Directed by: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton, Carey Mulligan
Rated: PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language

Get a handful of people in a room who have read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, and you’re likely to find at least a few who love it and at least a few who hate it. Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of the great American novel is likely to provoke similar reactions. Both have to walk the fine line between critiquing the excesses of the Jazz Age and simply being part of them.

The film is narrated by Nick Carroway (Tobey Maguire), a young man in some sort of psychiatric institution. His doctor suggests that he write as a way of soothing himself and purging some of the experiences that are eating at him. Out comes the tale of one Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), mysterious millionaire and thrower of the most spectacular parties Luhrmann’s creativity can bring us. Nick moved in next door for the summer, and found himself swept up into the mystery of his wealthy neighbor, who has some sort of history with Nick’s cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan).

That tragedy ensues is no surprise; nearly every moment of the film seems to teeter on the edge of falling into either chaos (for the characters) or self-parody (of itself). Different people will interpret the story different ways: is it a tale of doomed love? A portrait of multiple people’s self-delusion (my own take)? An unflinching portrait of the Jazz Age and cautionary tale about the American Dream? That it can be read in many ways is part of what makes the book such a vital part of the canon of American literature. The film, unfortunately, never quite commits to any interpretation and fails to really follow through on any of them. Each one is undercut somehow.

It’s a pity, really. I’ve been a fan of Luhrmann’s since “Strictly Ballroom” came out back in the early 90s, and “The Great Gatsby” feels like he’s lost his way. There’s no heart here, the film has no soul — and if it were a critique of the Jazz Age, that would be fine, but there’s too much enthusiasm in the spectacle for that interpretation to hold up. It’s as if all the attention went to the parties, and none went to the people. That the man who made an inspiring, passionate love story masquerading as a silly little film about competitive ballroom dancing made this piece of empty glitz is more than a little disappointing.

All the pieces are there to make a great film. Leonardo DiCaprio seems born to play Jay Gatsby, Tobey Maguire excels at the necessary naivete and optimism, Carey Mulligan’s Daisy is appropriately beautiful and vapid, and Joel Edgerton seems born to play the nasty, brutish, Old Money she married. The production quality is almost uniformly magnificent, the pacing is solid, and Luhrmann’s fondness for anachronistic remixes of modern music mostly works just fine. But there’s nothing underneath, it doesn’t gel. Part of the problem is that the voice-over narration from Maguire is frequently unnecessary, to the point that it will describe something metaphorical which is then literally acted out. It’s as if Luhrmann was so in love with the text of the book that he couldn’t tell when not to use it.

Whether or not any single person will like “The Great Gatsby” is hard to say. It probably depends on what you’re looking for. If you just want some amazing eye candy, huge spectacles and gorgeous shots, don’t miss it. But if you have strong opinions about the book or want anything in the lines of character heart or development, stay far away.

Directed by: Shane Black
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Rebecca Hall, Jon Favreau, Paul Bettany (voice), Ty Simpkins
Rated: PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief suggestive content

Iron Man is back, this time in his own movie – but in an unusual move for an action flick, the events of his previous film (the record-setting “The Avengers”) are not only mentioned but having negative consequences for his mental health. He doesn’t have time to sit around and deal with his issues, though – there’s a new villain on the scene, and he makes things personal for Tony very, very quickly.

If you somehow haven’t seen any of the previous Iron Man films, or “The Avengers,” you are likely doing yourself a disservice. Even non-comic-book-fan folks who enjoy big action movies generally love them (with the possible exception of “Iron Man 2,” which was rather lackluster in the writing department). However, you can probably enjoy “Iron Man 3” without having seen the previous films as long as you’re aware that they exist and you’re going in without full knowledge of the background. The important thing to know is that Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), once a delightedly-immoral arms dealer and now a superhero and pioneer in green energy tech, nearly died in the last film.

As usual, Downey plays the part perfectly, giving us the slightly manic glint of a man who’s sleeping too little and trying to pretend it’s not because he’s terrified of what he’ll see when he closes his eyes. It’s refreshing to see a superhero movie deal with the actual psychological consequences of someone who is, for all intents and purposes, just a regular human, having far from regular experiences.

Tony’s issues, and his failure to deal with them in a healthy way, are putting a strain on his relationship with Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow). Paltrow has been one of the best things about this series since the beginning, and she nails her performance here. Pepper loves Tony, but part of what makes their relationship work is her refusal to put up with his nonsense – and that has the potential for serious consequences.

