REVIEW - Django Unchained

      Year: 2012        Writer/Director: Quentin Tarantino          Producers: Stacey Sher, Reginald Hudlin, Pilar Savone

      Stars: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardi diCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington, Don Johnston.


Django Unchained tells the story of a pair of bounty hunters who undertake a personal mission of rescue and revenge in Mississippi during the 1850s. The gun-slinging anti-heroes are Dr King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), an Austrian and former dentist, and the black man he freed, Django (Jamie Foxx).

Despite killing wanted men and their nuisance affiliates for bounties, Dr Schultz oozes charm and conducts all affairs like a reasonable businessman. When he recruits Django to help identify his latest bounty targets, Dr Schultz learns of the former slave’s torturous separation from his wife, Brunhilda, and furthermore witnesses the man’s ruthless bounty hunter potential. Over the course of a winter contract with Schultz, Django learns elocution, redefines his wardrobe, and becomes a deadly hunter in his own right. He is ready to rescue his wife. Only wherever they go, Django’s clothes, horse-riding and projection of superiority (over white and black folk alike) elicit tension and physical threat from the many fanatical racists they encounter.

Following a skit (it would appear) and fiery ambush involving the KKK, Django and Schultz meet the wealthy plantation owner who most recently bought Brunhilda. The superficial millionaire, Calvin Candie (Leonardo diCaprio), entertains the men who pose as new hobbyists of “Mandingo” – a fictional sport and consuming passion of Candie’s that pits black slaves against each other in a wrestle to the death.

Candie enters a long bargain with Schultz that sees them all staying at the millionaire’s estate. Under the hospitality and suspicious eye of a loyal footman (played by Samuel L. Jackson), Dr Schultz and Django are so close to rescuing Brunhilda and simultaneously being  found out by a house and barnyard full of embittered, bloodthirsty racists.

Meeting high anticipation, Django Unchained delivers cool, crafty and roundabout dialogue. This colours outrageous situations that make you smirk, jaw-drop and bite your fingers off in suspense. Moreover, the film unfolds very well, and although lengthy, it doesn’t feel clunky or wane our interest as an audience. Amongst these favourable elements, I would like to raise a qualm regarding the film’s dubious depiction of racism. However masterful a storyteller Tarantino is, and ambitious a director, this mishandling shouldn’t escape discussion or disapproval just because of Tarantino’s reputation to push the envelope and garner instant acclaim for it. 

Tarantino has defended his movie against fellow filmmaker Spike Lee’s claims of being “disrespectful” to black ancestry. Presumably, Lee is denoting the 100+ times n***** is uttered, unrelenting discrimination of African Americans, and exploitative nature of Mandingo wrestling. I don’t believe Tarantino feels any malice or intended any harm toward black ancestors – more so, he likes to test his characters, imagine badass muthaf****ry and shock his audience – but I agree that examples of racism in this movie are boldly and needlessly gratuitous.

Arguably, there is some form of commentary on racial prejudice within early-days America, and correlations may be drawn with attitudes, ongoing struggles and landmark victories of today. However, this sensitive subject is not the study of this film. Revenge is the story and the means of “happy” resolution and racial prejudice is the conflict. Whilst the movie holds our attention all 180 minutes –even as we close our eyes and open our ears to Candie’s vulgar championing of a depraved sport and the bone-crunch that hopefully signals the end of the close-up, rapidly-cut graphic violence – one leaves the cinema and sifts through the smart quips, eccentric characters and explosive action in search of an actual message. Racism is horrible and was disgracefully permissible over a hundred years ago, and Tarantino hammers this point into every second of the film as if each and every last scene using hateful slurs and depicting racial oppression hadn’t stayed with us. However, the movie makes no substantial offer of morals or lessons, which all stories of value should – primary to any thrill-capacity or artistic merit.

Whilst one can enjoy the movie, you are also forced to experience parts of it on an extreme level that I don’t believe the MA15+ classification prepares one for. Even as a mature, open-minded and extensive viewer of film, I didn’t expect to feel so uncomfortable watching this in the cinema. I was surprised this didn’t receive an R18+ rating, and am relatively concerned that people as young as fifteen can access content with as much potential to disturb.

Django Unchained is worth seeing if you have a strong heart and stomach – for the banter, performances, Spaghetti Western kitsch and ambitious action-rescue mission, if not the worthy discussions on racism, desensitisation and film classification.

