![\"django\"](\"http:\/\/smugfilm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/django.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Django Unchained (2012)
\n<\/b>Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
\n165 min.<\/p>\n
Warning: Very mild spoilers.<\/i><\/p>\n
Look, I\u2019m not saying that Django Unchained<\/a> is a bad movie. Or that Pulp Fiction<\/a> is either. They\u2019re both good movies. Tarantino has never made a bad movie. The good parts of any one of his films always seem to outweigh the bad\u2014the two with the strongest good-to-bad-part ratios being Inglourious Basterds<\/a> and Jackie Brown<\/a>. Those two are damn near perfect. All the others are either \u2018very good\u2019 (Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2<\/a>, From Dusk Till Dawn<\/a>, True Romance<\/a>) or just \u2018good\u2019 (Reservoir Dogs<\/a>, Pulp Fiction, Death Proof<\/a>, Django Unchained). And Death Proof is a bit more solid than Django in my opinion, therefore, Django is his worst since Pulp Fiction. (By the way, I should point out that yes, I\u2019m fully aware that Tarantino wrote, but did not direct, From Dusk Till Dawn and True Romance. If I don\u2019t mention that, some fanboy will point it out in the comments like he knows something I don\u2019t or whatever. Well guess what, hypothetical fanboy? You know nothing<\/i> I don\u2019t. So you can take that hypothetical fact and shove it<\/em>. Although, and I don\u2019t wanna get off on a tangent here, but isn\u2019t it weird how often people fall for that \u2018Quentin Tarantino Presents\u2019 thing? There are people in this world that legit think Tarantino was involved in the writing or directing or whatever of The Protector<\/a>, Hostel<\/a>, and others. Swear to god. I worked a video store, dude. I know things. And that\u2019s honestly the tip of the iceberg as far as \u2018weird things customers think\u2019 goes. I\u2019ll have to do an entry or entries about my video store days one of these days…) First off, the God Damn Pacing is Off<\/b><\/p>\n Really his biggest weakness as a filmmaker is when it comes to pacing. He pretty much sucks at pacing his films. And I\u2019m pretty sure he takes pride in his awkward pacing, and thinks it makes his movies more ‘interesting’ and more like a novel or a miniseries or something, but really it just makes them frustrating. Because when it comes to individual <\/i>scenes, he\u2019s actually quite great at pacing. (The opening scene of Basterds in particular is a goddamn masterpiece.) I suspect that his process is that he treats each scene like he has all the time in the world, and almost as though each is its own short film\u2014and that\u2019s fine and all, whatever helps you write, dude\u2014but when you\u2019re sitting there in the editing room, that\u2019s when it\u2019s time to see which scenes work great as long as you intended, and which ones could work better shorter. A good writer-director treats the editing process like another draft of the script. Kevin Smith said that once, in one of his Q&A DVD\u2019s<\/a>\u2014which is funny, because god damn does that boy suck at editing too\u2014but the sentiment is very much correct. Editing is about refining, tightening. It\u2019s impossible to know exactly how something is going to play out on camera before you\u2019ve shot it. Sometimes a slight glance by an actress is so unexpectedly evocative that you can do away with a whole page or two of dialogue that, if left in, would just be redundant.<\/p>\n So, what could\u2019ve been trimmed in Django? A whole lot. I could\u2019ve easily gotten this movie under two hours, and it would\u2019ve been much better for it. For instance, that whole long sequence of them traveling with Candie to Candieland\u2014what the fuck was that all about? That dragged on forever, and not in a good, suspenseful way. All those repetitive \u2018wow Django is doing good at appearing to be a badass Mandingo specialist\u2019 bits. We get it. We don\u2019t need all<\/em> of those. And the dogs attacking the slave bit went on too long too, and wasn\u2019t even paid off well later in the film. And speaking of not paid off well\u2014that Mandingo fighting scene had zero<\/i> payoff, and was begging for some. We saw this great, raw, fucked up fight, setting up the badass-ness of these Mandingo fighters, for no real reason other than to get a sense of what Mandingo fighting \u2018is\u2019, I guess. But the fighter that wins in that scene is so god damn instantly captivating in just the brief moment where we see him breathing heavy after the fight ends, that it\u2019s a real shame he\u2019s not back later on, having a brutal showdown of sorts with Django. With so much time devoted the dog scene and \u00a0the Mandingo fight, you\u2019d think that stuff would have figured into the climax or resolution in some way, but nope. And as such, Tarantino should\u2019ve trimmed those scenes down a bit. (But really he should\u2019ve just written the damn script better in the first place.)