There is nothing whatever wrong with Captain Phillips, the latest film starring Tom Hanks. Sounds like faint praise but there are plenty of films in the theaters that have a great deal wrong with them. Having nothing wrong puts a movie well ahead of the curve.

The acting is solid, the film never slows down or gets distracted by side plots. We all know the basics, if not the details of the story. And unless you were on the ship and wanted to be paid for your part of the story worrying about it being 100 percent accurate is silly too. What Hollywood "real life" film is 100 percent accurate?

But Captain Phillips is not the sort of film that is likely to stay with you after you see it either. As noted, the story is still fresh in the minds of many. There are few surprises here. Nor is there any attempt to get at deeper issues--Phillips family life, the conditions in Somalia that lead to such acts etc. It wise decision for the sake of this movie that these topics were only glanced on--any more would have risked dragging the movie down into the briny deep (as much as I am usually for more Catharine Keener screen-time)

We get just enough of Phillips at home to see he has a wife and kids. We get just enough of how and why the Somali pirates do what they do to make them more than just "bad guys." The audience knows they are put in the position they are, largely, by forces beyond their immediate control (ie the men who make the money on such crimes are not the ones racing through the seas on a skiff).

Of course this didn't stop one audience member, upon seeing the sentence one pirate received blurting out "I wonder how much WE are paying for that." Interesting sociological reaction and indicative of America today. Everything boils down into how much something costs. It would have been interesting to hear what this woman thinks should have been done to an apprehended and unarmed man. Some torture perhaps? And how much better are we as a people than they? Really? think about it.

But I digress.

Captain Phillips never gets into these issues and they have only a very peripheral place in this film. It is, however, very clear that the pirates are not operating out of ideology but for money. "No Al Queda." says the "captain" of the pirates--ably portrayed by Barkhad Abdi. Abdi mixes a sort of pathos with menace in his role. He brings a real tension, not necessarily because he is waving around a gun but because you see some sort of internal conflict in him as he makes his decisions, some sort of doubt.

The previews may make the film seem like a U.S. Navy action film. It isn't really about that, although the ending of the film certainly has that element (done quite well).  Most of the movie is about the crew and Phillips avoiding being boarded and then resisting the pirates once aboard. There has been some criticism of the film making the real Phillips seem overly heroic. This is baseless, Hanks portrayal is as an everyman. He does nothing overly heroic--aside from his job.

In fact, one of the interesting parts of the movie is that there is no individualist hero. The "hero" here is procedure. Things do not go well for the crew of the Maersk Alabama in the movie but they certainly do not go as poorly as they might have. The film puts forward that the reason was that captain and crew stuck to the rule book. This is an unusual--and realistic--take on how to survive a crisis in a Hollywood film.  Usually in Hollywood there has to be a hero--a highly paid bankable star with a machine gun. You need Brad Pitt to save you! In real life you need to keep your head and stick with what works (in most cases anyway).

This sense of the realistic animates this movie and while it isn't the most memorable film you will see this year? You will be entertained in the theater. Again, this puts it far ahead of the curve.

Gravity is a tense movie. The audience is barely in its seat before the action begins and from there it barely lets up. It is, in some way, a difficult film to discuss;the character development is minimal and there are only three characters that the audience sees on screen. The plot is fairly simple; astronauts, in space, face a catastrophe and try to survive.

It sounds like it isn't much of a movie, based solely on this synopsis. But it actually is a pretty remarkable film. It looks fantastic. It might even give you a little bit of vertigo and it clearly isn't intended to be a recruiting tool for NASA. Sandra Bullock's character states, at one point, "I hate space."

The film is also, as mentioned, tense, even stressful.

One of the reason the film manages this tension is that it resists Hollywood's usually irresistible desire for a back story, for a love story or maybe a montage where Bullock tries on clothes. There are no flashbacks, no Apollo 13-like anguished family on the ground wringing their hands. The action takes place in space.

That puts the film, beyond the special effects, on the backs of Bullock and George Clooney. Clooney pays the story-telling, wisecracking commander or the mission, Matt Kowalski to Bullock's mission specialist, Ryan Stone. To say there is no back story isn't entirely accurate. We learn about these people how you would learn about someone in real life--through snippets of conversation (in this case under great stress). You do care what happens to them.

