Category: Movie Reviews

They’ve got no bullets!

This film was a pleasant surprise for once. Not because of the action but because of the deeper meaning. The train is actually a metaphor of the present world in which we live. A life that goes forward in a swift tempo for many. The train is actually a reflection of a micro-economy with a precisely measured division in different classes. The poor dangling at the bottom of society are in the final wagon in appalling conditions. The wealthier take their place in front surrounded by opulence and luxury. In between is the middle class who can’t afford the excesses as the upper class,  but are still considerably better off than the lower class.

The entire film is set on the high-tech express train “Snowpiercer” designed by a Mr. Wilford. The train is ingenious. It contains an ecosystem to fabricate water from the broken ice where the train drills through and it’s actually a perpetual motion machine that moves on a global railway tens of thousands of kilometers long. This is because brilliant scientists came up with the bright idea to spray a substance in the atmosphere to get the global warming back to normal. This was a complete failure and turned the Earth into a huge popsicle and life became impossible here. Several thousands of people were lucky to get on board of this eternal moving train and wait patiently until life on earth would be possible again. Stopping the train is out of the question and who dares to go outside (My first question that came up was, “How ?” ) turns instantly into an stalactite (or stalagmite! Depends on how you end up outside)

There is a strict and repressive dictatorial regime to ensure that this society stays in balance. There is an underhand co-operation between the front and rear of the train. In this way milestones are staged to keep the growth of the population under control and the less fortunate retain a glimmer of hope to unyoke themselves.The only contact those poor souls have with the other part is when there is a food distributions composed of block-shaped jelly-like substances. Riots are immediately nipped in the bud and are usually followed with a flaming speech by Mason (played by Tilda Swinton beautifully) who has a sickly adoration and idolization for Wilford. She is a kind of “Effie Trinket” from “The Hunger Games”, only uglier. The final message is that they should be eternally grateful and are privileged to be on board. ” Know your position, keep your position, be the shoe .” That’s the ultimate message. The shoe is used as a metaphor to indicate that they belong at the bottom of the hierarchy and have to stay there.

This post-apocalyptic SF was extremely entertaining up to the time they reach the water treatment plant. Till then it was a very gloomy picture. A picture we have repeatedly witnessed in our history. From slavery in the southern states of America to Mao Tse-tung. A story of oppression and slavery. The images of ragged people queuing for their proteins and living without daylight in the last wagons. The build up to the revolution and the ultimate breakthrough are successfully displayed. The revolution is led by Curtis, a leader in the making who has a rather dubious past on this train and leads his troops forward on the way to the engine. For who owns the locomotive, is God ! Along the way they release Namgoong Minsu and his daughter Yona. This prisoner who is addicted to “Kronol” seems to be a security specialist and should be able to open all electronically sealed doors. The moment the door opens to a next wagon and they are facing an army of SM-masters equipped with axes, is impressive. Even more impressive as the battle that follows. I ‘m pretty sure that Tarantino  spontaneously starts to drool when he sees this scene.

What follows is a hallucinatory impression. Compared with this the tour of Willy Wonka in his own factory means absolutely nothing. Successively we see a greenhouse where fresh tomatoes are grown ,an aquarium where manta rays swim around, a restaurant that serves sushi twice a year and a colorful classroom where a Maria von Trapp gives history lesson about the kingdom of Wilford. It looks sometimes like a Lynch movie where the screenwriter himself sniffed too much of “Kronol”. There were also times that I had a “Uh what !” reaction. Like when they were shooting with a futuristic looking gun at each other while the train made ​​a seemingly endless huge curve. And the reason why the partying and “Kronol” sniffing in fur coats dressed mass became a bunch of bloodthirsty zombies, was also a mystery to me. I also found it strange that the passengers couldn’t remember anything from their childhood or life on earth. And it ended with a shrewd reference to child labor.

The most positive supporting actor was John Hurt as the counselor of Curtis. Most negative contribution was Ed Harris in a Chinese robe. Totally unbelievable.