Meanwhile, a terrorist calling himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) is taking credit for a series of mysterious explosions around the US – none of which seem to have actual bomb fragments involved at the scene. When it gets personal – and when you’re dealing with a narcissist like Tony, everything is personal – Tony finds himself on the run, presumed dead, and with a nonfunctioning prototype suit of armor rather than one of his near-omnipotent awesome suits. He winds up in the middle of nowhere, teaming up with a kid (Ty Simpkins) who’s passionate about engineering and helps Tony fix up the broken suit.

It’s pretty awesome to see this Tony Stark back in action, the one who built the first suit in a cave with a box of scraps. He winds up facing the baddies using improvised tech which looks bizarre but actually (mostly) works. It’s also awesome to see Ben Kingsley really flexing his acting muscles here. Without giving too much away, let me just say that his performance in the second half of the film is a thing to delight even casual fans of his acting.

Lastly, it wouldn’t be an Iron Man movie without at least a few scenes of Tony and his suit blowing things up. While everything leading up to it is generally low on action, the big finale more than makes up for it, and it’s completely worth the wait. Rhodey (Don Cheadle), Tony, and the suits kick a lot of baddie behind, the special effects are glorious, and there are enough explosions to satisfy all but the most ardent pyrotechnic fans.

In the end, whether you’ll enjoy this movie or not depends on whether you like the Marvel Avengers movies or not. If you haven’t seen any of them… well, I’d say you’ve been missing out. There are worse introductions than “Iron Man 3.”

Directed by: Antoine Fuqua
Starring: Gerard Butler, Rick Yune, Aaron Eckhart, Finley Jacobson, Dylan McDermott, Morgan Freeman, Angela Bassett
Rated: R for strong violence and language throughout

There’s a type of action movie that requires a lot of its audience. You have to suspend not just your disbelief, but also your common sense. If you’re willing to do that, it’ll give you the ride of your life – but if you’re not, you are in for an unpleasant time. “Olympus Has Fallen” is definitely this type of action movie.

A group of North Korean terrorists take the White House, holding the President (Aaron Eckhart) and several other executives hostage in the emergency bunker and killing off the entire Secret Service and all other security personnel sent to stop them – except for one Mike Banning (Gerard Butler). Banning is the greatest Secret Service agent ever, and was close to the President until a tragic event occurred and he was booted to a desk job.

With Banning the only living, non-captured good guy in the White House, Acting-President Speaker Trumbull (Morgan Freeman) and the other free executive and military folks have to rely on him to save the day. Apparently the Marines, all S.E.A.L. teams, the Air Force, etc. are all on vacation. Or Kang (Rick Yune), the leader of the terrorists, is scary enough that Trumbull won’t send them in? It’s not clear. It’s also not clear why the Acting President is behaving as though saving the person who was the President is more important than preventing the huge apocalyptic thing Kang is trying to do. Presumably someone pointed out to him that then the movie would be very short.

Yune makes a solid villain, although he isn’t given much to work with. Kang, we learn, is a sort of super-terrorist who hates the US because his mother was killed by an American land mine. He turns out to actually have a decent plan, once we find out what it is, but it relies on the president being empathetic to the point of incompetence (which he is) and the security design of the American military being astonishingly bad (which it also is).

If you’re willing to turn your brain off, there’s a fair bit of action to keep you entertained – but it takes entirely too long to get going. A prologue involving Banning’s fall from grace takes up twenty minutes when it could have been told entirely in brief flashbacks, and keeps anything interesting from happening unless you count dialog, people dressing for a party, and a limo spinning out on black ice as interesting. Big, dumb action movies like this need to get off to a rip-roaring start, and this one definitely does not.

Once it does get going, though, there’s a lot to like. Butler makes a decent action hero and there’s lots of gunfire and explosions to enjoy (even a huge plane crash!). If you’ve seen one or two of this type of flick, you’ve seen ‘em all, and this one is no different.

Whether you’ll like “Olympus Has Fallen” or not depends on how demanding you are of your big, dumb action movies. If you can’t deal with slow starts or massive plot holes, stay far, far away from this flick. If, on the other hand, you don’t mind a slow start as long as there’s enough action to make up for it later, this is probably a good matinee or second-run choice.

Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams, Zach Braff
Rated: PG for sequences of action and scary images, and brief mild language

Making what is essentially a prequel to one of the most beloved films of all time is a risky business. “Oz, The Great and Powerful” gives us the story of how the titular wizard in “The Wizard of Oz” got to where he is when Dorothy meets him. It’s not a perfect film by any means, but it has all the magic and charm we can expect from a Disney film.

Oscar (James Franco) is a sideshow magician in a travelling circus. He’s more than a bit of a ladies’ man, a con artist used to lying and manipulating to get what he wants. When he winds up on the run in his balloon (from an enraged boyfriend of one of his recent conquests), he’s sucked up into a tornado and winds up in Oz. There, he meets Theodora (Mila Kunis), who tells him he’s obviously the wizard spoken of in a prophecy made by the last king, who was poisoned by the Wicked Witch. When he learns that the wizard gets to be king and have vast amounts of gold, Oz is in.

Of course, it turns out that things are way more complicated than he thought. The Wicked Witch he sets out to kill (Michelle Williams) isn’t who he thinks, Theodora’s sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) is suspicious of his credentials, and the people of Oz are far from the army one really needs to defeat a powerful witch.

Franco gets off to a somewhat rough start, with the pre-Oz material feeling a bit off kilter. Once the film hits Oz, however, he hits his stride – and I found myself wondering if maybe the pre-Oz material is intended to feel strained. Regardless, Franco makes his con man character someone we can root for even while he proves over and over that he’s not a very good person. He has a decent heart, but ultimately he subsists on tricks and lies.

The women all commit to their roles 100%. Kunis and Weisz get to chew a bit of scenery, and Williams’ talent shines even with the fairly simple role she’s given.

The special effects are impressive, especially those requiring motion capture. China Girl (Joey King) is a small girl made out of china whom Oz rescues early on. She insists on going with him, and it’s almost immediately easy to forget that she’s entirely computer-generated. Apparently the actors were actually on set for all the motion-capture work, and their facial reactions were used by the computer animators. Likewise, Zach Braff’s turn as Finley, a winged monkey who becomes Oz’s lackey, is surprisingly lifelike – due mostly to the excellent facial expression work.

The Land of Oz itself is almost a character in its own right, and the effects don’t disappoint here, either. Strange plants and animals, glorious vistas, and the Emerald City are all reimagined in a way that references the Judy Garland film without simply copying it. There are also heaps of little nods to that earlier film, so its fans will likely be pleased.

This being a Disney film, I probably don’t have to point out that it’s full of unfortunate, old fairytale tropes – good people are beautiful, evil people are ugly (or get turned ugly by the end); you need a man to lead an army; women with real power are evil; etc. For most viewers, the charm of the film will likely overwhelm any negative reaction to these common issues, but for some they’ll be dealbreakers.

So, if you want a charming and beautiful film that’s a fairy tale about the man who becomes the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, do not miss “Oz the Great and Powerful.” If you’re hoping for a stereotype-smashing, progressive version of Oz (in other words, one faithful to the feminist themes of L. Frank Baum’s books), you should probably stay away.

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Channing Tatum, Catherine Zeta-Jones
Rated: R for sexuality, nudity, violence and language

Some thrillers are so convoluted that it’s almost impossible to discuss them without revealing twists and turns best left to be revealed in the watching. “Side Effects” is one such — the first act of the story can be mostly gathered from the previews and is fairly simple, but where the plot goes from there is packed with twists. In almost every way, this is a spot-on thriller, a commentary on mental illness, and a highly entertaining film.

The plot revolves around Emily (Rooney Mara), the pretty, delicate wife of Martin (Channing Tatum). Martin’s in jail for insider trading as the film starts, and about to get out. Emily is having trouble with anxiety and depression, and eventually begins seeing one Dr. Banks (Jude Law). When the old standbys don’t work, he consults her previous psychiatrist, Dr. Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and prescribes a new drug — with unexpected consequences.

There’s a lot to like about “Side Effects.” Its portrayal of depression and the difficulties of treating it is excellent — Mara is luminous and completely convincing, and the cinematography is muted, suggesting the flattening of colors and emotions that comes with profound depression. As Banks tries different medications and Emily struggles with side effects, anyone who’s dealt with psychiatric medication themselves or been close to someone who has will recognize the process.

It’s a slow build, and without the opening shots of bloody footprints and mysterious gifts (followed by the title: Three Months Earlier and the beginning of the story), it might be hard to hang in there. Cinephiles won’t have any trouble, though. Steven Soderbergh is a seasoned director, and he knows how to shape and shade his visuals to give them a depth and complexity that many other films lack. He has the advantage of working with a brilliantly-constructed script, one in which there are layers upon layers of plotting and conspiracy and corruption to be uncovered.

Where the film came crashing down for me was in its embracing of a collection of profoundly old, tired, and sexist tropes. Skip the rest of this paragraph if you want to avoid anything resembling spoilers! This film contains not only the old familiar evil bisexual woman, but also: a sane woman locked up in a mental ward and medicated against her will (and this is supposed to be a good thing), all strong women are evil and all good women are foolish and easily-manipulated, and even the strongest women are easily manipulated by a man once he’s onto their schemes. Maybe it’s just that I’ve seen so many films over the years and am tired of the casual misogyny that runs rampant in Hollywood, but by the end of the film it was impossible for me to enjoy it. Spoilers over.

In short, if you’re sensitive to sexism you should probably avoid this film. If you don’t mind it, or aren’t particularly sensitized to it, and you like well-crafted psychological thrillers, don’t miss it.

Written and Directed by: Tommy Wirkola
Starring: Gemma Arterton, Jeremy Renner, Famke Janssen, Peter Stormare
Rated: R for strong fantasy horror violence and gore, brief sexuality/nudity, and language

There’s something ever-appealing to me about fantasy-action films. The good ones don’t take themselves seriously and are pure fun, and the bad ones are so deliciously campy that it’s hard not to love them anyway. “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters” is in the first group. It’s silly almost to the point of being deranged at some points (someone explain to me how they made insulin injections in the middle ages, please), but the leads are so engaging and the story so fast-paced that it’s easy to just sit back and take the ride.

The film starts with the familiar story: a man wakes his small children in the middle of the night, takes them out in the woods, and abandons them. They find a witch’s cottage, are nearly eaten by her, and manage to stick her in her own oven instead. There’s an added twist in this version: the witch’s magic doesn’t work on them. As the opening credits roll, we see a very cleverly-animated montage of “Lost Child” posters and the slowly growing-up Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) defeating witches and rescuing children.

The main quest of the film involves a village where nearly a dozen children have been taken in just a few weeks. When the sheriff (Peter Stormare) proves unable to find them, the mayor brings in Hansel and Gretel. The siblings are now adults, and their lives have led them to be violent, direct, and completely unimpressed by authority (Gretel shuts up the obnoxious sheriff by headbutting him and breaking his nose). They soon discover that something very big is definitely afoot, and they only have a few days to save the children before the local witches use them for a massive ritual that could spell the end for not just witch hunters, but all of humanity!

If it sounds a bit overwrought, well, it is — and that’s part of the fun. Hansel and Gretel are two deeply practical (and foul-mouthed) action heroes in the middle of a medieval scenery-chewer’s convention. Famke Janssen has so much fun playing the lead wicked witch that she’s practically giggling with delight in half her scenes, the siblings’ local fanboy Ben (Thomas Mann) is straight out of an eighties movie, and Stormare’s portrayal of the sheriff is reminiscent of a thunderstorm. Meanwhile, Arterton and Renner are direct, given to the occasional low-key one-liner, and far more interested in stopping witches than being popular with — or even friendly to – the locals.

Between “The Avengers” and “The Bourne Legacy” Jeremy Renner is starting to really take off, and it’s well-deserved. He’s a talented actor with a light touch, and I sincerely hope that most critics’ inability to just have a good time at the movies won’t trash his career. He and Arterton make a good team, too – she makes Gretel a believable action heroine, and walks the line between ridiculous and awesome with aplomb. What really makes the film work, for me, is the chemistry between them — they really come off as a brother-sister team who are incredibly close but in a familial rather than romantic way.

Of course, a film like this is almost inevitably going to have some things in it to make those of us with any education in history, fantasy tropes, or feminism shake our heads in disappointment, and “Hansel and Gretel” does is no exception. I can overlook the anachronisms, but the tired “bad people are ugly and good people are pretty!” trope needs to be burned at the stake. I was hoping to make it through the film without any women having to die for the sake of the plot (known in the comics community as “fridging”), but no such luck. Apparently the only way a strong male character can change his mind is if a lady dies proving him wrong.

But really, even calling those out feels like complaining that Pop Tarts aren’t made with organic ingredients. You don’t go to a movie like “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters” for progressive entertainment, you go to see violence, awesomeness, and pretty people – and in that department, it delivers thoroughly.

