Django Unchained: Big Dissapointment.

[Mr. Jabbar]

It almost made me sick. Its cornball joke after cornball joke with over the top performances. A linear boring 2:40 hrs long story line.

This is a prime example of when good acting goes to waste.

This is a decent movie on its own, dont get me wrong. But when comparing with Tarantinos previous works it almost looks like he was more interested in making a western than making a good movie....

"the D is silent" weak ass movie phrase too :facepalm :facepalm, stop forcing the issue quentin...

[LJJ]

It's a typical Tarantino, not significantly worse or better than any of his movies. You may just be getting tired of Tarantino's very limited range.

[SilkkTheShocker]

I thought it was great. But I didn't think Waltz' performance was Oscar worthy by any means. DiCaprio stole every scene. I thought Foxx was perfect for the part also.

[Mr. Jabbar]

If he wanted to go through known territory (Western) he should have went Jackie Brown style. A lot more credible roles and more inetresting characters without being over the top. If the dude wanted to make a comedy the premise should have been a better fit a la inglorious basterds.

As poster above said he mght have gone beyond his "range" with this one.

Also Dicaprio and Samuel L Jackson are the best performances. Foxx is awful and Waltz is corny, over the top, etc etc etc

[SilkkTheShocker]

If he wanted to go through known territory (Western) he should have went Jackie Brown style. A lot more credible roles and more inetresting characters without being over the top. If the dude wanted to make a comedy the premise should have been a better fit a la inglorious basterds.

As poster above said he mght have gone beyond his "range" with this one.

Also Dicaprio and Samuel L Jackson are the best performances. Foxx is awful and Waltz is corny, over the top, etc etc etc


Yea, I don't really get the Waltz hype. And agreed about Jackson, he was great in this movie. I thought Foxx did a great job. There are better actors out there, but not a lot of them are raw like Foxx.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Yea, I don't really get the Waltz hype. And agreed about Jackson, he was great in this movie. I thought Foxx did a great job. There are better actors out there, but not a lot of them are raw like Foxx.

The thing about Foxx, the dude looks always too "cool", "in control", with something smart to say, and is the "ultimate well trained assasin". We already had Waltz for that not to mention he impersonates a black slave and it doesn't fits his role in the slightest, dude should have been alot more down to earth with his extravaganza emerging from other places...

The Waltz hype comes from the average movie watcher who can also find great joy in any other overplayed character for the sakes of it being overplayed.

[D-Wade316]

Much better than Basterds.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Much better than Basterds.

basterds is weak overall imo but has some great memorable scenes (first one at the farm, and the one in the basement bar). Django leaves a scent of cheapness and unmemorableness in the air...

BTW: Landa >>>>>> Dr. Schultz

[Dbrog]

Welcome to every Tarantino movie ever. You either love his style or can't stand it.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Welcome to every Tarantino movie ever. You either love his style or can't stand it.

I've liked almost every one of his films until this crap

[heyhey]

Welcome to every Tarantino movie ever. You either love his style or can't stand it.

I would say with Pulp Fiction he elevated the material to a level of great depth and originality and rose above the slick homages and dialogue that characterize the rest of his movies. but yea I wasn't particularly fond of Django although I did think Leo did a good job.

[johndeeregreen]

First off, Jamie Foxx couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Waltz and DiCaprio's shoulders had to be killing them after carrying his dead weight through 3/4 of the movie. The last 45 minutes was inexcusably bad.

And this wasn't typical Tarantino; typical Tarantino would have at least had some interesting plot twists and quirks. This couldn't have been any more formulaic. Totally wasted performances by Leo and Sam Jackson, and a cheesy, overtly predictable ending to make black people feel like justice was served or something.

The more I think about it, the more I realize I didn't like it, and the more I wish Tarantino could have made a real Western.

[Dbrog]

I would say with Pulp Fiction he elevated the material to a level of great depth and originality and rose above the slick homages and dialogue that characterize the rest of his movies. but yea I wasn't particularly fond of Django although I did think Leo did a good job.

For sure Pulp Fiction had much more depth than his other movies (although I've never seen reservoir dogs; shame on me). However, it still has his over-the-top violence and lack of any meaningful themes (and thus is still shallow like his other movies).

Ultimately Tarantino has made a living off of shocking people and including controversial topics in his stories.

[Mr. Jabbar]

First off, Jamie Foxx couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Waltz and DiCaprio's shoulders had to be killing them after carrying his dead weight through 3/4 of the movie. The last 45 minutes was inexcusably bad.

And this wasn't typical Tarantino; typical Tarantino would have at least had some interesting plot twists and quirks. This couldn't have been any more formulaic. Totally wasted performances by Leo and Sam Jackson, and a cheesy, overtly predictable ending to make black people feel like justice was served or something.

The more I think about it, the more I realize I didn't like it, and the more I wish Tarantino could have made a real Western.

whats the point in bolding all your post...

:applause:

[LJJ]

and a cheesy, overtly predictable ending

Eh, you could really say the same about Basterds. Or Kill Bill. Or Jackie Brown.

I will say that Django is a bit lacking in plot compared to Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, but it fits perfectly with the rest of his portfolio. Every Tarantino movie is just a collection of "ultra cool" campy scenes where the overall plot is only there as a vehicle to have those scenes.

[Whoah10115]

The Kill Bill films (even the first) went beyond just being cool and campy. The first embraced the artifice and somehow was a terrific film. The second one is a bit of a western and even better.


This film is good...but Foxx is not that good an he's not given much to do. DiCaprio is terrific and the best scene in the film is his going off. That was tense. Jackson was also great.


But Walt was genuinely terrific and the best in show. Such control of his character.

[Rake2204]

I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed this film from start to finish. I had virtually no complaints. I suppose to each their own. I didn't come in with unbelievable expectations, so maybe that helped in preventing me from becoming disappointed.

[Go Getter]

I didn't enjoy it at all.

Mixing spaghetti westerns with slavery was a bit of a stretch. And adding Rick Ross and 'Pac to a movie set in the 1800's was a questionable move.

If it was in an "alternate reality" then why reference real books like the 3 Musketeers?

To me it seemed like he wanted to give black people a hero but the situation was all jacked up. No one survives oppression like that on their own. How foxx's character learned how to shoot a gun and kill 30 or so armed men who've been shooting since they were young amazes me:facepalm At least let him get grazed or wounded to make it SOMEWHAT realistic.

And there were a few scenes that were downright painful to watch....

I loved Pulp, Kill Bill, even Dawn of the Dead (for what it's worth), I just couldn't help not liking this one even though i had positive feelings going in.

He just didn't pull it off.

[Smoke117]

I saw it and enjoyed it a lot. I was really stoned though and any movie can be enjoyable when you are high...but then again I also saw The Last Stand stoned and thought it was average at best.

[Lakers Legend#32]

I loved it. Tarantino's best movie since Pulp Fiction. Django richly deserves its Oscar nom for best picture.

"Killin' white people and getting paid? What's not to like."

[Nick Young]

I think he just was trying to make a deep south version of a sergio leone spaghetti western. Can't wait to see it

[Myth]

Damn, sometimes terrible posters in the NBA forum make good posters in the Off Court Lounge, and vice versa. Not in Mr. Jabbars case.

[D-Wade316]

First off, Jamie Foxx couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Waltz and DiCaprio's shoulders had to be killing them after carrying his dead weight through 3/4 of the movie. The last 45 minutes was inexcusably bad.

And this wasn't typical Tarantino; typical Tarantino would have at least had some interesting plot twists and quirks. This couldn't have been any more formulaic. Totally wasted performances by Leo and Sam Jackson, and a cheesy, overtly predictable ending to make black people feel like justice was served or something.

The more I think about it, the more I realize I didn't like it, and the more I wish Tarantino could have made a real Western.
:biggums: Then why is Schultz on Django's side? Or Stephen with the whites?

[johndeeregreen]

:biggums: Then why is Schultz on Django's side? Or Stephen with the whites?
Why are you asking questions that have nothing to do with what I said? How does Tarantino making a slavery movie that actually appeases black audiences connect at all with Christoph Waltz's character being on Django's side? Use your head.

[RoseCity07]

It almost made me sick. Its cornball joke after cornball joke with over the top performances. A linear boring 2:40 hrs long story line.

This is a prime example of when good acting goes to waste.

This is a decent movie on its own, dont get me wrong. But when comparing with Tarantinos previous works it almost looks like he was more interested in making a western than making a good movie....

"the D is silent" weak ass movie phrase too :facepalm :facepalm, stop forcing the issue quentin...

Finally someone that agrees with me:bowdown:

Seriously, I've only talked to one other person who didn't walk away loving this film. I even admit that I liked watching it. Once I left the theater I just felt so unsatisfied thinking about this film. There is nothing I take away from this film. I don't want to see it again. No great dialogue. The story and character development were weak. Just a overrated movie in my opinion.

[D-Wade316]

Why are you asking questions that have nothing to do with what I said? How does Tarantino making a slavery movie that actually appeases black audiences connect at all with Christoph Waltz's character being on Django's side? Use your head.
Dude dafuq. The ending did appease blacks but in no way did I think Tarantino sided with blacks. That seems to be the undertone of your statement.

[Rake2204]

"the D is silent" weak ass movie phrase too :facepalm :facepalm, stop forcing the issue quentin...I know that line was in trailers for the film and whatnot, but I do not believe it was in Tarentino's original screenplay. I also do not think the reasoning for the inclusion of such a line was for the sake of being a movie phrase, if that makes any difference. Instead, it was added as a means to reference the original Django, who played the character asking Jamie Foxx's name in the film. That is why, when Foxx says, "The D is silent", the other actor (Franco Nero) says, "I know". Because Nero was Django. It was an ode of sorts.

