Django Unchained (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
1,252 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Ego driven mess
kelleher-rowan16 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
To put it short Quentin tarantinos latest venture is a self indulgent ego fest, it showcases his deluded view of filmmaking where when Tarantino makes a movie that it's an instant classic. It doesn't matter how overlong, boring, poor comedic timing, uninspired script devoid of quips or intelligence and how much over the top, gratuitous violence that is involved.

First of all let me mention the overtop, gratuitous violence that is in Django. Filmmaking 101: Just because you throw galleons of blood on the screen, doesn't make it dramatic. In fact during some of the shoot out scenes I thought I was watching a parody/spoof of a western film! In tarantinos earlier films he balances violence with great filmmaking however he overdoes it and makes it look as if he was watching SAW on set.

Secondly the script is bland, cringing and aching to watch unfold, just hearing the the characters spew out line after line of cheese devoid of quips, wit or intelligence. The touches of comedy throughout the film are misplaced as well, and left me squirming in my seat. However I give credit to the actors who really tried their best with the script especially Samuel L Jacksons 'Steven' who is evil personified, but I feel Christoph waltz's character was underwhelming and after seeing his role in inglorious bastards was a letdown. Jamie foxx tried his best to bring life to the poor script with Django but, left me checking my watch as Django was godawful boring to watch and un charismatic as a protagonist.

Lastly the film is way overlong, coming in at a staggering 180 minutes it seems Tarantino could not resist indulging himself in his own ego fest. Many scenes could have been cut out completely or at least edited properly. I was left checking my watch multiple times throughout the movie (something I hate doing in a movie). The story was bland and uninspired, a clichéd tale of revenge where Goodguys vs Badguys! Surprise Goodguys win! The plot was predictable from the first 10 minutes but I still had another 170 minutes to go.

It still stumps me how this is 96 on IMDb's top 250# list, it makes me wonder if people rate this high as it has Quentin Tarantino in the directors chair. This movie really showcases a classic example of just because you are successful doesn't mean you have a god given right to make anything you want without thought and consideration and still make a good movie. In my opinion one of the most overrated fims of 2012.
44 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Blazing Saddles Unchained
jacklmauro25 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is teenage garbage, plain and simple, and teenage in terms of the director/writer. Let's set aside that Tarantino's movies never have any substance and are exercises in retro, gory, fetishist camp. Let's ignore that the story arc is off and the film is way too long. Also, that there are massive issues regarding all kinds of credibility. Which leaves the two main problems with this adolescent mess. The first is: what would you say about any film centered on two races of people, in which one race is, with a single exception, shown to be nothing but a vast collection of savage, cruel, stupid buffoons? That's what QT happily does to the white race in this, his attack on racism. Then, there's the blatant theft of Mel Brooks's 'Blazing Saddles' in the many n-word remarks geared for laughs and the idiot pre- Klansmen. Never was a big Brooks fan, but at least he never had the gall to pretend he was making a statement.
45 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great Mix Of Action And Comedy
Calum Rhys24 January 2013
Quentin Tarantino, one of the most iconic directors of the 21st (and late 20th) century, why? Simple. Because of masterpieces like this. Tarantino defies the laws of film, he shoots them in his own way, however he wants. Tarantino has always focused upon the action thriller genre from Reservoir Dogs up until Inglourious Basterds. However, Django Unchained is Tarantino's first look at the Western genre, his first attempt at it and he executed it beautifully. The scenes were shot perfectly alongside an amazing soundtrack as well as his own small cameo.

Django Unchained tells the story of Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who is soon picked up by bounty hunter Dr King Shultz (Christoph Waltz). The story follows on as Shultz takes on Django as his "deputy" during their tasks of bounty hunting, in return Shultz says that after winter he will help find Django's lost wife, Broomhilda. This takes them to a huge plantation in Mississippi owned by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), from here they plan up a scheme on how to get away with Broombilda.