Directed by: Taylor Hackford
Starring: Jason Statham, Jennifer Lopez, Michael Chiklis, Wendell Pearce, Clifton Collins Jr., Nick Nolte, Emma Booth
Rated: R for strong violence, language throughout and brief sexual content/nudity

Anyone who sees the trailers for “Parker” and is strongly reminded of the 1999 Mel Gibson movie “Payback” is on the money — both are based on novels from the same series by Donald E. Westlake (under the pseudonym Richard Stark). They’re based on different novels, but have very similar premises: career criminal Parker (Jason Statham in this year’s flick) is double-crossed by his associates after a heist that doesn’t meet Parker’s standards. He’s left for dead, but survives and sets out to get what’s owed him. It’s a classic revenge story that, provided you’re willing to overlook a few glaring flaws, is well worth watching if you like Statham and the genre.

There’s a lot to recommend “Parker.” Statham is in his element, playing a principled criminal who has his rules and will not hesitate to use deadly force against those who break them. There are gunfights, hand-to-hand fights, lots of stealth and suspense, and even a memorable knife fight for Statham to show off his stunt and martial-art prowess. He also gets to show his softer side during the few scenes between Parker and his girlfriend, Claire.

The secondary cast is mostly excellent. Nick Nolte plays Claire’s father, a long-time associate of Parker’s and a criminal himself. Michael Chiklis is the leader of the little gang that turns on Parker, and seems to be having a lot of fun in the role. The other members of the gang are mostly playing stereotypes — the tech guy, the enforcer, and the inept but well-connected kid — but you don’t go to a movie like this for the character development. The actors and the action deliver 100%, and that’s what matters.

Where the film falls apart is its inclusion of Jennifer Lopez as a completely unnecessary and annoying secondary character. Too much time is spent putting the action plot on hold while her depressing life as a struggling real estate agent in Palm Beach is detailed. Although she’s apparently supposed to act as Parker’s coach and passport into Palm Beach society, she never really does, and what little she does to move the plot forward could easily have been handled a different way. Her character serves virtually no function other than to look pretty, provide ham-fisted and unconvincing romantic tension with Statham, and annoy the audience. She does come equipped with a delightfully eccentric mother, but her mom appears so little that the connection doesn’t justify her existence. J-Lo isn’t a bad actress, but she’s working with awful material that does no favors for the film’s pacing.

If you’re willing to tolerate a character whose every appearance on screen is like nails on a chalkboard in order to get your annual ration of Statham-fighting-people-goodness, “Parker” is well worth seeing in theaters. If you’re not, wait for DVD so you can fast-forward through her bits. It’ll bring the film down to a tight ninety minutes or so, and you won’t lose much in terms of plot.

Directed by: Jee-woon Kim
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eduardo Noriega, Jaime Alexander, Luis Guzman, Zach Gilford, Rodrigo Santoro, Johnny Knoxville
Rated: R for strong bloody violence throughout, and language

It’s been eight years since we’ve seen Arnold Schwarzenegger in any major role other than Governor of California, and he’s picked a perfect film for his comeback. “The Last Stand” is built from the same stock as the big action flicks he was making in the 80s. It’s got a simple setup, all the major tropes, and plenty of cartoonish, over-the-top gunplay. Even better, unlike a lot of recent homages to the action flicks of the 80s, it doesn’t bother trying to be gritty. This is the real deal: fun, explosions, and no thinking necessary.

Ray Owens (Schwarzenegger) is the sheriff of a tiny border town in Arizona called Sommersville Junction. He’s been a lawman for a long time, and when a couple of truckers show up in town on his day off, he knows immediately that something’s off about them. He’s right — they’re part of a team setting up a daring escape for a Mexican cartel boss on his way to death row. The boss, Gabriel Cortez (Eduardo Noriega), pulls off the escape and is soon headed toward Sommersville with the goal of crossing back into Mexico.

Owens only has a handful of deputies — there’s the experienced Mike “Figgy” Figueroa (Luis Guzman), Sarah Torrance (Jaime Alexander), and young Jerry Bailey (Zach Gilford), who wants to move to LA and get some real excitement. Once the Sheriff realizes the scope of what he’s dealing with, he deputizes a couple more, including town drunk and ex-marine Frank (Rodrigo Santoro) and town eccentric Lewis Dinkum (Johnny Knoxville). This little team of lunatics and misfits is all that stands between Cortez and freedom.

