Django Month: Django Unchained (2012)

And so we come to the final review for Django Month! I literally just got back from watching this last night and I've got to say I really enjoyed it. I've never been a die hard worshiper of Quentin Tarantino but I do like his work. I appreciate that there's very few 'auteur' directors like him who are still going and considering how dumbed down and generic films are getting nowadays it's nice to know there's still some directors who have the power and influence to experiment with the medium of film. I must confess I actually haven't got around to watching his last movie - Inglourious Basterds - yet but plan to catch up with that this weekend. I think the reason I skipped that one at the cinema was due to my disappointment with Death Proof - one half of the Grindhouse double feature - that was released on its own in the UK. I felt that movie was very self indulgent and quite frankly a bit of a waste of his talents. I was beginning to question whether or not Tarantino had become a parody of himself. Happily, I can report that this film is a far superior flick than Death Proof.

Django Unchained is set two years prior to the American Civil War when slavery was still rife in the American Deep South. The film basically revolves around two men. The first is Dr King Schultz, an eccentric German dentist turned bounty hunter. The second is Django, a black slave who is rescued by Schultz (initially just to identify a couple of wanted criminals). Immediately after meeting Django, Schultz takes a shine to him and the two start working as bounty hunting partners and, wouldn't you know it, they make a pretty good team. Before long Django mentions that he has a wife who is still held in captivity so the two decide to combine their efforts and track down where she is. Their search leads them to Calvin Candie (played by Leonardo DiCaprio), a sadistic but foppish slave owner with a passion for getting his slaves to wrestle to the death. Django and Schultz pretend to be interested in purchasing a wrestler in order to gain access to Candie's plantation. But how long will their ruse last? And will they find Django's wife? 

You know it's always been quite hard to review Tarantino films because he's very much a rule-breaker in cinematic terms. His films are often exciting because he gives them such left-field plots and they have such quick shifts in tone. You never quite know where they are going and Tarantino clearly enjoys doing this. He delights in subverting audiences' expectations. That's why his films are always, on the surface at least, genre films because with genre films you know roughly how they should look and feel. Django Unchained is a western but it goes in many places that westerns have never gone - not least by tackling the subject of slavery. I thought, considering the taboo nature of the subject matter, Tarantino had good handle on how to treat it. The film is very irreverent and often quite humorous but, at the same time, the brutality of slavery is treated with enormous candor. I think it's good to point out that Tarantino isn't referencing actual real life events - there's no known records of the type of wrestling that appears in this film - but what he is doing is using it as a sort of metaphor for the appalling treatment African Americans did experience during the times of slavery. I thought it was a novel idea; wrapping a serious subject matter in a pulp-y story in order to bring it more mainstream attention.

Django Unchained also follows the traditional pattern of Spaghetti westerns by being a revenge story - but it is also a comedy, a buddy movie, an action film and a drama. This eclectic 'scattershot' approach means that there always something new just around the corner to enjoy if this film ever gets stale. For me the highlight was definitely Christopher Waltz, whose portrayal of the kindly Dr Schultz was note perfect. I just loved the little character traits; his delightfully mannered way of speaking, the little brush of his moustache every time he had to think, and just the warmth he shows Django's character (which never feels patronising or cheesy). I also loved how he was, for the most part, religiously devoted to the law. When Django asks for his help to rescue his wife they don't go in all guns blazing, Schultz insists on rescuing her in a (semi-)legal manner. I also really enjoyed the performance of Don Johnson as Big Daddy, another Southern plantation owner who Django and Schultz run into early on. Dressed like Colonel Sanders, Johnson really makes the most of his scenes. Who knew Sonny Crockett was so good at comedy?* The part where Big Daddy and his fellow racist friends have an big argument about whether or not they should wear their KKK masks was the funniest scene I've seen in years.