Nero in the original Django: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Ge2hmSTbo


I didn't enjoy it at all.

Mixing spaghetti westerns with slavery was a bit of a stretch. And adding Rick Ross and 'Pac to a movie set in the 1800's was a questionable move.

If it was in an "alternate reality" then why reference real books like the 3 Musketeers?

To me it seemed like he wanted to give black people a hero but the situation was all jacked up. No one survives oppression like that on their own. How foxx's character learned how to shoot a gun and kill 30 or so armed men who've been shooting since they were young amazes me:facepalm At least let him get grazed or wounded to make it SOMEWHAT realistic.

And there were a few scenes that were downright painful to watch....

I loved Pulp, Kill Bill, even Dawn of the Dead (for what it's worth), I just couldn't help not liking this one even though i had positive feelings going in.

He just didn't pull it off.I respect your feelings on the film. I can completely see how many folks could watch it and not enjoy it. Even with that said though, I do not believe Django being a fictional movie where unrealistic things happen means real life references must not be used, such as The Three Muskateers you mentioned. I'm not sure if I follow the logic there; don't many fantasy movies still reference portions of reality?

I did not come into the film expecting a riveting tale mirroring the real life struggles of a slave. I came in expecting a Quentin Tarentino film about a slave who rises up in spectacular fashion and flips the script, similar to how the tables were turned in Inglorious Basterds. Was a real life replica of Django possible? I do not believe so, but that's part of what made it fun for me. I knew it'd be unrealistic in many aspects but that was a big part of the draw. Django taking out a room full of cronies felt no more unrealistic than Uma Thurman blading through the Crazy 88's. If I wanted realism and formula, I'm not sure a Tarentino film would be the first place I'd look.

Also, I'm not a big fan of either, but 2Pac and Rick Ross both worked for me in this film. If someone told me they'd have some music featured beforehand, I'm not sure I would have been pumped about that. But for me, they both worked. From the start, I let myself escape into the world Tarentino created here and as a result, I was quite entertained.


Once I left the theater I just felt so unsatisfied thinking about this film.Just as with the other posters I quoted, I respect your feelings on this film, but that one line caught my attention just because it was polar opposite feeling of that of my friends, family, and self. I came out feeling awesome. And when I asked my younger brother what he thought of the film, he said, "It's was a feel-good movie". It sounded ridiculous, considering the violence, bloodshed, and death, but he was kind of on point. It was one heckuva rising up.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Finally someone that agrees with me:bowdown:

Seriously, I've only talked to one other person who didn't walk away loving this film. I even admit that I liked watching it. Once I left the theater I just felt so unsatisfied thinking about this film. There is nothing I take away from this film. I don't want to see it again. No great dialogue. The story and character development were weak. Just a overrated movie in my opinion.

Exactly my feelings when leaving the theater. Nothing memorable about it overall, absolutely linear simplistic plot with no twists whatsoever. Wholeheartedly agree with that other poster who said the last 40 mins are inexcusably bad, I was just waiting for the thing to finish already...

[Smoke117]

Exactly my feelings when leaving the theater. Nothing memorable about it overall, absolutely linear simplistic plot with no twists whatsoever. Wholeheartedly agree with that other poster who said the last 40 mins are inexcusably bad, I was just waiting for the thing to finish already...

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion. I didn't even read what you said but the fact that it was from 'Mr. Jabbar' basically stamped it as trash. That is the reputation you have given on these boards, lad.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion. I didn't even read what you said but the fact that it was from 'Mr. Jabbar' basically stamped it as trash. That is the reputation you have given on these boards, lad.

Thanks for visiting my thread though, appreciate it :cheers:

[D-Wade316]

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion. I didn't even read what you said but the fact that it was from 'Mr. Jabbar' basically stamped it as trash. That is the reputation you have given on these boards, lad.
:kobe:

[SilkkTheShocker]

The Kill Bill films (even the first) went beyond just being cool and campy. The first embraced the artifice and somehow was a terrific film. The second one is a bit of a western and even better.


This film is good...but Foxx is not that good an he's not given much to do. DiCaprio is terrific and the best scene in the film is his going off. That was tense. Jackson was also great.


But Walt was genuinely terrific and the best in show. Such control of his character.


Am I missing something? He did a great job, but I don't see how it was Oscar worthy. This movie was all Leo and Sam Jackson for the most part.

[SilkkTheShocker]

The thing about Foxx, the dude looks always too "cool", "in control", with something smart to say, and is the "ultimate well trained assasin". We already had Waltz for that not to mention he impersonates a black slave and it doesn't fits his role in the slightest, dude should have been alot more down to earth with his extravaganza emerging from other places...

The Waltz hype comes from the average movie watcher who can also find great joy in any other overplayed character for the sakes of it being overplayed.


