'Django Unchained' Takes You On An Average Ride

Have you ever seen the episode of The Boondocks” entitled “The Story Of Catcher Freeman” where various characters in the series all tell very different versions of the story of a legendary ex-slave named Catcher Freeman? Well, if you have, you already know all there is to know about “Django Unchained.” It's pretty much the perfect summary and/or parody in a lot less time. After all, the real question here is not whether the movie is good, because we've long since learned you're either going to love a Quentin Tarantino movie or hate it. He makes few concessions to those who do not find his movies to their taste. So the question becomes whether Tarantino can do the same thing for African-Americans that he did for Jews in “Inglourious Basterds.” He cannot or does not.

“Django Unchained” begins in Texas in 1858, a few years before the Civil War. We meet Django (Jamie Foxx) in chains, trudging across the vast empty desert to his next owner. But everything changes when he meets Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Schultz is a bounty hunter who wants to track down his bounty. Django knows the men he's looking for. So Schultz frees him and makes him a bargain: if Django assists Schultz, he will help him find his wife Broomhilda, played by a nearly silent Kerry Washington.

What starts as an enjoyable ride quickly passes. Ever since Tarantino came onto the scene, a slew of imitators arrived who tried to mimic his signature style and failed miserably. This feels something like one of the better ones. In “Inglourious Basterds” the dialogue itself was as brutal and fascinating as the bullets that would constantly fly, spoken by a veritable treasure trove of characters. But the dialogue here doesn't wow, it's something that another very competent screenwriter could write.

Most of the characters are good, but not great. Schultz is one of the more interesting ones. He's a German immigrant with a hilarious name who finds slavery as foreign as Django finds freedom. What many even well-meaning Americans would find strange or repellent Schultz takes for granted, such as allowing Django to ride a horse, select his own clothes, and speaking to him like a fellow human being. And before Django can become the legend, he has to grow the confidence that his newfound freedom and profession gives him.

If only the other characters were as fascinating. Another Tarantino trademark is his great female roles, but there's not a one to be found here. Part of the reason Schultz assists Django is the fact that Brumhilda is named after a heroine in a popular German fairy tale and can speak a little German, since the family that once owned her was from Germany. But that's pretty much all there is to her. Things about Brumhilda are interesting. She is not. She's mainly there to be the helpless love interest and show how great the hero is.

And then there's the villain, Calvin Candie, played by Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio is a rare type, an insanely talented and good-looking actor who hasn't allowed himself to fall into the pretty trap of romantic comedies and other dull, forgettable fare (shall we call it the Matthew McConaughey Malady?). He plays Candie perfectly, but we are now familiar with the villain whose civilized veneer is a sharp contrast to his quite uncivilized behavior. And there is brutality aplenty in Candieland, whose deceptively beautiful and exquisitely maintained grounds hide the horror show within.

But the more fascinating and clever villian is not Candie, but rather his right hand man, Stephen, (bizarrely yet perfectly played by Samuel L. Jackson, believe it or not) the head house slave, who seeming age, infirmity, and twisted subservience to his white masters masks his shrewdness and keen intellect.

The problem with “Django Unchained” is not that it is bad per se. It's that I've seen all this before, and “Django Unchained” isn't showing me anything new, or something old in a new way. And even the violence is rather unsatisfying, since its excuse is meager even by action movie standards. It's triggered by a selfish, foolish action, which means that its horrific consequences could have been very easily avoided.

Not only that, it even briefly examines the morality of what they do, when Django and Schultz shoot a former criminal who has since become a farmer, in front of his son no less. However, that's about as much morality as you get; the death is shown from a distance without getting in closer to see the full consequences. It's an odd thing to see in a Tarantino film, since he's not known for morality discussions in his movies. (It's probably the only discussion his characters don't have.)

So after all that, what's left? Well, basically a rather average action movie, only with a lot better acting and better laughs, one of which involves Django and Schultz easily besting an incompetent would-be lynch mob. If your standards are no higher than that, prepare to enjoy the chase, explosions, and a former slave's bloody revenge against his former oppressors as he defies a society that still refuses to see as him as human.

Grade: C+