept of freedom. Considering that originally, Will Smith was cast to play this role, Jamie really does give a good performance as a tough action hero guy but also a romantic on the side. Plus, how rare is it you get to see Jamie Foxx's hairy testicles and shooting up a bunch of guys saying "d'Artagnan motherf*cker" as well as wearing a bright blue hilarious costume?

Christoph Waltz: His last outing with Tarantino won him an Academy Award, but in "Basterds" he was so good that he was intimidating. Here, he's rather humorous, but he does have his moments of building depth when he shows he has a sense of humanity against slavery and cruelty to the lowly, yet he holds no qualms against shooting a father in front of his child or shooting an officer of the law, just so long as he happens to be a wanted criminal. Nevertheless, Christoph gives a great performance

Leonardo DiCaprio: Mark my words, you will never take your eyes off him once he comes onscreen. He's so over-the-top and dastardly that it's hard to even take him so seriously. This works against Leo as it makes it difficult to see him as anything but intimidating. Well, I take that back, he does have this one scene near the end where he does become pretty threatening where he grabs a hammer and threatens to smash the back of Broomhilda's head in. He's cold, but like Aldo Raines, it becomes hilarious watching an actor as well-known as Leonardo DiCaprio play a character totally against his type and run with it. I've heard people suggest he might be one of the serious contenders for best supporting actor at the Oscars this year, personally, I think while he was good, as a villain, his performance was based off his ability to do hired things just pass it off with a gleam in his eye and a smile on his face.

Kerry Washington: For a girl that Django spends 2 hours fighting to acquire, she's really not all that interesting since she doesn't say much. In fact, I think she gets at least, what 15 to 20 lines of dialogue. Still, that's not the fault on part of the actress, but I think that's a fault on part of the screenplay since most of the film, she appears as some vision to Django.

Samuel L. Jackson was also pretty good, so good in fact it's almost scary to see him play this sort of house Negro that is so loyal to the Candie house that he abuses his fellow slaves, making him no difference than Calvin Candie or the other slavers themselves. The rest of the cast is pretty much playing a game of "Hey I know that person!" Jonah Hill and Don Johnson play some Southern ambushers who get a really funny scene arguing about not being able to see out of the bags on their heads, Zoe Bell, Tom Savini and Robert Carridine all have practically look-really-hard-to-see-them cameos, but the best cameos of this movie include the director himself sprouting an Australian accent and actor Franco Nero, the original Django, in a cameo that is only funny if you understand that he played Django ("D-J-A-N-G-O. The D is silent" "I know.")

Production: Here's a little bit of trivia pursuit for all you movie goers; what is a spaghetti western? The answer is that it's a western film that is set in America yet filmed largely in Italy using locations that suggest the American frontier. So here, Tarantino filmed in California, Wyoming and Louisiana, all of which are excellent locations, especially the mountains, they were so beautifully shot. The movie is gloriously bloody, if you haven't left the theater 10 minutes into the movie when Dr. King Schultz shoots a horse, then you are not going to enjoy the violence in this film. It's so graphic and bloody, probably even more graphic than "Kill Bill", but without the swords. The soundtrack is probably Tarantino at his most eclectic; utilizing compositions from Spaghetti Western composing legends Ennio Morricone and Luis Bacalov (the latter scored 1966's "Django" and also wrote the theme song that is heard in the opening credits of the film) as well as folk singer Jim Croce was included in the soundtrack. It's an eclectic soundtrack that definitely ranks up there as one of the best soundtracks put together by Quentin Tarantino.

The editing, is another story. I usually find the editing with Tarantino's choice for camera shots to be clever, but here, it doesn't feel as masterful. But this is due to the fact that seasoned Tarantino calibrator editor Sally Menke sadly died in 2010 from a hiking accident. She and Tarantino were simply a superb pair, a director who wanted to include everything with an editor who respected that but knew when too much was too much. The Tarantino editing torch has been passed to assistant editor Fred Raskin, whose previous credits included the "Fast and the Furious" movies….well that's a positive he's a keeper. His editing isn't the worst, but feels like the editor just didn't want to cut out so much of the movie when, trust me, 30 minutes should have cut down cause at 2 and a half hours, even my patience has it's limits.

Bottom Line: I have been eagerly waiting for this film for a year and a half, nothing was going to stop me from seeing this movie. Hell, even on the supposed "end of the world" crap, I proudly proclaimed I would be so pissed if the world did end before I saw "Django Unchained." Believe me, I was very enthusiastic about seeing this film and I got exactly what I hoped for, minus the run time. The story could have been fine-tuned to still keep both stories but to make both flow more with the plot in my opinion, it was a delight to see such recognizable characters like Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio playing characters they don't usually play. It's a western that is so over the top and self-referential for us ciniphiles, I grinned with every nod Tarantino made to pull out the big guns to deliver his dream project of a Western. Is it flawed? Yes. Could it be better? Yes. Is it boring? To each his own, but no, I was entertained all the way through and that's good enough to me. So to all the critics out there who be hating on this movie, shut up and stop ruining my fun and let me enjoy the entertainment….why are all you Star Wars fans looking at me like that?

Final Rating: 3.75/5

Until next time, I'll keep the fires stoked for the next time we burn through celluloid.