Can Tarantino spell i-n-c-o-n-g-r-u-o-u-s?

Rating: 1/10 (10 November 2013)

Actually I'm not even going to list the crimes against that word (trust me, they are legion). Apparently in a Tarantino film you're not supposed to question incongruities and historical absurdities; it seems, for some inexplicable reason, such restrictions apply only to other filmmakers. So rap songs in a pre-civil war western are okay as long as your name starts with T and ends with O. Negroes riding around with cool sunglasses talking back (or is that 'black'?) to plantation owning southerners without instantly getting blown out of the saddle is all part of Tarantino-World; as indeed are weapons with an accuracy far beyond anything known in the 19th Century. So no, I'm not going to question the lack of verisimilitude in this movie; I couldn't be so unkind to such a genius movie maker. I'm just going to question the logic of one particular scene.
The "Doc' has this Derringer, right? Which springs out of his right sleeve. We've seen already that it fires two shots (and is surprisingly deadly for such a small calibre weapon). He wants to kill DiCaprio. However, DiCaprio's henchman has a gun on his friends. So he shoots DiCaprio, says "I couldn't resist" or some such, and stands there as if waiting to be shot? Why? I mean if his gun had two bullets, he could have shot the henchman first (in the head, as he was directly to the right of him) and then shot DiCaprio, who was weaponless. It made no sense (pretty much like the rest of the movie really). He was supposed to be a master strategist, but a 3 year-old-child could have seen what needed to be done there. It wouldn't even have effected the plot much. You could have still had that repellent splatterfest afterwards and just had the Doc die in that. Really, folks, that's just bad, bad writing.
I won't list any more silliness. Not even Tarantino himself affecting a weird Australian accent (what was that all about? Is there evidence that Australians used to escort black prisoners to the mines in the 1850s?). No, to me this was clearly just another Tarantino revenge fantasy project made for no other reason (money excluded, of course) than to convince the rest of us that humanity really is as unremittingly black-hearted as Tarantino sees us. Well, I for one just don't buy that, and I certainly won't be buying this movie.