Jamie Foxx isn't an actor I've seen in a lot of films but he makes a very good fit for the character of Django. I'm glad Tarantino dropped the idea of using Will Smith in the role (not least because I think we all would have got flashbacks to Wild Wild West if that had happened). Strangely, although Foxx's Django is the title character of the film, for the most of the running time he takes kind of a backseat role, allowing the more eccentric characters of Waltz and DiCaprio to take centre stage. It's really only in the last quarter of the film that he emerges as the main protagonist. I quite liked this technique because it mirrors that way that Django grows in confidence throughout the film. Although Django is physically unchained in the first scene he doesn't get spiritually unchained until the end of the film. Similarly, Samuel L Jackson's character Stephen (Candie's head butler) at first seems like an insignificant supporting role but by the end it's more or less made out that he is the major villain of the film rather than DiCaprio. I think what Tarantino is trying to say is that the racism as two enemies. The white people who perpetrate it and the black people who perpetuate it by going along with it. Stephen is a fascinating character and I liked the duality he creates in Candie's character. Candie is a man who enjoys watching black people wrestle to the death but at the same time he enjoys the company of Stephen and allows him the freedom to speak openly and honestly.

I did have some issues with the film though. I don't think it's a flawless masterpiece in the same way that Pulp Fiction was. I found the second half of the film a little jarring in its scale and tempo. And I thought Tarantino should have ratcheted up the tension even more than he did when Django and Schultz reach Candie's house. Similarly, although DiCaprio was very good as Candie but I felt the character wasn't as memorable as it could have been. A lot of actors excel at spouting Tarantino's dialogue but DiCaprio felt a bit stiff at times (maybe I'm being too harsh). A few other minor points that I was disappointed with included Zoe Bell as a masked tracker who gets a lot of lingering close-ups but then we never see anything more from her character (I'm guessing it was a subplot that got cut). I also felt Walton Goggins was severely underused as Billy Crash. Anyone who has watched The Shield or Justified will know how great an actor he can be but he's kind of lost here and doesn't get anything memorable to do or say. I did hear that Goggins character was an amalgamation of two characters, created after Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner dropped out. I think in this case Tarantino's hasty rewriting is probably the reason Billy Crash feels like a half-finished character. My biggest issue was that we see so little of Django's wife Broomhilda. I know it's a western, and westerns don't usually have roles for women but I really felt Broomhilda should have had more lines or more of a story. Kerry Washington does a fine job in the role but ultimately when Django rides off with her at the end she feels more like a trophy than the love of his life.

All in all Django Unchained is a great film. Not perfect but well worth seeing and way above most stuff at the cinema. I guess should probably touch on how this fits in with the other Django "rip-offs". Well, for the most part it stands quite separate. The two major references that everyone are going to spot are the Luis Bacalov's song from the 1966 movie that Tarantino places over his opening credits and the appearance (or should I say "Friendly Participation") of Franco Nero in a cameo role. Nero doesn't get many lines but the exchange between him and Django is a great nod. (Nero: "What's your name?" Foxx:"Django" Nero:"Can you spell it?" Foxx:"D.J.A.N.G.O. The D is silent." Nero:"I know"). There's also a few little touches. The first town Schultz and Django arrive in is swimming in mud just like in Corbucci's original. And, maybe I'm clutching at straws, but the master and apprentice angle to Schultz teaching Django how to be a bounty hunter felt a bit similar to Django The Last Killer. Anyway, I'm going to be interested as to what Tarantino tries to tackle next. He's done crime, kung fu, exploitation horror, war and a western but where the hell do you go next?

GRADE: A-

* Did anyone else think when they saw Don Johnson and Jamie Foxx on screen that it was (Old) Crockett and (New) Tubbs?