7 / 10

REVIEW - Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters [3D]

Writer/Director: Tommy Wirkola          Year: 2013

Producers: Will Ferrell, Adam McKay, Chris Henchy, Christoph Fisser, et al.

Studio: Gary Sanchez Productions            Distributors: Paramount and MGM

Stars: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Peter Stormare, Famke Janssen, Pihla Viitala

This film adaptation of the Brothers' Grimm famous fairytale is set in the all familiar German villages and spooky, dark woods only it takes place "many years later" and is revamped with sexy leather costumes, steampunk gadgets and automatic weaponry, and the main focus on the fun of full throttle combat and bloody carnage.

I entered with expectations of an average horror-action movie with the mean, rambunctious energy of the trailer. I walked away feeling robbed of my money - a strange feat for a movie, given this was a free ticket - and with the unmistakable aftertaste of cardboard in the back of my mouth. I also entered the cinema late. My friend and I scoured the darkness - one of the criticisms of 3D movies, apparently - for two empty seats at this advanced screening for some time. We crouched in the aisle - "but what about clear passages to the fire exits?" we thought like responsible young adults - and found terrible seats in the third row, then relocated to better seats up and to the far right. As the constancy of my critiques of Avatar (2009) and Les Miserables (2012) have demonstrated, poor seating is yet to impede my ability to, respectively, completely hate or love a movie. I believe the only scene I missed was a bite-size version of the original story of H&G - which I actually became very well-versed with as a child.

The epilogue to the original story (the film hereafter), unfolded swiftly with spectacular violence and insufficient development of its lead characters. This witch-hunting brother and sister are on a blind quest to somehow find and save 12 children from sacrificial slaughter by a zillion witches. They also face personal conflicts involving memories of their abandonment as children and whether to let the hot redhead help you and make love to you or to just give her the flick again.  Yet whatever the situation, little intellectual exercise or emotional pause is shown by the characters, and relationships between them seem to form in brushing and cling like Velcro. The dialogue is basic, expository and personifies no one. Momentum versus character development. It had to be a compromise, as is the case for many action blockbusters with "high-concept" scenes.  Slacken the pace to learn more about these terribly-written, dismally-realised characters? Even still, I remember praying for the experience to be over the minute I sat down for the second time. Talk about a Catch 22.

Modern integrations such as leather jackets and parkour stunts by witches slightly phased me but I don’t believe matters of personal taste should render a movie unwatchable. I don’t usually* pick on multi-accented casts and I can even accept the extreme physical injuries characters walk off. All this comes secondary to the actual story, which my criticism targets.

The plot, themes, characters and credibility of the world is the foundation of a film and until these are solidified in writing, I don’t think you can move onto casting, scouting, let alone shooting. Is it a contradiction to say this movie isn’t corny or cliche, just unimaginative? For all their lack of surprise, I think corny and cliche movies can still be engaging if not entertaining (think rom-coms). I simply mean: the troll’s name is Edward. “You get the children, I’ll get the heart,” to quote the arch-witch. Every magical or fantasy world term is self-explanatory or something you’ve heard before. Elements of “intrigue” and “mystery” unfold plain as day and what’s more, they have to be explained to the leads and us as an audience by Famke Janssen’s villainous witch. She even adds incidental thematic warmth to her long-winded narrative that “x did this to save y”.

I feel faintly embarrassed for Renner and Arterton who were roped into modelling and blinking and waking up over and over again and asking where they are under the guise it was “acting”. Not even the Messiah himself, Peter Stormare, could resurrect this film. His stubborn antagonist was a waste of the Svede's full and comprehensive power to act the menace. As for the 3D effects, I’m not a big advocate or commentator on the subject. I think it’s a neat trick but it certainly didn’t enhance this movie experience for me.

I felt so little in this movie, I can’t even hate it. I scathe ceaselessly but it honestly comes from an objective, open mind. I’m just pointedly aware this is the worst studio picture I’ve ever seen. I enjoy many fantasy genre movies and nerdlinger obsessions – just inject a little credibility, H&G, then maybe I’ll laugh at your swear-joke-rhetorical-questions. But don’t worry dear audiences, writer/director Tommy Wirkola has put in heaps sick kewl blood and machine guns and stuff coz that’s wat we really love!!!!

0/10

*Timeline (2003) starring Billy Connolly and Paul Walker as father and son respectively. In all fairness, it may have been the total lack of chemistry between the actors and their equally questionable performances skills - with due respect.