“The Last Stand” dances right up to the line of getting overly political and mostly manages not to cross it. Given that it’s about a bunch of townsfolk along the Mexican border trying to stop a Mexican cartel boss from escaping justice, it’d be pretty easy for it to turn into a political screed with lots of jingoistic speeches. Fortunately, the mixed ethnicities of the good guys and a line from Owens referencing his own immigrant status help to take the wind out of those sales. This isn’t a bunch of white folks against a bunch of Latino folks, it’s a bunch of cops against a bunch of criminals. (Bonus: the ever-delightful Peter Stormare is on the bad team, playing a guy with a white name and a deep tan.)

What makes or breaks a movie like this is its pacing and its action. The pacing leaves a bit to be desired, with the film starting off a bit slow — but once it finally gets going, it roars along. The action is a delight for any old-school fan, with everything from six-shooters to rocket-propelled grenades in the mix. We get to see cars blown up, a road blockade taken out by some serious firepower and an enormous bulldozer-like vehicle, and a specially-modified Corvette that can go over 200 mph. There’s even a deeply satisfying knock-down drag-out fistfight.

There’s also a strong vein of humor running through “The Last Stand.” Some of it is gory (one of the funniest shots is a bit of slapstick involving a bad guy who gets blown up), but a lot of it revolves around Owens being old and the folks in his town being deeply eccentric (a warning to any criminals reading this: watch out for little old ladies who say “no trespassing!”).

“The Last Stand” is a film out of its time, and likely not to be around for long, so go see it while you can if this is the kind of thing you like. If you’re more interested in guns than splashing gore, more interested in laughs than grit, this is your movie.

Written and Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, Samuel L. Jackson
Rated: R for strong graphic violence throughout, a vicious fight, language and some nudity

“Django Unchained” is, on its surface, a fairly straightforward “man is wronged and loses his woman, then meets a man who helps him achieve his quest to avenge himself and get his woman back” sort of story. It’s certainly easy to enjoy the film on that level, especially if you’re a fan of Quentin Tarantino’s violent, over-the-top style. However, there are also layers of character development, complex themes, and enough references to fill a book. This is a movie that seems destined to spawn art student theses, not just a Western set in the South.

Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave who’s been branded as a runaway and sold to a different owner than his wife as punishment for their attempt to escape. When a roving bounty hunter, Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz), buys him because he can identify Schultz’s current targets, he finds himself with an opportunity to get revenge and rescue his wife. Foxx brings a weariness and rage to the part that raises his character out of the cookie-cutter-stereotype he’s based in and makes him a person we can care about and really empathize with.

Anyone who’s seen “Inglourious Basterds” knows that Waltz is a delightfully sly scene-stealer, and if you loved him there, you’ll love him here. His Schultz has a sense of humor, delights in the ridiculous, and is also a master sharpshooter completely untroubled by his grisly trade. He trains Django to be a bounty hunter after giving him his freedom, and decides to help the former slave on his quest. They make a strange pair, but Foxx and Schultz have the necessary buddy chemistry to make it work: Django is as bemused by Schultz as we are.

Django and Schultz’s quest takes them to the home of Monsieur Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), the thoroughly evil man who owns one of the largest plantations in the South. His casual cruelty (including having a runaway torn to bits by dogs in front of his guests — and the audience) to slaves is nothing new to Django but horrifies Schultz, and seems designed to horrify viewers as well. Of course, anyone who’s studied the period knows how awful slave-owners could be to the people they considered their subhuman property, but seeing it on a screen in full color, screams and all, is something else.

What many people will likely find more difficult to bear than the gruesome violence is the characterization of the villains and the regular folks who are background characters. For one thing, there’s the language — not the swearing (of which there is plenty), but the liberal use of the various historically-authentic terms for black people. DiCaprio’s character, in one deeply disconcerting scene, muses on the subhuman, submissive nature of black people and then prepares to split a slave girl’s head open to demonstrate his theory with phrenology. This is not a film for the faint of heart in a number of ways.

If “Django” has one weakness, it’s a tendency for dramatic pauses and long reaction shots that some may find annoying. Its pacing is fine, thankfully, but its just-over-three-hour runtime will feel longer if you don’t like long shots.

Of all Tarantino’s films, “Django Unchained” is most reminiscent for me of “Inglourious Basterds,” and not just because of Waltz’s presence. Both are essentially wish-fulfillment (who doesn’t want to see a slave get free and kill some evil white slavers in a huge gunfight complete with anachronistic dynamite?) , but with a generous helping of violent sequences and dialogue meant to make us uncomfortable, meant to make us think. Tarantino is maturing more and more as a filmmaker, and it’s a pleasure to watch, at least for those who are okay with the discomfort.