Exciting, audacious and action-packed, Django Unchained is a pleasure to watch, and it features one dynamite of a soundtrack. Also, Samuel L Jackson is probably best in show in this incredible ensemble. Though I have to say it is a tad overlong, and could have used some tighter editing. Tarantino's films are usually quite long, yet this is the first one in which I actually felt the length. I'd give this a B+.

Django Unchained

While I thought it was a good film overall, it did have some problems, and wasn't anywhere close to Inglourious Basterds. The film began well, but soon felt like it wasn't going anywhere. I had a feeling that it wasn't a Tarantino movie. Everything seemed like a normal Western. Then when Leonardo DiCaprio's character, Candie, came into it, it got better and seemed more Tarantino-esque, in my opinion. The scene at Camp Candie (or whatever it was called) in the dinner room was great, and from then on it was brilliant until the end.

I think there was a character/actor mis-match. Jamie Foxx is so not right for this role. I would have preferred either an unknown or, I don't know ... Denzel. Not Will Smith, though. Foxx is just uncharismatic and so I couldn't take to him, and he didn't act well at all. Christoph Waltz is again great to watch and listen to, he's appealing, BUT for me he's a bad guy, so to see him as a good guy was another mis-match. Leonardo DiCaprio was good, but not spectacular. The best performance, in my opinion, was Samuel L. Jackson, I thought he really was spectacular. He had to be noticeably different from all his other characters and he just totally sold the role.

There weren't your normal Tarantino monologues that I so enjoy, well, DiCaprio sort of had one, but it wasn't the same. But the Tarantino violence was spot-on, if a bit over zealous. I hated the cameo by Jonah Hill, and to a lesser degree, Tarantino, he spoke weird and I didn't like it, but I adored what happened to him and his gang within a few minutes; dead. Overall, a good story (slightly different to what the trailer showed) with some good performances. Washington was fantastic as Django's wife. I didn't like the rap song in the middle, and I felt it needed more establishing shots of the lovely scenery. Probably Tarantino's second best piece of work, marginally better than Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill Vol. 1. The editing wasn't great here either, and some scenes had sudden stops in music and it just didn't feel right. Tarantino's done that sort of thing before but it's worked effectively, but in Django it just felt lazy.

One point; at the start there are two cowboys taking five niggers as slaves. One of those two cowboys is James Remar. Then later when we get to DiCaprio's plantation, Remar appears again as his right hand man. Was this intentional? or did Tarantino think we wouldn't notice?

I thought the music in the film was nothing worth mentioning, apart from two tracks that I can;t remember what they were (but remember being happy watching/listening). In fact, I expected more of a nod to the great spaghetti Westerns. I expected to absolutely love the movie and I came out just "liking it" enough. I'll probably come to love it more on home video. As with all of Tarantino's work, it takes a rewatch or two because it's so overwhelming the first time.

B+

Yeah I was disapointed upon my first viewing as well. I'd give it another shot.

Same, it was far better the 2nd time.

My only legitimate complaint about the film is that it's not five hours long. I could have watched a whole movie of Django and Schultz bounty hunting. I REALLY hope there's a director's cut for public viewing someday, but knowing it's Tarantino I doubt it.

There's rumors that once it is released on DVD, there will be the five hour version of the movie.

Yeah, a lot of the story was cut out apparently. According to Samuel L. Jackson, there is a scene cut out when Django and Schultz first arrive to Candieland when Django slaps Stephen. Jackson was very disapointed that scene had been taken out because, from how he describes it, the scene increased the tension between Django and Stephen which more than justifies Stephen's actions towards Hilda at the dinner table later on in the movie.

It's good, but one of QT's weaker films for sure to me. Dicaprio's performance embodies the film as a whole to me. It's good, but it always feels like a performance. Likewise Django always feels like it's Tarantino and his style taking center stage and not its plot/characters. That's part of the beauty of QT, making movies that are obscenely movie-like, but in this case I don't feel the plot and characters as human beings breathed enough, instead being Tarantino scene delivery devices most of the time. Waltz is the highlight for the film for me because his performance felt the most layered. I particularly loved his reaction to "losing" and buying Hilda, the repressed anger and bruised ego was apparent long before he pulled his gun. Foxx, Leo and Jackson are all really good though.

In part I wonder if the reason Django feels slightly underwhelming, is diminishing returns with QT. No doubt that if this was the first film QT ever released, it would've rocked the film world and been a sensation for its originality and style. At this point though it feels like he pitched himself a softball and for the most part made it to have fun doing Tarantino things. Which is fine I guess.

Or maybe the 4 hour (?) cut of this will just be a masterpiece. In a way despite its length, I did feel like the Brittle brothers chase was weirdly shortened and narratively it felt like Waltz and Foxx should've been seen doing a lot more things at Candieland before sitting down for that dinner.

Actually, the more I think of it and think over a lot of the scenes, I think I'm being too hard on Django. This is a great film.

Yeah, even I with all my Django fanboyism going on these past week weeks will admit this isn't one of Tarantino's best films. Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds, Pulp Fiction, all better films.

I just noticed that my review was overly negative. Well here's something positive that I probably should have mentioned (since I gave it a B+):

I thought the film was very good. It was bloody, stylish, gripping and totally in bad taste, and that's why I love Tarantino. The script was pretty good, and I think it was of it's time, but mixed with that layer of Tarantino cool. The action and violence were top-notch, and the racism was great to watch. It's a breath of fresh air that a film in 2012 can stick the middle finger up at the PC brigade. It's not a film about historical accuracy, it's entertainment. Spike Lee is just jealous that he never became as popular as Tarantino. He's not even half as talented as Tarantino either. The guy's a fucking hack, and he can't take it. Prick.

I can't wait to watch it again.

For a film without ideas, it was pretty solid stuff.

The 'fake' ending works a lot better on a second viewing.

Oh, I forgot to add in my review that I was also pleasantly surprised to see Rex Linn make an appearance alongside that wanker, Jonah Hill.

Also forgot to mention how good Don Johnson was. Very good role for him and he nailed it.

What do you mean by 'fake' ending?

A lot of people think the film should have ended during the first shootout in Candieland, and that the rest of the film felt unnatural. Upon my first viewing of Django I agreed, but upon my second viewing (which led me to find the film is clearly divided into two parts) I agree with torrino.

I also think it should have ended after the shootout in Candieland. It could have ended with Jamie Foxx hanging upside down with his balls hanging out. Fade to black...DIRECTED BY QUENTIN TARANTINO.

I disagree, but that would have been a very powerful ending that would have pissed a lot of people off.

Yes, yes it would have. Tarantino needs to be more controversial. Is excessive violence really controversial anymore? I don't think so as so many other movies are doing it. He needs to find his edge again.

Django was already controversial enough, just google Django and see how just about every single article talks about how controversial it is.

I've seen the film. It isn't at all.

I mean real controversy, not just shit created because of the gun ownership/violence in movies mess in the States right now.

Showing the black hero die at the end would have been very controversial and instantly would have made it a classic talking point among cinephiles. But now all that's being talked about is violence, which is such an old topic considering Tarantino has always used that in his movies.

Actually, the film is being accused of being racist from such people as Spike Lee. Lee's comments have not gone unnoticed in the media.

Yeah, I'm aware of Lee's comments, but it's bullshit and nobody is really taking him seriously. He just looks like a bitter black man.

Your image is broken again.

Conblast that cursed site!