Alfonso Cuarón has made a couple of provocative films in the past (Y Tu Mamá También and Children of Men). This film is not really provocative but it is close to perfect. It never lets you rest, never makes you bored but, at the same time, it does not rely on random explosions.

The film is about the action. And it begs the question; why do so many other films fail in this regard?. In many cases it is bad editing. In others someone just decides that MORE explosions is really all you need. Here the "explosions" happen at the right times and are not overdone. You even are given a sort of countdown to when they happen in some cases. It all ticks along like clockwork and the editing is so tight that you are never given a chance to relax. The special effects are not gaudy but truly give the feel of space flight. It seems real even when some of the action maybe strays a bit from reality (it IS a movie).

This isn't to give short shrift to the acting--both Bullock and Clooney do well in their roles, as fairly minimal as they are. Imagine them as people you just meet (in space). They do exactly what they need to in the roles.

It is a peculiar film to try to describe or recommend because it is so focused on what happens rather than the story or the characters. It is also one of those rare films that viewers should consider seeing in XD 3D. A great deal will be lost in 2D viewings of the movie. It is about the visuals.

The Grandmaster has a number of things to recommend it; it is a beautiful looking film from beginning to end and the fight choreography is fantastic. If you have just those two in a martial arts movie you are usually far ahead of the game.

Unfortunately this is as much historical period piece as it is martial arts film. In this regard The Grandmaster shows a few warts. None of these blemishes ruin the film, they generally do not even slow it down, but they are there nonetheless.

The film tells the story of Ip Man, who is credited with bringing kung fu to the world. But that is far from the focus of the film. Indeed it is difficult to discern much of a focus. But somehow this lack of focus sort of works.

The film starts with, Gong Yutian, a grandmaster of Northern China announcing he will retire. There is a division between northern and southern kung fu schools that is explained in passing. Gong comes south and it is determined Ip Man will meet the grandmaster in a fight (which turns out to be different than you might imagine). In besting a grandmaster you become heir to He meets Master Gong's daughter, Gong Ep, during these proceedings.

The story, which is fairly thin, revolves around the various kung fu schools, Ip Man's personal life, the Japanese invasion of China and ultimately the grandmaster's move to Hong Kong. The Grandmaster is a sketch of a time, a culture (not Chinese but kung fu culture), a love story and a biography but it does not delve too deeply into any of these worlds. It provides clues, parables and a sense of an "era gone by". It is a fantasy since it is likely the era it shows never existed.

The plot here is secondary to the action--and it is not always kung fu fighting. It is sometimes romantic entanglement. But usually it is disconnected fights and challenges. Yet these fights are not pointless but individual parables that move the story forward (albeit in fits and starts). The movie does not move in a typical narrative and jumps long periods of time. It is ot a typical bio-pic. If you expect to learn anything about Ip Man you will be disappointed. But then it may be the thing that inspires you to learn more about him. How often does a bio-pic tell the whole or even the real story of a person?

The acting is stylized but solid. Tony Leung Chiu-Wai, always reliable, is stoic in the lead role and the lovely Ziyi Zhang appears as Gong Er and is given the most chance to emote and show emotion in the film--her character seeks love, vengeance and honor with intensity. She is given more opportunity to act, to emote than anyone else in the film.

The film is being marketed as an action film or a kung fu film and it is a bit more than that. The marketing also uses "Bruce Lee" as a lure; this film has almost nothing to do with Bruce Lee.  Go into this with no expectations and you will take something from it. Go in expecting The Raid: Redemption and you will be perplexed.
.

Kickass 2 is not unwatchable but there is something, a thread of "not right-ness" that permeates the movie. In fact it isn't just ONE thread but several.

The first of these is the juxtaposition of horrific violence in a movie where most of the violence is cartoon-like. There are two brutal murders (one that is like something from The Sopranos but with silly costumes and another that seems like something off of Oz or Breaking Bad) that are mixed with half-hearted attempts at humor that fall dreadfully flat.

It isn't that you cannot make jokes about horrific things but those jokes damned well better be funny. There is even a scene where a rape is about to take place that turns into a penis joke. Not funny.

Can you tell jokes about rapes that are funny? No, you cannot. But you can allude to the subject. Check out the scene in This Is The End that does it. The joke isn't ABOUT rape but about the attitudes of the characters, showing their mindsets and, to a degree, their hypocrisy.  Remember how the film Something About Mary used a mentally handicapped character to  set up jokes? Remember how that worked? Because we were laughing with him and not at him, because the jokes were funny and because the jokes were at the expense NOT of the handicapped character but of those around him.

That is probably the crux of the matter with why this movie just doesn't work--most of the jokes are obvious, most of the deaths are obvious and telegraphed and there is a pointless side-plot that seem designed to include ONE gag. That gag? A vomit and poop gag.

Do not get me wrong. I am not high brow. To quote the sage wisdom of the Frank Reynolds character from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia; "Poop is funny." But it isn't ALWAYS funny.

Then there is the violence. The one thing I walked out of this movie thinking was that Jim Carrey's denunciation of the film's violence was the result of three possible things 1) an attempt to promote the film (OH this is SO violent...don't see it! wink wink) 2) Jim Carrey does not see very many movies or 3) Jim Carrey is an idiot.

The film, comparatively, is just not that violent. There are more violent basic cable television shows. I have seen a dozen films in the past year that are more violent than this. And the violence is generally the best part of this movie.
There are some pretty decent action sequences in the film, although the "final confrontation" seems more than a little flat.

All the actors in this movie acquit themselves pretty well--with a few exceptions. They are handed pretty mundane lines to deliver and the spit them out like pros.

But WHY, in the name of all that is holy, in an action film that glories in violence and mayhem, a film about vigilantes who dress up like super heroes, do you include a long aside that seems like something out of a teen high school TV series? This who portion of the movie is yawn inducing and could have been handled in a tiny fraction of the time (and as noted before the "payoff" is a poop and vomit joke).

Kickass 2 isn't all bad. There is some decent action. There are a few jokes and gags that sort of work. The actors elevate the rather dubious material and with a few, previously noted exceptions the film moves along fairly well. It just falls short across the board.

Elysium isn’t the worst Sci-Fi film in recent memory. It isn’t unwatchable. It is, however, an enormous letdown from director Neill Blomkamp whose first film, District 9, was a truly great science fiction film. That film was such a surprise being so outside the normal Hollywood summer blockbuster fare. It was more than just a great sci-fi film but a great film. Elysium is bland and safe and well within the parameters of the Hollywood formula. It is, however, professionally made and solid enough to keep you involved, at least in places. But there is no real connection, no real excitement and nothing about it is particularly memorable.

So what, basically, is wrong with the film?

It drags.  The film is fairly short but it takes awhile to get going. The establishment of who Max is and what Elysium is takes far too much of the running time. Pacing is a huge part of the problem with this movie. The overall plot is fairly thin too. Is it a comment on immigration? Egalitarianism? Healthcare? Even the final resolution is a little head scratching in its lack of sophistication.

The characters are not particularly well-drawn (except perhaps Matt Damon's Max). There is very little surprising about the movie at all. The villains do what villains do; they sneer, they snarl but are otherwise uncomplicated. The acting is hard to figure. Jodie Foster seems wooden, which is hard to imagine for an actress of her caliber. Sharlto Copley, who acquitted himself so well, as Wikus Van De Merwe in District 9, is pretty close to a Saturday morning cartoon as a psychotic mercenary. Damon manages to give his character some depth but he also has much more screen time to do it.

It isn't that these actors, or others in the film such as Alice Braga (that you may recall from Predators), are bad, they are simply not given very much to do or time to do it in. There are too many characters as well be they friend or henchman. If you want to have a lot of characters to be blown to bits? That is fine. But why add people whose deaths are supposed to move the audience when there isn’t enough time to make the audience care.

Some of the action sequences are decent but mostly they are nothing special, sort of formulaic. There are a few “they blowed up real good” moments but these are too few.  This isn’t to say that plot should be secondary to explosions and mayhem but this movie could have done with a good deal more mayhem.

What is good about the movie? Damon puts in a fairly solid performance—making his futuristic felon trying to get his life back on track believable and sympathetic. It looks good. The scenes on earth have a similar feel to large parts of District 9. It never lets special effects take over which is what most thinly plotted sci-fi films do.

While its pace is uneven it isn’t so bad that the audience will completely lose interest either. There are worse movies that come out every year in the genre and part of the problem here may also be the high expectations for Blomkamp as a director. District 9 was that good and Elysium is just mediocre.

Pacific Rim is the Citizen Kane of giant robots who battle huge sea monsters from another dimension movies. Seriously, it is.

The film doesn’t waste a great deal of time with back story or exposition but there is never a point where the audience doesn’t know precisely what is going on and what is going on is the standard monster movie stuff. Monsters are trying to destroy humanity, humans fight back, things go wrong (damn politicians!) and then there is a desperate situation where heroism on a grand scale is required. There is even a whiff of Godzilla-like “We caused this” in the movie (but just a whiff).

Pacific Rim just does it well.

For one, you always know who the good guys are. It isn’t like any of the Transformers movies where there is a BLUR of robots smashing into each other.  The action is clear and, since it we know the robots are good and the monsters are bad? It is easy to follow the action. There is a ton of action too.

The odd thing here is how miserably so many other similar movies fail. It just seems so effortless here. This is also a movie that people who hate this sort of movie will find more than just bearable. How do they do it? With a fast pace, a good cast and writing that never gets bogged down in romance or side plots. There ARE side plots but they never slow the movie down—they move it forward. All the side plots move fast and have relevance to the ultimate point of DESTROYING ALL MONSTERS.  Professional direction (it is, after all Guillermo Del Toro), a lean mean script and good actors; who knew that was how to make a good action movie.

One of the ways other films fail is that they rely on “actors” who just look good with their shirts off or who are deemed bankable (and often phone in a 15 minute performance). There is no doubt Pacific Rim was not created to break new ground. It was not created to be a profound life-changing movie (unless you are an 11 year old boy). But it was made professionally with a certain, dare I write it, respect for the audience. The filmmakers here do not assume we are morons because we came to see their movie. That is another reason why it succeeds.

While Godzilla may be this movie’s great grandparent the plot is basically the same as Independence Day but with the jingoism and speechifying dialed way down.  This isn’t disrespect to either movie, both do precisely what they intend and they do it well. Aliens threaten and human beings come together to thwart them. There is something positive in that, something that resonates, with us bipeds.

The best of these films also are parables about how we are stewards of the world. These movies seem to need that. The monsters cannot attack us for no reason. We always bear a little responsibility in these movies; pollution, nuclear testing or just secretive politicians.  The monsters come in through the crack we leave in the door.

Pacific Rim may not break new ground but it is entertaining and diverting. Also, Charlie from Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia is in it. How could it be bad?

If you feel that you have to go see World War Z the first thing you need to do is put the idea that the film has anything to do with the book out of your head. It has nothing to do with the book. The name is the same and that is about it.

That, in and of itself, isn't an impediment to a movie being good. Plenty of adaptations of books have thrown the book out the window and done a decent job. The problem with World War Z is that it is an action movie where the action isn't terribly interesting and a horror movie that isn't particularly scary. It is even difficult to write about because it is so bland, like a slice of Wonder Bread and a glass of milk.

The film starts off with some promise. It doesn't spend a great deal of time on set up. We meet a family; dad has apparently quit a job recently working under circumstances that are dangerous. Then they are in a car in Philadelphia and shit goes crazy. Zombie-attack crazy.

These are non CGI zombies and we see people getting bit and turning and then Brad Pitt's Gerry burns rubber.  There are scenes of civic mayhem and conversations of rescue which happens shortly (as you might imagine, not without incident).

Brad Pitt and everyone else in the movie are fine but no one is given much to do. They seem to think that talking is bad and once there is any hint of any actual plot development there needs to be a large-scale CGI zombie attack.

Once on the ship the story and problems start to pile up. Gerry's family is on an aircraft carrier run by the military and UN. And he is sent out on a mission to discover the origin of the zombie plague. Basically from here he flies to Korea. Then decides to go to Jerusalem and finally to Wales. No need to refuel the plane, of course. There are, naturally, zombie attacks in all these places. It is very formulaic. Arrive in new place and then zombie attack. Hell, get on plane, zombie attack.

There is no chance in any of this to give half a shit about any of the alleged characters.

Then we come to the crux of the issue; the zombies are not scary. The CGI zombies do not move like humans. They move like a giant coordinated blob. It is far less real looking than any recent zombie video game. There is no suspense. They can pile up and go over a wall. How they manage to do it in Israel is idiotic. The Israelis are supposed to have seen the whole thing coming and yet they don't know not to have a sing along?

Next, when you find non-CGI zombies they are more comical than scary. The snap their teeth together in a motion that, presumably, indicates they want to bite you! OOhhh...scary. It is actually closer to laughable.

And with the PG 13 rating it isn't very gory (I am sure it will come out with a gorier version on DVD).

Another problem with this movie is its lack of attention to detail.  They send Gerry on an extremely important mission and give him a satellite phone. The assistant secretary of the UN doesn't seem to have a cell phone, nor does the military commander (who, oddly, appears in one scene). Who gets the other satellite phone? His wife. When he calls in with important information she has to run with the phone.  This is, of course, just an example. There is really nothing to this movie. It is all air and CGI.

More egregious is how this is obviously just a set up for sequel. Hopefully there will not be one. The resolution is sort of clever (and again has nothing to do with the book) but it isn't done particularly well. It sort of just ends and ends with a lame voice-over no less.

Man of Steel has a great deal going for it:solid cast, decent writing, a good pace and you even manage to care, just a little, about some o the characters. But somehow, while the film does manage "good" it never gets anywhere near "great."

Part of this may be "super hero movie fatigue." There is a sameness to most of these films, even the good ones. It is hard to describe but it is something everyone (who isn't a complete fanboy or fangirl) senses after repeated superhero exposure. Iron Man III is good. The Avengers was a lot better than such an ensemble film should have been (a LOT better). But there is also something anticlimactic in all of them.

Maybe it is because we know none of the main characters are ever in any real danger. There has to be a part 2, part 3 or part 4!. The comics kill off their characters with frequency (and of course bring them back with equal frequency) but at least that allows for some suspense.

But back to Man of Steel.

What are the best things about the film? Henry Cavill and Michael Shannon are both excellent as hero and villain. Cavill and company are probably the best group of actors ever brought together for any superman movie. Yes, I know, Christopher Reeves had a horrible accident and was a totally brave and admirable man. But Cavill is a better actor. There is an almost "Wolverine" side to this movie where Superman tries to hide and blend in. Cavill is good in these, all too brief scenes.

Shannon, the depth of whose character is regrettably only hinted at, is even better. The hints of the complexity of his character come from the notion that, on Krypton, everyone is genetically engineered for a duty--Shannon's Zod is the warrior-protector of the society. There could have been much more made of his conflict as a formerly "good man" but it is sort of left on the table.

This is an example of what is wrong with the movie; there is a great deal hinted at that is never fully explored. They cram a lot into the movie and they do it pretty well. This is never really boring (even if it starts a little slow). It just never rises to the level of, let's say, the Batman movies or the first two X-Men movies.

This said? With all the introductions out of the way? The way is clear for a more complex and higher end super hero film with Superman II. Let's just hope the fight scenes are a little less Transformers-like in number 2.

This all sounds a little harsher than it should. As noted, the acting and pacing are good. You will not be bored to tears but if you enter with exceptionally high expectations you may be a TAD disappointed.

Some of the actors not mentioned:Diane Lane and Amy Adams also turn in decent performances. Lane playing Martha Kent does give her character depth in this film. She is a fine actress. And while Adams isn't given much to do here, she adds something to Lois Lane. This Lois Lane can do things for herself.

Once again, hope for future Superman movies. Filmmakers need to remember that audiences do not mind movies where there is talking--provided what is being said is interesting. Explosions are cool but so is exposition.

A Good Day To Die Hard isn't the worst action movie you have ever seen. Dolph Lundgren isn't in it. Sylvester Stallone is nowhere to be found. The horribly disfigured Jean-Claude Van Damme at no point crosses proverbial swords with Chuck Norris.

No, A Good Day To Die Hard is just the last gasp of a once proud money machine, the Die Hard series.

The film may even surprise you by how it sucks LESS than you thought it was going to--because let's be serious you only went to see it because you've seen all the Oscar films, seen Side Effects, seen Mama, seen whatever the current kid's cartoon is out. Or maybe it you saw it because of when you walked into the theater.

The film takes a little while to get going. You need to know that John McClain's son is in Moscow and he seems to be some sort of secret agent, unbeknownst to his father. The bad guys come, there is a pretty excellent car chase which likely smashes more cars in a single chase than any movie in history.

And that is awesome. When you cannot have a plot? Destroy things.

The plot in this movie, set in Russia, is so improbable it barely is worth slapping yourself in the head over. The Russians are all pretty much bad. And a couple of Americans set things right. The plot makes some sense within itself and there is the usual double cross.