Django Month: Django the Last Killer (1967)

You never know what you're going to get when you sit down to watch a Django film but I've managed to luck out with most of the films I've watched these last few weeks and this one is no exception. While you couldn't call Django the Last Killer a masterpiece, it is well made and quite above-average for the genre. The crux of the plot revolves around Django - now an aging bounty killer - teaching his gun-fighting skills to a young apprentice. This isn't really a revolutionary concept for the genre, the far more famous Day of Anger with Lee Van Cleef came out the same year, but Django the Last Killer still manages to make the story its own by being more earnest and less cynical.

The plot is pretty simple. George Eastman plays Ramon, the son of a Mexican farmer, who gets robbed on his way to pay the local landowner, Barrett, his monthly rent. He recovers from his injuries and continues on to Barrett's place to explain what happened and beg for an extension. However when he gets there he recognises a few of Barrett's men as the very people who robbed him. Barrett's men torture him, burn his farm and kill his parents but Ramon manages to escape and heads to town. When he gets there he inadvertently saves the life of an aging bounty killer called Django (Anthony Ghidra). Django takes pity on Ramon and takes him into the hills where he teaches him how to be a gunfighter. Of course, unbeknownst to Ramon, Django has actually come to town to perform a hit... for Barrett and I'll give you one guess who it is?

The film is quite a low budget affair but it's all decently acted. George Eastman (who had roles in Hands of Steel, 2019: After the Fall of New York and Bronx Warriors) is particularly great as Ramon. He does well to convey the slow character change from naive farmer to deadly gunfighter that happens over the course of the film. Anthony Ghidra is also good as the aging and melancholic Django. The film is at its best when these two are on screen. I really enjoyed the whole master and apprentice angle to the story. It's set up very early on that Django and Ramon are going to have a showdown at the end, so it gives all the lessons that Django teaches an extra layer of doom-laden dramatic irony.

The run time is only just over 80 minutes so everything moves at a very quick pace and there's no wasted scenes. Again, like a lot of Spaghetti westerns, there's an interesting anti-American flavour to the story. You have the evil white landowner Barrett essentially ordering Ramon and his Mexican immigrant family to be removed from their farm despite their legitimate claim to live there. It's never concretely stated exactly why Barrett wants them removed, we just hear him say during a poker game that with them gone he can now create "paradise" for all the good white folk of the town.

The film isn't without its small share of problems though. The locations are a little unconvincing and the score, though good, gets very repetitive by the end. There's also a couple of logic gaps. It's never completely explained why Barrett tells Django he has a job for him but doesn't want to tell him the name of the target until the end of the month. It's seems purely designed so that the audience can benefit from knowing where the story is going. I would have preferred a little better explanation to be given. Also, the final shootout between Django and Ramon happens very quickly and is a little underwhelming. Given the build up and all the lessons that are taught (count your bullets, make sure there's always one in the chamber, don't face into the sun, watch your enemies steps) I was hoping for a bit more a prolonged battle.

All in all, Django the Last Killer is an earnest and worthwhile little western that is recommended to fans of the genre looking for something to tackle after the more famous films of the Spaghetti western genre. Like all Django rip-offs this was only made a Django film during the dubbing process (the original version has Ghidra go by the name Rezza) but let's ignore that because actually I think Django the Last Killer makes a far better follow-up to the original Django than the official one, Django Strikes Again. Check it out if you get a chance, there's full length copies easily found on both youtube and dailymotion.

GRADE: B

Django Month: Django Kill, If You Live, Shoot! (1967)

Django Kill, If You Live, Shoot! is quite possibly one of the strangest westerns I've ever seen. Like most of the other Django "sequels" it has very little to do with Corbucci's original film. There's a few similar motifs, such as gold heists going wrong and characters being left for dead managing to survive, but for the most part it is it's own film. The main character isn't even referred to as Django, he's simply "the Stranger". In fact, the producers only stuck the 'Django Kill' part of the title on to the film a few weeks before it was released in an effort to drum up more public interest. They needn't have bothered because actually the shocking and surreal violence in the film gained it much more publicity than expected. A week after its release an Italian court forced the producers to take it out of cinemas and cut 22 minutes. And then later when it was released in the UK and States they cut even more!

The plot begins eerily with the Stranger (played by Tomas Milian, looking a lot like C Thomas Howell and dressing like Han Solo) crawling out of a shallow grave where he recuperates with two Native Americans. We quickly learn through flashbacks that the Stranger was part of a gang (a mixture of Americans and Mexicans) who pulled off a gold heist from the US Army. Instead of splitting the gold equally the Americans, led by a man called Oaks, decide to murder the Mexicans and keep it all for themselves. So the Stranger survives and heads to the nearest town, which the Native Americans call "The Unhappy Place". Here he runs into the unsuspecting Oaks and his men but this time, with the help of the townsfolk, he manages to kill them all. Sounds like your run of the mill western plot but this is only the first 25 minutes. The rest of the nearly two hour film goes off in some very bizarre directions. The townsfolk decide to hide the gold and the film introduces a new antagonist, Mr Sorrow, a larger than life bandit who rides with a group of black clad (and heavily implied gay) cowboys. And these guys will do anything to get their hands on the hidden gold including raping the Saloon owner's son (which forces him to commit suicide), scalping Native Americans and torturing the Stranger on a crucifix with hungry vampire bats!

This is a deeply strange film. It's not incomprehensible - the film is never confusing - it just veers off in so many odd directions that it's difficult to get a bead on it. I enjoyed it for the most part. It's got an infectious energy to it and I'm a big fan of offbeat westerns. Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man and Jan Kouen's Blueberry are two of my favourite films. The fact that the film starts off like a fairly traditional western sort of lulls you into a false sense of security - which is cleverly mirrored by Oaks' gang slowly realising "The Unhappy Place" is far from a normal town when they witness the townsfolk casually stepping on children's necks. Then, slowly, the film gets weirder and more experimental like some sort of feverish nightmare.

I think a lot of the strangeness is down to the fact the makers were working on a metaphorical rather than literal level most of the time. The film is loaded with political overtones. The American characters are universally portrayed as twisted and evil, the relentless and disgusting pursuit of gold by everyone (more on that later) is a heavy handed comment on capitalism and the black clad gang are (according to the director) analogues for Mussolini's Fascist Blackshirts. I think the makers were also trying to deconstruct the western genre itself. The Stranger is a very tortured lead character both figuratively and literally. Rather than being a taciturn anti-hero, the Stranger is a weary and confused character who struggles to make sense of the violence happening around him. There's little catharsis when he rides off into the sunset at the end.

The violence in the film is some of the most disturbing I've seen - I can see why, at the time, the censors were shocked. Again, like Django the Bastard, it's reminiscent at times of an gothic horror movie only this time there's much worse fates for the characters than just getting shot. For example, the Stranger is given gold bullets by the Native Americans and so when he shoots someone, the townsfolk instinctively tear open the dead body to retrieve the bullets - possibly foreshadowing the zombie films of Fulci et al. And the film ends on a truly grotesque scene in which a man dies after accidentally covering himself in molten gold inside a burning house! By far, the most disturbing element has to be the rape of Evan, the saloon owner's son (played by Ray Lovelock who would go on to star in the excellent Italian zombie film The Dead at the Manchester Morgue). It happens off screen but the way it's implied - by the black clad cowboys feasting on a huge piece of meat before hungrily turning their eyes on Evan is really creepy.

The film is actually really well shot, acted and edited. The one thing that lets it down is the very cheap town set that they use that looks like its going to fall down any second. The score by Ivan Vandor is especially good and perfectly mirrors the film's descent into madness. It starts off with a very baroque Morricone-esque sound but halfway through it starts to degenerate until by the end it sounds like some child playing random out-of-tune piano chords. The only major problem with the film is that it feels quite static after the first half hour and the amount of plot involved doesn't really justify its two hour running time. It could have quite easily been cut to 90 minutes AND managed to keep all the surreal and horrific scenes. All in all though, the film’s decision to keep twisting the classic western tropes in new and unusual direction make it a must watch. But I will say that it might be of more interest to lovers of Italian horror films more than lovers of westerns.

Fun fact: According to this film "You Chiseler!" is a legitimate insult!

GRADE: B+

Django Month: Django the Bastard (1969)

AKA: The Strangers Gundown or Django the Avenger

Now this is a cracking little Spaghetti western and probably my favourite of all the Django "sequels". Though there's little connection to the original film - don't expect any machine-gun action here - there is a strong similarity in tone that makes it a good cinematic soul mate. And if you're a fan of Clint Eastwood's High Plains Drifter and Pale Rider this is definitely one to check out because it's quite similar and pre-dates both. Here Django is played by Antony Steffen (or Antônio Luiz De Teffé to give him his real name) who starred in a whole bunch of Spaghetti westerns in the 60s and 70s and played the Django character in at least 5 other films. This one is more interesting than most though because he actually co-wrote the script and produced it.

The story revolves around Django entering a frontier town where he begins to systemically hunt down and kill several bad guys. In cavalier fashion, he announces that they are going to die by sticking graveyard crosses in the ground with their names and that day's date on. At first we don't know why he's doing this, only that this final goal seems to be killing two men - wealthy sadistic rancher Rod Murdoch and his psychotic brother Luke. The most disturbing element to the story is that it's implied that Django may not actually be flesh and blood but potentially an avenger from beyond the grave!

So, yeah, it's sort of revenge flick with a little bit of supernatural mixed in (I'm such a sucker for these kind of films). The whole is he or isn't a ghost is left nicely ambiguous. For everything that points one way there's something else that points the other and it never settles the issue right up until the end. I liked that approach a lot. The story is riveting and nicely told. It does drag a little in the middle but the ending more than makes up for it. Once again, like the original Django, the film has a nice arc where the lead character starts off seemingly invincible only for things to get much tougher by the end.

Anthony Steffen is a little wooden in the title role but fits the part well. To be honest the film doesn't really demand much more from him than to just look menacing and stare at bad guys a lot. The one big weak point for the film is definitely the extended Civil War flashback in which we see a happy, carefree Django (!). I get that they wanted to make a contrast with who Django was then and is now but it's a really cheesy sequence that's both sloppily shot and acted. Steffen should definitely stick to just strong, silent type roles. The villains are also pretty memorable. There's a nice balance between the calm and methodical Rod and the demented and twisted Luke. Luciano Rossi goes gloriously over-the-top in playing the latter.

The directing was pretty good as well. I mean the set is quite cheap and low budget but the director, Sergio Garrone, manages to make the most of it and create a really gothic atmosphere by using a lot of low key lighting. A lot of the time it feels like you're watching a horror film. There was also a pleasing amount of stylised camera angles. Lots of overhead shots and dutch angles that you don't always see in these types of films. Much like the original Django, Garrone also uses a lot of crucifix imagery which fits perfectly with the old testament/"eye for an eye" atmosphere of the film.

Overall, Django the Bastard is a fantastic western that barely puts a foot wrong. Okay, it's not as great as the original but not far behind it either. If you're going to check out just one Django "sequel" make it this one.

GRADE: A-

Django Month: Django Strikes Again (1987)

AKA: Django 2: Il Grande Ritorno

Before I get on the unofficial sequels I thought it best to cover the single official entry that was released in 1987. Though it wasn't directed by Sergio Corbucci (a guy called Nello Rossati directed it under the pseudonym Ted Archer), he did at least give them permission to use the character's name and back story which I was hoping would be a tacit seal of approval. Unfortunately the belated sequel feels very, very different from its predecessor. Visually and tonally it's got a lot more in common with 80s 'Nam-ploitation movies than it does with 60s Spaghetti westerns.