I don't think there are a ton of actors that could do much more with the Django character. Denzel for sure, but he was too old for the role. Maybe Terrance Howard, but he doesn't really have the charisma of Foxx. Look at Will Smith. He could act circles around Foxx, but im not buying for a second he could play Django anymore realistically. You always get the feeling Foxx is in control throughout the whole movie. Thats just my opinion though. Im biased and have always been a Foxx fan.

[IGOTGAME]

I don't think there are a ton of actors that could do much more with the Django character. Denzel for sure, but he was too old for the role. Maybe Terrance Howard, but he doesn't really have the charisma of Foxx. Look at Will Smith. He could act circles around Foxx, but im not buying for a second he could play Django anymore realistically. You always get the feeling Foxx is in control throughout the whole movie. Thats just my opinion though. Im biased and have always been a Foxx fan.
Terrance Howard? Lmao here. Thanks for that.

[bdreason]

I thought it was entertaining. I didn't go in with huge expectations though.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Terrance Howard? Lmao here. Thanks for that.


No problem.

[chains5000]

I don't think there are a ton of actors that could do much more with the Django character. Denzel for sure, but he was too old for the role. Maybe Terrance Howard, but he doesn't really have the charisma of Foxx. Look at Will Smith. He could act circles around Foxx, but im not buying for a second he could play Django anymore realistically. You always get the feeling Foxx is in control throughout the whole movie. Thats just my opinion though. Im biased and have always been a Foxx fan.
What about Idris Elba?

[Rolando]

I had no expectations, was baked, and truly enjoyed the film.

[macmac]

So many clueless people here. Movie was fantastic.

And can someone explain to me how one can critique a movie for being too "linear"? I mean, this isn't an rpg or a chose your own story fantasy book, it's a fkin movie. By that logic, any movie that's not memento, pulp fiction, reservoir dogs, etc sucks.

Adventure movies and western are supposed to be linear. That's what makes you appreciate the journey. You think The Lord of the Rings should have started with frodo in Mordor? :facepalm

[Mr. Jabbar]

So many clueless people here. Movie was fantastic.

And can someone explain to me how one can critique a movie for being too "linear"? I mean, this isn't an rpg or a chose your own story fantasy book, it's a fkin movie. By that logic, any movie that's not memento, pulp fiction, reservoir dogs, etc sucks.

Adventure movies and western are supposed to be linear. That's what makes you appreciate the journey. You think The Lord of the Rings should have started with frodo in Mordor? :facepalm

I see what you mean, when I say linear I don't mean it has to go the pulp fiction or reservoir dogs way being told in disorder but rather at least have some plot twist. Everything and I mean EVERYTHING unfolds as expected, wtf is that for a 2:40 hr long movie, from Quentin nonetheless.

[D-Wade316]

Think about it though. Would Django have survived against Candyland?

[Rake2204]

I see what you mean, when I say linear I don't mean it has to go the pulp fiction or reservoir dogs way being told in disorder but rather at least have some plot twist. Everything and I mean EVERYTHING unfolds as expected, wtf is that for a 2:40 hr long movie, from Quentin nonetheless.I agree that most everything works out just as the viewer likely wants it to (except for at least one big part), but that was one of my favorite aspects of the movie. In an ode to great western films where it's a hero fighting against vile slave owners and country hicks (aka the classic good guy vs. bad guy), I had no interest in coming across some bizarre plot twist where Hilda ends up being Marcellus Wallace's girlfriend or something.

For me, there were enough bumps in the road to leave me on the edge of my seat. I was hoping things would work out, but there were many scenes in the movie that left me with doubt until the end. Django, for as talented as he was, was not able to just waltz in and have his way. Through perseverance he was able to prevail and subsequently, it felt like I was riding along on an exciting journey featuring much tribulation and most rewarding, a healthy dose of triumph.

I think it's just the nature of the film. It was a western about a protagonist winning back his girl. It opens itself up to some straight up hero actions. I think the over-the-top excellence, cleverness, and intelligence from Django was again an ode to the types of movies that influenced the creation of this one. It can come across a little campy, but I think that was the point, and I loved it.

[Take Your Lumps]

Think about it though. Would Django have survived against Candyland?

You mean if it wasn't just a ****ing movie?

[shaq2000]

What was with the shitty, out of place rap music?

Tarantino usually chooses his music very carefully.

[SilkkTheShocker]

What about Idris Elba?


Thats actually a really good pick :applause:

[Levity]

any movie can be enjoyable when you are high

sooo true. getting high and watching anything is pretty enjoyable for the most part.

[Money 23]

Welcome to every Tarantino movie ever. You either love his style or can't stand it.
Nah, he's just too self indulgent now. Like he's always trying to educate the audience on the different genre of films. And his 2000 mash up films of genres can be at times off putting. The narrative flow gets thrown out of whack, as seen in Basterds and DJango.

90's Tarantino is where it's at ...

This movie had it's moments, but it's way too long of a story given it's a simple revenge flick. Tarantino needs an editor badly, scenes drag and run on too long. I enjoyed it in parts, but the film felt like 4 hours long. Just like Basterds, with it's awkward pacing.