<\/p>\n The Script Ain\u2019t Finished<\/b><\/p>\n A lot of it is pretty solid, but you can\u2019t fucking tell me that third act wasn\u2019t fundamentally flawed as hell.\u00a0 Look, I loved the shoot out. The shoot out was great. But then after that, the movie suddenly goes limp\u2014and then it tries to get hard again, but can only muster up a semi for the second<\/em> climax. (Why the fuck would anyone in their right mind write two climaxes?) It\u2019s a damn shame, because I was really digging that first climax. God damn was all that blood orgasmic and visceral. I shit you not, it almost brought a tear to my eye. Not because of anything to do with the story, even\u2014just because while I was watching that scene I could feel so strongly how much Tarantino loves movies. He fucking loves<\/i> them, dude. They\u2019re his favorite thing in the world. And his visceral action scenes are such a firework expression of that love that you can\u2019t help but love them with all your heart with<\/i> him, no matter what you may think about violence in films, or violence in general. It\u2019s like watching Pollack paint. Tarantino adores his canvas, and if you can\u2019t vicariously feel that, you\u2019re lying to yourself and others.<\/p>\n Basically, that shootout climax should have been the\u00a0actual<\/i> climax, and then there should have a been an actual<\/i> resolution right after that. He shouldn\u2019t have dragged things out with that scene with the Australians and the other stuff. Totally unnecessary and mood-killing and lukewarmifying. (Ain\u2019t that a good word? I just came up with it.) He should have also finished fleshing out the relationship between Candie and Stephen. I can see where he was going with it, but it\u2019s a little too bare. Their roles aren\u2019t clear enough. It\u2019s like he had the opportunity to set up this wonderful two heroes, two villains thing, but then didn\u2019t fully express the dynamic of the latter pair. We get more than enough character development for our main guys (way<\/i> more than enough, actually) but just slapdash shit for their foes. Damn shame.<\/p>\n And would it have killed him to have given any of the women in the movie something to do? I don\u2019t have a feminist bone in my body (the only \u2018minority’ or ‘group’ I root for is the smallest one in the world\u2014the individual) but come on, write a thing. Something. Anything. You\u2019re good at it.<\/i> You and Woody Allen are like the two best American male writer-directors working today when it comes to writing for women. Such a shame. Pure laziness. And speaking of laziness:<\/p>\n Most of the Sets are Lazy as Hell<\/b><\/p>\n The only times I felt truly immersed in the film was during the interiors at the Mandingo fight place, and at Candieland. (And I guess, maybe the place where they had beer in the beginning of the film, too.) Everything else just felt way too bare. Which is so weird for Tarantino, because he had a great streak going. Inglourious Basterds and Death Proof and the Kill Bills were all perfectly immersive. Basterds, in particular. (God damn<\/i> was I transported by that one.) But this one, not so much. All the exteriors just weren\u2019t well thought out enough. They felt cheap.<\/i> And exteriors should never <\/i>feel \u2018cheap\u2019. That\u2019s like the weirdest thing ever for an exterior to feel like. But that\u2019s what they felt like to me. Cheap. (Just like Tarantino’s acting.)<\/p>\n Tarantino is in the Thing<\/b><\/p>\n The only time I\u2019ve ever liked Tarantino in stuff is when he wasn\u2019t directing himself. I love<\/i> him in From Dusk Till Dawn, and I like his cameo in Planet Terror, too. But without someone telling him when his line readings are shit, the man just can\u2019t deliver a single thing convincingly, and it really takes you out of the movie. In fact, his cameo in Django may be his worst yet. I mean, come on.<\/i> That shitty fucking accent? How the hell did he think he\u2019d be able to pull that off? And how the hell did nobody tap him on the shoulder and be all \u2018dude, this shit ain\u2019t working, give someone else the gig, like, maybe, I dunno, an actual<\/i> actor, preferably an Australian one\u2019? Oh that\u2019s right, because he\u2019s Quentin fucking Tarantino, and since we all love it when he slam dunks like Michael Jordan, we pretend not to see it when he strikes out<\/i> like Michael Jordan.