Django Unchained

[meatwadsprite]

Had a damn good time watching this one, when Leo and Sam Jackson get in the mix it turns into something special. What did you guys think ?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQC9wpjZ1N4JOJqFJsA6rl1K1hH76_FTvM-YhqhkKqBt7hgZqjQUg

[Miss Vicky]

Haven't seen it yet. I've got plans to go on Sunday and I'm really looking forward to it!

[donniedarko]

I'll post a full review tommorow. IMO though Waltz stole the show again, better than Leo, and Foxx surprised me in his maturity

4

[HitchFan97]

Further proof that 2012 is one of the best years of recent times. Pure, undistilled Tarantino, and definitely the most fun at the movies I've had in awhile. Probably QT's most violent film yet as well, especially considering the blood soaked finale.

[Mysticalunicornfart]

Further proof that 2012 is one of the best years of recent times. Pure, undistilled Tarantino, and definitely the most fun at the movies I've had in awhile. Probably QT's most violent film yet as well, especially considering the blood soaked finale.

This sounds deliciously delectable. I love Tarantino's violence.

[ManOf1000Faces]

I just saw it Today. Tarantino's movies surprise me every second. How about Dr.Schultz (Christoph Waltz)

[TheUsualSuspect]

It's a typical Tarantino movie, which means it's full of bloody violent revenge, harsh language and interesting characters.

I really dug it, although, it is probably his messiest film, with a lot of scenes feeling out of place, even if they were funny. It could have been tighter and you can notice the difference in the film with the recent passing of his long time editor, Menke.

Still, one of the best of the year. Everyone was on fire.

[stevo3001]

It is at times Tarantino's best looking film, and the soundtrack is good again. And it's significantly less boring and poorly done than Inglourious Basterds. The concept and execution are pretty good- you can almost suspend disbelief that something like this could happen, and you certainly root for it to happen.

But while there are less really awful stretches, it's still waaay too long and unedited. (I haven't read Total Film in many years- do they still do that Predicted Interest Curve? If I was doing one of those, it would plummet the moment we meet the stock baddie Calvin Candie). Only one actor (Samuel L Jackson) makes much of a mark in their role. There's no sign of a return to form in Tarantino's dialogue, and there's still almost always some gasbag yammering on about something at any given point in the film. Even in his bad last couple of films, Tarantino has produced scattered moments of real, memorable flair amid the drudge, but there are very few here, almost all visual (the blood all over the white house, Django showing off on his horse, Stephen's reaction to first seeing Django).

Quite possibly Tarantino's most blah film.

2.5

[Daniel M]

Ah man I really want to see this now, comes out the 18th of January over here but I'm only 17 so don't know whether I'll be able to get in, glad most of you enjoyed it though :)

[donniedarko]

Django Unchained, Tarantino's first movie in over three years, has met the hype. After Argo this would be my favorite of the year, and it's not too far. It was a blood fest, and this time just as gritty as the trailer depicted. The closing sequence was non stop action and gore. The Kill Bill and Deathproof fans won't be disappointed.*

The cast was full of familiar faces and stars. But no matter how familiar they were to you, they convinced you of there roles. It was expected for Leo Dicaprio to be the star villain. I think Christoph Waltz was the star once again, like in his Oscar winning role in Inglorious Bastards. Jamie Foxx was surprisingly mature, and also fit his role well.

The scenery, costume, and makeup are all *worthy of praise. Samuel L. Jackson looked like a senile old man, and Foxx looked like a slave who has been soaked in torture. These were the things that made the movie believable, despite the outrageous sound track, and Tarantino having a role himself.

It was a long film at 2 hours 45 minutes plus, and while I can't say there were no over extended scenes, it didn't feel as long as the run time. This is mainly it was divided into two sections. Bounty hunting and search of Django's wife. All around it was entertaining, and another installment into the great career of Quentin Tarantino. 4

[ManOf1000Faces]

I don't think people are not giving DiCaprio enough credit. Calvin Candie did an amazing Job. He was a true sick man. Kind from the outside to violent and sadistic inside.