DiCaprio and Sam Jackson steal the show. Not that I don't like Waltz, I just don't get the fascination. He plays the same guy in every film. He's creepy at times in Basterds, but in this film it's just whatever.

Jamie is boring as hell as Django. As is his love interest. This movie would have been way better with the original casting choice, Will Smith. It would've made the film way more entertaining, IMO. The character itself wasn't even likable. He was so selfish, and cared more about himself and his love interest than his slave brothers.

I actually ended up liking DiCaprio's character best. On the surface he's a slave owner, but he doesn't hold resentment or ill will for the african american race. He treats some like animals sure, but it's insinuated he's romantically involved with an african american, and his closest confidant that he respects is Sam Jackson's Uncle Tom character.

Overall, I agree with Mr. Jabbar. Decent flick, but massively over hyped and far from Tarantino's Magnum Opus, Pulp Fiction.

Hell, Basterds and Django aren't even on Kill Bill's level, IMO.

[outbreak]

Tarantino has to be the most over rated person in movies these days. He did a couple good films (even if they were largely stealing from foreign films, check out reservoir dogs being a rip) and now just craps out a movie every few years in his "style" which covers for how bad the stories and development are.

[johndeeregreen]

I actually ended up liking DiCaprio's character best. On the surface he's a slave owner, but he doesn't hold resentment or ill will for the african american race. He treats some like animals sure, but it's insinuated he's romantically involved with an african american, and his closest confidant that he respects is Sam Jackson's Uncle Tom character.
The guy makes his slaves fight to the death. And when they don't, he has them torn apart by dogs. But it's okay because he doesn't really hate black people?

[Money 23]

The guy makes his slaves fight to the death. And when they don't, he has them torn apart by dogs. But it's okay because he doesn't really hate black people?
Yea, I guess that came out REALLY bad. haha

On second thought ...

[Brunch@Five]

concerning Waltz: Doc King Schultz definitely is a regression for him. That character bordered on comic relief too many times.
Hans Landa was creepy and frightening as a Nazi commander - he had a psychological edge. His character showed one of the crucial elements of Nazism: the absolute perversion of cultural achievement. Landa is an intellectual, speaks several languages, is eloquent and savvy, but still follows the totalitarian regime and kills Jews for fun. He is the element in yourself that still makes you fear ideology (or so it should).
King Schultz on the other hand is nothing compared to that - someone who kills for money and is funny while doing it. We have seen that hundreds of times in movies.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Will Smith doesn't have that bad ass factor like Jamie at all. He is a way better actor, but no one is going to buy him as cold-blooded killer. Even in Bad Boys 1 and 2 (two of my favorite movies ) he comes off as corny when trying to be tough.

[johndeeregreen]

Another complaint I had is that despite the running time, Tarantino took no time to really build Walton Goggins' character into anything really hateable; he doesn't even kill anyone on screen. His prowess with a gun is never established. When Django kills him you just shrug and say "big deal, how was this guy any different than the other 26,000 white guys Django has killed thus far?"

Which, after seeing what Goggins can do in The Shield & Justified, was a total waste of his talent. He coulda been a badass bad guy and made for a good final showdown (which, FFS, Tarantino, Mr. Homage out the Dickhole until you puke, doesn't even HAVE in this movie!), but instead he was reduced to a stock character you know nothing about, don't particularly care about, and certainly don't think is any sort of adversary worth discussing. Maybe the screen time for that was cut out so Tarantino could ensure his surely Academy Award-nominated cameo would fit in.:facepalm

[Rake2204]

Another complaint I had is that despite the running time, Tarantino took no time to really build Walton Goggins' character into anything really hateable; he doesn't even kill anyone on screen. His prowess with a gun is never established. When Django kills him you just shrug and say "big deal, how was this guy any different than the other 26,000 white guys Django has killed thus far?"

Which, after seeing what Goggins can do in The Shield & Justified, was a total waste of his talent. He coulda been a badass bad guy and made for a good final showdown (which, FFS, Tarantino, Mr. Homage out the Dickhole until you puke, doesn't even HAVE in this movie!), but instead he was reduced to a stock character you know nothing about, don't particularly care about, and certainly don't think is any sort of adversary worth discussing. Maybe the screen time for that was cut out so Tarantino could ensure his surely Academy Award-nominated cameo would fit in.:facepalmYeah, I was personally okay with Goggins' character's arc because I think I had enough other deplorable people available to divert my attention. Plus Goggins did enough in his time on screen to earn the viewer's collective hatred. That said, I agree that we don't ever necessarily get to see what makes him tick.

I personally think the Goggins' character (Billy Crash) was kind of thrown for a loop the minute Kevin Costner was forced to drop out. Instead of having two characters set to play integral roles in the movie - the aforementioned Billy Crash and Costner's Ace Woody - they were both rolled into one person, played by Goggins. As such, I think certain elements of those characters were dropped in order to hodgepodge together one overall character ball.

