Contains strong bloody violence (and that's just the review)

Rating: 8/10 (22 January 2013)

It's very difficult to go and see a movie like Django Unchained without having formed preconceptions before setting eyes upon the actual content, such is the range of discussion and diversity of writing that has taken place prior to its release in the UK. However, not possessing a certain Mr Lee's abilities of precogntion, I decided to wait until not only watching, but also digesting, the piece before sharing with you my own opinion.
As I settled back into my seat and the credits rolled, I instantly felt like I was back at my Auntie's house, watching the spaghetti westerns on Saturday nights that the BBC put on during the 1970's. There is a look and a feel and an atmosphere common to the genre that I think he gets just about spot on. Although an early scene of astounding jokey bloody surprise also reminded me that this wasn't homage pure and simple.
From the off, Christoph Waltz (who I can't pretend to have any prior knowledge of) inhabits his role in a brilliant fashion. As Jamie Foxx then shifts into shots as well, he smoothly becomes a charismatic and cool co-hero, someone who you're quickly shown has both a moral compass in a messy world, but also who has a drive to get his girl back. Their partnership is Jules and Vincent for another era maybe, two different people with different motivations but a common bond and sense of humanity.
It's a classic three-ring circus of a film, and each section progresses the plot and develops different strands in a way that works well overall. What I think Tarantino does particularly well is balance the backdrop of a pre-civil-war USA, with the apparent wide acceptance of the slave trade and the inferiority of black people, and his take on a pseudo-Blaxploitation version of a redemptive spaghetti Western. The comedy violence is comedy, the horrors allowed by slavery are played straight and implied, with nothing that could be taken as glorification or negation.
The language is strong, and particularly I feel the use of MoFo in the dialogue (and hip-hop in the soundtrack) can again be seen as balancing the pastiche and the present, reminding the viewer that this is a new take on old tales. That isn't to say that there aren't some flaws. Since Roger Avary parted company with QT, the writing isn't always as good as it was in my opinion, some of the plot devices are a bit heavy-handed, and I'm still not sure how QT's cameo appearance measures up (unless he was deliberately playing it awful, in homage to the extras of some of the original westerns, which is clearly a possibility).
And it has to be said that the demise of his character certainly provided one of the biggest laughs of the evening. Overall, I think Tarantino has crafted a very good original work in the style of some of his earlier pieces. Samuel L Jackson gives a great performance as always when they work together, and Leonardo Di Caprio is unusually immersive. I do agree with others that the female characters are universally lacking in depth, especially Hilde, although again this could simply represent QT's take on the back catalogue's approach to gender? Whatever, I recommend you see this movie to make up your own mind. It's three hours well spent in my opinion, and hopefully marks a move back towards some further rewarding output from Tarantino and friends.