Another Tarantino pointless gore-fest

Rating: 9/10 (2 June 2013)

Once again, Tarantino plays out his inferiorities in film resulting in pointless brutality and blood-splattering. Most of the violence was appalling and gratuitous. Can't he produce a single mature movie that doesn't involve irresponsible brutality and childish revenge? Foxx was brilliant as was Schultz. The 60s spaghetti-western pastiche added flavour to the movie and was entertaining. DiCaprio plays his role as a vicious and brutal slave owner exceedingly convincingly. Samuel Jackson plays his role as a head house slave with uncommon and malignant loyalty to his master very well.
But that stupid gunfight at the end? Bodies flying everywhere and blood splattering all over the place? And going back to the house to exact revenge and blowing it to smithereens with dynamite? Really - come on! This is as puerile as it gets. Tarantino is irresponsible and immature and sets a poor example by exorcising his inferiorities on celluloid.
The real dynamic of this movie, and one that is sadly betrayed by the movie's stupid denouement is the friendly relationship of mutual understanding and respect between Dr. King Schultz and Django. This was the heartbeat of the movie and a delicate one which added magic to the story and that should've played out to the very end, whereas it was crushed by Tarantino's narrow-minded, passive-aggressive approach to life.
Boo to Tarantino. I don't care what the Tarantino-lovers out there think of him, regardless of his scene-framing, camera-angles and stylistic choices. Applause to Foxx and Waltz.