Does anyone know who Walton Goggins Is? he was a man that was about to cut of Django's **** ... I love the Bag Scene. "I can't see through this!!"



http://www.ineedmyfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/DjangoUnchained_Crash.jpg

[Yoda]

Walton Goggins is great, and not just because he has one of the best names in the history of names. If you like him, watch Justified. He gets all sorts of room to roam free, performance-wise, in that show.

[Sir Toose]

I knew I recognized his face... I'm a huge Shield fan. He was great in that show.

[Upton]

It is at times Tarantino's best looking film, and the soundtrack is good again. And it's significantly less boring and poorly done than Inglourious Basterds. The concept and execution are pretty good- you can almost suspend disbelief that something like this could happen, and you certainly root for it to happen.

But while there are less really awful stretches, it's still waaay too long and unedited. (I haven't read Total Film in many years- do they still do that Predicted Interest Curve? If I was doing one of those, it would plummet the moment we meet the stock baddie Calvin Candie). Only one actor (Samuel L Jackson) makes much of a mark in their role. There's no sign of a return to form in Tarantino's dialogue, and there's still almost always some gasbag yammering on about something at any given point in the film. Even in his bad last couple of films, Tarantino has produced scattered moments of real, memorable flair amid the drudge, but there are very few here, almost all visual (the blood all over the white house, Django showing off on his horse, Stephen's reaction to first seeing Django).

Quite possibly Tarantino's most blah film.

2.5

Can't agree with your Inglourious Basterds dig, but this is definitely the emptiest Tarantino movie. Watchable throughout, but can't match the tension Basterds built in its best scenes and really never even comes close to sustaining that same kind of movie-movie high. The elements are all there for something more involving and deeper felt, but Tarantino undercuts a lot of his best ideas with silly stuff that keeps missing its mark. He's too much of a slave to the constant winks at old exploitation films. Also never really bought Waltz's character - I think it would've been more interesting had Tarantino wrote him struggling with the language and speaking in more broken English. Agreed that Jackson gives the best performance

Anyway, despite my problems with it, still one of the more enjoyable 2012 theater going experiences I had

[TheUsualSuspect]

Spike Lee thinks anyone who makes a film about racism other than him is racist. The guy is a nut.

[wintertriangles]

Do y'all think the fact that Spike Lee says watching Django Unchained would be disrespecting his ancestors stems from when spike counted the number of times the N word was used in Pulp FictionI think it stems from him being a twat and a racist.

[Yoda]

Spike Lee thinks anyone who makes a film about racism other than him is racist.
I really wanna echo this. It might be because it's not him, or it might be because it's a white person, but the way he talks about these films definitely implies some degree of "ownership" over these topics that he feels has been violated.

[Dastardly_Bastard]

This movie is also highly overrated and I personally think Tarantino's films are crap now and he needs to hang it up...


Walton Goggins is awesome BTW... He was great as Shane on The Shield and he is even better as Boyd Crouter on Justified. He and Timothy Olyphant feed off of eachother perfectly.

[Miss Vicky]

The negative rep I gave you was for your use of offensive language and was very much deserved. So how about next time you clean up your act and behave like an adult instead of just paying me back with negative rep.

[Yoda]

I removed the offensive language in question. Try to keep it clean, please. You can insult famous people to your heart's content, just not in a way that could easily offend others who happen to belong to some part of their demographic, yeah?

[Black Rawkus]

I really wanna echo this. It might be because it's not him, or it might be because it's a white person, but the way he talks about these films definitely implies some degree of "ownership" over these topics that he feels has been violated.

I feel ya...I think that Spike is jealous of the way the film is being received positively by white critics and that it touches on one of the most sensitive subjects for black people. The fact that a black man can't tell the story of his ancestors should be bothersome not only to Spike but to all black people.

What about Spike Lee made Inside Man that a film about a white guy covering up that he profited immensely from the Holocaust. So How much ownership does he have of that subject?

[Miss Vicky]

Just got back from Django. Loved it.

Loved every bloated, overly-long, blood-soaked, profanity-filled minute of it.

[Deadite]

How about not instigating derailment and flaming, instead, people?

I'm looking forward to seeing Django. I know above all else Tarantino strives to make his movies fun.

[mattcote]

I read the script a few months ago and I wasn't disappointed. Great movie! Big piece of entertainment!

[Yoda]

Seeing this tonight. Seeing this tonight. Seeing this tonight.

