Django Unchained

[fishstick]

I think Leo was supposed to be more of a really despicable rich guy than a dangerous, menacing obstacle. And he did that perfectly, if that's what he was going for.

Yep, that`s what they were going for. He wasn`t supposed to be an exception to the rule, some supervillain, but just a despeakable guy who believed in despeakable things and did despeakable shit because it was OK and everyone did it at the time. Hell, one of biggest cheers came when Django blew off Candie`s sister. She was a bitch too because she let all that shit happen. It`s really that Candie represents the wrongness of the whole system than some special one-of-a-kind villain. IMO, that makes him more dangerous because there were many like him, heck, everyone was really like that because the system sanctioned it. When Schultz refuses to shake his hand it`s less about Candie as an individual and more about "the way of the South". It` s just that Candie represents that way at that particular moment and since Schultz can`t right the whole wrong he could at least do something about this particular specimen. But his disgust is squarely with the whole system.Quesiton. Did anyone kinda lose interest after Schultz died? He was really the heart and soul of the movie for me so when he died I wasn`t engaged anymore. It isn`t that Django`s plight did nothing for me but the character certainly didn`t engage like Schultz cause brooding introverts never do unlike excuberant extroverts.

[Kevin Bacon]

Man, I really hate this forum's unclear spoiler rules. I like to read reviews before a movie comes out, which is fine because most people mark spoilers in here anyway. And then, bam, movie's ruined because somebody mentioned a perfectly legal and fair game spoiler.

[#ED]

I seriously want to see this again. I loved the audience reactions.

[rockNrollaDIM]

Man, I really hate this forum's unclear spoiler rules. I like to read reviews before a movie comes out, which is fine because most people mark spoilers in here anyway. And then, bam, movie's ruined because somebody mentioned a perfectly legal and fair game spoiler.

I never venture into RTM thread before I see something. No way. People shouldn't have to use spoiler tags in here anyway.

[4815162342]

Man, I really hate this forum's unclear spoiler rules. I like to read reviews before a movie comes out, which is fine because most people mark spoilers in here anyway. And then, bam, movie's ruined because somebody mentioned a perfectly legal and fair game spoiler.

It's been pretty clear that spoilers are fair game in the review forum.

[The Creator]

This is easily one of the best movies I have seen all year...and I'm very surprised by that.

I walked into Django Unchained not expecting much, but knowing it was Quentin Tarantino, I knew it had to have some punch to it. Well, it did have a bit of a punch to it...as well as a large kick and pulling of the hair. "Django Unchained" was phenomenal, and what really impacted me was the chemistry of the characters and the remarkable acting, humorous dialogue, and outrageous scenes that are so typical of a Tarantino movie. Some have pondered whether this is better than Inglorious Basterds. Well, I say it is, but barely. They're both excellent movies, but Django takes that excellence to a somewhat higher level, by going all out ape-shit crazy without care, by delving deep into the racial motifs of the Antebellum period of Southern society in the pre-Civil War stage, and by making me emotionally care for the characters on a level that Inglorious Basterds couldn't quite achieve.

But this is not Inglorious Basterds. So the comparisons end there. Here, we have a movie about a slave-turned-freedman-turned-bountry-hunter-turned-slave-to-be-turned-vigilante, who allies himself with Dr. King Schultz, a "dentist" who proves to be anything but an ordinary teeth puller. There, Waltz radiates in the co-leading role. He delivers a fine, fine performance (personally, my favorite in the movie...but damn is it close). Some have said Samuel L. Jackson steals every scene he's in, and while he does steal many of them, Waltz still trumps him in others and takes the movie for me. He won me over in his first scene, when he rides into the clearing with that ridiculous carriage with the wobbling tooth. A hell of a performance.

But the others are masterfull too. Foxx is good as the silent-type, deadly, and at times aggressive (ok, always aggressive) titular Django. DiCaprio pours life into the devilish Calvin Candie, whose first scene is unforgettable when we witness him cheering on a brutal slave "beat fest", and whose eruption over the dinner table and explanation of the three dimples is just remarkable. And of course, Jackson. What a treat. Stephen is unforgettable and a scene-stealer, the second best character of the film in my opinion.

Overall, a remarkable film, and very funny. The KKK scene on the hill was a true delight, but equally amusing was the scene where we meet Big Daddy, and his slave woman asks him how she's supposed to treat Django. She's confused and at one point says, "Do I treat him like White People?" And Big Daddy, with the most direct stare imaginable, automatically responds, "No." Hilarious.

A+

[lilmac]

I know count Death Proof as one of Tarantino's films, and not a half-movie in the same category as Four Rooms. It's a full-length feature film, the extended version is 120+ minutes.

[4815162342]

Interesting article about a sitdown where Tarantino explains Schultz's hijinks a bithttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/quentin-tarantino-django-unchained_n_2340987.html

[Kevin Bacon]

It's been pretty clear that spoilers are fair game in the review forum.

Yes, it's just that a lot of people ignore that just because I don't know why and use tags anyways. It lures one into a false sense of security before fucking up their whole world.

[mattmav45]

I will be seeing this tomorrow, and I can't fucking wait.I feel like 2012 has been somewhat disappointing to me thus far quality-wise (mainly as a result of still waiting on many top films from the year), and Tarantino never disappoints me. I view Tarantino films as more of a cinematic events that only happen every few years........a time where I become fully immersed into a different world and style of cinema that has been often imitated, but it's quite simple.......nobody does cinema like Tarantino does cinema.Will be back tomorrow with a review.

[rockNrollaDIM]

I found Inglorious Basterds to be way more thrilling. Both the pub scene and the scene where Shoshanna has to eat breakfast with Landa are two of the most tense moments I've ever seen on film. The look on her face after he gets up says everything. Melanie Laurent should have had a Cotillard style career after that, I'm not sure why she didn't.Kerry Washington was probably one of the weaker points in Django. Not that she was bad, she just had nothing to do. I don't really blame QT though since pretty much all his other films bar Reservoir Dogs featured a female hero. It's a change of pace from that usual theme.

[fishstick]

I found Inglorious Basterds to be way more thrilling. Both the pub scene and the scene where Shoshanna has to eat breakfast with Landa are two of the most tense moments I've ever seen on film. The look on her face after he gets up says everything. Melanie Laurent should have had a Cotillard style career after that, I'm not sure why she didn't.

Cotillard campaigned the shit out herself so that`s how she burst into Hollywood scene although nobody in Iowa saw her movie. Laurent was fucked up by the decision to campaign her in the lead. She couldn`t get through and supporting filled up with other actresses in the meantime.

Kerry Washington was probably one of the weaker points in Django. Not that she was bad, she just had nothing to do. I don't really blame QT though since pretty much all his other films bar Reservoir Dogs featured a female hero. It's a change of pace from that usual theme.

I agree. It`s kinda funny that he used the Legend of Brunhilde, who was a warrior in the myth, as the metaphore for Django`s hero journey to save such a passive character.I also want to point out something that bugged me about both Landa and Schultz. Both characters are in control of their situations and very calculated, yet both of them do something illogical and out of character at the end. In Landa case, it was trusting that Aldo Raine would fulfill his part of bargain without some alternations. Like, why would he do that? Why would he let Raine handcuff him? Hello, red alert, red alert. I get the whole overconfidence thing but he didn`t slip once up until that point so it really asked for suspension of disbelief. basiclaly, QT had to make him stupid in order to give us a pay off. Likewise, I get that Django got trully unchained when his mentor died but it was out of character for Schultz to jeopardize Django and Hildi by killing Candie. I get the whole disgusted by slavery experienced up close an personal thing as a reason for breakdown (he cares for Django and Hildi so he isn`t emotionally detached o it anymore) but it`s still pretty out of character. They were getting out free because Candie`s got the money and by killing Candie he could have gotten the other 2 killed. I mena, it`s a great scene but it isn`t in the chaarcter when you think back.Like Landa`s sudden stupidity, it`s just a convenince in order to drive the plot towards Django`s emergence as the super shooter. Edited December 28, 2012 by fishnets

[4815162342]

fish if you read the article from the link I posted Tarantino explains why Schultz impulsively kills Candie. Tarantino says that though Schultz is a good man, he's also an egomaniac who absolutely can never let anyone beat him or have the advantage, so when Candie upends the scheme and forces them to pay all of their money for Broomhilda, it makes Schultz insanely pissed off and irrational since his complicated deception was ruined and a man he morally depises got the better of him.

[rockNrollaDIM]

So I didn't miss a major plot point. Schultz is just as fucked up in a different way

[fishstick]

fish if you read the article from the link I posted Tarantino explains why Schultz impulsively kills Candie. Tarantino says that though Schultz is a good man, he's also an egomaniac who absolutely can never let anyone beat him or have the advantage, so when Candie upends the scheme and forces them to pay all of their money for Broomhilda, it makes Schultz insanely pissed off and irrational since his complicated deception was ruined and a man he morally depises got the better of him.

Eh, it`s still on the nose. You don`t need to explain things that genuinely work.

[The Movie Man]

I loved it and the main 4 actors.

I also am not sure why everyone is excluding Jamie Foxx while praising the other 3.

Personally I also thought Jamie Foxx was great in this. As were the other 3.

Edited December 29, 2012 by The Movie Man

[CloneWars]

So, after watching this well done movie, I was curious to see if any black people owned any slaves and came across this article. http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm It's a pretty interesting read.

[The Movie Man]

Question? What

Cotillard campaigned the shit out herself so that`s how she burst into Hollywood scene although nobody in Iowa saw her movie. Laurent was fucked up by the decision to campaign her in the lead. She couldn`t get through and supporting filled up with other actresses in the meantime.

I agree. It`s kinda funny that he used the Legend of Brunhilde, who was a warrior in the myth, as the metaphore for Django`s hero journey to save such a passive character.

I also want to point out something that bugged me about both Landa and Schultz. Both characters are in control of their situations and very calculated, yet both of them do something illogical and out of character at the end. In Landa case, it was trusting that Aldo Raine would fulfill his part of bargain without some alternations. Like, why would he do that? Why would he let Raine handcuff him? Hello, red alert, red alert. I get the whole overconfidence thing but he didn`t slip once up until that point so it really asked for suspension of disbelief. basiclaly, QT had to make him stupid in order to give us a pay off. Likewise, I get that Django got trully unchained when his mentor died but it was out of character for Schultz to jeopardize Django and Hildi by killing Candie. I get the whole disgusted by slavery experienced up close an personal thing as a reason for breakdown (he cares for Django and Hildi so he isn`t emotionally detached o it anymore) but it`s still pretty out of character. They were getting out free because Candie`s got the money and by killing Candie he could have gotten the other 2 killed. I mena, it`s a great scene but it isn`t in the chaarcter when you think back.Like Landa`s sudden stupidity, it`s just a convenince in order to drive the plot towards Django`s emergence as the super shooter.

Question? What was Candie's purpose of asking for the handshake? Was it just going to be a handshake or was he going to do something else?

On the question I bolded above, I think the Doctor just snapped? He was having those visions of the dogs ripping the slave apart. And remember he wanted to buy the slave before Django stopped him. Also, remember he was a bounty hunter who only killed those who were guilty. So first he just wanted to leave but when Candie order him to come and shake his hand, he just had to kill the evil monster, Candie.

[fishstick]

He had to kill the evil monster knowing that would put himself, Django and Hildi in danger? I`m sorry but I don`t buy that nor I buy QT`s explanation that he had to kill Candie because he couldn`t stand to be bested. Schultz was never driven by pride in such amount that it would prompt him to do something stupid. Also, he was flashing back to dogs tearing the man but that doesn`t mean he couldn`t play the part, shake hands, leave, lie low and then serve a cold revenge. That would be in character but I guess that a) would make the movie 4 hours long and Django would be still a co-lead as opposed to finally coming on his own. So it was a plot device that had to clear path for Django`s rise as the sole hero and it felt like a plot device as opposed to something that happened organically.

[efialtes76]

Marion Cotillard is far better than Melanie Laurent in every aspect!

Edited December 29, 2012 by efialtes76