Django Unchained

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I found this review by Marshall Fine at Hollywood and Fine. Looks like another Quentin Tarantino masterpiece

At this point in his career, is there anything Quentin Tarantino can do to surprise us?

Absolutely. I was floored by 2009’s “Inglourious Basterds” – not by the violence or the outrageousness of some of the action, but by Tarantino’s command of suspense, his ability to crank the tension to the breaking point in any given scene – and then to crank it even further. It gave you that slightly breathless feeling you get when you’re blowing up a balloon to see if you can make it pop from too much air – and each puff feels like it should be the last.

And I was equally dazzled by his newest, “Django Unchained,” a film that manages to pay homage to films of the past even as it sends them up and then pushes past them into a territory all its own. You’ve never seen a western like “Django Unchained” because, well, no one has ever made one before. And though there are likely to be imitators, there will never be another one.

Tarantino mostly uses both the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s and the revisionist westerns of the 1970s as his inspiration, with a dollop of blaxploitation and even a sprinkling of “Blazing Saddles,” just for a dose of absurdity. He invests each scene with a fizzing, whizzing energy, laying out a story of cruelty and revenge.

His central character is Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave in 1858 who is freed by a bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Schultz, who claims he was a dentist before he took up the gun, takes Django under his wing and trains him in the ways of the Old West. And then they head for the Deep South.

Why? Well, Django’s wife is still a slave. Her name is Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), just one of Tarantino’s deliciously odd little jokes, and Django wants her back. So he and Schultz start picking off bounty targets to build their cash reserve, even as they do a little sleuthing to figure out where Broomhilda is now owned.

That turns out to be Candieland, the plantation owned by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), whose specialty is training male slaves for “mandingo” fights, bare-knuckle brawls to the death. To get there, however, Django and Schultz must track her through a plantation of female sex slaves owned by Big Daddy (Don Johnson) and beyond.

Candieland is like the ultimate kingdom of evil, one in which the smooth-talking Candie is served by an even more vicious slave named Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), the power behind the throne, as it were. Can Django and Schultz outwit both Candie and Stephen and rescue Broomhilda?

The story is both slight and inexorable, because westerns almost always lead to showdowns. The finale shoot-out in “Django Unchained” is wild and bloody – but then so is the rest of the action in this brutal, funny and outlandishly entertaining film.

Tarantino obviously relishes every scene, every second of this film, investing it with the same kind of energy and passion that you see in the films of Martin Scorsese or Steven Spielberg.

His take on slavery is at once disturbingly graphic and, no doubt, less harrowing than the reality was. It’s a bold choice, one that few filmmakers have attempted before him. This dark chapter of the American story reverberates to this day, though we try to sweep it into a tidy little corner called “history,” as though it were a brief aberration, instead of a defining issue of the country’s first 200 years (and ever since, for that matter).

Its aftereffects – this country’s schizoid, skittish approach to race relations – are still being felt. Race remains the most uncomfortable of topics for public discussion, because that particular aspect – the willingness of one race to subjugate another one – is still a painful, if increasingly distant, memory.

But Tarantino isn’t interested in simply revisiting the past: He wants to reinvent it. And he wants to grab the viewer and take him for a wild ride in the process.

So his approach to violence is not just graphic, with spurting explosions of blood every time someone gets shot. It’s also alternately gruesome and comic: When bad-ass villains get shot (but not killed), they don’t just drop in a burst of gore – they also scream in pain. But Tarantino’s twisted humor finds the laugh in a bad guy, so full of bravado when he’s got the upper hand, squealing like a stuck pig when he’s on the receiving end.

It’s the essence of revenge drama: just desserts. It’s not enough that the hero wins – the villain has to suffer some (if not all) of the same depredations that he has dished out.

Everyone in this cast brings something unexpected to the party. Foxx’s grittily laconic Django is the perfect Western protagonist, a man on a mission who doesn’t need to say much but always has the perfect topper when it’s needed. He’s complemented by Waltz as the courtly, fast-talking Schultz, whose even-tempered “just business” approach contrasts with the “this is personal” vibe coming from Django.

DiCaprio finds the logic in the despicable Candie, a man who has had his world given to him and assumes it will always be thus. He reveals the cowardice behind the bravura of a man who loves all things French – but doesn’t speak French himself. Jackson, meanwhile, gets to play to his sweet spot as a vicious slave who looks like Uncle Ben and acts like Simon Legree.