[TheUsualSuspect]

What about Spike Lee made Inside Man that a film about a white guy covering up that he profited immensely from the Holocaust. So How much ownership does he have of that subject?

He'll come back and say he speaks for all the oppressed. :p

[Yoda]

Saw this last night. Probably gonna review it. In the meantime, here's a quote from A.O. Scott comparing the film to Lincoln my wife sent me:

"You could almost imagine the two films, or at least their heroes, figuring in the kind of good-natured, racial-stereotype humor that used to be a staple of stand-up comedy: “white guys abolish slavery like this” (pass constitutional amendment); “but black guys, they abolish slavery like this” (blow up plantation)."

[Dtwizzy2k8]

Saw it last night, great movie. Perhaps the best acting all-around for any movie this year, except maybe The Master. Christopher Waltz, Jamie Foxx, Samuel L. Jackson, and especially Leonardo DiCaprio all perform magnificently and arguably deserve Oscar noms. Tarantino balances light-heartedness and humor well with the heavy significance of slavery, which is what the film is about. He shoves a shameful part of American history into the audience's face and makes you think while simultaneously making you laugh and smile throughout.

The film was somewhat poorly edited, though. Some scenes and transitions seemed out of place and sloppy, while some of the soundtrack choices and transitions were also questionable. For example, we hear a 20 second Tupac track that abruptly ends and cuts to silence. Awkward. Also, the film was overly long and easily could have been chopped down by 20 minutes and still get the point across. Also, Tarantino unnecessarily acts in the film and does a bad job as the only bad actor in the whole movie. In fact, that entire scene with Tarantino was unnecessary and should have been removed.

4

[Mysticalunicornfart]

I felt the soundtrack was unsuitably suitable. The movie wasn't trying to be historically accurate or anything, so seemed fitting.

[Black Rawkus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/leonardo-dicaprio-django-unchained-hand-injury_n_2230839.html

You know those tiny little glasses they're drinking out of at the table? Well, when he's going through his little tantrum, at some point, he smashes the table, and brings his hand down on one of those glasses.

Thats' not in the script: DiCaprio actually smashed his hand on one of the glasses during a take. And never broke character. In fact, the blood you see spreading over his hands comes from that take - and I'm pretty sure the blood he smears on Kerry Washington's face in that scene is his blood, because from what I understand, he went all the way to the end of that sequence in one take, and if his hand is bleeding onscreen, it's from that take.

He needed stitches, and his hand is scarred.

[Black Rawkus]

Here's a Huffington Post article where QT debates a movie critic about Schultz's "harebrained scheme" to get Broomhilda. He REALLY does a great job of explaining Schultz's mindset and the reason why he does the things he does

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/quentin-tarantino-django-unchained_n_2340987.html


OK, Quentin did a great job explaining why Schultz didn't just shake Candie's hand, and shot him instead.

[Black Rawkus]

Spoiler.....Question a bout this.

what was the significance of the lady with red bandana over her mouth?...you'd think they would've revealed her identity..

[Black Rawkus]

Also, one thing I noticed in this movie...lots of blood splattering onto white things (cotton, snow, white horse, etc.)

[Mysticalunicornfart]

Spoiler.....Question a bout this.

what was the significance of the lady with red bandana over her mouth?...you'd think they would've revealed her identity..

Apparently in the original Django there was bandits who wore a similar garb. That may be a nod to that.

That' s impressive about Leo, although I doubt he smeared his actual blood on her.

[Black Rawkus]

Interesting about these two scenes.

Spoiler:

As far as the dogs go, I don't think Candie would have fed the slave to the dogs if Shultz and Django didn't jump in. Maybe the slave would have got whipped or put in the "hot box" for running away, but it wasn't until Shultz agreed to pay Candie $500 and Django stopped him that Candie felt the need to try and call their bluff. Candie was asking the slave how he was suppose to get his money back and when Shultz offered to buy the slave off, Candie seemed ok with the idea of getting his money back but when Django said that Shultz was only doing it because he was tired of watching Candie tease the slave and they weren't interested, Candie felt the need to see if either of them would buckle and pay up at the last minute when he ordered the dogs to be turned loose again.

