Gorefest with no real purpose

Rating: 3/10 (14 February 2013)

I loved Pulp Fiction. 'Outstanding' and 'superb' are words that come to mind. Everything by Tarantino since, just awful.
I have read some of the glowing reviews for this film, and come away completely puzzled - did we watch the same film? First thoughts that come to mind for this film; dull, plodding, contrived, and sometimes silly. And yet the plot could have been a foundation for a really good film.
It started well, with one very witty section concerning a sheriff and marshal. Very witty, very clever. However, even in the early stages, it was apparent that Tarantino had bought a job lot of blood at a discount, and was going to throw buckets of the stuff around. It is not that I object to violence in movies. I forget the name now, but not so long ago watched an excellent film in which a person was sliced in half in a fight sequence. It worked, it fitted, and nothing but positives for the film (which makes the lapse of memory odd). In the case of Django, it was just clumsy violence for the sake of it, and don't say that I don't get it, that it is tongue in cheek etc. etc. No, it is just clumsy and pointless, and poorly done.
There was one fight scene which was much, much better - the unarmed fight scene in the room was shocking (well done shocking) and it is probably no coincidence that this scene did not include the blood buckets.If Tarantino could do more scenes like this, there would be no stopping him. Instead, we mostly get the buckets.
As for the acting, it is pretty variable. I have grown to respect Di Caprio, but this performance was just OK. Samuel L. Jackson was just unconvincing most of the time. Jamie Foxx did warm up a bit as the movie progressed, but the starting point for the warm up was at the bottom of the thermometer. Christoph Waltz was lonely on the screen as the only star performer and managed to convey some of the potential of the plot.
In summary, action scenes; mostly distracted by comedy blood spatters. Cinematography; passable. Plot; plodding, dull, etc. Dialogue; plodding, dull etc. but with a few (very few) moments of sparkle. Acting; mostly routine. Oh, I nearly forgot. The titles were good.
Judging by the reviews, I can only conclude that there are too many Tarantino groupies out there .....or maybe I am out on limb in thinking that upping the blood spatter content to buckets of blood is not 'witty' or 'cool'???? 'heh, look, other people use gallons of blood, but I am so cool....I use bath tubs of blood, and do it in an ironic and post-modern way.....etc.' For me it is just for shock 'schlock' and it is not ironic, post-modern, witty, clever, intelligent, challenging or any of the other excuses that are trotted out to excuse this kind of junk. It is just lazy and an ersatz form of 'creativity'.
Still, at least Django is an improvement on Kill Bill, but that is not praise.