Django Unchained

If we're going to talk about a Quentin Tarantino flick, I might as well say upfront, I'm not a fan of his work. I didn't like Pulp Fiction; the ratio of violence to plot in that movie is horribly lopsided. So, going into the theater, here's what I expected from Django Unchained: a lot of people would get shot, there would be blood everywhere, Samuel L. Jackson would drop a few of his trademark curses, and Leonardo DiCaprio would die magnificently. I got all of that. I also laughed. That I did not expect. There's a scene in which a KKK-like mob have some trouble with their hoods (bags with cut-out eye holes) that actually reminded me a bit of Blazing Saddles. In fact, several moments in the first hour or so of the movie have that feeling--it's a Western that pokes fun at Westerns--like when Django gets to pick out his own clothes for the first time and dresses himself in a bright blue outfit from the previous century or when he uses a snowman for target practice. 

Then, the film takes a striking turn as the hero begins in earnest his quest to rescue his wife, who's been sold to the sadistic plantation owner, Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). The second half of the film is tense and the violence takes on a calculated viciousness. Leo steals the show here. Candie is unpredictable in his moods and draws complete attention, even when he shares the screen with Jackson. DiCaprio's been nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role and in a less densely packed awards season he might win it, but I look for Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln) to take it.

Also, nominated for a Golden Globe in the same category is Christoph Waltz, whose performance as Django's bounty hunter mentor Dr. King Schultz is zany and subtle in the perfect combination. Waltz is to Tarantino as Depp is to Burton. In other words, Waltz and Tarantino are the perfect actor/director team. They speak the same language, so to speak.

You may be surprised by my use of the words "subtle" and "Tarantino" in the same paragraph. I certainly was, but the best moments of this film were subtle and suspenseful. Particularly Jamie Foxx, who could've played Django just as a vengeful former slave in a country on the brink of war, but there is a lot more going on behind his eyes that is beautifully expressed in every perfectly framed shot. This is especially important since Django is more of the strong, silent type, like the D in his name. (Although, when he does talk, Foxx delivers his zingers with depth.) 

This film was full of surprises, including several surprise appearances by everyone from Tom Wopat to Jonah Hill. Those two were lovely in their roles, but I did spend a good minute wondering what Amber Tamblyn was doing looking out a window, and then never saw her again.

All in all, I enjoyed this film. It is quite long and could've used a little more editing and if you don't enjoy walls literally dripping with blood, this isn't the film for you. It is, however, a legitimately interesting film. If there's a message, I'm not sure what exactly it is (as one never is with Tarantino), but I think there are some thought-provoking moments. It will be interesting to see if this movie, like the original Django, spawns a wealth of sequels/knockoffs. If so, I'd like to coin the term for the genre now (and I hope I'm the first to do so): Hip-Hop Western.