Probably the best film I've seen in long while

Rating: 10/10 (17 March 2013)

Every time I see a bad review of this film, they always focus on one thing: The rather liberal use of the n-word throughout the movie. The movie is offensive because of the n-word, they say, as if that alone negates everything that was done well with this movie (and there is a lot done well).
Oh look, they use a derogatory term for black people for a movie set in an era where black people were barely considered "people" in the first place. Oh look, they use a racist term for a movie set in a time when being a racist was pretty much the norm. The movie is bad for that reason alone...Really?
OK, I understand that, as a civilization, we are trying to grow up and move away from prejudice, but to condemn an art piece meant to depict a less-developed time because it clashes with your modern morals is, well, immature. Another thing, you act as if the movie directly insults you. At what point was the movie directing its insults at you? Not only are you offended out of context, it's also misdirected! How self-righteous and immature do you have to be to--- You know what, forget it. It's got nothing to do with the movie so it's not worth getting into.
What is worth getting into is why this movie is awesome. Considering this movie pushes the 3 hour mark, I'm amazed that it kept my attention through out the whole thing. That says something for the film because I'm one of those kind of guys who can barely keep focused on anything for more than twenty minutes. But here, I found myself intrigued by every single scene and how the story moved forward. So this movie gets an A from me from storytelling merits alone. Dialogue is balanced with exposition and the script, while shoddy in a few places, works well overall. The narrative is very much character-driven which I think is the film's biggest merit. It doesn't rely on big sets or numerous filler montages. The action scenes are short and brutal. And they should be because there's nothing fancy about the shootouts and these scenes are mostly direct to the point and leave a big impact. This ain't no kung-fu movie. The movie is all about the interaction and conflict if it's rather diverse and talented cast. Speaking of whom...
Though I think he's the weakest of the main characters, Christoph Waltz as Dr. King Schultz is still a very notable performance, probably one of the best in Waltz's career. I love the way he serves as the wise mentor figure in the story as well as providing most the comic relief. Schultz's cleverness displayed in the film is fun to watch and lends a certain respect to his character. And though he is played to be lighthearted most of the time, there are instances where we definitely see a hidden depth to Schultz. That said, it's also the character's weakness because, you know this guy has a long and likely very interesting history, and yet very little of that history is explored within the narrative. And that sucks. This guy should have his own movie really.
But of course the movie is focused on the title character Django (with a silent D) played by Jamie Foxx. This movie is all about Django coming to his own. Foxx handled that splendidly in my opinion. When we're first introduced to the character as a nervous and broken man who seemed lost in just about any environment, portrayed in a way that, strangely enough, reminded me of Forrest Gump somewhat. But as the story progress, Django matures, learns the ropes, gains confidence in himself, takes more risks, and generally grows from being Schultz's student to equal. Foxx's portrayal of this development is commendable. If you watch just the first and last 15 minutes of the movie, you'd think he was playing two completely different characters. Watching the movie is a whole, the gradual transformation of Django from rookie to pro is amazingly subtle though. Foxx's excellent performance makes sure that Django's development doesn't come off as forced or contrived and is believable throughout.
But my favorite character would be, hands down, Calvin Candie played by Leonardo DiCaprio whose performance is, in a word, sublime. Candie simply eats up any scene he's in. Even if you wanted to, you simply cannot deny his presence. And while he starts off as a non-too-serious antagonist when first introduced, we quickly realize that this is a man that one does not want to hang out with on a social basis. But that realization happens without the guy being overly diabolical about it, which lends to the believability of the character. And when Candie eventually does go off the chain he easily becomes the most memorable villain in film history. Much respect to Waltz but how DiCaprio did not get more Best Supporting Role award nominations (especially at the Oscars) is beyond me.
I don't have much to say about Samuel L. Jackson's character, Stephen, as he really only serves as a plot point that leads into the climax of the movie. Many people don't like it when you get a big name to play what is essentially a throw-away character. But I'm fine with it. For what little screen time he had, Jackson gave an excellent enough performance to be memorable.
So basically, yeah, awesome direction, awesome script, awesome characters played by awesome actors makes for a definite hall-of-famer in my opinion. This film will stay with me for a long time. It's a brutal, bloody, brilliant take on the darker parts of America's history not without its fair share of humor and wit. A must see film for anyone with any measurable appreciation for good cinema.