User Score
8.5

Universal acclaim- based on 1418 Ratings

User score distribution:

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 27, 2012
    1
    This movie is one of the most boring, predictable, insidious and "inglorious" western of the last 10 years, and of course, to my criteria, the worst of Tarantino. I don't know what him was thinking (maybe mind-off), when directed this film.
  2. Dec 27, 2012
    3
    Too much use of the N word in this movie. Believe it or not people back then did have a vocabulary of more than 12 words. Also not every sentence began and ended with the N word like it does today in the rap music business. The shootout with James Brown in the background took me out of the moment in this supposed western.
  3. Dec 26, 2012
    0
    Poorly executed and predictable film. I can't say I like the idea of a spaghetti western that this film portrayed. They never even had slavery in the west. Overblown and over-dramatic.
  4. 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 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
  5. Dec 25, 2012
    1
    The thrill is gone. Tarantino leapt to center stage of American film making with Reservoir Dogs and cemented his reputation with Pulp Fiction, but it's time to face facts; sometimes there's two flashes in the pan before it's over. Tarantino, like Coppola, Cameron and Lucas, has lost his creative edge. Viewing a Tarantino film, one must expect violence by the ton and language that would make David Mamet wince. But, unlike the grievously over-rated Mamet, one also expects Tarantino's wit. The only humor here is a rip on Blazing Saddles with the overused racial epithet. I'm not a fool. I'm not expecting this review will stop anyone from wasting their money on this thing. I'm not expecting anyone to wake up to Tarantino's failings because I point them out. The NYC film critics love him as do the majority of those posting on this site. But, personally, I think you should wait to rent this thing or, better yet, pass it up entirely. Expand
  6. 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.
    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
  7. Dec 25, 2012
    1
    If you like Kill Bill you will like this movie. That being said, I liken Taratino's filmmaking to a teacher preparing lesson plans for the slow reader group. This movie has the most base elements and is stock full of his trademark violence. Maybe, I'm the dim bulb but I just don't get this film. Angry black man taking his revenge on the tyrannical white establishment. Beyond that there isn't anything else in the film. It seems to be one long excuse to spew racial epithets, over and over and over and over. The film lacks any real depth and most of its appeal will be to the type of people that watch police chase videos or scan YouTube for someone getting kicked in the groin. If you have a couple of IQ points you can spare, then by all means burn some brain cells watching this entirely uninteresting flop. Enjoy! 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.