Avengers: Age of Ultron - 2015

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" - 2015
Dir. by Joss Whedon - 2 hrs. 21 min.

Trailer #3

by Clayton Hollifield

Well, I think my streak of seeing Marvel movies is just about over.  No, not because of "Avengers: Age of Ultron," it was just fine.  Instead, I saw trailers for both "Ant-Man" and the "Fantastic Four" reboot, and I'm pretty sure I'll be giving one of those a big ol' pass.  FF, in particular, looks brutal.  But we're not here to talk about those films, we're here to talk about the official sequel to one of the biggest-grossing, most-beloved action films in recent years.  And it was pretty good.  I didn't like it as much as the first, or even as much as the first "Iron Man" and "Thor" films, but I did like it.  I think, once some time has passed, and another Avengers film comes along, that this will come off better, and as part of a longer story being told.  Right now, it's much like the second "Star Wars" film, in that it's the "bummer" film, and until another movie in the series comes out, it's the final word on the story.

The Avengers start off avenging, crashing Baron Strucker's (Thomas Kretchmann) party and liberating Loki's wand-thingy from the grips of evil-doers.  Tony Stark (Ghostface Killah Robert Downey, Jr.) borrows the wand for a few days for some research, which means trying to understand how Asgardian technology works.  Ultimately, after bonding over being mad scientists, Stark draws in Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) to help with the research, as there's a bit of a time crunch before the artifact is to be returned to Asgard.  The goal: artificial intelligence, in the form of something that will help prevent something like what happened in the first Avengers movie from happening.  The actual result: a crazy robot named Ultron (voiced by James Spader) that wants to, well, you know exactly what a crazy-ass robot accidentally created by Iron Man and the Hulk is going to want to do.

So, I wasn't kidding when I said this was the "bummer" film in the series.  Part of that is that the events in the first Avengers film have had lasting effects (Iron Man, in particular, has had difficulty in processing all of it), but part of it that one of the opponents they have to deal with, the Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), has the power of killing positive vibes and forcing people to wade through their own personal nightmares.  This leads to one of the best action sequences, the thing that should have been built around in it's own film, putting fright and fury into the Hulk, which results in even more of the carnage that Dr. Banner has been trying to avoid and atone for.  The message of the film is very much that people are often their own worst enemies (and that everything is better when you're part of a team, if you can manage to keep that team on the same page), and messages have to be felt and understood, not just explained to people.  That means that everyone on the team will have to suffer in their own heads (which also leaves open the door for some stellar character development, where you kind of start to understand what it is exactly that motivates each character).  These scenes aren't easy viewing, but they are good filmmaking.

Big action films need a couple of things.  Big action pieces (check.)  Big stakes (check).  Bringing back as much of the cast as humanly possible (check - the only people that were really missing was Pepper Potts and Natalie Portman's character, and they were both discussed within the plot, so I don't think we're to assume that Ms. Portman and Ms. Paltrow have been written out of the series).  Once you get past that stuff, it helps if you can sympathize with the characters, even if they're on opposite sides (check).  And maybe if there wasn't another Avengers film, I would have liked this one better.  The big issue was that the first Avengers film felt epic (and not in a internetty way, in a Homeric way).  The action sequence at the end of that one was exhilarating and exhausting in a completely satisfying way, and hit upon something that I rarely see in films (how fighting for something, even something worthwhile, can wear you down to your very soul, and leave marks that can't be seen).  Even though the stakes in "Age of Ultron" were large, it never felt epic in the same way.  It was a giant battle, but felt on an individual scale.  And the result never really felt like it was in doubt.

From where I'm sitting, "Avengers: Age of Ultron" felt more like another one of Marvel's admittedly pretty damned good string of solo character films that like another event film, like the first "Avengers."  That means it was still good, all the things that you would have enjoyed about the other combination of characters are still there (like the character interactions and fast-paced dialogue), and it didn't break the string of enjoyable Avengers-related films.  But things might look different five years from now, if there's a third Avengers film and more story with these characters.  I leave open the possibility that "Ultron" will feel more like an important, but down chapter in the longer story when the whole deal is wrapped up.  I do not leave open the possibility that the new "Fantastic Four" film is going to be any good whatsoever, though.  That's straight doo-doo.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre (3D)

