Interesting but...

Rating: 4/10 (3 April 2015)

My evaluation of this movie is it was way too long, the basic story was good, there was a good logical flow of events, the depiction of blood spurting out of those who were shot was way over the top.
I don't know how to classify this movie. It wasn't an adventure. Certainly not a comedy but that might be the best way to think of it as you watch it. I suppose if you call it a drama that would be closest but it was so far fetched it certainly isn't a serious drama.
I don't have a problem believing that some plantation owners had many slaves and treated them poorly, or even treated them like animals. It sickens me to see that. No man or woman should ever be a slave to another human.
What I do have a problem with is Django being such a good shot, with both hands, that he never misses, or never gets hit with many people shooting at him. This is where calling it a drama begins to fall apart.
The way Tarantino directed the shooting scenes was simply outrageous. Bullets of that era, and of the type of handgun shown, would not likely pass through a mans chest and come out through is back. Being shot with a pistol wouldn't propel a person backwards. When a bullet hits a person very small amounts of blood would initially splatter at the moment of impact, not the pint to quart amount shown in almost every shot.
Near the very end of this long movie Django shoots a woman from an angle with his pistol and she is violently yanked backwards to the point of lifting her feet off the ground.
A lot more realism would have helped make this movie more believable. As it is all of that radically inaccurate depiction constantly left me shaking my head.
I liked Jamie Foxx as Django and I thought Christoph Waltz was cast well and did a great job. The problems with this movie all came from the director, not the actors or story line.