Django Strikes Again is set in the jungles (?) of Mexico and begins (rather symbolically) with two cowboys getting gunned down by a passing armoured steamboat. The boat in question belongs to the evil "El Diablo" Orlowsky and his band of cut throat mercenaries. Orlowsky has been using the ship to kidnap locals and force them into slavery in his silver mines. One of the women manages to escape and heads to the nearby monestry where she tells the familiar looking monk "Brother Ignatius" what's going on. Of course, Ignatius turns out to be none other than Django who, following the events of the first film, has renounced his life of violence. The woman informs Django that Orlowsky has kidnapped his daughter so he (literally) digs up his old guns and set out to take down Orlowsky and his whole operation.

I'll admit the the storyline isn't half bad. The idea of Django becoming monk seems quite fitting after what he went through at the end of the original film. And the idea of a villain running his operation from a steamboat is quite novel. The main problem is that the whole film is really quite sluggish and dull, particularly when you put it alongside the zippy pace of the original film. The action scenes are also far less memorable and pretty poorly shot. Sure Django busts out his trademark machine gun on several occasions but there's very little excitement to any of these scenes. They even try to stick in a few Arnie-style quips to spice it up but they pretty much all fall flat.

The acting is pretty weak across the board. Sure, it's great to see Franco Nero back in the title role, but he gives a fairly lifeless, uninterested performance. It doesn't help that they give him long hair and a beard making him unrecognisable as being the same character as before. And he's also saddled with one of the most annoying kid sidekicks, this side of Jake Lloyd, for much of the running time. The rest of the cast is also pretty weak. Christopher Connelly is very forgettable as the butterfly obsessed villain Orlowsky. Nowhere near as intimidating as Major Jackson and General Hugo. They even manage to waste the talents of Donald Pleasence in a tiny role as a professor who helps out Django.

I think the main problem with the film is that the makers seemed too keen on ditching so many traditional Western elements. Worse still, they don't seem that interested in tying the film back to the original Django beyond a few references and some gimmicky updates. For instance, instead of dragging a coffin behind him in this film Django upgrades to a tricked out horse drawn hearse. Given that this is the one official sequel I guess I was expecting a bit more reverence and connection to the original film but it's just not there. I feel that the filmmakers were far more influenced by films like Commando and Rambo II. In fact, the end of the film in particular feels like a mash-up between those two films. That sounds like an endorsement but it really isn't. As I said, the action in this is very lifeless.

Ultimately I think Django Strikes Again doesn't really work as a film or a sequel but it's an interesting curiosity piece for fans of the original. It's probably worth seeing once if you come across it but don't go out of your way because there's far better "unofficial" sequels out there that I'll be covering soon.

GRADE: C+

Django Month: Django (1966)

Right let's start at the very beginning. Django came out in 1966 and was a breakout success for both its Italian director Sergio Corbucci and star Franco Nero. The film had an enormous impact on the Spaghetti western scene with tons of directors attempted to capture its look and feel for the next ten years. Django was also something of a watershed moment for cinematic violence with its ridiculously high body count and graphic gore (it was actually banned in the UK right up until 1993!). If you're a fan of Robert Rodriguez or Quentin Tarantino you need to see this film because both filmmakers owe a great deal of debt to it.

The film's plot sees Franco Nero play Django, a mysterious cowboy drifter who we initially meet trudging through a bleak, muddy landscape, dragging a coffin behind him. What's in the coffin? If you don't know, I'll leave it as a surprise (here's a hint, it's not a body). Anyway at the beginning of the film he rescues a prostitute called Maria from a group of bandits and escorts her to a nearby town. He finds the place is controlled by two warring factions. On the one side is the sadistic Major Jackson and his band of red masked former Yankee soldiers while on the other side is the equally sadistic General Hugo and his group of Mexican bandits. As Django wants revenge against Jackson he sides with Hugo and his men and helps them steal a large quantity of gold from Jackson. However it turns out Hugo has no intention of giving him his cut so Django decides to team up with Maria to steal his share. Will they get away it? Will Django get revenge on Jackson? What's in the coffin?