The Spirit - 2008

"The Spirit" - 2008
Dir. by Frank Miller - 1 hr. 43 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There are people who will try to convince you that "The Spirit" is one of the worst comic book movies ever made.  Those people are not your friends, they have no insight into the material at hand, and speak in hyperbole because they're unable to grasp the concept of relativity.  They also have poor manners, smell like garbage, frequently don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom because "I didn't pee on my hands," like Journey unironically, and probably have something in their house with the word "artisinal" on the label.  This is only the first couple sentences of these people's psychological profile, but the truth of the matter is that people who don't like "The Spirit" also don't like themselves.  To put it in perspective, there's been an awful lot of haterade being sipped upon in regards to Frank Miller over the last decade, and this film got gobbled up along with it.  My argument is that this is actually a fine film sunk by the fact that a lot of people didn't get the tone of it, and that people were still mad about "Dark Knight 2," and that a lot of people will name-drop Will Eisner without have ever read anything by him in the first place.

A dead cop named Denny Colt (Gabriel Macht) comes back from the dead, puts a Lone Ranger mask on, and becomes The Spirit, an extra-legal vigilante that works in tandem with Central City's police force, Commissioner Dolan (Dan Lauria) in particular.  The Spirit's main foe is The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson), who is locked in a mortal battle with The Spirit, but there's more to that than there initially seems.  There are also a number of women circling The Spirit, some good, some bad.

There are a number of problems in adapting "The Spirit" into a movie.  First, it was a comic strip that started roughly during World War II and ran through the early 1950's (albeit with a changing creative team), and at least one of the main characters was drawn in a racially insensitive way (Eisner swore that it wasn't done with malice, it was just the convention of the time, and apologized for it).  Secondly, the strip itself was episodic (each story was eight pages long, and there weren't really many stories that extended beyond that), so trying to cobble together a feature-length story out of bits and fragments is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle made out of a bunch of jigsaw puzzles.  Thirdly, the lasting historical importance of Eisner's "The Spirit" stories had much less to do with the stories themselves than with Eisner's creative design, page layouts, and storytelling innovations.  Fourth, Eisner passed away a couple of years before this film began production, and it was reported that Frank Miller agreed to take on the project partially out of fear for how badly the film might turn out in lesser hands (Miller and Eisner were good friends, and there's even a book published of their discussions on the artform of comic books).  Fifth, this is probably the single most famous image from "The Spirit" comics:

So, the upshot is that the character in question is pretty much only famous because it's creator went on to become a pioneer of graphic novels (later, of course), and the stories that were created are more famous for their execution than their content, and there was fear that the movie would get made by people who didn't "get it."  And instead, the audience didn't get it.  Part of the misunderstanding is that Frank Miller's work can come off as taking itself too seriously (with things like gruff voices and overtly focused characters), but that in itself is the satire.  And, instead of viewing this version of "The Spirit" as being a fun send up of a very-dated character and concept, people assumed that Miller was the one that missed the mark.  Which is probably because no one had ever bothered to read "The Spirit" in the first place.

I'm baffled as to how people could have missed that this was a comedy.  At which point do you not get that these are jokes; when The Spirit goes around trying to identify Sand Seref (Eva Mendes) with a photocopy of her ass?  And successfully does so?!? When The Octopus' clones run around, identical and identified by single words on their shirt like "huevos" and "rancheros?"  Perhaps The Octopus giving a giant speech in nazi regalia to a bound Spirit could have been a clue?  Or when Silken Floss (Scarlett Johansson) raves about how much she loves her lifestyle because she gets to run around looking awesome all the time?  Maybe the problem is that people assumed the source material was more somber, to which I'd refer you to the image two paragraphs prior.

But if you're determined to hate anything that Frank Miller does, if you're determined to be clueless about what you're watching, if you're the sort of person who thinks it's the height of taste to dismiss the Batman movies because of Christian Bale's voice, just stay away from "The Spirit."  Not just because you're wasting your time being hard-headed, not just because you're willing yourself to have a bad time, but also because I just don't want to hear it.  Complaining about everything under the sun isn't a sign that you've developed great taste, it's just exhausting.  And it must be exhausting to live that way.  I prefer to enjoy fun movies that are jammed full of craziness and beautiful women (and c'mon, this is a murderer's row of beauty), and I'm going to keep doing that.  You can keep frowning at everything, and I hope your frowns give you painful, itchy hemorrhoids, so that you can truly have something to complain about.

3 / 5 - Streaming

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - 2014

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" - 2014
Dir. by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo - 2 hrs. 16 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I guess Marvel's "Avengers" line of movies is kind of like my version of a soap opera.  I can't be bothered to keep up with TV shows, even ones I like (I'm near the end of the 5th season of "Psych"; it wrapped up it's 8th and final season this year).  And I sure as hell can't be bothered with those shows that you have to watch every episode the exact second it's released (like "Game of Thrones" or "The Walking Dead"); you can go to hell with your appointment television.  But if you ask me to turn up at the theatre every few months, deliver good action and decent stories that advance a larger story, and throw in Scarlett Johansson every so often for good measure, well, that's a commitment I can keep.  And, at least with the Avengers series of films, Marvel's made good on their end of things, frequently making better movies with these characters that have ever been done in the comics.

In the second Captain America film, Cap (Chris Evans) has spent a little time adjusting to having been thawed out and thrust into modern times, but finds S.H.I.E.L.D.'s methods of fighting their enemies a tad distasteful (summation: Cap asks Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) didn't they used to have to commit crimes first before being punished?).  The impetus for this is the recovery of a S.H.I.E.L.D. boat from pirates, which goes a little sideways.  Plus, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) was given a side mission, involving recovering data, unbeknownst to Cap.  When Nick Fury is assassinated after learning that there's something hinky going on within S.H.I.E.L.D., Cap is tasked with getting to the bottom of it by a dying Fury, as well as being grilled on what happened by Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford), who controls S.H.I.E.L.D. in Fury's absence.  And during the action-filled assassination attempt (Fury's a tough one to stamp out), we're introduced to a super-assassin, called the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan).

So yes, there definitely is a Marvel movie formula by now, and that requires at least a couple of giant battle scenes, a journey of personal discovery, and fighting against impossible odds (that's what makes these characters heroes, after all).  "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" delivers all of that.  There are big action scenes, all of which are pretty good.  There's fun car stuff in the assassination of Nick Fury, the recovery of the S.H.I.E.L.D. boat has good hand-to-hand combat action, the first battle between the Winter Soldier and Cap is fast and furious (and provides some intrigue for the rest of the movie), and the GIANT BATTLE at the end is spectacular.  But aside from these now-expected sections of the films, the real hallmark of this run of films is the relationships and dialogue between the characters.

The only thing I knew about "Cap 2" going in was from the trailer that I had seen, which was basically just an elevator fight scene (and a cool one at that).  So the inclusion of Black Widow as a main supporting character was a welcome surprise, and they share a different chemistry than one might expect.  They become protective of one another over the course of the film, and it feels like Black Widow eventually lets down her guard a bit around Cap (although her shifting personality traits according to situational need is a basic tenet of her character).  There's also a new addition, that of Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie), who is a former soldier himself who bonds with Cap over their shared experiences, and ends up being a very valued friend to Cap.  Even Fury and Cap have some good back and forths, debating different sides of their own shared goals.

One of the things that I did appreciate about "Cap 2" is that it was a movie that was about more than just blowing stuff up and punching things.  That sort of story is very easy to tell with these sorts of characters, but the crux of the story is whether or not it's right to use every available means to maintain one's safety, especially when that means encroaching on everyone's freedom.  The stakes are literal here: would you kill twenty million people to make the other seven billion safe?  And more to the point, who would you trust to make that choice?  If power corrupts, having the means to kill people before they've even committed a crime because they might prove inconvenient down the road is a lot of power.  The Captain America character might be a Boy Scout, but that's a necessary counterbalance to those who fancy themselves "realists," who seem to be just itching for an excuse to get their hands dirty (with no personal consequence, of course).

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" was another really good installment in this series of films.  There were some unexpected twists, ScarJo making a "WarGames" joke, good action, good characters that I've come to really enjoy, and enough of a tease for forthcoming material to make me want to come back whenever the next installment comes out.  In other words, really good serial storytelling.  "Cap 2" doesn't benefit from the freshness of the first "Iron Man" movie, and it's not really a surprise that one of the Marvel movies is going to be a good time.  And this isn't sheer awesomeness, like "The Avengers," that had the benefit of a multi-year, multi-film build AND Joss Whedon.  No, this is just another good installment in a good run of movies, and when your seventh or eighth installment is still pretty darned good (beyond just another return to characters you enjoy watching), that's a success.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre

Pulp Fiction - 1994

"Pulp Fiction" - 1994
Dir. by Quentin Tarantino - 2 hrs. 34 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

We're almost at the twenty-year anniversary of the release of "Pulp Fiction," which seems like a fair enough amount to time to see exactly what came in it's wake, and how it's held up over time.  On another note, I'm sure that this means there will be another super-snazzy home video package next year, trying to entice me (and others) to re-buy a movie that I've already re-bought repeatedly.  But that's another issue entirely!

"Pulp Fiction," if you've never seen it, is a series of crime-based vignettes that do not play out in chronological order, with certain characters that reappear over the course of the film.  There are a pair of hitmen, Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent Vega (John Travolta), who have to retrieve a mysterious glowing briefcase and return it to it's owner, local crime boss Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames).  Wallace also is involved in fixing a fight, paying Butch (Bruce Willis) to throw the fight, although he's visibly reluctant.  And there's also the scenes that bookend the film, where Pumpkin (Tim Roth) and Honey Bunny (Amanda Plummer) attempt to rob a diner.  Plus, unexpected gunfire, wildly inventive and frequent swearing, and more style than ten films usually combine for.

As far as I'm concerned, "Pulp Fiction" is the kind of film that I use to measure other films by.  By that, I mean there's a certain exhilaration that I feel when I've watched a perfect film.  I felt that after I watched "Pulp Fiction" for the first time when it came out, where I was completely amped up, and wanted to watch it again immediately (but I couldn't, because the rest of the night's screenings were sold out, and I had hitched a ride into the big city with one of my friends anyways).  To me, that's the difference between a really good film and a flat-out great one - that feeling where I'm so flabbergasted that I need to watch it again to make sure it was real.  I could understand if someone coming to "Pulp Fiction" now didn't quite get the same feeling out of it that I did; the things that made it stand out have been imitated (or plainly copied) and parodied so much that the iconic scenes might not hit as hard.  Even so, and even after having watched "Pulp Fiction" as frequently as I have, this is a sound film.

The main thing that has suffered in PF over the years is the heavily pop-culture referential bits of dialogue.  It was quirky and clever (in that referring to things in a sideways manner), and now it's just okay.  That doesn't diminish the film, but I'd say that Quentin Tarantino agrees.  His recent films are largely devoid of that pop-culture chatter (I'd suggest that his choice to make period pieces of a sort are one way of forcing him away from that stylistic crutch).  But what stands out still are the idea of theatrical criminals who feel the need to verbally dominate people before committing whatever crime has to be committed.  The guns aren't even the point, they're a post-script.  The point is enjoying a little pretense before brutishness, ugliness, and inevitability takes over.

If Tarantino's dialogue has suffered a bit over the years (although it did win the Academy Award for Best Screenplay that year), that shift means that a repeat viewer might notice the acting performances even more (although Travolta, Jackson, and Uma Thurman were all nominated, so it's not like no one noticed back then).  The cast almost universally turns in incredible, spell-binding performances.  It's to the point where, if you're recalling great moments from "Pulp Fiction," it's tough to find a starting point.  There are endless piles of quotable lines, there's Christopher Walken's monologue, the entire final diner scene.  Even Tarantino's acting role, while not exactly proficient, serves a larger purpose.  Like introducing an intentional flaw into a piece of artwork that sets off the skill the rest of the piece is executed with, watching Tarantino act against Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel shows the difference between real actors and someone trying to act.  When you see Tarantino deliver his own lines, and then Jackson deliver lines Tarantino has written, you explicitly see what good, dynamic acting does to elevate written material.  But to throw a little love Tarantino's way, these actors rarely reach the same levels working with other writers' material.

But honestly, the best part of watching "Pulp Fiction" is seeing what a lot of filmmakers were trying to pull off, but done well.  As is usually the case, the imitations take the stylistic surface innovations (lots of swearing, chatty lowlifes, abrupt violence, cool characters) and ignore what it is that makes Quentin Tarantino unique: his ability to build tension and tease it out for what seems like an impossible amount of time until the audience is squirming for resolution.  This skill has popped up over and over through his career (see the opening scenes of "Inglorious Basterds" or "Django Unchained" for more recent examples), and it's very easily to get distracted by the stylistic hallmarks.  But the overdose scene, the Gimp sequence, and the final diner scene is absolutely masterful storytelling.  It's on par with Alfred Hitchcock's finest work, and these scenes are built on a rock-solid foundation that has aged like fine wine (and not like turning to vinegar, to flip Marsellus' speech to Butch).  For one film to have three extended sequences of this quality is a bounty, an all-time classic.

5 / 5 - Blu-Ray

xXx - 2002

"xXx" - 2002
Dir. by Rob Cohen - 2 hrs. 4 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Vin Diesel movies always cheer me up.  And there's something so perfectly 2002 about "xXx" that I just can't resist re-watching it every now and then.  I'm not saying it's the best Vin Diesel movie, but it's up there. Who doesn't want to watch an X Games-style James Bond?   That's perfect!