The real question is--why?

Not why in the context of the movie--there is no answer to that question.

The real world "why" is, of course, money. It is doing respectably making over 37 million in it's first weekend. But this is still the movie that kills the franchise. No one walked out of this movie thinking "I want to see MORE."

NO ONE.

There is strange hollowness to this movie. You feel like they want to fill the movie with references to the franchise. Willis meets a chatty cab driver--reminiscent of the limo driver in Die Hard. But then you never see him again. Villains die in a similar way to how villains die in both Die Hard and Die Hard III.

Mostly the movie just plugs along, the little action movie that almost could. It never impresses, it is vaguely watchable but never terribly exciting. You never dislike the villains all that much. There is no Alan Richman or Jeremy Irons to elevate material. Hell, there isn't even a William Sadler or John Amos. One of the characters does resemble Franco Nero.

This is the example of how a franchise sputters to death. Each movie made more money than the last and had less life than the last (you could make a case #3 is better than #2).  You would have to compare the 1988 dollar to the 2007 dollar to see how much the increase was in reality. But there is no more life here. There is nothing new to say and nothing interesting to do. It is to be hopes Bruce Willis begs off any sequel, effectively killing it. End it now...or make it about zombies and have Hans Gruber rise from the grave.

Django Unchained makes you wonder what is next. Inglourious Basterds rewrote the history of World War II to what many of us, no doubt, regard as a better resolution.  Burning those responsible for the Holocaust and the bloodiest war in human history alive is far more satisfying than cyanide, self-inflicted bullet wounds or boring trials.

Django Unchained does the same for the historic crime of slavery. Guess what? There is lots of blood and brutality mixed with humor. This is a film in the upper echelon of Tarantino's work--even comparing favorably to films like Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown.

Of course, in slavery, there is no ONE person (like Hitler) that you can focus all your rage on. So? You create a loathsome, sadistic plantation owner, Calvin Candie.

Candie, not only an evil character but one with bad teeth. Both of these are novel in the career of Leonardo DiCaprio--an unattractive character both physically and morally. There is nothing to like about DiCaprio's Candie. Of course this character is writ large and broad and requires some serious scenery chewing which DiCaprio does with gusto.

To face Candie's evil we have two protagonists--Dr. King Schultz and Django. The former is a former German dentist turned bounty hunter and the later a slave being sold. Schultz needs Django to identify men he is chasing and Django needs his freedom to rescue his wife. Christoph Waltz turns in a performance every bit as memorable as his Oscar winning role as Colonel Hans Landa. Jamie Foxx turns in a performance worthy of any Western. He is John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Clint Eastwood all rolled into one.

Guess who winds up in possession of his wife? Yes! Calvin Candie! And also Django's wife speaks German and is named Broomhilda.

One really interesting choice in the film is the REAL villain--Samuel L. Jackson's Stephen, the head house "nigger" (If you have a strong aversion to the "N-word" this isn't the film for you). It is a peculiar choice for a villain. Generally, a black character isn't going to be the villain of a slavery film (after Birth of a Nation anyway) but Tarantino creates Stephen, a character somehow more evil than Candie in that he works against his own kind. Django plays at being a black slaver but Stephan is really complicit in the oppression of his own people. He is a cog in the machine of slavery. He is Judas, worse than Judas.

Django Unchained has a slew of cameos, some are hilarious and others seemingly random appearances by well known actors. Keep your eyes open for these. Many of these small roles really add to the film. Laura Cayouette as Candie's sister, Miss Laura, barely says a word but still brings something to the film (maybe even a hint of an unnatural relationship with her brother). Don Johnson, Walter Goggins, Jonah Hill and Tom Wopat all turn up in the film at various points and they are not alone.

This film may slow down a wee bit here and there but, rest assured, these lulls (and they are brief) are punctuated with unexpected violence or humor. This film flows far better than Inglourious Basterds and it combines all the best of Tarantino's past work. Tarantino nods to film history here and there. You always get the impression in his better films that every detail is in a greater context and this is certainly true in Django Unchained. These roots, this context, is emphatically not in history but in film history. In a way Tarantino 's film isn't about righting the wrongs of slavery but about righting the wrongs of how slavery has been depicted in film--from the earliest American "epic" to the happy, sassy, slaves of subsequent films.

Hopefully this isn't the final rewriting of this history. Django II anyone?