For instance, in the script (and possibly filmed but cut) was a scene where Ace Woody (Billy Crash in the movie) carefully surveys the new mandingos in front of Candieland. He's ruthless, murders a few at will, and is shown to have his mandingo expertise very respected by Calvin himself. Woody (Crash) is shown to be a power figure. For one reason or another, I guess Tarentino figured some things had to be sacrificed when meshing two characters into one. Essentially, I think there was more planned for Goggins but instead Tarentino had to patch things together on the fly when Costner dropped, yielding mixed results.

And regarding the lack of a showdown, I agree it seems like something Tarentino would have jumped at. And in fact, one was present in the script, but I personally thought it sounded ridiculous and I'm guessing Tarentino may have felt that way as well, thus leading him to scrap his first showdown idea and never finding another opportunity for one in its place.

Originally in the script (kind of a spoiler for those who haven't seen the film), Django blows up the house as the family approaches, knocking most of them alive and onto their backsides, shaken. Django would then emerge from the smoke and all five survivors (even Ms. Lara) come to the understanding that it's showdown time. Django makes sure they all have guns (Lara is crying and confused about what is happening as someone hands her an extra). Then from what I gathered, Django draws and cuts all five down before even one has a chance to get a shot off, leading to a Dr. Schultz fade-in flashback of him saying, "They'll call you... the fastest gun in the south."

.... I can kind of see why that portion was re-written.

[johndeeregreen]

And regarding the lack of a showdown, I agree it seems like something Tarentino would have jumped at. And in fact, one was present in the script, but I personally thought it sounded ridiculous and I'm guessing Tarentino may have felt that way as well, thus leading him to scrap his first showdown idea and never finding another opportunity for one in its place.

Originally in the script (kind of a spoiler for those who haven't seen the film), Django blows up the house as the family approaches the house, knocking most of them alive and onto their backsides, shaken. Django would then emerge from the smoke and all five survivors (even Ms. Lara) come to the understanding that it's showdown time. Django makes sure they all have guns (Lara is crying and confused about what is happening as someone hands her an extra). Then from what I gathered, Django draws and cuts all five down before even one has a chance to get a shot off, leading to a Dr. Schultz fade-in flashback of him saying, "They'll call you... the fastest gun in the south."

.... I can kind of see why that portion was re-written.
I'm not saying it would have been a better ending, but how would that have been any more ridiculous than Django's exploits the rest of the movie?:oldlol:

BTW, William Munny blew away like 6 guys singlehandedly in Unforgiven and it didn't feel 'ridiculous.'

[unbreakable]

johndeergreen hating a movie that supports black people . whats new?

[c3z4r]

I just saw the movie and although I really enjoyed it for the most part, I noticed this major plot hole that made me really dislike the rest of the film/ending.

Spoilers


When Schultz kills Candie he only fires one bullet from his concealed pistol, so why the hell doesn't he use the second bullet to kill Candie's bodyguard/ armed man in the room and then make his escape along with Django. After killing Candie he was basically waiting for that guy to kill him. This inconsistency absolutely ruined the film for me after that scene.

Btw Schultz's character and actor, Christoph Waltz absolutely carried the movie for the most part. Django's character just seemed so bland and forced; from scared, beaten up slave to the best shot in the south and a complete badass in only one winter.

I would honestly give this movie a 7.5

[RidonKs]

i thought it really stunk. i'm sure most everything i could possibly say about it has already been said. mostly it was just too long.

soundtrack was good enough though. and sam jackson's character made me laugh. thats pretty much the extent of any praise i could possibly give it.



im curious about what ljj said at the start of this thread though. one of the things ringing through my mind as i watched this was whether or not i'd merely outgrown tarantino. i know i still dig his first few pics but i haven't seen kill bill or death proof for a while, inglourious if i remember right wasn't as good as it was the first time. so maybe this just is standard qt and, for the most part, the guys just a juvenile moviemaker who managed to make a splash first starting out..?

[c3z4r]

That's not a plot hole.

Plot hole or inconsistency in the story/the character's actions, whatever you want to call it, it's just arguing semantics imo. It still ruined the film for me from that point onwards since it didn't make any sense.

[Rake2204]

Plot hole or inconsistency in the story/the character's actions, whatever you want to call it, it's just arguing semantics imo. It still ruined the film for me from that point onwards since it didn't make any sense.I actually figured he'd accepted his fate at that point. I think he made his decision to shoot Candie knowing he wouldn't escape alive, regardless of his attempted survival tactics. He appeared to resign himself to the fact that the world is not a wonderful place, seeming unusually down and dejected as he sat in the library. He seemed done and he was going to take down a piece of evil along with him.

[c3z4r]

Based on what we knew of the character he made a conscious decision to kill Candie and give up. The character HAD to be in control and Candie took total control of the situation. Schultz knew he wasn't leaving alive, he's a thinker not a fighter, so he got the last word with Candie and then accepted his fate.

As long as it's within the realm of established possibilities for the character, it's fine. It sucks that ruined it for you though.



^ There you go.

Yeah, maybe I'm obsessing too much over this event, but seeing Django kill 10 or so men without even being scratched makes me think that Schultz, who had a lot more combat experience could have taken at least that many, and of course, the two of them could have even killed all the guards.

In any case, it was a fun, enjoyable movie and I'm glad I saw it.

[BRabbiT]

....I think it's just the nature of the film. It was a western about a protagonist winning back his girl.

It opens itself up to some straight up hero actions.

I think the over-the-top excellence, cleverness, and intelligence from Django was again an ode to the types of movies that influenced the creation of this one.

It can come across a little campy, but I think that was the point, and I loved it.


this.

[Go Getter]

First off, Jamie Foxx couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Waltz and DiCaprio's shoulders had to be killing them after carrying his dead weight through 3/4 of the movie. The last 45 minutes was inexcusably bad.

And this wasn't typical Tarantino; typical Tarantino would have at least had some interesting plot twists and quirks. This couldn't have been any more formulaic. Totally wasted performances by Leo and Sam Jackson, and a cheesy, overtly predictable ending to make black people feel like justice was served or something.

The more I think about it, the more I realize I didn't like it, and the more I wish Tarantino could have made a real Western.
I have to agree. Everything I have seen about Django...interviews, commercials, and the movie, made me feel like Tarantino was kissing ass and trying to give blacks a hero (his words not mine).

The notion that one in so many blacks are special is an old harmful stereotype, along with blacks being genetically different. Someone who has respect for blacks wouldn't just leave those notions out in the open to fester.

Mann from Rosewood was a much better hero in almost every sense.

Django killing 20 men that have been shooting all their lives with the trainjng he received in a montage was beyond corny.

[IamRAMBO24]

Personally, I find the casting to be horrendous: I think Quentin tried too hard to cast Waltz he had to work around the whole foreign thingy. It is a Western; it should be strictly an American cowboy if he really wanted to pay homage. He should of had Leo play that role.

I think Leo did a great job playing Candie, but he just didn't fit that role. He's too young for a plantation owner and most of the movies he's in, he's always been the good guy, so it felt out of place seeing him as a bad guy, almost as bad as seeing Keanu Reeves in the Watcher. Sure he pulled it off with some slick acting skills, but with the proper role (Waltz's character for example), he would be in the running for an oscar. They could stick with the American angle and not some "foreigner who happens to be a bounty hunter in America" (which didn't make a lot of sense since we've never heard of America importing bounty hunters from other countries). It would of been more suitable if we saw an older actor like Tommy Lee Jones or Gary Sinise. I think they could of pulled the "evil" angle better because of just who they are and what the viewer would expect from them.

Sam. Jackson absolutely stole the show; I think that was the best acting I've seen him done. I'm surprise no one is talking about Kerri Washington; I thought she did a great job too.

The worst character was easily Foxx. He's so bad he couldn't even pull off a slave accent. It looks like he's practicing the role as they were shooting the movie because he got better in the second half. I think with that many star power they should of went with a solid unknown actor who can work an accent. It would of made more sense since Django's character was not significant until Schultz died, and this unknown actor (who nobody paid much attention to at the beginning) rises up, steals the show, and ends with a bang, which could make him the next big thing in hollywood.

Another negative I thought was how forced things were. The N word was just forced. My white GF was just laughing her a*ses off because she couldn't believe it was so openly out there while a few black guys near us were cringing. Of course, later on they were jerking it to a few scenes right after the cringe.

Overall, I think white people loved it because they can say the N word without fear of retribution and black people loved it for the scenes where they can jerk off to. I think that was what Quentin was truly aiming for: controversary

[Whoah10115]

I actually figured he'd accepted his fate at that point. I think he made his decision to shoot Candie knowing he wouldn't escape alive, regardless of his attempted survival tactics. He appeared to resign himself to the fact that the world is not a wonderful place, seeming unusually down and dejected as he sat in the library. He seemed done and he was going to take down a piece of evil along with him.



I disagree with this. It was a big problem for me, but not for the reason the original poster brought it up.


I don't believe for, not for a single moment, that his character would have done that and accepted his fate, because he would have been accepting the fate of Django and his girl. He wouldn't have done that.

[Myth]

The worst character was easily Foxx. He's so bad he couldn't even pull off a slave accent. It looks like he's practicing the role as they were shooting the movie because he got better in the second half. I think with that many star power they should of went with a solid unknown actor who can work an accent. It would of made more sense since Django's character was not significant until Schultz died, and this unknown actor (who nobody paid much attention to at the beginning) rises up, steals the show, and ends with a bang, which could make him the next big thing in hollywood.


I'm not sure how Tarantino filmed this movie, but most directors film out of order. If Tarantino did film out of order as most directors do, then that wouldn't explain Foxx's acting getting better over time. That makes me think that the differences in Foxx over time were intentional character development of Foxx and Tarantino.