Even watching this 46 years after it was made you can tell it's something special. Django is such a fantastic protagonist - morally questionable, unpredictable  full of mystery - and he's played with perfect precision by Nero and his steely blue eyes! I really enjoyed the fact that Corbucci starts the film off by making Django seem to be an indestuctible figure only to slowly strip him back until, by the end, he's a shell of a man. I mean it's a tradition of story writing to give your protagonist a difficult final fight but Django's is one of the bleakest, most hopeless ones I've ever seen. A lot of people try and compare him to Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name because they both are taciturn anti-heroes but arguably Django's a far more tragic figure and much more morally unbalanced.

Corbucci's film also has a very unique atmosphere. The muddy landscape is highly evocative and stands in stark contrast to the traditional dusty vistas of American westerns. That first shot of Django really sets the tone for the rest of the film. He's literally dragging death into town with him. There's also a great bit later on where someone asks him what's in the coffin and he replies, with no hint of irony, "Django". Corbucci portrays a very cynical and revisionist view of the Wild West. There's no hint of "manifest destiny" or "the land of opportunity" only a lawless place populated by selfish characters who are obsessed with money and wealth. It's hard to see it as anything less than a critique of American capitalism.

The film is also rife with religious imagery which, given that Italy is a heavily Catholic country, shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Throughout the film there's a fixation on crucifixes that culminates in the final shootout in a cemetery; the character of Django on his knees, hiding behind a tiny wooden gravestone while Jackson mockingly suggests that he should start praying. Also earlier in the film, in it's most infamous sequence, General Hugo discovers the town priest is a spy and cuts off his ear and sadistically feeds it to him as punishment. I can't help but feel these scenes are trying to either say God has abandoned these people or, perhaps more controversially, religion is a falsehood that we shouldn't try to hide behind. I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Well, that's enough philosophical analysis for one post. Overall Django is a fantastic movie. Okay, it's a little more cartoonish and more rough around the edges than Leone's westerns but it's just as riverting to watch and still feels surprisingly fresh. If you've never considered yourself a fan of westerns I strongly recommend checking this film out.

GRADE: A

Django Month: An introduction

All this month I'm going to be reviewing a handful (or should that be fistful?) of Django movies in anticipation for Quentin Tarantino's new film Django Unchained. As such I thought it would be a good idea to just have a little introduction to the character to those that are unfamiliar with him. 

The character of Django originates from the 1966 Spaghetti western of the same name directed by Sergio Corbucci. The film is about a mysterious cowboy (played by Franco Nero) who comes to a frontier town, dragging a coffin, and proceeds to get involved in helping a group of Mexican steal a huge amount of gold from a sadistic army general and his men. It's a bitter, bleak and very cynical movie that stands at complete odds to the more polished and safe John Wayne movies of the 1940s.

The film was not only highly influenced (by Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars) but also highly influential in its own right and it's often reported that there were over 100 'unofficial' sequels made. The reality is that only about 30 can be confirmed and almost all of these were movies that were inspired by Corbucci's vicious western rather than direct continuations. In most cases, these other 'Django' movies were original films that had the lead character's name changed during the dubbed process to become Django. As a consequence Django has his wife, brother and other family members killed several times, in several different ways.
 
Still the fact that these movies had character names changed in post-production doesn't stop a lot of them from being very interesting (and often very good) westerns. Obviously Tarantino's new film is going to continue this tradition, in a very post-modern way, by having Jamie Foxx's former slave character called Django. I'm happy to see him do this as I think it will bring the character a lot of attention for modern audiences and hopefully lead to more of these somewhat forgotten films getting re-released on DVD.

Hope you enjoy the reviews.