Conclusion: a sometimes confusing movie with a deep social critical message.

Share Button

I see only samurai before me.

After reading some reviews about “47 Ronin”, I expected a terrible Hollywood attempt to make a film about a Japanese legend. In the international press, the movie has been mercilessly, how appropriate, put to the sword. Some of the jargon on “Rotten Tomatoes” : cloddish, dour, tedious to watch, a funeral march, humorless as your junior high principal, as Japanese as a grocery-store California roll, Keanu Reeves looks as miserable and bored as the audience … “. And it goes on like this. The 13% score is in that case logical. It’s obvious that Keanu Reeves is seen as unsuitable for this role as a samurai.

Well then there is something wrong with, cause I didn’t really saw it that way. Personally, I have a feeling that this is just another exagerated hassle and rabble rousing in a negative way. “Gravity” was praised by the experts and overwhelmed with Oscar nominations (erroneously , except for the technical part of course). “47 Ronan ” in contrast gets the full load and then got slated.

On 3 February 1982, there appeared in the weekly magazine “Spirou ” a new comic hero, Kogaratsu, a samurai who became a ronin, made by Michetz . On the front page it said « Kogaratsu , a comic like you’ve never seen before … “. Since the 70s , I am an avid reader of this magazine, and have therefore read the first episodes with growing amazement. It was a totally different way of approaching a comic and I also devoured these stories . What was so unique about this comic besides the style ? That was the introduction to a unique Japan : the traditions and customs that surprises us western people, the loyalty, the honor, the calmness and serenity, the rituals, the mystical and magical atmosphere. All contained in this comic, and to be honest, I thought that was also present in “47 Ronin” .

This action-adventure film went on for two hours and was finished before I knew it. Kai (Reeves) is a half-breed, half-Japanese, half-British, which was found by Lord Asano in the woods. Asano took him under his wing. However, Kai was never fully respected and ostracized by the other samurai led by Oishi. One day their master Asano is sentenced to death by the shogun Tokugawa Tsunayoshi and the samurai are banished and became ronin. Kai is removed and sold as a slave. Eventually these samurai take revenge with the help of Kai for what was done to their master.







Keanu Reeves actually did a great job playing the role of Kai. He looks a bit Asian and he also has the right appearance. Reeves really has such an apathetic and emotionless facial expression. But most Japanese people also have that look, so he fits very well in between those other samurai. Besides, Tom Cruise already played such a part as samurai in “The Last Samurai”. And to be honest, I really think Cruise wasn’t suitable fo that. That the Japanese are speaking a flawed (although not as flawed as stated) stuttering English, didn’t bother me. You can enumerate many WWII movies where the Germans always speak English with a greasy dialect. Or even more recent in the movie “The Family”, where an entire village in France speaks flawless English. You can be certain this was a commercial decission to keep it English and ask Keanu for the title role.

The film has a variety of beautiful images of nature and the community where Kai resides. Smooth action and battle scenes with other samurai, mythical creatures and magical characters. And a lovely surrounding with lavish and colorful settings and costumes. Various times we are treated with stunning digital effects. The orange-colored monster with six eyes and an immensely dangerous swishing tail. The witch Mizuki who repeatedly changed form, moving around like a flapping garment and adorned with Medusa-like winding tresses. The most successful effect was the low hanging clouds which formed human figures. The test the samurai had to undergo in the forest Tengu was pretty exciting. The grand finale is the storming of the palace of Kira.

An underrated action movie mixed with elements of a fantasy. I was afraid that Reeves would look like a Japanese “Neo”, but it turned out better than I thought. A wonderfully successful film for me.

Share Button

In the glorious tradition of stoner comedies like “Pineapple Express” comes “Dr. 420!” This satiri look at the medical marijuana industry stars comic legend Lin Shaye (There’s Something About Mary, Dumb & Dumber, Kingpin, Insidious) in one of her most outrageous performances as an unhinged medical marijuana doctor with a thing for bodily fluids. “Dr. 420 also stars Sean Carlin, Zach Book, Jodi B. Wise, Naomi Grossman and Brandin Rackley. It was written and directed by Chuck Parello.


