Django Unchained (2012)

When I checked this one out, the librarian said to me that with 100 gallons less blood this would have won the Oscar for best movie. I was skeptical to say the least as I normally find Tarantino's films entertaining but a bit heavy handed. I certainly did expect there to be too much blood. But, to my pleasant surprise, this was a really good film. Too much blood, true, but maybe only 50 gallons too much.
There's a fair bit of humor offered in this film, much of it the slightly blue humor that we've come to expect from Quentin Tarantino, but I don't think that it was off-base. This film's storytelling style is really reminiscent of the Kill Bill films, but with fewer and shorter scenes of extended violence.
To be completely honest, the gore didn't bother me a bit, and while I concur with the librarian that there was too much of it to be an Oscar winner, I don't think there was too much of it to tell the story. There was only one thing that bothered me, and that is when Laura gets shot by Django - one shot from his Colt 45 and she flies back, which would not be too improbable if she didn't fly off at about a 60 degree angle to the vector that the bullet was taking. I'm guessing few people noticed this.
Jamie Foxx was great. I had never noticed how big his hands are before, but I fixated on that a little bit, as I watched him totally own the role of Django. On par with Foxx's performance, and of no surprise was Leonardo DiCaprio as Mr. Candy. He nailed that character, the rich slaver who has far too much money and time on his hands. Samuel L. Jackson and Christoph Waltz do excellently in the supporting roles. My only critique really is a costuming one - Jackson with that white donut hair-do didn't look right, but otherwise both characters were spot on.

Django Unchained on IMDb

Water for Elephants (2011)

I haven't read the book, so I can't compare this film to it, I can only compare the film to other circus films / love stories. Robert Pattinson is Jacob, wait isn't that the name of one of the characters from those other movies? Reese Witherspoon is Marlena the horse/elephant performer. There's a lot of smiling, and I guess if I was as pretty as either one of them, I'd smile a lot too. Add Cristoph Waltz in as August and you've got quite a main cast.
Considering that two of the three are Academy Award (r) you would think this movie would be amazing. It's not bad, but it's not amazing. The pacing of the film is a tad slow, though it does start to pick up at an hour or so into the film, but that is sooooo long to wait for things to pick up.
The vast portion of this film takes place in 1931, and everything seems to be very accurate. The costumery is top notch, as is the portrayal of depression era United States. But what really steals the show, is Rosie the elephant, played by Tai (hey, I'm giving everyone else their creds). She steals every scene she is in, but animals, especially those that are smart and well-trained, are well known for upstaging their human counterparts.
I wasn't around when prohibition was going on, but I was always under the impression that people did not flaunt their alcohol, they just drank in private, or if the movies are any indication, in speak-easies. This film has lots of booze. It seems to me that if you're going to fill a film with lots of booze and keep mentioning the prohibition that it should be key to the plot - cops busting you, or the friendly towny helping out with a warning, and then bam! In run the cops yelling it's a raid, just so that we can finally get the kiss we've been waiting for the last 78 minutes.
And then the movie goes on in slow motion with triumphant scenes of Witherspoon performing with the elephant as sad music plays to Pattinson looking on. Meanwhile Waltz is getting more and more jealous and a little crazy with what he imagines, and in no small part insures will happen.
But, at least Rosie is still in the movie. Right? As the movie finally builds to it's awkward climax, you finally get the idea that if the movie is like the book, that you're glad that you've watched the movie. Maybe I'm not a romantic (I guess there is more than one person that could confirm this for you if you need it confirmed) but I don't think this book would have done anything more than put me to sleep. Maybe the book was full of all kinds of delicious details like the wonderful "Night Circus" by Erin Morgenstern. And maybe the book wasn't as formulaic as the film, I know that making a movie can often shape stories into something unrecognizable.
The finale of the movie makes up for the previous slowness, but leaves me wondering why they didn't have better pacing all along - I don't mean non-stop action, but non-stop movement of the story or non-stop character development, or preferably all of the above.
Oh, and I'm sure that Pattinson is happy to know that when he grows up and then old, he will be Hal Holbrook. There are far worse ways to turn out.

Water for Elephants at IMDb