<\/p>\n You know, M. Night Shyamalan gets a lot of hate (most of it unjust\u2014I\u2019ll be\u00a0 defending the fuck out of The Happening<\/a> in an upcoming review) but one thing you can\u2019t say about him is that he ruins his films by being in them. Every one of his cameos, I\u2019ve liked. He\u2019s a competent actor. Doesn\u2019t ham it up, knows how to deliver a line, and really holds his own against who he\u2019s acting opposite. If you didn\u2019t know he was the writer-director, you wouldn\u2019t<\/i> know he was the writer-director. His scene in Signs<\/a> in particular is wonderful.<\/p>\n And So, In Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n Django Unchained is a good movie. I definitely recommend it. Despite all its problems, it really does hit more than it misses. The acting is solid, the dialogue sings, and there are a lot of fun parts. You\u2019ll have a really nice time at the movies. But I don\u2019t see myself revisiting this one anytime soon, whereas when it comes to Jackie Brown and Basterds, I could watch those any day of the week. Such wonderful fucking movies. Yet for some reason, only Basterds seems to get love. Jackie Brown gets neglected like crazy. Very strange. I think it\u2019s because after Pulp Fiction, audiences wanted something that was essentially Pulp Fiction II, and instead he gave us an insanely mature work which solidified him as not a mere flash in the pan, but a serious cinematic force to be reckoned with. Here\u2019s hoping people revisit that one without bias, because it\u2019s really something.<\/p>\n 3 1\/2 out of 5 Codys.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Look, I\u2019m not saying that Django Unchained<\/a> is a bad movie. Or that Pulp Fiction<\/a> is either. They\u2019re both good movies. Tarantino has never made a bad movie. The good parts of any one of his films always seem to outweigh the bad\u2014the two with the strongest good-to-bad-part ratios being Inglourious Basterds<\/a> and Jackie Brown<\/a>. Those two are damn near perfect. All the others are either \u2018very good\u2019 (Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2<\/a>, From Dusk Till Dawn<\/a>, True Romance<\/a>) or just \u2018good\u2019 (Reservoir Dogs<\/a>, Pulp Fiction, Death Proof<\/a>, Django Unchained). And Death Proof is a bit more solid than Django in my opinion, therefore, Django is his worst since Pulp Fiction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25,1],"tags":[336,317,32,324,315,318,337,338,326,330,322,323,316,319,320,321,333,327,328,45,332,104,185,331,329,325,334,335],"class_list":["post-782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allposts","category-codysreviews","tag-best-worst-tarantino","tag-christoph-waltz","tag-cody-clarke","tag-death-proof","tag-django-unchained","tag-django-unchained-review","tag-django-unchained-worst-movie","tag-django-unchained-worst-tarantino-movie","tag-from-dusk-till-dawn","tag-hostel","tag-inglourious-basterds","tag-jackie-brown","tag-jamie-foxx","tag-kill-bill","tag-kill-bill-vol-1","tag-kill-bill-vol-2","tag-m-night-shyamalan","tag-pulp-fiction","tag-reservoir-dogs","tag-review","tag-signs","tag-smug-film-2","tag-smugfilm","tag-the-happening","tag-the-protector","tag-true-romance","tag-worst-tarantino-movie","tag-wost-tarantino-film"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=782"}],"version-history":[{"count":25,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/782\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6325,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/782\/revisions\/6325"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\nBut back to the business at hand\u2014Django Unchained and what\u2019s wrong with it. Basically, the whole thing with Tarantino is that he makes the same types of mistakes in all his movies. So much so that they\u2019re damn near \u2018stylistic choices\u2019. (But really, they\u2019re just mistakes.) And so, to talk about the problems of any one of his movies is to talk about the problems of just about all<\/i> his movies. Which is nice for me as a critic, because it means I don\u2019t really ever have to review another Tarantino film, since after this one I\u2019m sure you\u2019ll be able to figure out the parts I dislike from his other stuff. So this will be a whole lot of birds with one stone. (Thanks, Tarantino!)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n