Cartoonish Gunfire But Brutal Slavery in “Django Unchained” (Review)

Django Unchained To give you an idea of my perspective of Quentin Tarantino’s directing work so you know how to judge my take on Django Unchained (2012): I think Pulp Fiction (1994) is a masterpiece, thoroughly enjoyed Reservoir dogs (1992), and liked Jackie Brown (1997). I was not a big fan of Kill Bill 1 (2003), but liked Kill Bill 2 (2004) a little better. While Inglourious Basterds (2009) had some great moments, I could not get into rooting for the sadistic hero, as I discussed in a previous post. Because of the way Tarantino used the simplified moral landscape of good guys versus Nazis in Basterds, I was expecting more of the same using a slavery landscape in Django Unchained. Considering I also am not a big fan of movies that condone violent vengeance for solving problems, I expected not to like Django Unchained. But I liked it a lot.

Maybe I liked the new film because of my lowered expectations for a director who has yet to repeat the wonders of his early work. Maybe I liked the film’s nod to Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns. Maybe the music — featuring Jim Croce, Johnny Cash and Ennio Morricone — won me over. Maybe I was just in the mood for what the film had to offer. Or maybe I found the hero’s violence less offensive because he was acting out of love and not revenge. But Django Unchained features a compelling story, great acting, and sympathetic characters with real feelings.

The movie tells the story of Django, played by Jamie Foxx, who is a slave rescued by a bounty hunter and then the two go on a quest to free Django’s wife from slavery. Christopher Waltz gives one of his best performances as the eloquent bounty hunter, and the reliable Leonardo DiCaprio stretches his acting chops to convincingly play one of the nastiest characters in recent movie history. Samuel L. Jackson also appears in an important role. While the last part of the film, where Django seeks out his wife, does not live up to the high quality of the first part of the film featuring Django’s education as a bounty hunter, the entire film is worthwhile.

The movie, which was recently nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, has generated some controversy. It is a violent film, but much of the gunfire violence from the heroes is so cartoon-ish with blood splattering everywhere and bodies flying through the air when hit by gunfire that it reminded me more of The Three Stooges type of violence (but with lots and lots more blood). On the other hand, the violence surrounding slavery is portrayed more realistically and almost unbearable to watch. While the movie does not really present a moral lesson beyond that slavery is bad, there are some moral complexities to the film, such as where Django questions his role as a bounty hunger and killing as a way of achieving his goal.

The other way the film has generated controversy is its language, and in particular its use of the n-word. I will leave it others to debate the role of such language in film, but the use of race and violence in Django Unchained has led to more debate on those issues than any other recent movie. The film even depicts the horrors of slavery more than a recent movie about the sixteenth president working to free the slaves. And it’s not a bad thing when entertainment provokes discussion of these important issues.

Conclusion? If you are planning to see a Quentin Tarantino movie, you have some idea of what to expect. And if you appreciate the actors in this film and like spaghetti westerns, you might find Django Unchained is some of Tarantino’s best work yet.

Other Reviews Because Why Should You Trust Me?: Rotten Tomatoes gives Django Unchained high scores, with an 89% critics rating and a 94% audience rating. Bob Cesca on the Huffington Post writes that Django Unchained is one of the most important films of the year because of its depiction of slavery. By contrast, Anthony Lane at The New Yorker praises the first half of the film depicting the liberation and education of Django, but he argues that the movie goes south in more than one way when it relocates to Mississippi. Flickering Myth makes a similar argument, noting that the back stories of some of the characters could have been developed more. E Online discusses some of the controversy generated by the film. Not surprisingly, Tarantino is enjoying the attention from the arguments about the film.

How does Django Unchained hold up next to Tarantino’s other films? Leave your two cents in the comments.

Buy from Amazon

  • 8 Things About Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight”
  • Controversial Video of the Week: “DJesus Uncrossed”
  • What If “Pulp Fiction” Were a 1980s Video Game?
  • 2013 Pawscars Award Winners Announced
  • Army of Shadows vs. Inglourious Basterds
  • American Tune: We Came on a Ship in a Blood Red Moon
  • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    Can You Catch Frank William Abagnale Jr.?

    to tell the truth abagnale Many know of Frank William Abagnale, Jr. because he was played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Director Steven Spielberg’s movie Catch Me If You Can (2002), which also starred Tom Hanks, Amy Adams, and Christopher Walken. As portrayed in the film, Abagnale was on the run from the FBI in the 1960s, after he started as a young man passing bad checks and impersonating people around the country. Later, Abagnale went on to work for the FBI.

    You can see what the real person looked like, as well as test yourself on whether you can spot him, by watching this 1977 episode of To Tell the Truth. For those who do not remember the television show, the premise is that someone of note appears on the show with two imposters. A panel of celebrities ask the three people questions and then try to determine who is the real person.

    The twist with Abagnale’s episode was that he was an imposter who was playing himself for once. Can you figure out which one is him?

    How long did it take you to figure out which man was Frank William Abagnale Jr.? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • Did Elvis Perform “If I Can Dream” Facing a Christmas Stage As In Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis” Move?
  • Teaser Trailer for New “The Jungle Book” from Disney
  • The Unfinished Films of Stanley Kubrick
  • Godzilla Versus Ida (Short Reviews)
  • What If “Toy Story” Were a Horror Movie?
  • Christopher Walken’s Movie Dance Montage
  • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    Buy from Amazon

    J. Edgar (Short Review)

    j. edgar
    J. Edgar Hoover’s long career in the FBI spanned a number of significant historical events, and the new film about the man, J. Edgar (2011), captures some of the scope of that history while trying to understand a very complicated person. In the film, we see terrorist activity from the early twentieth century through the gangster era into the Depression through the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and the Civil Rights movement through Kennedy’s assassination, until finally Hoover’s paranoia is passed onto the incoming president Richard M. Nixon. It is a big span for a movie, but Director Clint Eastwood never loses sight of its goal of telling the story of the main character.

    When I first heard Leonardo DiCaprio was going to play Hoover, my initial reaction was to think he was miscast. While some critics may still believe that (and also criticize the makeup on the aging characters), DiCaprio does a surprisingly excellent job filling the shoes of the larger-than-life Hoover. DiCaprio is one of the few actors who could convincingly play Hoover at a young age and at old age.

    Judi Dench plays Hoover’s domineering mother, and Naomi Watts plays Hoover’s long-time secretary. But much of the movie focuses on the relationship between Hoover and his longtime assistant, Clyde Tolson, played well by Armie Hammer. Many speculate that Hoover and Tolson had a romantic relationship, and the film focuses on Hoover as a repressed man. Whether or not they had a physical relationship, their close bond, among Hoover’s other repressions, is one of the devices used to try to understand Hoover’s secretive nature and interest in the sexual lives of others.

    While not perfect, the movie was fascinating, thoughtful, entertaining, and informative. Although the movie jumps back and forth through time, Eastwood was masterful in doing it in a way that never seemed confusing. But while I was never bored, watching the film is not necessarily a pleasurable experience. If there is a weakness in J. Edgar, it is that you have to spend two plus hours with someone who is not very likeable. Even when Hoover was doing some things that benefited the country and busting criminals, he seems less like a hero and more like a troubled person who happened to do some heroic things as a side effect.

    Conclusion? J. Edgar is a very entertaining film that is epic in scope but personal in focus. If you do not mind spending time in the company of an unlikeable character as long as the character is interesting, and if you are curious about American history, you will like this movie.

    Check out some other reviews because why should you listen to me? The Rotten Tomatoes website currently indicates a low critic rating of 40% with a higher audience approval of 66%. Mike Giuliano of ExploreHoward.com calls the movie “a worthwhile character study that’s able to transcend its various flaws.” On Flick Filosopher, Maryann Johanson, by contrast, concludes that the film “is too staid and static, and too unfocused, to make us feel much of anything at all.”

  • The Missing Marine From the Iwo Jima Flag Photo
  • Bryan Cranston As LBJ in “All the Way” (Short Review)
  • Why Did God Make Oklahoma?
  • Don’t Miss “Philomena” (Short Review)
  • Bob Dylan Believes in Detroit in Super Bowl Commercial
  • Ira Hayes Won’t Answer Anymore
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)