As for the hand shaking scene, once again I think Candie just wanted the last word and upper hand on what all was going on. He just had an earful said to him by Shultz and there would be no way in hell that he would just allow Shultz to get away with it in his house with all of his servants around. Hence, he wanted to make sure everyone knew he still had the power by allowing Broomhilda to be shot if Shultz didn't do as he said. The main thing with Candie was wanting to be top and not taking anything from anybody.

[Black Rawkus]

Apparently in the original Django there was bandits who wore a similar garb. That may be a nod to that.

That' s impressive about Leo, although I doubt he smeared his actual blood on her.

Interesting cause I know about the original Django movie but I've never seen that movie before. The guys who played Django in the original Django was actually in Django Unchained in Mangindo fighting scene.

Did you read the link I gave you about Leo smashed the glass?...it was his actually blood and both of them didn't break the characters during the film.

[Mysticalunicornfart]

Interesting cause I know about the original Django movie but I've never seen that movie before. The guys who played Django in the original Django was actually in Django Unchained in Mangindo fighting scene.

Did you read the link I gave you about Leo smashed the glass?...it was his actually blood and both of them didn't break the characters during the film.

I did.. it just seems a little twisted lol.


Interesting about these two scenes.

Spoiler:

As far as the dogs go, I don't think Candie would have fed the slave to the dogs if Shultz and Django didn't jump in. Maybe the slave would have got whipped or put in the "hot box" for running away, but it wasn't until Shultz agreed to pay Candie $500 and Django stopped him that Candie felt the need to try and call their bluff. Candie was asking the slave how he was suppose to get his money back and when Shultz offered to buy the slave off, Candie seemed ok with the idea of getting his money back but when Django said that Shultz was only doing it because he was tired of watching Candie tease the slave and they weren't interested, Candie felt the need to see if either of them would buckle and pay up at the last minute when he ordered the dogs to be turned loose again.

As for the hand shaking scene, once again I think Candie just wanted the last word and upper hand on what all was going on. He just had an earful said to him by Shultz and there would be no way in hell that he would just allow Shultz to get away with it in his house with all of his servants around. Hence, he wanted to make sure everyone knew he still had the power by allowing Broomhilda to be shot if Shultz didn't do as he said. The main thing with Candie was wanting to be top and not taking anything from anybody.

Definitely. I think that's mainly why Shultz refused to shake hands with Candie and ultimately decided to shoot him. He was feeling disgust, guilt and repulsion over what he had seen and done. A lot of people are saying Shultz did what he did over pride or that Shultz was under the impression that Calvin wouldn't allow them to leave alive, but I disagree.

[Mysticalunicornfart]

Anyone see this? lol

http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/uncaptioned-GbGYG-50e7435988e56.png

[Daniel M]

I've seen this now, will do a full review in the future but for now a few points without spoiling anything:

- Like donniedarko has said, Waltz is the star once again, if he hadn't won it for Inglourious Basterds then he'd probably get best supporting actor for this.

- Samuel L. Jackson was probably my favourite actor in the film, although the main quartet were all strong. Offered a good mixture of harshness and humour to accompany Leonardo DiCaprio's performance.

- Other characters were left undeveloped somewhat, the Brittler Brothers, Broomhilda, Billy Crash etc. even Stephen when it comes to his (potential) relationship/interaction with Django.

- James Remar playing two characters was pretty strange considering this was clearly visible.

- I loved the bizarre soundtrack

- Despite it's flaws and not being as well constructed as Inglourious Basterds, this film I think was slightly more enjoyable for me upon its first viewing and is 2 hours and 45 minutes of pure fun, my favourite of 2012.

In terms of entertainment I'd give this 5 stars, in terms of quality I'd say 4, so overall rating I'll go with 4.5

[Mysticalunicornfart]

- James Remar playing two characters was pretty strange considering this was clearly visible.



Was that him at the beginning too? I thought so lol. That damn ghost Harry popping up all over the place.

[Daniel M]

Was that him at the beginning too? I thought so lol. That damn ghost Harry popping up all over the place.

Yup it was, good old Harry Morgan just refuses to truly die :p

[Black Rawkus]

Was that him at the beginning too? I thought so lol. That damn ghost Harry popping up all over the place.

I read somewhere that it was a nod to low budget spaghetti westerns, where they would have one person playing two roles.

[supertexgrrl]

I have a friend who has great taste in films, and he said this was the best Tarentino film in years. He absolutely loved it, so I'll probably see it.

[SammyNoNo]

Christoph Waltz is on his way to American Superstar status.

[Miss Vicky]

SammyNoNo - Why did you give me negative rep?

You just joined today. The post I was responding to has since been edited by the admin to delete the offensive language I was talking about, so unless you'd been lurking when it happened you've no real idea what DastardlyBastard actually said.

[SammyNoNo]

I didn't know that people take the thumbs up/thumbs down system seriously here. I simply disagree that cursing should be outlawed in a forum. I don't have anything personally against you.

[The Rodent]

Fair point but it's a staple rule of Movie Forums that things are kept to a PG13 rating :D

Otherwise, where do you draw the line at the more adult behaviour?
Next thing will be nekkid pics of unsavoury women and excessive language to the point that it just becomes a bad place to spend an evening reading and chatting when it can be a pleasant place instead.

Also, there are some younger MoFos on the forum... which I don't think many people would agree that bad language is something they should be subjected to. It's bad enough in the world outside.

[SammyNoNo]

I'm completely against a forum becoming smutty, disgusting, and vulgar, but curse words are a normal thing in an adult's life. I usually abstain from using curse words, however, anyone who is mature enough to be on this forum is mature enough to be exposed to curse words. Just as long as it is used in moderation.

[Yoda]

Otherwise, where do you draw the line at the more adult behaviour?
Next thing will be nekkid pics of unsavoury women and excessive language to the point that it just becomes a bad place to spend an evening reading and chatting when it can be a pleasant place instead.
"Dogs and cats, living together! MASS HYSTERIA!" :D

Anyway, yeah, don't blame Miss Vicky, blame me for the rule. :) I feel pretty strongly that curbing language raises the level of civility (rare, on the Internet, I think we'd all agree) and gives us a more diverse group of opinions, because there are all sorts of people who have plenty of insight that would be driven away otherwise because some teenager called them an idiot. We don't shy away from conflict, we just try to make sure it's substantive conflict, and I find this really helps.

It is certainly true that anyone mature enough to be on the forum is mature enough to hear some cursing. But it's also true that anyone thoughtful enough to be of value to the community is thoughtful enough to find another way to express themselves. And we're usually pretty reasonable about enforcement; it's not a zero-tolerance thing.

So, I've given the matter quite a bit of thought and think it's a net positive. I think it's helped to attract more thoughtful people over time. If anyone disagrees and is bugged by the restriction, I can understand that. It's a valid position. But I hope and expect that they (you, other new members, whoever) will give it a shot, and obviously abide by it as long as they're here.

Hope that explains things. :)

[SammyNoNo]

I like your view on this matter Yoda. I think reasonable and fair enforcement is a good view to have as a moderator.

[Daniel M]

I like your view on this matter Yoda. I think reasonable and fair enforcement is a good view to have as a moderator.

Whilst I agree that cursing shouldn't be banned, if I can recall correctly then the post that Miss Vicky was replying to was extremely offensive and contained a homophobic remark as well, it's just that it has been edited out so you wouldn't know.

[Miss Vicky]

Whilst I agree that cursing shouldn't be banned, if I can recall correctly then the post that Miss Vicky was replying to was extremely offensive and contained a homophobic remark as well, it's just that it has been edited out so you wouldn't know.

You do recall correctly. :)

There was also an offensive comment in the post that referred to another group of people. It wasn't a matter of cussing.

[Deadite]

Homophobia is ghey.

[ManOf1000Faces]

Saw it last night, great movie. Perhaps the best acting all-around for any movie this year, except maybe The Master. Christopher Waltz, Jamie Foxx, Samuel L. Jackson, and especially Leonardo DiCaprio all perform magnificently and arguably deserve Oscar noms. Tarantino balances light-heartedness and humor well with the heavy significance of slavery, which is what the film is about. He shoves a shameful part of American history into the audience's face and makes you think while simultaneously making you laugh and smile throughout.

The film was somewhat poorly edited, though. Some scenes and transitions seemed out of place and sloppy, while some of the soundtrack choices and transitions were also questionable. For example, we hear a 20 second Tupac track that abruptly ends and cuts to silence. Awkward. Also, the film was overly long and easily could have been chopped down by 20 minutes and still get the point across. Also, Tarantino unnecessarily acts in the film and does a bad job as the only bad actor in the whole movie. In fact, that entire scene with Tarantino was unnecessary and should have been removed.

4


You can't erase the way Tarantino does his films. Every movie has him playing a character no matter if its bad acting or not. That scene shouldn't of been removed because it made sense and filled up the ending.

[ManOf1000Faces]

Homophobia is ghey.


Was that on purpose Deadite??

[donniedarko]

You do recall correctly. :)

There was also an offensive comment in the post that referred to another group of people. It wasn't a matter of cussing.

What did Dastardly say?

[Yoda]

Yo, let's keep this thread on track. :) If you want details PM me or something.

[ManOf1000Faces]

Yo, let's keep this thread on track. :) If you want details PM me or something.

I find this unneeded because this small issue shouldn't get everyone into it. Just leave it and let two adults deal with their own problems.

Back to the real thread

Yoda do you think the movie would of done better if they didn't kill of Christoph ??

[Yoda]

Whoa buddy, wrap that sort of thing in spoiler tags. Anyway, here's my answer:

It depends on what you mean by "better." It probably wouldn't affect box office because you don't know until you've seen it, so they already have your money. The only way it could hurt the film's gross would be by hurting word of mouth, and that's pretty indirect. And I don't think the kinds of people who see Tarantino's movies would be upset with that kind of development.

If you just mean general opinion, I'd still say no, for the second reason above. People largely know what they're getting, and I thought the choice made plenty of sense.

[BlueLion]

Django has everything you can expect from a Tarantino movie. Witty dialogue, brilliant soundtrack, mix of gruesome violence with humor... the list goes on.

I saw it earlier this week and had a great time, one of the most entertaining experiences I've had in a while. And it goes without saying that it's Tarantino's most energetic film to date. 2 hours and 45 minutes felt like 1 hour and 45 minutes to me, that's how good it was.

[SammyNoNo]

That's a solid point! That movie did fly by really fast!

[UncriticallyAcclaimed]

Getting back on topic, here's my review of Django copied from my blog.

[SPOILER!]
"The D is silent, hillbilly..." Tarantino pulled off the mash up of past eras mixed with a contemporary style quite wonderfully. A perfect blend of advanced terminology/slang and personalities for the time. Dialogue heavy with gruesome action timed at the write points can sum up Tarantino's steeze of writing/directing and this one does not stray away from that. Some of the blaxploitation was shocking to see/hear, but Tarantino sprinkled just enough comedy to get away with it. DiCaprio(Calvin Candie) even makes a jab at the audience about how much racism they've used. Seeing Jonah Hill was interesting. It seemed to me like he wrote the entire scene with the bag heads arguing about their eye holes. Christoph Waltz(Dr. King Schultz) delivers another awesome performance. This movie earns its two hour and forty five minute time slot. Tarantino 'sticks to his guns'. Just when you think it's over, Dr. King jests, "sorry I couldn't resist." And the blood baths ensue. I look forward to the blu-ray release.

VERDICT: SEE IT ON THE BIG SCREEN/ADD IT TO YOUR COLLECTION

[Schimo]

So, Tarantino decided to make a western movie, as he is a big fan of them. Not only that he decided to make one, he decided to make a very good one with a relatively typical spaghetti western story but, to put it mildly, not typical characters and locations. So Django Unchained takes place at the South of the USA (so-called Deep South) a few years before the Civil War and the main protagonists are German bounty hunter and a black slave who quickly becomes a black cowboy.

Django Unchained is more or less what the majority of the audience expected. While it is legitimate to criticize Tarantinos stylistic and filming constant throughout his career the fact is that he creates high-quality films that meets with mostly positive response among the audience. Also stylistic and filming repetitiveness is belaud characteristic of many other acclaimed filmmakers (the Coen brothers, Carpetner ...) so there is no reason to be harsh with Tarantino for that.Django Unchained is primarily entertainment, then a brutal display of the first half of the 19th century in USA, and ultimately the criticism of human morality. Often mentioned violence is pervasive and somewhat glorified, but no more than in average action film.