[MtMutombo]

I disagree with alot of the criticism being given. I feel like youre not giving room for directing style: talking about plot inconsistencies and insufficient character development. I read this being called an elevation of junk movies to an art form -- the best shit movie youll ever see.

[johndeeregreen]

I actually figured he'd accepted his fate at that point. I think he made his decision to shoot Candie knowing he wouldn't escape alive, regardless of his attempted survival tactics. He appeared to resign himself to the fact that the world is not a wonderful place, seeming unusually down and dejected as he sat in the library. He seemed done and he was going to take down a piece of evil along with him.
This makes sense.

The plot hole that doesn't make sense is, why wouldn't he tell Django about it beforehand? He's got a guy with a 600-round magazine in his revolver capable of defeating anywhere from 30-60 bad guys in one sitting without sustaining a scratch, and he doesn't tell him to be on his toes? Makes no sense.

[johndeeregreen]

I think Leo did a great job playing Candie, but he just didn't fit that role. He's too young for a plantation owner and most of the movies he's in, he's always been the good guy, so it felt out of place seeing him as a bad guy
http://whysoblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Frank-www.whysoblu.com_.jpg
"Agreed. That never works, especially in Westerns."

[kNIOKAS]

Watched it yesterday and it was a bit of dissapointment.

I am annoyed with the fact that such topics as WWII, slavery are turned into entertainment. The movie was set up so well, it was like reading a comic. It wasn't a real life, but some surrealistical, stylish world, with good and bad, this and that, but in style. Well it's a typical Tarantino movie I'd say, but it has no moral, just a good entertainment.

So I'm just not sure.

[LJJ]

Personally, I find the casting to be horrendous: I think Quentin tried too hard to cast Waltz he had to work around the whole foreign thingy. It is a Western; it should be strictly an American cowboy if he really wanted to pay homage. He should of had Leo play that role.

This does raise an interesting point regarding Waltz' character. It's pretty clear King Schultz was tailor made by Tarantino for Waltz: King Schultz is just another cultured and highly capable German eccentric like Cl. Landa.

How much better would it have been if he had the obviously European Waltz play a stone-faced American like the spaghetti westerns of yesteryear used to do? (i.e. as in the original Django)

That said Tarantino was having way too much fun bastardizing German names in the movie.

[D-Wade316]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAooXLAPoBQ

So good.

[JerryWest]

Why do we love Django Unchained? Because it's the only place where you can see a ***** riding a horse.

[Myth]

SNL's Djesus Uncrossed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nr8-3Naj8k

[JerryWest]

SNL's Djesus Uncrossed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nr8-3Naj8k
repped :roll:

[iamgine]

Saw the movie the other day.

A few thoughts:

- Waltz shouldn't wear a beard. His "I have something up my sleeve" face is one of his best feature. That's one of the reason why he was so good as Hans Landa.

- Jamie Foxx...completely bad acting choice. Will Smith would be bad too. Both are too handsome, too serious. Can't root for them. Mos Def would be a more of a comedic choice that people would love.

- Sam Jackson as..... Uncle Ruckus? Awesome!

- Leo steal the show. Still, I'd have like to see Jack Nicholson in this role very much.

- Movie's too long, should have ended very soon after Leo was shot.

[D-Wade316]

Saw the movie the other day.

A few thoughts:

- Waltz shouldn't wear a beard. His "I have something up my sleeve" face is one of his best feature. That's one of the reason why he was so good as Hans Landa.

- Jamie Foxx...completely bad acting choice. Will Smith would be bad too. Both are too handsome, too serious. Can't root for them. Mos Def would be a more of a comedic choice that people would love.

- Sam Jackson as..... Uncle Ruckus? Awesome!

- Leo steal the show. Still, I'd have like to see Jack Nicholson in this role very much.

- Movie's too long, should have ended very soon after Leo was shot.
It's more due to the rest of the supporting cast, IMO. Leo, Waltz, and Jackson were all terrific.

[Stuckey]

i'm about an hour 45 into the movie and gotta say I'm bored

my friend told me it's only good for the first 2/3 of the movie and so far I'm unimpressed

I'll finish this junk on a rainy uneventful day and get it over with

[NuggetsFan]

i'm about an hour 45 into the movie and gotta say I'm bored

my friend told me it's only good for the first 2/3 of the movie and so far I'm unimpressed

I'll finish this junk on a rainy uneventful day and get it over with

I was PUMPED for this movie. I was bored out of my mind same as you and didn't even finish it which is rare for me. I've watched some of the shittiest TV shows and movies out there start to finish. I watch a ton of movies but I'm not one of those people who critique things to death or a movie snob so I was really surprised with how much I disliked it, I can generally enjoy something for what it is and don't expect Oscar quality or whatever with everything.

The Master too. I was excited for this year's crop but was let down in a massive way, great acting and well done movies but found them both extremely boring. I imagine I hated them more than I would have because of how much I was looking forward to them tho.