How the South Was Won...
The Story:
Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave who is rescued by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a bounty hunter. He needs Django's help identifying three bounties, and offers to give him some of the reward. The two get along quite well, and Schultz takes him under his wing. Django proves to be rather adept at being a bounty hunter, and asks for Schultz's help to find his wife ( Kerry Washington) who has been sold to a southern plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio). The two pull off an elaborate scheme to get to attempt to buy her freedom, but there's a good chance not everyone will walk away from this plan unscathed.
Dear Quentin Tarantino-
I apologize to you on behalf of all of the things I've ever said about your movies.
I didn't enjoy Pulp Fiction, I'm not even sure I finished it, and was unimpressed with Kill Bill.
So I believe I added him to the short list of directors whose work I do not like, and therefore will avoid.
Then I watched Inglourious Basterds, and rather enjoyed it.
So I'm now in a conundrum, has Tarantino's work shifted over time, perhaps showing me a growth in his work?
Was I simply missing out on the greatness that people profess of his work, or was I just not feeling that great when I watched Pulp Fiction? I do remember being sick that day...
Or do I only respond well to genre films from him, From Dusk till Dawn (horror), Inglorious Basterds (WWII) and now Django (Western) ?
I'm not sure.
But I really enjoyed this film.
Jamie Foxx did a great job as the slave turned gunslinger, and owned the role. I read that it was designed for Will Smith, but he turned it down because he thought Django wasn't the main character, or because he doesn't kill the bad guy (DiCaprio) at the end.
First, I'm glad that Will Smith didn't take this role. It would have been too hard to see the guy who grinned his way through Wild Wild West try and become a hardline bounty hunter. While he can go dramatic, I think he's seen too much as the fun actor to bring the edge that's needed to this part.
Plus, he's wrong.
The REAL bad guy of this film is not DiCaprio. It's Samuel L. Jackson's character. Take him out of the equation, and everyone walks out of this film alive.
Never have I rooted for a character to get killed more in a western, and his death was spectacular, and well deserved.
Jamie Foxx works well as the star of the film by allowing everyone else to overshadow him, something that I don't think Will Smith's ego would allow.
One of those, Christoph Waltz is simply amazing in his role as Dr. Schultz. This is his second Oscar under Tarantino's hand, and he deserved both, as he was the most mesmerizing character in both of those films.
DiCaprio goes full on Johnny Depp mode as the bad guy, and I think he really plays well as the bad guy. It's a role very unlike him, and I think Tarantino brought out the best in his actors. Reading the background of the film, they say he used a real glass and actually cut his hand in one scene so that real blood and anger were on his face.
Method actors, gotta love 'em!
: )
Finally, I would be remiss to say that I would like to thank Mr. Tarantino for balancing out two of the most gruesome scenes ever filmed (The Dog and the Mandingo Fight) by trimming their grossness, but also by putting in two of the funniest scenes not in a Western by Mel Brooks.
1) The first big shootout in Candie Land. The guy screaming in pain as he was shot repeatedly by accident... sorry, that was just hilarious. That whole gunfight was epic and well done.
2) The Regulators getting to ride, but first discussing their masks. Hahahahahaha... that was so politically incorrect, it was awesome.
My hat is off to you sir, thank you for an excellent movie.
I may have to revisit your catalog and see if my initial opinion was wrong, or if we've just both changed over the years.
Final Grade: A-
Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: I could be persuaded to do either. Be advised, the film is rather lengthly (nearly 3 hours) but sure doesn't drag like it's 3 hours.
No comments:
Post a Comment