Good, but needs containing.

Rating: 8/10 (22 March 2015)

'Django Unchained', directed and written by the infamous Quentin Tarantino is his most controversial yet. He employs a ridiculous amount of usage of the 'n' word. He did say he wanted this movie to unlock the taboo subject of slavery and get it talked about. Is this a bit of self righteousness from Tarantino? I'd say yes. He has indulged himself in high budget films for about 20 years this year. He started with an iconic, revolutionary classic that is Reservoir Dogs. Then he got braver with Pulp Fiction and, incredibly well I might add, paid off. Unfortunately this was released at the same time as 'Forrest Gump' which left Tom Hanks and his crew leaving the Academy Awards with 6 Oscar's. From this point, it seems to me that he believes that the most, audience pleasing, indulgent movie is the way to go about receiving Oscar's and of course: fame. This has up to now, left us with 'Django Unchained'.
I'd say the cast involved is spectacular. I don't know how else it would've been improved. Christopher Waltz equals his performance in Tarantino's previous film 'Inglourious Basterds' and transfers from the antagonist to the sidekick come trainer. It is hugely similar to other revenge movies such as 'Gladiator' in the character sense of things. Maximus, the protagonist, is Django whilst Proximo is Dr Schultz. In addition, the narrative route is largely similar, though it does tend to be in revenge films. However I found that the ending narrative was similar. The audience gets sucked in to believe the protagonist has finally overcome the antagonist and essentially won. Unfortunately in both films it doesn't happen. They essentially start back from the beginning and in the last 20 minutes or so they 'win'. In this sense it could be suggested that both films are a two-part cyclical narrative in which the main part gets them close, but after losing out they take part in a much smaller journey to victory. In Django's case, this would be getting put back into slavery, only to break free and kill the rest of the evil slave owners in Candyland and rescue the girl.
Leonardo DiCaprio gives another typical DiCaprio performance with much gusto, intensity and sheer desire, or should I say persistence, in search for his long sought after Oscar Award. Though I think he'd want that in a leading role. I think this is perhaps one of his best roles. He suits the intense, charming yet slightly crazy character. A role which I would say, suits him perfectly. His devotion to the character is second to none and I believe this is his only genuine method acted performance. He blends into Calvin Candy's character with ease and there is the evidence of his devotion to the character in the dining room scene with Django and Dr Schultz in which he cuts his hand quite severely, of which would later require stitches, but stays in his designated role and carries on. It's rather funny if you know this and see Broomhilda's face after Candy wipes his genuine bloodied hand on her face.
Jamie Foxx is the only man I can think of for the role of Django, no doubts come into my mind for this characters role as a Jamie Foxx one. I heard Will Smith was being considered and I can only say now, thank God. Will Smith is a comedic, if not heartwarming character and doesn't belong in a serious movie let alone one about slavery. One criticism some would say is that Jamie only plays one dimension throughout the movie, when he makes a witty line, the tone remains the same as when he gave permission to Candy to feed a Mandingo slave to the dogs. On my part, I believe this is due to Django previously being a slave and not being allowed to show any sign of emotion for fear of being beaten or whipped. Or I could just be giving Foxx undeserved credit and shower him in praise even though this could be pure luck for him.
The movie itself is good but quite Tarantino. By this I mean, it's too long, too expansive and put simply, too much. Many people have argued that Tarantino's films are revenge films, or spaghetti western's or just indulgent violent comedy. However, in my opinion, this is Tarantino's genre that he is building up himself. He quite clearly has taken ideas from Western expert Sergio Leone, director of the masterpiece that is 'Once Upon a Time in The West', then used the same narrative from every other revenge film e.g 'Gladiator' and finally the indulgent violence which to be honest he brought to fame. These three elements together have created Tarantino's personal genre. I believe that with more practice on his direction and (I'm ashamed to say) screenplay he could make a masterpiece much like 'Reservoir Dogs'. My screenplay issue brings with it many arguments because this is the best feature in his films but unfortunately he brings it too far through his films to suit the narrative. Tarantino must either make the screenplay and mould the narrative into it or plan out the narrative and fit the screenplay into it. Overall, the media attention this movie brings due to the slavery subject stains the movie itself. The movie as a movie is very good until Django gets put back into slavery, at which point the ending is rushed and predictable. The casting director did a wonderful job. The screenplay is good bar the extensive use of the 'n' word. If I could give this movie a specific rating out of 10, it would be 7.5, unfortunately I will have to round up to 8. This film needs improvement and someone, perhaps the producer, to just keep Tarantino contained and don't let him 'Tarantino all over the place' like in 'Inglourious Basterds' with Mike Myers making an appearance.