Share Button

Shootout at Wadala a- Bollywood action crime drama film written and directed by Sanjay Gupta has finally released. The movie stars John Abraham, Anil Kapoor, Tusshar Kapoor, Kangana Ranaut in the leads. So check out this exclusive review.



Directed by
Sanjay Gupta
Writing credits

(in alphabetical order)

Sanjay Bhatia screenplay
Abhijit Deshpande screenplay
Sanjay Gupta screenplay
Sanjay Gupta story
Hussain Zaidi story
Milap Zaveri dialogue


Cast (in alphabetical order)
John Abraham Manya Surve
Manoj Bajpayee Zubair Imtiaz Haskar (as Manoj Bajpai)
Sophiya Chaudhary Item (song)
Priyanka Chopra Babli
Chetan Hansraj Potya
Anil Kapoor ACP Afaaque Baagwan
Siddhant Kapoor Gyanchod
Tusshar Kapoor Sheik Munir
Akbar Khan
Raju Kher Arolkar
Sunny Leone Laila (song)
Mahesh Manjrekar Inspector Shinde
Karan Patel Jamal
Kangana Ranaut Vidya Joshi
Ranjeet Bhaskar Dada
Soni Razdan
Ronit Roy Inspector Raja Tambat
Vineet Sharma Bhargav Surve
Hussain Sheikh
Jackie Shroff Police Commisioner
Sonu Sood Dilawar Imtiaz Haskar
Arif Zakaria Sadiq
Share Button

Last Tango in Paris (1973)

Direcor: Bernardo Bertolucci

Metro Golden Myre (MGM)

Marlon Barndo, Maria Schneider

After humanity entered the condition called post-modernity where there is no certainty in human relationships, what man experiences today is a pure psychological rupture. The present turmoil in the life-world mostly insists individuals to embrace death as a mode of escapism. The emotional collapse in the personal lives, detachments, disappointments and the resulted depression and anxiety inevitably force us to go to certain extremes since the solution is not within our reach.  On the other hand, if someone desires a radical death today, it can be chosen in many different ways ranging from a traditional method of hanging or poisoning to an ‘aesthetic’ postmodern method of chemical injection of an anesthetic drug or even ecstasy oriented overdose. In this inhuman commoditization where anything is globally available in the open market to be purchased, a man can even hire (purchase) a woman to drive him to a systematic, prolonged and programmed death while consuming her body in the meantime completing forgetting the arriving death. He can follow the ‘pleasure principle’ in discovering the ‘impossible’ in her body or move from her to another to taste different physical contours.

If you need ‘hardcore pleasure’, you can go to an experienced and lethal prostitute, or if you need ‘tenderness’, you can fly to Thailand (or any other ‘unpolluted’ oriental country) and start a new life such as a living together.  For example, we can see some middle aged men in the advanced industrial nations come to countries such as Thailand or even Sri Lanka to spend the rest of their life in the above said manner.  Though the primary purpose of death is never communicated between the subjects , both partners know the unconscious desire that founds the tie. The best filmic example for this is Leaving Las Vegas where Ben knows that he is dying and there is no way back, while Anne gradually and unconsciously eases him from the burden of life on the pretence of saving him from alcoholism. She always asks Ben to stop drinking but does not do anything significant to decisively stop it. This can be called in Braudillardian way, ‘seduction’ where ‘the truth’ about why you relate to the other is permanently hidden. She subtly helps him to go through the remaining small span of life until his meeting of radical suicide.

The controversial 1973 drama Last Tango in Paris takes a similar turn with regard to the subject’s encounter of the unapologetic radical death. Their union (the un-meeting) takes the form of an absurdist, postmodern tragedy since the relationship is devoid of romantic courtly love (or communication based ‘understanding’ of each other). Paul meets Jeanne in an apartment after his wife’s departure (a suicide) and proceeds to an anonymous sexual encounter. In the intense sexual act in the apartment, they do not share any personal information about each other’s past, or at least their names. One day, Paul leaves the apartment for an unknown reason but later he reveals to Jeanne that he wants to renew the affair. It seems that Paul has met the Real, his fundamental fantasy about woman (a strong woman with wild sexual desires) through Jeanne and loses his symbolic identification (that is why they start the ‘no name game’) with the external reality (hence, similar to Leaving Las Vegas, death is what he is also desiring). Their rejection of identification with history leads us to believe that they are hysterics (According to Zizek, hysteria is the subject’s way of resisting the prevailing, historically specified form of interpellation or symbolic identification- For They Know not What They Do, p. 100-1). However, the best movie to illustrate the mobility from anonymous love to symbolic identification is The Sleeping Dictionary or The Silent American.

Then he meets her again on the street and reveals his past, and they eventually go to the Tango bar. Once the story (or the past) is revealed, Jeanne comes to know about the nature of the relationship and she is unable to continue the hysteric theatre with her anonymous ‘lover’ anymore. She shows symptoms of permanently unable to enter a symbolic relationship with somebody because such symbolic identification would threaten her ‘speculative identity’. Hence, she stresses that she does not want to see him anymore. But, by that time, Paul (by revealing his identity and past) has entered into a symbolic relationship (let’s say love) with her. May be, he too wanted to be anonymous during his traumatic stage of his wife’s death but through her body he has recovered from the shock and now needs to re-establish himself in the symbolic order. But this is not what Jeanne wants now. She wants to run away from him vehemently rejecting identification. So, a fundamental Zizekian mis-recognition can be evidenced here as in case between the Tramp and the flower girl in City Lights (she was expecting a handsome gentleman during her blindness but in reality it is the Tramp).  Paul cannot lose Jeanne now and tells that he loves her. He wants to know her name (symbolic universe).

She reveals ‘her name’ (identity) and then shoots him conveying the viewers that she is deadly and poisonous in her real existence. The final scene is almost theatrical as she rehearses a kind of ‘dramatization’ for Police interrogations about this murder.  The message she delivers is her true identity is always mortal and brings only ‘death’ (femme fatale) to whoever ‘loves’ her. She is unable to enter an Oedipus universe and denies all ‘human’ attachments. She distances herself from ‘words’ and gives only ‘her body to his deadlock, to the kernel that he is unable to put in words, by means of a hysterical symptom’ (Zizek). She does not want human language since her weapon is ‘body language’ where impeded desire converts into a ‘desire not to know’ (p.144) rather than ‘don’t know what we really want’. She does not make your desire ‘unsatisfied’ but she, like a parasite, lives by your desire for ignorance. Through negation she invents not an empty nothingness but a positive existence.

Share Button
Shrek (2001)
Directed: Andrew Adamson/ Vicky Jenson
Mike Myers, Eddies Murphy, Cameron Diaz
We always encounter the very opposite of what we expect. It is very natural that in the popular cartoon- animated movie Shrek (2001) ‘the unexpected’ becomes the Real (impossible to imagine). Princess Fiona was expecting her handsome ‘Lord’ to come and rescue her from the tallest tower, and Shrek was wanting a peaceful existence in his swamp which he supposed to materialize with the ‘deed’ from Lord Farquaad after rescuing Fiona. The price he had to pay for his freedom is based on a woman who is imprisoned in a dragon guarded tower and pre-programmed to be ‘free’ (once she is ‘free’, Shrek is destined to ‘fall’ or entrapped).
But what happens to his pre-supposition? His presupposed peace was deeply disturbed by a donkey who is a real ‘chatterbox’ as introduced by his owner to the soldier at the time when he was sold to the fairy tale creatures’ cart. The donkey was supposed to talk at the exchange market but it did not. But unexpectedly he started talking after lantern fell on his head. The soldier did not expect the donkey to talk assuming that it was a trick on him. Then he realized that he not only flies but actually ‘talks’.

The donkey sings, chats and interrupts Shrek when he is in need of tranquility but only through that disturbance, he starts the catharsis about his disappointment about the world and his being as an ogre. He wanted everyone to be ‘away’ from his swamp but we find eventually all the fairy tale creatures trafficked into his territory uninvited. Though he wanted to be lonely, he happened to go to the public place several times to get his swamp back and later to rescue Fiona (and finally to become a Prince!). He finally undertook the task of rescuing Fiona as compensation of his peace but that act itself stole his peace in life. If you can remember the scene, when he brings a sunflower to offer her (just before he overheard Fiona’s chat with donkey), he says that ‘I am in trouble’. This means that he is no more than a ‘fallen victim’ of desire.
Lord Farquaad was expecting a beautiful princess to give his kiss so that he can become the King but Fiona metamorphosed into an ugly fatty woman after sunset (the truth about Fiona was about to be revealed by the magic mirror but Farquaad was not ready to listen to the ‘truth’ at that time. The negligence is, in this case, pre-programmed (like the canned laughter in the audience) in us by making us blind in the venture of seeking our fantasy.
Fiona was confronted with a bitter truth that her rescuer is an ogre in a helmet (the identity is hidden to be ‘revealed’ here). But the long journey from the tower to the palace is set in order to give them time to digest the hard truth about each other. Shriek says that she is different to what he thought her to be and she says that one should not judge ‘things’ by appearance.  We now come across a woman who changed from a princess to an ordinary woman who is even ready to live with an ogre. This is something that Shriek never expected. What makes this match possible is the hidden fact that Fiona too becomes ugly after sunset. This means that both beauty and ugliness are mutually existing in us and the meeting point in both beauty and ugliness is possibly pre-programmed in us to be discovered at the ‘right time’.
The entire movie deals with the possible meeting points of the very opposite of our desire to the other. The extremes ends are dissolved and evaporated in the relationships in the movie and each character (except Lord Farquaad whose motive is more than a human relationship) finds some union amidst chaos. Therefore, though we do not live in a fairy tale world, it is logical that the movie is structured as a fairy tale.
Share Button

What makes the movie Cast Away (2000) by Robert Zemeckis remained in our hearts for a long time is the fact that Chuck, the protagonist, after so many adventures and personal losses, returns the FedEx parcel to the right destination with a note ‘this parcel saved my life’. By this time, this parcel might not have been expected to be delivered to the doorstep by the owner after he or she would have heard about the plane crash, or even FedEx itself might not have expected that, after such crash, the above said parcel could be delivered to the due owner.

Nobody can expect more than life survival in such an accident. Chuck does his level best to save his life as well as the packages supposed to be delivered by air by FedEx. What Chuck proves here is that existence is not just survival but ‘duty to the other’ can stand above our day to day survival game in glorifying our life. This is shown not only in his professional devotion to the FedEx agency but even in his sacrifice to love. He shows so much endurance to ‘wait’ even without an obvious hope in what he is waiting for, and the entire movie displays how difficult it is to overcome terrible loneliness when man is caught in infinite nature.

His girl friend was driven by a simple survival instinct when she chooses to marry another with a loose conclusion that Chuck is dead after the crash, since a.) everybody believed so b.) no one can survive in such a crash. She did not choose to continue her life with the sweet memories of their love for the rest of her life. Such action could have made her love ( hence life) a universal one through her devotion to ‘courtly love’ (a kind of love that waits forever even though there is no much hope that the other will love you in return). At a very practical level, such waiting could have made the situation less complicated once Chuck actually returned home (Zizek would argue that this is a kind of ‘mis-recognition’ since the real bad time would begin with their reunion and marriage One can see that she runs a very ordinary and dull marriage life. Hence love remains sublimated without its bourgeoisie marriage). She fainted by the news that he has returned because the news was a shocking Real (the unexpected) for her. This means that in her unconscious this ‘return’ was actually expected. She knew that Chuck really loved her and that love itself could have saved his life (not the parcel actually, parcel here is just an instrument of communication). When Chuck was lonely in the island what gave him hope to return and to survive in this God forsaken island was her image in the opposite side of the watch. He keeps on looking at it and that gives him hope to go back to ‘civilization’ rather than giving up (but by that time civilization has returned to primitiveness by simply choosing survival) . He had enough difficulties and hardships to demotivate his motive and to ‘give up’ (and die finally) but his love for her as well as motive to return the only remaining parcel made his hope constantly ignited. The only sad aspect of humanity is that there is no destination to return to after so much of sacrifice; there was no love and waiting from the other side and even the owner is not at home to receive the parcel. They have given up hope when they must actually be the ones who must be expecting such return.

After returning the parcel, Chuck seems lost as to what he should do next or where he may go afterwards (so far what kept his journey meaningful was the parcel, and once it is delivered he needs another hope to live). The girl who finally appears in the film mistakenly asks whether Chuck is lost and she volunteers to guide him showing the directions. It seems to me that Chuck needs no further guidance since so far he had been guided by some universal values of professionalism and love and for the rest of his life too they will be the guiding forces (not just another woman who may not wait until he returns. This again proves that she is not capable of such universal devotion for a final end). In the junction that Chuck is waiting in the last shot of the film, there are four directions to different destinations. Whither Chuck heads to will not therefore be a problem because wherever he chooses to go to, he will be guided by those values and he would be glorified by his deeds themselves even in a future unseen. For a person who is actually devoted to his duty, the time and space are immaterial. Apart from the apparent FedEx propagandist motive behind the movie, the lesson one can learn out of this is the obligation to Kantian value of ‘duty to other’ would make man glorified and can make him more than himself. One should not give up hope and fight even if there is no immediate final end. This may be the political lesson of this movie.

Share Button

Too depressive to watch?

The Road (2009), directed by John Hillcoat is actually a great and exceptional post apocalyptic movie with a serious and realistic approach on “how would people survive if there would be a total devastation of natural resources” The movie gives us a simple answer – we’re all doomed!

Watch it online!

The Road is not one of those creepy Silent Hill pretensions on hell on earth or Cyborgs saving humanity. No shit. It is about the human nature and the shift from civilization to the stone age of the post apocalyptic world.

In the Road we see the real interpretation of human evils – greed and animosity.  The plot is simple – the father (Viggo Mortensen) and his son are the one of those desperate drifters of the post apocalyptic disaster, roaming across the scorched earth painted in gray, dodging manhunters and the deadly forests they confront the inner fight of suicide.


rented this on dvd when it came out…after watching it i felt totally depressed…dont think i could watch it again…hopefully this post-apocalyptic version of the world…will never come to fruition….


Tommy Wiseau

Just share your food, man!

Yeah, people this kind of movie actually compels you to think more about true values of life, self-preservation and social communication.

In the grey and cold world of the Road there are no laws or respect but only the will to survive. The man of the Road is something in between broken and desperate vagabond and kind of a “drifter of hope”

Robinson Crusoe?

The longest trip from the place you have called “home” before (was actually burned down by the hands of  some scavengers) to the coast side of nowhere, in hope of living the continent for good.

You’ll truly shit your pants trying to survive starvation, rain, tumbling down rotten trees (formerly called the forest) or swerving your long paths away from the gang of cannibals.There are no villains and not superheroes – just life and death!

The movie stands out for its realism and strong message. Truly enjoyable picture

Share Button

Too much of blue for disaster?

I think that Waterworld is kind of an underrated movie. Well from the stand point of post-apocalypses genre the movie does less than the Road for example. However if you compare its time and 35 mm spectacle – yes the Waterworld is a cope with Mad Max 2!

First of all, the main misconception Waterwolrd is that it was shot cheap, I don;t actually know how you suppose to figure out the cheapness of the particular scene or shot but Waterworld is a high budget disaster flick.

The environment

The environment of Waterwolrd is astonishing, I mean just plain and simple. We see shanky shacks erected and build upon the hulls of plastic garbage and piled up leftovers of the sunken civilization. We see some interesting and intricate water refiners and pumps moving the flying- balloons up in the air.

If you look closer at the drifters you’d probably notice how “fuel” efficient they are, well except those goddam stupid idiots “smokers” which roar around their own dead  bodies,

The environment of Waterworld is clearly imaginative, but in the same way simplistic to its mechanics.

The heroes and the antipodes

The main heroes is no doubt an asshole who violates any freedom of laughs. He tosses women on the floor before he hits her with the spade. The guy from Postman doesn’t like to talk that much. You see, and imaginative disaster world is a sombre place to live you know.

However, the main hero nicknamed Gil (Kevin Costner) not only stingy and slinky on words but also on his resources. What do you expect from a man who drinks his own piss?

The fucking villain

Yes, pal your metal eye looks like shit, but the fact that you’re most stupid and self-centred idiot of the type of baboons makes an audience only feel vested! The main villain () of this movie is a very charismatic and magnetising person, believe me not!

The guy puns jokes as if he spits toothpick around the corner. Actually, he reminds me tThe Gyro Captain of it’s own. The guy is awesomely enchanting!

For lads and assholes

Waterworld is a type of Mad Max action, but on water. And if you like Mad Max’s fraternity and psychic speed action then you would probably love Waterworld!

Share Button

Django Unchained (2012)


1      Production year: 2012

2      Country: USA

3      Directors: Quentin Tarantino

4      Cast: Amber Tamblyn, Bruce Dern, Christoph Waltz, Don Johnson, James Russo, Jamie Foxx, Jonah Hill, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Kerry Washington, Kurt Russell, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Carradine, Samuel L Jackson, Zoe Bell

“Django Unchained” is a western drama film produced in the United States. The movie was written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, and it is his first western drama film. This film has strongly adapted to Tarantino’s cinematic style, it emphasis mainly on bloody and violence scenes. The key theme of “Django Unchained” is anti-slavery, and Tarantino uses the comedic elements to deliver the underlying message behind this film. For instance, Tarantino uses the Ku Klux Klan, an anti-black group, as idea to turn into a great comedy scene.

In the opening scene, Django (Jamie Foxx) is being marched from one plantation to be sold to another owner with his hands and feet being chained along with other slaves. On the other hand, a German bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christophe Waltz) is on the trail of the three unidentified criminals, known as the Brittle Brothers. Furthermore, Django is the only one who can lead him to bounty because he’s the only slave who can identify the Brittle Brothers. Therefore, Schultz rescues Django from his master and asked him to hunt down the Brittle Brothers. In exchange for Django’s help, Schultz promises to set Django free upon the capture of the Brittle Brothers. Furthermore, he will provide assistance to rescue Django’s wife from another master, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), owner of “Candyland”. “Candyland” is a plantation where male slaves are trained to fight as sport. Django accepted the job offer from Schultz because the offer is too tempting to resist.  As a result, Django and Schultz become allies in the battle.

Even though there are many instances of racial and ethnic discrimination in the film which may some viewers, it enhances the cinematic aesthetics; Tarantino wants to exaggerate the problem of racism by portraying the stereotype of American slaves as inferior, violent and apelike. The acting of the Leonardo DiCaprio was most magnificent in this film. In one of the scene, Leonardo holding a skull in the dining room, and expressing his anger after he discovered he was tricked by Django. While expressing his anger, Leonardo cut his hand and started to bleed. However, he continue on acting and using his wounded hand and blood to added more disgusting and horror scene by wiping his real blood all over on Django’s wife face. It is a great film to watch, if you aren’t bothered by racial discrimination, blood and violence.


Share Button