Xander Cage (Diesel) is an underground website star, and we're introduced to one of the reasons why, with him stealing a California State Congressman's expensive car, and then flying it off of a bridge while Cage parachutes to safety.  Unfortunately, these kinds of stunts have consequences, and Cage is taken into custody by a S.W.A.T. team.  Once he passes a couple of tests (one involving a diner being held up, another involving a drug cartel in Columbia), Gibbons (Samuel L. Jackson) offers Cage the opportunity of a lifetime: become a government agent in exchange for ignoring his criminal indiscretions.  Cage's first assignment: get thee to Czechoslovakia and infiltrate a terrorist organization called Anarchy 99.

There's so much to love about "xXx" if you're willing to let go of your need for a movie not to be dumb.  As far as the action goes, there's no shortage of very good action pieces and interesting visuals.  Everything from the initial grand theft auto to the long chase at the end of the film works well, and visually makes sense.  Plus, lots of things explode, which is pretty important when you're dealing with a big, dumb movie.  Xander even deliberately causes an avalanche, and then attempts to outrun it on a snowboard.  Why?  Screw you, why not!  Even better are the scenes where Xander jumps things on motorcycles - not only does he get major air, he also does kick-tricks while shooting guns.  The only thing missing from this film is a sponsorship from an energy drink.

As far as the rest of it goes, the acting isn't bad.  Diesel's kind of underrated as an actor; just because his most famous roles don't usually involve sleeves of any kind doesn't mean that's not really good at these kinds of roles.  He's got a level of charm that raises him above some other action stars, and that helps this movie cruise along between explosions.  Even though he makes a really silly "uh-oh" face while atop Ahab (the submarine that... just watch it, okay), he carries "xXx" pretty well.  Yorgi (Marton Tsokas) and Yelena (Asia Argento) are fun foils for Xander, and beyond that, there's an endless supply of (barely clothed) eye candy, floating around the film.  The plot isn't particularly innovative; the entire point was an updating of James Bond for a hyper-caffeinated generation, and it uses the standard "unleash a virus" terrorist threat that was inescapable in movies of this ilk at that exact period in time.  It feels like things might have gotten more interesting if there had been a sequel involving Xander's character (I'm still trying really hard to ignore the Ice Cube version of xXx), as everything outside of the visual treats feels lightly sketched out, and like the sort of thing that might have been expanded upon in future installments.

As big and dumb and extreme as "xXx" is, it's still a really fun movie.  It's the sort of film I feel like requires an apology prior to admitting that I like it; this isn't health food for your intellect.  But then again, I like being able to check out and watch some guy drive a GTO really fast, watch stuff explode, and watch hot chicks just be hot without apology.  Can't I just enjoy something without having to feel guilt for it?

3 / 5 - Streaming

Django Unchained - 2012

"Django Unchained" - 2012
Dir. by Quentin Tarantino - 2 hrs. 45 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

This was certainly worth the wait.  And "Django Unchained" is another on the list of films from 2012 that both played broadly and were excellent movies.  Yeah, I'm biased, I always look forward to any new Quentin Tarantino project, but this film stacks up against the rest of his work, save for "Pulp Fiction."  So let's get down to why this was a really good movie!

About two years before the American Civil War (as a subtitle helpfully explains), Django (Jamie Foxx) and a handful of other slaves are being marched through Texas to wherever they're going to end up.  A German dentist, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), has sought out the slave traders directing this march in order to purchase Django.  It turns out that Dr. Schultz isn't a dentist (at least not currently one), but instead is a bounty hunter, and Django can recognize the Brittle Brothers (who all have sizable bounties on their heads), and Django eventually ends up being drawn into the bounty hunting business.  But Django has a larger goal; he has to track down his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who was deliberately sold to another plantation out of spite for Django.  Dr. Schultz agrees to help (there is a famous German myth about a Broomhilda), and they eventually set out for Mississippi and Candieland (I promise it makes sense in the context of the movie).

There is a broad compliment to be paid to Tarantino and "Django Unchained:" this did not feel like a nearly-three hour film.  There might not be anything worse than a long, mediocre film, and "Django" was definitely not mediocre.  One of Tarantino's signature strengths is the ability to build tension within a scene, usually for way longer than you'd figure possible.  He also usually writes characters who have both a plan and a flair for the dramatic, which means that as soon as you figure out who's going to be butting heads with whom, you know that it's going to play out spectacularly.  And also, something that you'd figure is going to be the main thrust of the film (in this instance, it would have been the first act's arc of Dr. Schultz and Django tracking the Brittle brothers) ends up resolving unexpectedly and quickly, and then the characters are on to bigger and better things.  In practice, this allows for Tarantino to construct a film of mini-movies; "Django" probably could have played out over the course of three films if he had wanted to do things in that manner.

Also, as is standard for a Tarantino movie, he gets exactly what he needs from each of the primary actors.  Waltz is fantastic, playing a calm, clever man who is always one step ahead of the situation (until he gets in a little over his head with Calvin Candie).  Jamie Foxx is also fantastic, hitting the right notes all along.  Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays the biggest villain of the film in Calvin Candie, proprietor of mega-plantation Candieland, makes the intellectual duel between himself and Dr. Schultz interesting.  Candie isn't supposed to be as smart as Dr. Schultz, but he's got the home-field advantage and is vastly more sadistic.  Honestly, the worst thing you could say about any of the actors in this cast is that they did what they were supposed to, and let the stars shine.  Don Johnson and Walton Goggins also have memorable, brief roles.

As per usual, whenever there is a new Tarantino movie, there is inevitable hand-wringing about the racial language used.  And let's be very, very clear, Tarantino uses every possible slur in that vein imaginable.  It's not my place to defend or prosecute here.  Instead, I propose two things.  First, it's clear that Quentin Tarantino is not interested in making palatable "entertainment."  The vast majority of movies produced aim to go down easy, with no aftertaste.  That is not what "Django Unchained" is.  To put it into professional wrestling terms, the scourge of the industry is a "cool heel."  That means a bad guy who gets to do all the things that make someone a bad guy, but does it in such a way that he ends up getting cheered for his bad behavior.  It completely screws up the good guy/bad guy dynamic that morality tales usually are.  But it's way easier to do that than to get an audience that's pretty onto all of the tricks to still boo you.  It's a testament to a given wrestler's talent and skill to be able to genuinely get under the skin of an audience that is in on the secret.  Movies are kind of the same way.  It's way, way easier to just fill up a story with a bunch of stylish baddies than it is to build up just one villain that an audience will genuinely hate, which is necessary if you expect anyone to care about your hero and his story.

The Calvin Candie character manages to pull that off.  You're not supposed to like him, even as he displays his hospitality and seems stuck on 100% charm for much of the story.  If he uses abominable language, treats people poorly (which would be a vast understatement), and tries to pretend he's smarter than he actually is, and then you (as an audience member) react negatively to him, that's the entire point.  Calvin Candie is the bad guy, and when he punishes a runaway slave by letting a pack of dogs rip him apart, you're not supposed to chuckle.  Candie is a bad man, and not in the complimentary manner that term is often used.  You are not supposed to like him.  You might be able to argue that some of the things presented in this movie are overkill, but that's a matter of personal taste.  It's enough, in the context of the film, that Dr. Schultz is playing along with Candie in order to achieve a larger goal, which requires a circuitous approach to the matter at hand.  It's clear that there is some judgment being made by the characters in the story that all of this is distasteful and not okay.

My second point is that if you're going to set a story, any story, in any given setting, then white-washing that setting is worse than lying.  If you want to be edgy and write a story set in a strip-club or something, all of the girls are not going to spend the entire film with their nipples covered.  One of my primary concerns with "Lincoln" was the soft-pedaling of tobacco.  "Django Unchained" is set in the south, before the American Civil War, which was fought over the issue of slavery.  Tarantino is okay with writing this film with frank language, language that would have been used without a second thought in that place and that time.  If you, as a viewer are not okay with that, then don't go see the movie.  Understand that this is going to be an uncomfortable three hours, and it's better for you to stay at home than to ask filmmakers to bowdlerize material so that it's a lumpy, tasteless bowl of oatmeal for you to consume with no pesky flavors or aftertaste to worry about.

"Django Unchained" goes by fast, has memorable and spectacular scenes, and concludes excellently.  I fully understand if this isn't your cup of tea, but you've got to understand that Quentin Tarantino has been making movies for a couple of decades now, and probably doesn't give a flying fuck if you like what he does or not. That's one of the things that makes his films so interesting; he's making movies for himself, primarily.  If he's got a taste for genre trash, he's also got the ability to turn it into something that no one else can.  "Django" is more evidence for that case.

4.5 / 5 - Theatre