So Quintin Tarantino makes a film which portrays the slavery as an evil, barbaric institution and also lampoons antebellum Southern culture. Brilliant. Novel. Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before? Quentin Tarantino may have managed to make all the bed-wetting P.C. liberals in Hollywood swoon over his "Period" film and even get accolades from the academy. One thing Tarantino failed to do, however, was read a freshman American history textbook when he was researching for his screenplay. If he had done so, he would have learned the Ku Klux Klan WAS NOT EVEN FORMED in the United States until after the Civil War. Thus Tarantino's portrayal of a group of Klansmen was a huge anachronism and in my opinion denotes this film to mediocre-at-best status. And speaking of the Klan, what in the HELL was all that silliness about the way they put the potato sacks on their heads? I fully accept that it's great when a serious screenplay has an unexpected comic relief (think the graveyard scene in "Hamlet"). To his credit, Tarantino has done exceptional dark comic reliefs in the past: I still laugh at that scene in "Pulp Fiction" when Bruce Willis is sitting at a red light and just like that Marcellus Wallace walks right in front of his car. However, a comic relief should never change the genre of a film. In "Django Unchained," that happens. Anachronistic Klansmen arguing about potato sacks gets me thinking "Is this a Quentin Tarantino film or a Mel Brooks film?" And speaking of genre changes, the film is also replete with totally unrealistic Hollywood-style gunfights: I just loooove the way those bad guys always miss. So one minute it's a serious historical fiction called "Django Unchained," the next minute it's "Blazing Saddles," and then before you know it it's "Star Wars." Oh, and one other thing: IT'S ALSO UNDOUBTEDLY THE MOST OVERRATED FILM OF 2012. One last thing: is it just me, or does Jamie Foxx in that ridiculous costume remind us of when he was Wanda on "In Living Color?"