Funny, shocking and never less than enthralling, “Django Unchained” is, as they say, off the chain. As much as it borrows and repurposes from other films, it’s sui generis, an original film that will ignite dialogues – and arguments – for years to come.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Yes, Tarantino could surprise me. He could make an adult film long on character development and story arch and short on caricature and a constant barrage of ADD subplots. Too much to expect; he could make a movie short on cinematic slaughter. That would really be surprising. But I'm easy. I'd settle for a Tarantino movie that didn't feel like a painfully self-conscious series of film school lessons in everything cool about the B movies of the 70s and the effects of the new 2000s. Just that would surprise me from Tarantino, as I often feel, after he has found yet another way to sever another limb in slow-mo that his big head is going to lean in from off camera and say "Dood! Was that awesome or what?"

Sorry for the rant. Can you tell I'm not a fan? ;)

Tim
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Saw this with my son this morning while my wife saw Les Miserables with her mom in the adjacent theater. For you QT fans this film will not disappoint. Otherwise don't see it if you're not a QT fan. The movie is quite long at 2 3/4 hours. Many cameo roles which were fun to watch. Di Caprio was excellent as was Jamie Foxx. The real star if the show however was once again Christoph Waltz who plays Dr King Schultz a dentist turned bounty hunter. In typical Quentin fashion the film is filled with expletives,blood gore and violence. If you're weak at heart font see it. Quentin himself makes a cameo appearance at the end which must be seen. When I saw the film and I thought it was over as there was a fade to black the movie continued for another half hour with an explosive ending. All in all a fun movie and I feel that Christoph Waltz should not only be nominated for but should also win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor as he did in Inglorious Basterds.
 

Soundproof

New Member
Jan 13, 2012
429
1
0
Oslo, Norway
Tarantino mines our collective movie unconscious for his tales. Either you get it, or you don't.
He is an imitative filmmaker who builds on the works of others, and finds engaging twists to our expectations in the alternative universes he weaves.

In Jackie Brown, he answered the wishes of the non-QT member in the thread, and that was one of his least engaging movies.

Go with it, it's a Kaleidoscope of our times.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator

jazdoc

Member Sponsor
Aug 7, 2010
3,328
737
1,700
Bellevue
In Jackie Brown, he answered the wishes of the non-QT member in the thread, and that was one of his least engaging movies.

I really enjoyed "Jackie Brown"..one of Samuel Jackson's best performances and it has an extraordinary soundtrack.
 

das

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2010
109
10
93
www.soundstagenetwork.com
QT is certainly a polarizing figure and there will always be those who like and those who hate him.

I'm certainly on the side of like -- the first time I saw Pulp Fiction was one of the best movie-going experiences of my life. I went alone and was enthralled for almost the entire time.

But I'll be the first to admit he "misses" occasionally. His biggest "miss" was "Death Proof." Awesome car chases -- some of the best ever done -- but boring for the rest of the way. The girls in it just couldn't deliver the lines, or he couldn't write them for them. Whatever the case, it was only so-so.

But the rest of his work is like Scorsese's -- even his weakest films are better than most.

Looking forwards to "Django Unchained."

Doug Schneider
 

cjfrbw

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
3,361
1,355
1,730
Pleasanton, CA
I kind of liked "Death Proof". Sort of the evolution of the bimbo from vacuous victim to avenging force of nature. That would make it a Super Bee.

I don't think that any self respecting serial killing psycho would actually do something to hurt themselves, however, like Kurt Russel's character winding up in the hospital to look like an accident victim.
 

jadis

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2010
12,463
5,573
2,810
Manila, Philippines
While I'm not exactly a fan of QT's movies, this one I enjoyed very much. You're right, Steve, that Dr. King Shultze character played by Christoph Waltz is one fantastic role and I get a kick out of the way he talks and also Samuel Jackson puts on a very good performance. I haven't seen a western in a long time and I never thought I'd enjoy this one. And the music too, shall I call it fitting? Reminds of really of those spaghetti westerns I watched in the 70s but have long forgotten. :)
 

jadis

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2010
12,463
5,573
2,810
Manila, Philippines
Indeed Christoph Waltz won the Golden Globe last night for Best Supporting Actor. I expect he will also win at the Oscars

i'm rooting for him too in the oscars. i'm gonna watch inglorious basterds on dvd or streaming because of him. :)
 

MadFloyd

Member Sponsor
May 30, 2010
3,080
775
1,700
Mass
I adore QT's films. I haven't seen this one yet but do look forward to it when it comes out on Bluray - especially knowing Christoph Waltz is in it.
 

jadis

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2010
12,463
5,573
2,810
Manila, Philippines
That seems to be a very true statement:D. Personally I really do NOT like QT films. IMO, you've seen one, you've seen them all.

I have felt that way too, Davey, until I saw Django Unchained. Starting with Pulp Fiction, my wife and I were watching it together at night and she fell asleep after 15 minutes which was rare. I went on for another 30 minutes or so and gave up. A very good friend told me he liked that movie very much but only after the 2nd watch. I don't think I have that patience. Next, I watched From Dusk Till Dawn never realizing it was a vampire movie. Didn't finish that too. Kill Bill came next and it was ok since I like martial arts movies. I saw part 2 as well just to finish the storyline. Planet Terror/Grindhouse, went through the motions of finishing it without much impression. And now comes Django Unchained, and surprisingly, I enjoyed the movie very much and the characters of the dentist/bounty hunter, head butler slave, and Django himself impressed upon me. Now, I'm digging into Inglorious Basterds just because of Christoph Waltz. Sometimes, it pays to unturn all stones. :D
 

Bill Hart

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
2,684
174
1,150
I had real trouble with this movie. I am a fan of his movies, some of which are brilliant (Pulp Fiction), others wonderful in strange ways (Kill Bill), or 70's retro-cool (Jackie Brown). I thought Inglorious Basterds was largely a waste of time, except for Christopher Waltz, who was so over the top as to deserve every accolade for that film.
The reason for my trouble- yes, it was a great revenge movie, I can deal with Tarentino's penchant for over the top bloodshed (I was a big Sam Peckipah fan back in the day), but the subject matter troubled me. I found parts hard to watch, and if Tarentino intended that- as an indictment against human slavery- good for him. I didn't see this as analogous to Inglorious Basterds, for the simply reason that the latter didn't take place in the midst of the human atrocities of the Holocaust. Had Tarentino filmed that movie, it probably would have been very tough for me as well, and taking it to the next level- his brand of Sergio Leone meets Pekinpah crossed with his love of 'B' action films and shlock from the 70's- it probably would have been insulting. I'm not a 'PC' kinda guy, and I'm not condemning anybody who enjoyed the film for what it was- but it troubled me. (And I have watched some of those 'difficult' films, like 'Irreversible'- never saw 'Salo' though I know what it is). I'm not saying he shouldn't have made the film. But, the subject deserves a film that treats the difficult issues of slavery without his glib affect. I found a serious film on the Holocaust, like Schindler's List, troubling too, and that, based on a true story, was an uplifting and noble film.
My two cents, which may be worthless.
 

jadis

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2010
12,463
5,573
2,810
Manila, Philippines
And my favorite scene - after killing the town sheriff, Dr. King Shultze was about to be shot by the marshal and his men when he delicately pronounced, and 'proved', that the sheriff was in fact a criminal in disguise and had a $200 bounty on his head. And after saying that, he told the marshal, 'and so, I believe, you OWE me $200'. The marshal was dumbfounded. :D That was really funny. :D
 

TBone

New Member
Nov 15, 2012
1,237
1
0
Big QT fan, easily my fav director.

BTW, Dusk till Dawn was directed by his buddy Robert Rodriguez, QT was a co-writer.

I don't consider Django as a QT classic, nor did I Bastards, but they're still as entertaining to me as any film I've witnessed lately.

In case anyone didn't realize, although QT wrote True Romance, he didn't direct it ... but if you have never seen it, it's as much a QT type movie as the rest.

edit:

Tarantino mostly uses both the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s and the revisionist westerns of the 1970s as his inspiration, with a dollop of blaxploitation and even a sprinkling of “Blazing Saddles,” just for a dose of absurdity. He invests each scene with a fizzing, whizzing energy, laying out a story of cruelty and revenge.

Well stated.

tb1
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing