User Score
8.5

Universal acclaim- based on 1668 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 25, 2012
    4
    I loved "Inglourios Basterds", but I have to say, this movie was so...predictable. This is the first Tarantino film where his formula becomes obvious, and unfortunately, it's not to his credit. There were very few surprises, the humor was weaker than usual, and yeah, the soundtrack was fun, but also kind of obnoxious. What was lacking was the sheer creativity I've come to expect from QT.I loved "Inglourios Basterds", but I have to say, this movie was so...predictable. This is the first Tarantino film where his formula becomes obvious, and unfortunately, it's not to his credit. There were very few surprises, the humor was weaker than usual, and yeah, the soundtrack was fun, but also kind of obnoxious. What was lacking was the sheer creativity I've come to expect from QT.
    Also, it must be said, Jaimie Foxx just doesn't cut it -- his was the least interesting character in a movie named after him.
    By no means was this awful -- the cinematography was gorgeous, the setting was intriguing, and the historical sweep was fun. But wtf is up with having to say the cinematography was good after a QT film! That's not why anyone is supposed to like this. Overall: weak sauce.
    Expand
  2. Jan 4, 2013
    6
    Inglourios was much better. Where to begin...parts of Django were good. Leonardo, Jamie, and without a doubt Christoph Waltz. Django was, toooo long. Easily could have done without 30 minutes of it and it would have been better. I found myself bored. I'd rent it so you can take a break midway :)
  3. Apr 20, 2013
    5
    I was once a real Tarantino fan. He reinvented old style movies and it
    was fun and well made. Problem is, that's all he can do (or is wanting
    to show). His movies got weaker and weaker and even fans could only reply to critic with "It is intentionally bad! It just makes fun of old movies." Same with this one. Most funny thing her is, that very young people are talking like this.
    I was once a real Tarantino fan. He reinvented old style movies and it
    was fun and well made. Problem is, that's all he can do (or is wanting
    to show). His movies got weaker and weaker and even fans could only
    reply to critic with "It is intentionally bad! It just makes fun of old
    movies."

    Same with this one. Most funny thing her is, that very young people are
    talking like this. People that never have seen an Italian western
    before but now defend this movie as an obeisance, a critical
    examination or an ironic view. It feels just like Tarantino has thrown
    some episodes together and found no way to combine them. Acting is
    really bad (yes yes, it's for sure intentionally bad like everything in
    this movie) except of Jamie Foxx and Leonardo Di Caprio and. Which is
    kind of funny, because normally I can't stand him and like Christoph
    Waltz. But Waltz' character was most times completely overacted like in
    some school play. Tarantions own small role stood out in relation to
    the rest: like a completely talent less actor. Man, do I miss the
    Tarantino of "From Dusk till Dawn" or "Pulp Fiction"...

    So: Story is a mess, acting is crap... what is there else to say? Well.
    The music score is a mixture of cinematic themes, pop music and hip
    hop. Does not fit as good as anywhere in the movie. Cutting was a mess
    too. Some cuts where extremely hard and just done badly.

    Only cam was quite good, there were some really nice pictures. And the
    overall theme of slavery and how everyone took their side in this dark
    times (yes, even the white "missus" did take their role of shame) let
    me give a 6.

    This movie is neither a obeisance to the old Italien western nor is it
    a critical examination nor an ironic view. It's just took some elements
    and mixed them up quite bad. If it really was intentional it does not
    make a better movie. It's like making a gross hamburger to make fun of
    fast food and then expecting people to eat it with pleasure. Which will
    be done by all the Tarantino fans out there. No matter how bad their
    idol cooks, how bad the burger tastes or how messy it looks: they will
    love it because it's made by their idol. For the rest of us: good there
    are much better restaurants our there. Including the old traditional
    Italian Pizzeria where you can get a real "Django" if you want to.
    Without any erupting blood fountains, they are nowhere to be seen in
    this movie from 1966.
    Expand
  4. Jan 8, 2013
    6
    Tarantino displayed little, if any restraint at all while filming this movie. It is ridiculously long and at times it is way over done. Some of the action scenes are overly obnoxious and some of the other scenes are of such a serious and delicate matter (brutal slave scenes) to tamper with. The outstanding performances by Dicaprio and Cristoph Waltz help keep this movie so entertaining.
  5. Dec 29, 2012
    6
    Q.T. has made a career of taking a genre and spoofing it by upping the volume and violence and placing tongue firmly in cheek. In this latest one the tongue is placed in a nether cheek. The older I get the less humor I find in his work and it is replaced more by "ludicrous." So why go? Grand-sons must be catered too and I found he got the humor in the violence and badinage to carry onQ.T. has made a career of taking a genre and spoofing it by upping the volume and violence and placing tongue firmly in cheek. In this latest one the tongue is placed in a nether cheek. The older I get the less humor I find in his work and it is replaced more by "ludicrous." So why go? Grand-sons must be catered too and I found he got the humor in the violence and badinage to carry on Q.T.'s reign as king of Pulp. I do wonder how this will play in the deep south and the inner city. Expand
  6. Jan 9, 2013
    6
    A Cool Western Spaghetti rather than saying classic western.Tarantino's trademark are much less except for the bloody mash.Even one could doubt if it is a tarantino flick(until you see his cameo somewhere at the end) .The Characters,especially the one played by christoph waltz tends to be intriguing but doesn't match up with the film.Leonardo DiCaprio occupies less space but a powerfulA Cool Western Spaghetti rather than saying classic western.Tarantino's trademark are much less except for the bloody mash.Even one could doubt if it is a tarantino flick(until you see his cameo somewhere at the end) .The Characters,especially the one played by christoph waltz tends to be intriguing but doesn't match up with the film.Leonardo DiCaprio occupies less space but a powerful one.No wonder if the title character doesn't get any award nominations.All i can say is the film is more lengthy and less creative.And yes..it is behind death proof.I can give Death proof 8 rating.As a fan i received some kind of disappointment. Expand
  7. Mar 29, 2013
    5
    The violence in this film is really over the top, but that is not unusual for a Quentin Tarantino movie. What you are watching when you see Django is a sick mind at work, not very different from watching Inglorious Bastards. The film is also much too long. Cutting out the gore would probably shorten it by an hour.
  8. Jan 14, 2013
    6
    Certainly not for the squeamish, Django Unchained was a bloody good time. Tarantino paints a violent and slightly farcical (though, not offensive) portrait of slavery in his new film. Riddled with sensational action sequences and ripe comedic dialogue this film proved to be a good time, for the most part. Tarantino's trademark dialogue allowed his cast to give some memorable performances.Certainly not for the squeamish, Django Unchained was a bloody good time. Tarantino paints a violent and slightly farcical (though, not offensive) portrait of slavery in his new film. Riddled with sensational action sequences and ripe comedic dialogue this film proved to be a good time, for the most part. Tarantino's trademark dialogue allowed his cast to give some memorable performances. The two performances towering over all, was Leonardo DiCaprio as the evil, yet charismatic slave owner, Calvin Candie; and Samuel L. Jackson as his black hating, black servant, Steven. The movie, which greatly lagged in its first half, really picked up steam when these two entered the picture. Though it was ravishingly entertaining there wasn't really much to enjoy beyond the violent and stylized surface. Unlike his previous work, I found this one far more self indulgent and it was hard to take some of its more dense moments seriously, given the overload of pastiche. Along with its staggering runtime, the film lacked some structural ingenuity; often proving to be long winded and excessive. Everything on the surface was gorgeous though, thanks to the well crafted production elements and Robert Richardson awesome cinematography. I may call this one of Tarantino's weaker efforts, if not weakest; but he still maintains his record of always delivering a good movie. Expand
  9. Dec 31, 2012
    4
    It actually has a story line for about half the movie, then it becomes an unbelievable "shoot-em-up". If you don't mind the "gansta rap", the unnecessary filthy language, and the almost silly violence scenes, then go see it. Tarantino has such a gift for movie making, and yet, it seem he feels an obligation to take the violence "over the top".
  10. Jan 22, 2013
    5
    As always with Tarantino the characters are excellent but everything else is average at best. DiCaprio and Waltz steal the show with stellar performances while Jamie Foxx is just...Jamie Foxx (they could have copied & pasted his performance from Miami Vice/Collateral/any film but Ray) and Tarantino surprise, surprise puts in a painful turn as an Australian (?) Slave trader/transporter. TheAs always with Tarantino the characters are excellent but everything else is average at best. DiCaprio and Waltz steal the show with stellar performances while Jamie Foxx is just...Jamie Foxx (they could have copied & pasted his performance from Miami Vice/Collateral/any film but Ray) and Tarantino surprise, surprise puts in a painful turn as an Australian (?) Slave trader/transporter. The film as a slow (at times tedious) first half followed by a fast pace second half filled with comical action set pieces. All in all, its worth a watch for Leo & Christoph but don't expect to have your mind blown. Expand
  11. Dec 26, 2012
    4
    I dearly love Tarantino. I love Inglourious Basterds (and Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir Dogs, and I'd give all his other films, including Death Proof, at least an 8). But I found this one really disappointing. The key element missing for me was quality QT dialogue. There are very few memorable conversations in this. Whereas Pulp Fiction/Inglourious Basterds, two of my favorite movies of allI dearly love Tarantino. I love Inglourious Basterds (and Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir Dogs, and I'd give all his other films, including Death Proof, at least an 8). But I found this one really disappointing. The key element missing for me was quality QT dialogue. There are very few memorable conversations in this. Whereas Pulp Fiction/Inglourious Basterds, two of my favorite movies of all time, were full of brilliant oddball unconventional wisdom and clever turns of phrase, I can't remember a single good line from Django, and I just saw it an hour ago. Much of the humor is hackneyed, much of the attempts at insight are banal.

    Furthermore the weak dialogue caused me not to care about the characters, and the climactic scene is troublingly forced and unemotional. Really hoping this is just a blip for QT and not a harbinger of his subsequent work.
    Expand
  12. Dec 29, 2012
    5
    Quentin Tarantino's new film is exuberantly violent, campy, and largely over-theatrical. The story leans to a whimsy, uneventful wee thing - but the performances are colorfully well conveyed, most particularly to the supporting key roles of Leonardo DeCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson.
  13. Jan 3, 2013
    4
    As I was expecting from Tarantino, movie was stuffed with much of a violence and beautiful expressive scenes . The story seemed intriguing at the beginning, but soon became too primitive, one-minded, good-guy-VS-bad-guy predictable fantasy-land. In a way it generates audience hate emotions and tension from the struggle scenes, similar to Quentin's "Inglourious Basterds." Even though thisAs I was expecting from Tarantino, movie was stuffed with much of a violence and beautiful expressive scenes . The story seemed intriguing at the beginning, but soon became too primitive, one-minded, good-guy-VS-bad-guy predictable fantasy-land. In a way it generates audience hate emotions and tension from the struggle scenes, similar to Quentin's "Inglourious Basterds." Even though this movie was neatly shot and acting was quiet good, I found cinema hours long and boring. It reminded me another simple-minded movie "Obsessed" (Starring Beyonce) Expand
  14. Jan 13, 2013
    6
    Django Unchained is nowhere near as good as it is advertised and it sadly really disappointing. It features some of the best performances of the year and it is really funny. Some of the scenes;however, lag, drag, and are too long and conversational to make me interested. This is a good film, but it certainly is one of the more disappointing movies of the year for me. I give this film 65%.
  15. Jan 27, 2013
    6
    Django Unchained was a little bit disappointing and that occurs because we do not see the same dynamic of others movies of Tarantino. The film starts with the typical irony and disguise cruelty of Dr. Schultz a dentist bounty hunter who makes a pact with Django, and they start looking for vengeance. As the story develops we see that the doctor does whatever he wants in order to accomplishDjango Unchained was a little bit disappointing and that occurs because we do not see the same dynamic of others movies of Tarantino. The film starts with the typical irony and disguise cruelty of Dr. Schultz a dentist bounty hunter who makes a pact with Django, and they start looking for vengeance. As the story develops we see that the doctor does whatever he wants in order to accomplish his missions, with the help of the protagonist, who suddenly is an expert with guns. Then they get to Candie land and at dinner the movie becomes simply foolish rubbish. In this point starts a pointless vengeance, with lots of gun shots that miraculously cannot harm Django. Then the plot becomes senseless, the protagonist goes almost to everyplace and kills everybody. Besides that are other things in this picture that went wrong, like the character of Django, who is a complete failure as protagonist, is not clever at all, without possibility of comparing him to Vincent, Jules, Beatrix or even Shosanna. Also the film does not have an intelligent dialogue like the bible passage of Pulp Fiction, the superman monologue of Kill Bill or the rats metaphor of Inglourious Basterds. Although the minimalism of Tarantino remains in the story, it is poorly developed. However the timeless and fragmented reality does not exists, and a clear example is that the story is not told with chapters. The only astonishing performance is Christoph Waltz. The script is awesome only in the first part and the final third is an insult to what this director represents. Tarantino definitely is in debt. Expand
  16. Jan 4, 2013
    4
    While I was extremely excited to see Tarantino's take on a Spaghetti Western Slave Revenge story, the results were mixed. It wasn't what any of us expected.

    The first sequences was humorous, but failed to capture Tarantino's aim at creating tension - a theme that would plague the film for much of its nearly three hour gargantuan running time. When the dialogue crackled, his intentional
    While I was extremely excited to see Tarantino's take on a Spaghetti Western Slave Revenge story, the results were mixed. It wasn't what any of us expected.

    The first sequences was humorous, but failed to capture Tarantino's aim at creating tension - a theme that would plague the film for much of its nearly three hour gargantuan running time. When the dialogue crackled, his intentional quick zooms dampened the mood. When the action was sharp, his intention to add humor ruined the shock value.

    Where characters and dialogue are usually his strong point, Tarantino instead seemed to be going for laughs by using the N word in every possible way. Amusing for awhile, but it wore off at the 2/3 mark.

    The film couldn't have been cast better - From Waltz and Foxx through every antagonist and bit part - special marks for Don Johnson who was both a charming southern gentlemen and an angry racist in every other sentence. Di Caprio nailed his role, which in a movie of overacting, seemed to be nuanced in the best ways possible.

    A day later, I still don't know if Samuel L Jackson stole the show or ruined it. His performance was uneven, but carried the 3rd act.

    If Tarantino continues to make his brand of genre pics, I will watch them, as he clearly enjoys making movies as much as we like watching them. But he's a victim of Inglorious' critical success, as a good 25-30 minutes could have been cut out of this film and made it even stronger.
    Expand
  17. Feb 4, 2013
    4
    To me this is Tarantino's weakest effort yet. The film is funny at times, but does not manage to sustain interest throughout. It lasts for almost 3(!) hours, which is far too long with a plot as thin as this.
  18. Dec 26, 2012
    5
    I always have mixed feelings about Tarantino movies as his view of the world just feels too negative and/or snarky to be one in which I want to live but Wow can the man use a camera. Having said that, I did enjoy Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. Django doesn't equal those films. He has simply gone a bridge too far with the blood and vengeance while twisting his characters into caricatures.I always have mixed feelings about Tarantino movies as his view of the world just feels too negative and/or snarky to be one in which I want to live but Wow can the man use a camera. Having said that, I did enjoy Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. Django doesn't equal those films. He has simply gone a bridge too far with the blood and vengeance while twisting his characters into caricatures. There are exciting acting and visual moments, but they probably aren't worth the popcorn unless splashing blood and torture really does it for you. Expand
  19. Jan 5, 2013
    4
    The first act of this movie was great. I loved the two main characters and the point the film. I wanted to see where Tarintino would go with this. It was graphic, it was funny, and an all around good time. Heck there was a funny KKK scene with Jonah Hill. Second act started to bother me a bit but I was ok with it. However, the third act was where sh*t hit the fan. The tone drasticallyThe first act of this movie was great. I loved the two main characters and the point the film. I wanted to see where Tarintino would go with this. It was graphic, it was funny, and an all around good time. Heck there was a funny KKK scene with Jonah Hill. Second act started to bother me a bit but I was ok with it. However, the third act was where sh*t hit the fan. The tone drastically changes. Characters just do thigns and their motivatiosn are never explained to us. Tarintino just assumes the audience will figure out. The problem with Django is not how it starts its that what I liked about the movie in the first act is absent for the other 2/3rds. Combine that with pointless gore and dumb character actions and you have a mess of a flick. I want to like this film because it has some good stuff in it; but the problems with the story and the absence of the first act Expand
  20. Jan 18, 2013
    4
    SPOILERS!!! It's fun the first half hour: Django and the Dr. meet and kill the 3 brothers. After that, it's a long and boring movie with two violence scenes so extreme that made me ill. It's overly long, Cristoph Waltz plays the same character (now good) from Inglorious Basterds, though it's the only thing that's worth paying attention to after the initial 30 minutes. After he dies, theSPOILERS!!! It's fun the first half hour: Django and the Dr. meet and kill the 3 brothers. After that, it's a long and boring movie with two violence scenes so extreme that made me ill. It's overly long, Cristoph Waltz plays the same character (now good) from Inglorious Basterds, though it's the only thing that's worth paying attention to after the initial 30 minutes. After he dies, the movie looses any positive aspects. I forget to mention Samuel Jackson's character, which is very entertaining, especially at the last scene. But overall, I never want to see this again. Expand
  21. Feb 17, 2013
    6
    Waltz, as always, is amazing and Foxx is solid as well. DiCaprio is a solid villain as well. While it is an enjoyable movie, It is far too long (nearly 3 hours). It did get to the point where I simply felt I was grinding out the movie instead of enjoying it. I think it would have been more enjoyable if it was shorter. Aside from that, It was a solid movie.
  22. Jan 10, 2013
    4
    More palatable than most of Tanantino's works. He's extremely overrated- the only film of his that I really enjoyed was "Jackie Browne." His love of the tacky B-movie genre is thin camouflage for a distubingly deep, annoyingly chatty sadism.
  23. Jan 20, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If your a fan of pie in your face humour, that slapstick comedy which any clown can laugh at. While also being an avid fan of spatter/splatter, then I am sure your one of those who praise this film as one of the all time Q greats. Unfortunately the dialogue must have won the Guinness World Record for how many times the N word was used throughout its duration, being more so then any other single word in the entire film almost more than all other words combined. Its rhetoric contained lessons in etiquette from a polite German bounty hunter, or Broomhilda (Brunhild) the naked viking, but lets actually suppose you have those submissive dimples and will lap this film up for what it is. There also were quite bad holes in its plot purposefully because of that pie in your face. Lets suppose an apprentice sniper has night vision on his rifle. A bounty hunter kills a father in front of his son at long range effectively undoing the entire message of this film because a sketch artist has identified him without the visual aid of his freed man. After killing Candy would they let that man walk out of there to do it all again? I'm sure those six shooters needed that much blood flying in your face from them, making a cannon look bad. I.B had plots within plots, this however was 3 whole hours of the same thing repeated again and again. While missing much of the beauty of a western from it's locations. Sure it was grindhouse/exploitation but each character was to damn comical and cheesy almost losing there effect. Most of the time those actors looked like they were going to burst out laughing from each of their expressions and dialogue. Probably expect to a sequel, at the very least expect a generation of Django's it has begun........ Expand
  24. Jan 15, 2013
    5
    This is not my favorite film by Tarantino and frankly, I know he could have done better. Jamie Foxx gave an OK performance while Christoph Waltz stole the show.

    It was campy, uber-violent (but not in the usual Tarantino style) and far too long. Additionally, DiCaprio did not have enough screen time and his character, though short-lived, was funny and entertaining. Wish he would have
    This is not my favorite film by Tarantino and frankly, I know he could have done better. Jamie Foxx gave an OK performance while Christoph Waltz stole the show.

    It was campy, uber-violent (but not in the usual Tarantino style) and far too long.

    Additionally, DiCaprio did not have enough screen time and his character, though short-lived, was funny and entertaining. Wish he would have been a more integral part of the plot.

    Overall, the movie was highly predictable on all counts, it's worth seeing if you want cheap entertainment, but if you have liked Tarantino in the past, prepare for disappointment.
    Expand
  25. Feb 23, 2013
    4
    Skip this bloated turd and do your self a favor: watch the amazing 1966 Django. The days of Quentin Tarantino being cool as a film maker are way over. He needs to be the new Siskel Ebert, that would be awesome.
  26. May 27, 2013
    4
    Sort of a mix between Inglorious Basterds and Kill Bill 1, with the worst aspects of both. It's overlong as with IB, and filled with silly action set pieces as in KB. Very stylish, pretty short on anything else. Leo steals the show; you can't buy any of the other characters or their motivations. People will try to tell you it's a homage to blaxploitation movies or brilliant satire cloakedSort of a mix between Inglorious Basterds and Kill Bill 1, with the worst aspects of both. It's overlong as with IB, and filled with silly action set pieces as in KB. Very stylish, pretty short on anything else. Leo steals the show; you can't buy any of the other characters or their motivations. People will try to tell you it's a homage to blaxploitation movies or brilliant satire cloaked in b-grade trapping, or any of the normal stuff people say about Tarantino movies. The truth is, it's just a silly movie that lacks the wit of his earliest films. Expand
  27. Dec 5, 2013
    6
    There were a lot of things about this movie that I liked. The things that I didn't like, bothered me.... 1) There are an uncomfortable amount of far-fetched moments, in which characters seem to act against their nature in order to serve the plot better. 2) Tarantino's cameo is extremely awkward he may as we'll have been on screen wearing a beret and sitting in a director's chair. 3) I'llThere were a lot of things about this movie that I liked. The things that I didn't like, bothered me.... 1) There are an uncomfortable amount of far-fetched moments, in which characters seem to act against their nature in order to serve the plot better. 2) Tarantino's cameo is extremely awkward he may as we'll have been on screen wearing a beret and sitting in a director's chair. 3) I'll never agree with the use of modern music in period movies. Are electric guitars and hip-hop necessary in a cowboy movie?
    I think Quentin Tarantino is (maybe was) a great director. I just wish he'd stop making semi-serious, semi-goofball REVENGE flicks a la Kill Bill, Kill Bill Vol. II, Inglorious Basterds, and Django Unchained. That's four, and I believe he's threatened to make another Kill Bill! It's now a great number of years since Tarantino has shown any real range as a filmmaker. He obviously has the talent and imagination to make a serious movie for a change, and he really should.
    Expand
  28. Apr 20, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This was a very entertaining movie throughout. Lot's of violence, but it's a Tarantino flick, you know what you sign up for when watching. Jamie Foxx was very good. He has the charisma and cojones to make you actually believe he could pull off this legend. Overall, however, the movie was very predictable in Tarantino style. It felt like, oh, I already saw this in Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs, and Inglorious Basterds. It was like a mashup of those movies done over the top with slavery thrown in for extra shock and story value. I was entertained, don't get me wrong, but I wish he did something more original with the movie instead of rehashing old ground. The end scene, also, was horrendously cheesy. I know it was an "Homage" but crikey, that was out of place and bad. Save the western ride off into the sunset worship and make a cut with a worthy ending that befits Jamie Foxx's stellar character performance throughout! It's like QT just stripped all of Jamie's charismatic character and the castration that never happened before in the film somehow managed to occur just before he makes his horse dance in a ridiculous forced tribute scene to appease the director's misguided fantasy ending. Expand
  29. Apr 23, 2013
    5
    What's the excellent revenge, anger ,justice ,and blood What's new .The same old story. The same old acting Just a fairy tale. No imagine ,no case. Lets someone tell me, what's the new element of this movie?
  30. Jun 14, 2013
    6
    This movie has moments but does not do it. I thought Waltz, Foxx, and Dicaprio did great work but the script was thin and the plot was not done correctly. To be honest the violence and Language is way to much. This film almost felt like a parody and with this type of talent it should not happen. I was expecting a Red Dead Redemption which I thought was extremely well done as a story.

    Okay movie
  31. Jan 17, 2013
    6
    Well, as expected, it exploits the Southern American history in the most abusive, offensive and disrespectful way: by creating entertainment and amusement out of it! But, considering the history of American film production that doesn't come as a surprise to me. Just think of the grand Schindler's List! Other than that, the film is classic Tarantino and as disrespectful as might sound IWell, as expected, it exploits the Southern American history in the most abusive, offensive and disrespectful way: by creating entertainment and amusement out of it! But, considering the history of American film production that doesn't come as a surprise to me. Just think of the grand Schindler's List! Other than that, the film is classic Tarantino and as disrespectful as might sound I really enjoyed it (blushing)! Expand
  32. Jul 14, 2013
    5
    I went into this film really wanting to like it, and it does pain me to say it but I was slightly bored...and when I find myself having an internal debate about what I'm going to have for dinner that evening during a film, I have to admit that it wasn't a particularly captivating experience. The plot was good, but I didn't feel it really stood up to the challenge of providing somethingI went into this film really wanting to like it, and it does pain me to say it but I was slightly bored...and when I find myself having an internal debate about what I'm going to have for dinner that evening during a film, I have to admit that it wasn't a particularly captivating experience. The plot was good, but I didn't feel it really stood up to the challenge of providing something entertaining for a time slot that matches Lord of the Rings. The characters were great but I didn't come out of the film thinking 'oh my god that was amazing' by any stretch of the measure. It was alright. Considering what the film is actually about I personally felt compelled to like it, and not in a good way but in a 'well, if you don't like this film you clearly don't understand the concept' sort of way, which I never appreciate. Probably worth a watch so you're not too left out of any conversation regarding films but yeah, maybe bring a Sudoku along or something to pass time in the 'oh look, another shoot em up' scenes. Expand
  33. Feb 15, 2013
    5
    An unapologetic Quentin Tarantino filmed themed around revenge and retribution. "Django Unchained" is about the ruthless emancipation of a taunted slave. Though I saw no profound point to the film, Django's gradual development as an unchained monster was quite entertaining. The title of the film is absolutely on-point. Notice how the title is not "Django Freed"....a more beastly adjectiveAn unapologetic Quentin Tarantino filmed themed around revenge and retribution. "Django Unchained" is about the ruthless emancipation of a taunted slave. Though I saw no profound point to the film, Django's gradual development as an unchained monster was quite entertaining. The title of the film is absolutely on-point. Notice how the title is not "Django Freed"....a more beastly adjective was supplemented instead. Memorable quote (paraphrased): "Don't go overboard with the retribution, Django." Dr. King Shultz

    Oscar worthy? Debatable.
    Expand
  34. Feb 14, 2013
    6
    wasnt really planning on watching this after sitting thru truely atrocious inglorious bastards, but didn't mind this one so much, the movie kicks off with classic tarantino cheesy dialogue filled set pieces. the latter scenes splash a in good wack of spaghetti western charm. its corny fare, but not hard to watch, and a slight improvement on tarantino's recent outings
  35. Jaz
    Mar 11, 2013
    6
    Very interesting characters, good acting, some very nice scenes but an average movie as a whole. Still, you have a good time in the theater and that's it.
  36. Mar 11, 2013
    5
    I think that people tend to give into the hype of a movie just because of who the director is. I thought it was a decent movie, but it has a low of flaws. My biggest problem with it is that for a film that's supposed to be about fighting for love, it seemed to be pretty absent as a theme. Also, it's supposed to be a sad story, but it turns into some sort of farce halfway through. I leftI think that people tend to give into the hype of a movie just because of who the director is. I thought it was a decent movie, but it has a low of flaws. My biggest problem with it is that for a film that's supposed to be about fighting for love, it seemed to be pretty absent as a theme. Also, it's supposed to be a sad story, but it turns into some sort of farce halfway through. I left entertained, but confused. Expand
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 42
  2. Negative: 0 out of 42
  1. Reviewed by: Dan Jolin
    Jan 15, 2013
    80
    Another strong, sparky and bloody entry in the QT canon. Although, creaking under its running time, it's not quite as uproariously entertaining as his last pseudo-historical adventure, "Inglourious Basterds."
  2. Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    Jan 8, 2013
    100
    What Tarantino has is an appreciation for gut-level exploitation film appeal, combined with an artist's desire to transform that gut element with something higher, better, more daring. His films challenge taboos in our society in the most direct possible way, and at the same time add an element of parody or satire.
  3. Reviewed by: Joe Morgenstern
    Jan 3, 2013
    100
    The film doesn't play it safe, so neither will I. Instead, I'll say that it finds Mr. Tarantino perched improbably but securely on the top of a production that's wildly extravagant, ferociously violent, ludicrously lurid and outrageously entertaining, yet also, remarkably, very much about the pernicious lunacy of racism and, yes, slavery's singular horrors.