Throughout the entire film as I was watching I never knew what to think of Jamie Foxx as our main character Django. It was not really a hit or miss performance, it was even a near terrible performance but my point is that he really never said much or expressed much personality through much of the first and the second act. But the third act completely made both Jamie Foxx and his character Django the major star of the film. Through Tarantino's great writing and directing, he was able to build up this character's full potential and successfully exploit it like mad once the third act rolled in and is satisfied me as much as if I were to see this throughout the whole film. But that does not mean that he has no good scenes at all through most of the first and second acts. We see a little of personality, we understand his motives, and he makes some expressions without dialogue that greatly helps the audience connect with him more .Much of what makes the character Django so great does not really come into the third act, but the wait, build up, and his other scenes are more than worth the wait. The only character that may not be anything special is Django's wife Broomhilda played by Kerry Washington. She is not terrible at all, in fact Washington does some good acting when it comes to both verbal and facial expressions with this character. It is just the character herself is not all that interesting nor all that original. She's is just the typical damsel distress, like the type you would see in video games. She does not say much, she does not do much. I give credit to Kerry Washington by putting effort into making us seem in to her more, but the character herself could have used some better scenes and screen time. The rest of the characters almost entirely steal the show. Christoph Waltz as D. King Schultz is one of the most charismatic performances I have seen in a while. Every delivery Waltz makes has the audience totally engaged in the character and siding with him. The actor as well as the character has a lot of good chemistry with others, has charm and charisma, delivers good jokes, he's an awesome guy, and is just so engaging and interesting it is hard to take your eyes off him, definitely deserving of his Golden Globe nom even deserving for an Oscar. Leonardo DiCaprio as the Francophilliac slave owner Calvin Candie is another overwhelmingly enjoyable performance. This is definitely one of those performances where you know the actor is not trying too hard and that he just gives the right amount of effort. He simply just gets lost within the role and DiCaprio is having so much fun with. Another thing that makes the character himself so enjoyable is that he greatly succeeds in scenes in which he is funny and scenes in which he is threatening. He's the type of villain that hides all his deep dark and villainous insanity with the way he reacts to or works off others with his comedic charm. And when he releases steam, he becomes the man no one wants to mess with. Then there is another character in which I feel I must mention who is Calvin Candie's house servant and henchman named Stephen played by the always talented and attention grabbing Samuel L. Jackson. He is another character, considered to be the side-villain, that has plenty of funny scenes and plenty of intimidating scenes. He is mixed bag of all these great developed personalities. He is especially funny when his dialogue scenes require him to work off of Candie whether he gives him an order and has to be the reluctant yes man whispering angrily under his breath, or has to be the kiss up to restates Candie's sentence or laughs at any one of his jokes. All these scenes with all of this going on is just hilarious. And the scenes in which he has to be intimidating play off great and is a perfect set off to the comedic scenes we are used to with this character from the time we see him. He acts sort of like a charismatic evil mastermind in some parts and it is just as fun to watch as it seemed fun for Jackson when he was delivering this performance. Additionally a lot of the minor side characters are great as well, and even though most appear just briefly, the screenplay allows their scenes to be a lot of fun and hilarious to watch as if we knew them throughout the entire picture.
With a mix of a few genres, one not as looked at by most, the films blends them with perfected harmony. The action genre is greatly represented with the magnificently done action scenes in the film. Sure there seems to be a lot of blood, but the choreography for these scenes are just so unbelievable and and the tone is more than enjoyable, you don't care if the amount of blood is realistic or unrealistic and over the top. Tarantino pretty much got the western genre down obviously from the way the landscapes are shot and the way the soft spaghetti western-type scores or soul music perfectly synchronize with the tone of each scene. A lot of the gun fights again are fun and highly enjoyable to watch which is what make great westerns like this film so good. Another genre that is done well that his probably overlooked by more professional film critics and enthusiasts, but maybe recognized by the general audience is the comedy. Quentin Tarantino is notorious for having this amazing ability in his writing and directing to find the funny in probably the most gritty, violent, and serious situations and they always hit. Whether they seem intentional or unintentional, the jokes hit you at a bulls-eye and almost always comes when you least expect it because at some scenes you find yourself emotionally invested and a curveball hits you thirty seconds later that succeeds in making you laugh. He also has the talent of making long-running jokes not grow stale and become tiring because each material put within the comedy made me laugh harder and harder. This is what makes Quentin Tarantino regarded as a talented writer because he knows exactly what to deliver, when to deliver it, and how to deliver it.
Your story is the typical revenge western story, except is done in a entirely new and creative fashion and on top of great and entertaining characters to keep it engaging. There is just a small problem I have with it. Through the first and second act I always asked myself "Isn't this film named 'Django Unchained'"? The reason for this because I felt a lot of the film dealt more with the character of Dr. Schultz as I felt he was the character more focused on and developed the most. Django did get some scenes in which he shined, but most of it dealt with Schultz I felt. But what saves this from destroying the film is that first and second act is still really good. You get great action, great comedy, great dialogue, great character development, and mostly great build-up to a thrilling and well done-climax. The climax finishes this film with an epic bang as we are introduced to it literally with "the first gun shot" and that gun shot just starts the film going on a thrilling roller coaster ride throughout the climax. The writing and acting makes the build-up to the climax all the while worth it and even worthy enough to be responsible of leading us towards it. We get to see a lot of Django's character shine throughout it as we might see Tarantino's intention all along. He might have wanted the quiet but still interesting Django we saw in the first and second act secretly adapt his mentor, Schultz's, personality and charm and the character as well as the actor Jamie Foxx successfully pulls it off. He does not just copy Waltz's delivery, but instead makes it his own giving him his own unique charm and likeablity. Overall Django Unchained is filled thrills, emotions, and laughs throughout and every minute of it is more than fun to watch. Great, writing, great story, entertaining characters, what more can you say?
GRADE: AE
ANY REQUESTS FOR REVIEWS? See more about Requested reviews here
0 Comments