The cast boast out amazing performances, particularly Christoph Waltz (also famous for his previous collaboration with Tarantino on Inglourious Bastards as Colonel Landa). Both Foxx and DiCaprio's performance are both equally amazing. All three are able to add some light-hearted humour in the mix to make sure it doesn't stay too serious, as well as having comic actor Jonah Hill play a member of the KKK.

There's a reason the film has been nominated for 5 Oscars.
172 out of 238 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Zero Artisitc Merit. Not Worth $0.01
Blue Drache12 November 2015
Absolutely zero artistic merit. The only reason why this is getting any ratings at all is because Hollywood is fawning over anything that makes the black man the hero.

One dimensional characters, horrid dialogue, poor pacing and even worse special effects.

Jamie Foxx is one of the absolute biggest racists in Hollywood and this movie definitely plays to his sad strengths.

Anything, I guess for him to be able to beat on the white man for their enslavement of blacks. Well guess what? That was over one hundred and fifty years ago. Isn't it time y'all got the hell over it?

This movie should have been burnt in a fire.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Brutally hilarious and quite messy, but a total blast from start to finish
DonFishies23 December 2012
I only had one thought on my mind for this Christmas: see Django Unchained. Quentin Tarantino's latest opus, a Western set two years before the Civil War, concerns a former slave named Django (Jamie Foxx). He is freed by bounty hunter Dr. King Shultz (Christoph Waltz) in order to help him with a bounty. Quite quickly, Shultz takes Django under his wing and trains him as his partner. But he made him a promise: that he would rescue his wife from a plantation owned by the ruthless Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). And rescuing her is not going to be all that easy.

What pains me the most about Django Unchained, as a die-hard Tarantino fan, is just how sloppy it all seems. I enjoyed every minute of it, but I could never shake the feeling of how messy and thrown together it all feels. Portions of the film feel episodic (the search for the Brittle Brothers, mentioned heavily in the trailers, begins and ends practically within minutes), and some scenes just seem to play out just for the fun of it. Another scene from the trailers involving a lynch mob with bags covering their faces seems added for comedic purposes, and has no real point of actually existing. More than any of his films before it, Django feels like Tarantino simply making a movie for sheer pleasure and with no outside motivations or controllers.

The film threatens to go totally off the rails at any given moment, and lacks any real sense of direction or focus. It may sound ridiculous, but the loss of editor Sally Menke confirms a sneaking suspicion I always had about Tarantino – he needed a steady right hand to help encourage him as to what was needed and what was not. I do not want to criticize Django's editor Fred Raskin, but it is obvious he is no Menke and that works against the film heavily. It lacks the polish we have come to expect, and is practically stripped of the glossy/cool texture so prevalent in Tarantino's work up until now.

But then maybe that was his intention all along, and perhaps Tarantino is airing out his frustrations with life and film in general. Django is deliberately shot on film (or at least from the print I saw), and looks very gritty and messy at all times. It is significantly more brutally violent than anything he has worked on before (the borderline cartoonish Kill Bill included), and has a very go for broke attitude about itself. The film seems to revel in how brilliantly it can splatter all the blood and gore (done through the use of squibs and no digital!), and how uncomfortably numbing it can make the violence. I know he does not care what people think of his films, but this movie especially seems like an emphatically raised middle finger to the establishment. And for all of my complaints about how messy it all feels, I was never once bored or felt like the movie was dragging itself out. The staggering 165-minute running time shockingly flies by faster than you might ever imagine.

Acting wise, Tarantino stacks the deck with a number of recognizable character actors young and old for roles that vary in size. Most have very few lines, if any at all, and seem to just stand by, just as content as the audience is to watch the action unfold. It is a little off-putting, especially with how important some of these characters are initially made out to be. Washington as Broomhilda von Shaft (one of the most subtle references he's ever dropped) does well as the helpless victim and frequent dreamlike object – but she never really gets to show off any of her acting prowess outside of her facial reactions. They are increasingly effective, especially during horrific flashback scenes. But her work here feels ridiculously stunted in comparison to the other leads. Samuel L. Jackson, much like Tarantino himself, seems to just be having fun in his role as Candie's adviser Stephen. He plays on every ridiculous stereotype he ever has been associated with and then amps it up to a near ludicrous state. He is frequently hilarious, but the role seems to border on parody more than anything else.

Surprisingly, Foxx takes a very long time settling into the leading role. It may just be the character, but it is quite clear from the on- set that he is not very comfortable in Django's shoes, and leads credence to why Will Smith, amongst so many others, dropped out of the picture so quickly. But once he finds his footing, he does a fantastic job walking the thin line between empathetic and sadistic. It is not an easy character to play, but Foxx makes it his own, bringing a sense of style and grace that are virtually absent from the rest of the film. And of course, he gets all the best lines.

Waltz and DiCaprio are the clear standouts however, nailing every nuance of their sadly underwritten characters. While Waltz plays the straight man, DiCaprio is delightfully unhinged and vicious. Both are playing directly against type, yet are strangely comfortable in the roles. Watching them act circles around the rest of the cast, Foxx included, is the true highlight of the film. I just wish they were both given additional emphasis and more to do.

For all of its numerous faults, I had a blast watching Django Unchained. It is hilarious, it is a lot of fun, and is wildly enjoyable. I genuinely think it could have been a lot better if there was more focus and direction, but this is very clearly a picture Tarantino wanted to make on his own terms. And for that, I applaud him for the effort. It is not his best work, but certainly not his worst.

587 out of 924 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
shqphoenix7 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
My last favorite movie ever! Django doesn't have any decent personality at all. He makes me sick!

The movie is about equalization only. No logical story line, and it doesn't make any sense!

This is about revenge and blood. If you don't like QT, don't watch this movie!

Every other actor has better performance than Jamie Foxx. The only thing he did is to show his angry but stupid face.

However,Leonardo did a great job in the movie.His facial expression is really great.
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A disturbing insight into the perversity of our age
Richard von Lust24 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Anyone finding this film actually enjoyable should seek immediate psychiatric help. The highly graphic depiction of dozens of revoltingly perverse and entirely gratuitous killings together with endless scenes of physical and psychological torture spread over nearly three hours of virtually plot less melodrama written only to facilitate this obscenity can only appeal to the mentally damaged. You have been warned.

A 'German' bounty hunter recruits a black slave by murdering his owners when they refuse to sell him. He needs the slave in order to identify some outlaws whom he wishes to kill for the reward money. However he subsequently guns down dozens of men with little if any identification or certainty that they have ever committed any crime other than their support for slavery - which at the time in 1850's Texas was entirely legal.

Were the film to feature typical Hollywood 'clean kills' this review would be less critical. But Tarrentino treats his loyal acolytes instead to a virtually non-stop feast of gushing blood, exploding body parts and agonized screams spiced by the odd bullet aimed deliberately in the groin or knees in order to extend the suffering and misery of the unfortunate victims - and more emphatically, the perverse pleasure of those who enjoy witnessing his 'art'.

There is one redeeming feature of this whole ghastly mess; the performance of Leonardo as a gentleman slave owner is absolutely flawless. His wonderful diction and captivating gestures enlivened my flagging attention like a beacon of shining talent amidst the murky gloom of mediocrity. But alas his is a small cameo contribution which the producers have shamelessly exploited with an entirely unwarranted 3rd place billing behind the central pair.

Leonardo's subsequent retirement from Hollywood is now fully understood. One wonders how much he knew of the nature of this production before he agreed to participate in it. And perhaps more importantly the decline in American society characterized by frequent senseless and perverse killings is also explained by such trash for plainly this sort of film must play a pivotal role in formulating the mindset of the millions who are subjected to it.

But the perversity of the Hollywood system that has nominated this filth for several Oscars (tonight) cannot be explained so easily. How on Earth could such a production be given so many accolades?
34 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Django's djunk...
poe42614 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
No one to blame but myself for giving this one a look; got just what I deserved, too. Unlike, say, GHOST DOG: WAY OF THE SAMURAI or THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS, DJANGO UNCHAINED doesn't seem as much like a filmmaker paying homage to what has come before as grave robbing. Sure, everybody does it, but the two aforementioned movies were done with a bit more genuine love, it seems, than this one. Scenes drag on interminably (THIS script won an Academy Award???), which is bad enough, but my biggest gripe has to be the PERFORMANCES. I don't know who the lead actor is (nor do I care), but he reminded me of the actors in movies like THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVERA and SIX STRING SAMURAI: he's clearly an actor doing his lines- nothing more; we never, at any point in the pointless proceedings, feel like he IS the character. The scene where we see Django's djunk was more than a tad odd: the actor holding said djunk does so gently, and releases the djunk carefully. I'd be willing to bet that that was co-star Jaime Foxx's favorite day on the set... (Ah, to be cradled in the loving hands of a caring director...)
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No... just no
Marcus James20 May 2013
The movie started with some potential. I like the bounty hunter but after the initial appearance the movie just repeated itself over and over and over and over. It was the same predictable scene in a different place and with different characters. Further as the movie progressed, the action became more absurd but because the movie was not funny or entertaining, it just became a drag. Midway through the film I just wanted both bounty hunters, all the slaves, and all the slavers to die in an brief atomic blast so I can just leave the theater. Unfortunately I was there with 2 friends and I really didn't want to ruin their night though I discovered that they hated the movie too... we should have all asked for our money back.

These types of movies are just garbage. All artistic, without any substance or any reason to be made into a movie but hey, its the land of the free so to all their own. Next time just do us a favor and put a huge warning on the poster with the words "Artsy Farsty" so we all know what we are paying for.
22 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
arnieiam26 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Merry Christmas to all you Tarantino fans out there. I hope you made a Tarantino checklist so here we go.

Witty dialogue, check. Excessive profanity especially use the word 'nigger', check. Excessive violence including testicles getting blown off, check. Soulful musical score, check. Sometimes non-linear narrative, check. Shots of women's feet, check. Very great character driven plot, check. An actual spaghetti western, even though it takes place in the American South, check.

There are four standout characters played by the top billed actors.

Jamie Foxx plays Django, a freed slave who becomes a bounty hunter. Even though he is the titular character, he gets downplayed when in the presence of the other actors. Still he delivers a solid performance, in fact hes very convincing. We all know Jamie Foxx as this golden voice RnB singer and comedian with a very clean cut image. He was able to pull off the whole transitioning from a timid slave to a menacing bounty hunter. Not only that he had the whole look down too, with all the facial scarring and the messy hair.

Christoph Waltz plays Dr. King Schulz, a German dentist turned bounty hunter who frees Django so he could help pursue his previous owners who are targets. Waltz is a very charismatic actor, and thats how he does this role. Presents every line with finesse.

Leonardo Dicaprio is in his best yet. He plays a plantation owner, Calvin Candie, and is the owner of Django's wife. This is a very different role. We've seen Leonardo in gritty roles before but never did he play this lecherous antagonist. We were all used to Leo being this teen idol, who looked like a member of Hanson. Here he's this Southerner with discoloured teeth and a scruffy beard.

Finally Samuel L. Jackson who plays Steve, a house slave who you could say is the secret antagonist here. For all the screen time that he has he dominates. Sam usually plays boisterous roles as a tough guy, but it was very interesting seeing him play a devious and manipulative old man.

The only gripe here was that this film was a little too long exceeding the three act structure, but its an epic western film so I'll excuse Tarantino for that. Yet again he made another great film with a lot of flair and carried well by the four big hitter actors. Well done Mr. Tarantino.
335 out of 542 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews