You’re a slave who’s been given an opportunity to kill white men with bounties on their heads…How do you say no????


Django (Jamie Foxx) is approached by Dr. King Shultz (Christoph Waltz), who purchases him after an unfortunate encounter with the slave owners who have Django. Now in the hands of the traveling “dentist”, Django is given the opportunity of a lifetime to help the doctor, or better called bounty hunter, identify three outlaws with bounties on them. The doctor doesn’t know what they look like, but Django does, and for his assistance he is offered his freedom. After claiming the bounties in an unanticipated fashion, the doctor gives Django his freedom and offers him the chance to work with him as a bounty hunter, including splitting the collections earned. How could he say no? Together these two made an unlikely good team (much like that of sour cream and onion potato chips with vanilla ice cream…call me crazy but its amazing), and eventually went in search of Django’s wife.


Another blindly entered film, I was expecting a “12 Years a Slave” type of vibe. To my surprise and pleasure I was completely wrong. I’m not saying I didn’t like “12 Years a Slave”. It was a fantastic movie! But this one did so well in being it’s very own unique feature. The movie was intense, exciting, funny, and all around damn good enjoyment. Christoph Waltz (an actor I’m not very familiar with) was remarkable! I really feel like he stole the show even next to someone like Jamie Foxx. He clearly took on this role with an abundance of confidence and enthusiasm. For his performance alone I quickly become consumed in the film.

To add to a flawlessly fabulous (say that 5 times fast) cast, we also see the likings of Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, and Samuel L. Jackson. Needless to say, the acting was as “well played” as a scammer scamming a scammer (say it 10 times fast?) But with a strong plot, appropriate setting, and out of this world cast backing this movie, why then did it seem to over compensate in the area of gore?


It’s true. The blood was too much honestly. It was an inconsiderable portion of mashed potatoes on the plate of a baked potato consumer. Why did the movie have to over compensate in this area? To add to the excitement maybe? I have to say that I would have enjoyed the movie just the same if it had merely a reasonable amount of blood in it; the normal or typical amount that we would see when some is killed. I mean, the final portion of the film took me back to the final scene of “Scarface”. It was basically a re-creation of that scene, just set in older times. Blood everywhere, bodies everywhere, just chaos.

Alright. I’ll admit that part of the movie was pretty badass. I just had to make my point about the blood. Step back from this one issue that I have with “Django” (the D is silent), and we have ourselves a movie worth popping some popcorn over! So pop it, grab the beer, maybe some Cheetos too, and kick back for some ass kicking fun in this american western film.

Abstract Breakdown.

Humor: 7/10

Realism: 7/10

Emotion: N/A

Cast: 10/10 + 1 bonus point

Music: N/A

Setting: 10/10

Quality: 8/10

Originality: 10/10

Entertainment: 10/10

Total Abstract Rating: 90% Strap on your holsters for some american western fun.

Thanks for reading!