Acting is on extremely high level, which was also directly contributed by writing the script for specific actors. Thus, for instance, Dr. Schultz, Candie and Stephen were written directly for Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson, while Django was written with Will Smith in mind. Jamie Foxx is definitely the weakest among main cast, although far from being bad his acting is definitely forgetful while previously enumerated trio is far away from being forgetful. Christoph Waltz is simply brilliant in the role of Dr. Schultz, which deviates slightly from Hans Landa and although many will find problem of repetitiveness in that, that should be ignored due to the success of the character and Waltzs performance. DiCaprio is excellent in his first role as a villain. He was so into it that when he really accidentally hit a glass with his fist and despite sizable bleeding never went out of the character. Samuel L. Jackson is also excellent in the role peevish old man with plenty of swearing and yelling.

It looks like Tarantino wanted to have as much people as it was possible to participate in this movie, so we have a bunch of supporting characters, most of which was a cameo or almost a cameo role and most of them end up serving as cannon fodder. Even Franco Nero, the original Django, appears in the film and there were written roles for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Sacha Baron Cohen and Michael Kenneth Williams which were ultimately thrown out of the film as the trio couldn't participate in project.
The dialogues are wonderfully worked out, with many lines that will become cult. The disadvantage is the unnecessarily lengthiness of the film itself and many completely unnecessary scenes. Some of these unnecessary scenes that serve the purpose of comedy like the one with hoods are not the problem, but the vast majority of others are, specially in the last half of hour. Editing is also obvious worse than in previous Tarantino films which were edited by, now late, Sally Menke.
Soundtack is particularly interesting. Giuseppe Verdi, Ennio Morricone and James Brown/2Pac duet (which unlike Rick Ross is interesting musical experiment) as a music background in few almost connected scenes is really special experience.

Tarantino continues as usual, and while some will be happy with it, others will not, but the fact is that Django Unchained is instant cult film which in addition is well made and which characters will be quoted and scenes will be endlessly viewed.


9/10

[BlueLion]

^ Very good review, agreed with almost everything you said.

But I personally don't think that the film is longer than it should be. Like I said a few days ago in this thread, it didn't feel long at all to me. And I watched it again three days ago, and I enjoyed it a lot more than the first time I watched it, and again it didn't seem long at all. Basically, I wouldn't really remove anything.

While watching it for the second time, not only that I enjoyed it more and that it made me like the movie even more, but I noticed some more details and things that I missed during the first time I saw it. So I'd recommend to everybody to watch it more than once, because seeing it once isn't enough. And even if you don't love it the first time you see it, it will grow on you after you watch it for a second time, trust me.

In a scale of 1 to 10, I'd also give it a 9 without hesitation. That would be my final rating, regardless of how many times I watch it after this post. Two weeks ago I wasn't sure if Django, Inglourious Basterds or Jackie Brown was Tarantino's second best film after Pulp Fiction. But now I've made up my mind, now I think Django Unchained is his best work since Pulp Fiction, followed closely by his other two works that I mentioned.

[bluedeed]

That's a solid point! That movie did fly by really fast!

It did for me as well until the third act. There's nothing wrong with a long film, but Tarantino seemed to either be extending it for the purpose of being a western epic (a bit cynical, but possible), or just stuck on an ending. I noticed several other good places to end the film, most of them better, but every character had to be ousted before the end or it wouldn't be a true revenge film. But I guess that's just Tarantino's style, I though it was a weakness in this, but I still enjoyed it a great deal.

[Dastardly_Bastard]

The negative rep I gave you was for your use of offensive language and was very much deserved. So how about next time you clean up your act and behave like an adult instead of just paying me back with negative rep.



Awwwww..... Poo baby... You just made yourself a target. ;3

[BlueLion]

Awwwww..... Poo baby... You just made yourself a target. ;3

-4 rep points because I gave you minus rep in one post, because I genuinely disagreed with your statement in that post? Seriously? You're a joke, you shouldn't even be allowed on a forum.

And guess what, you just made yourself a target too.

[Deadite]

Awwwww..... Poo baby... You just made yourself a target. ;3

What part of "be more respectful" don't you understand?

[Proximity]

Seriously, go look at his Twitter profile (advertised on his 'profile' on this site). Obviously, you're dealing with a class act.

Edit for context: He literally just signed on to mine just to call me a 'fag' for no apparent reason... then I read a thread about the movie I just finished re-watching (1channel.ch yo!) and he's causing trouble in here... no surprise.

[Powdered Water]

I am not going to anyone's "twiter profile". Christ, twitter is becoming worse than cell phones. I didn't think that was even possible.



Anyway, liked the movie quite a bit. Don't think its as good as Inglorious, but its pretty damn good. As with most Tarantino flicks it will probably get better with a few more viewings. He just packs so much stuff into his flicks.

[Miss Vicky]

-4 rep points because I gave you minus rep in one post, because I genuinely disagreed with your statement in that post? Seriously? You're a joke, you shouldn't even be allowed on a forum.

And guess what, you just made yourself a target too.

Only -4? I got -13 last night plus a homophobic profile comment. :p

[ivo kam]

It was an amazing movie.And also had some of the best comedy sequneces i've ever seen.The part with the hoods and Jonah Hill was hillarious!

[Mysticalunicornfart]

It looks like we got us a fight going on in here that's a good bit of fun.

[Miss Vicky]

The fight is over. Dastardly's been banned.

[rauldc14]

Django was great and will probably be even better upon repeated viewings.

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk

[Mysticalunicornfart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K5cXUaj-bM
Django's cast is so hostile lol

[Proximity]

I am not going to anyone's "twiter profile". Christ, twitter is becoming worse than cell phones. I didn't think that was even possible.



Your loss. Reading it is indeed a "good bit of fun."

[Agrajag]

My original review is on my blog at Django Unchained (http://blog.pcserenity.com/2012/12/django-unchained.html).

The interesting part about it is the keyword links that are being used to find it. Most reference the "mysterious woman red bandanna".

Anyway, here's my review:

I’m not at all sure who Quentin Tarantino targets his movies to but, with growing regularity, I’m clearly not one of his targets. His latest effort, Django Unchained, had its release delayed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. After seeing it, I now understand why. I just wish it had been delayed to make it a better movie.

The film stars Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz as a freed slave (Django) and the German bounty hunter (Dr. King Schultz) who gives him his freedom in return for help identifying a wanted group of brothers.

The deeper story takes root when Django decides to go after his slave wife and gets help from King.

The movie clocks in at nearly 3 very long hours. This isn’t a new problem for Tarantino films but sometimes his films just feel long. This one is long and feels doubly so.

I get the sense that Tarantino loves the process of making films and he’s clearly a film nut. The problem is that his enthusiasm and depth result in efforts that leave the average viewer lost in the wake.

In this case we have a movie that’s entirely disjointed. It is, at times, a wonder to watch while, at other times, is either entirely un-watchable or simply ridiculous. When it’s good, it’s fantastic. The dialog, visuals and ambiance give us moments of pure cinematic beauty if only fleetingly.
Waltz is, in my view, the star of the show. His work here once again underscores what an amazing talent he wields. We buy everything he’s selling and we long for more.

Foxx is good but he’s overshadowed by Waltz.

We also have a bevy of other key roles played by Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson and Don Johnson in addition to many minor roles played by some big names. All do a fine job.

Like most Tarantino films this one is violent and graphic. However, this one goes beyond everything he’s done previously. Whoever provided the fake blood must have made a fortune. Unfortunately, instead of his using it artistically (as he’s done before) here it’s just crazily gratuitous. If it’s supposed to be a joke, the joke wears off almost immediately.

Then there’s other Tarantino-trademark problems. There’s one-off “jokes” that never repeat and, on their own, aren’t interesting. Why, for example, is the text for Mississippi screen-high and scrolled while no other similar description is? What artsy element or inside joke am I missing here?

We get character quirks that go entirely unexplained, like a mystery woman who covers her face with a red bandana (except her eyes) in every scene. Why? We never find out.

There’s characters who look exactly like other characters and, in one case, actor James Remar plays two entirely different, supposedly unrelated roles. However, both clearly look the same and it’s distracting. Why? Again, we never find out.

The soundtrack was noteworthy and, here and there, compliments some wonderful shots but it’s not enough to save the film.

[Daniel M]

My original review is on my blog at blog.pcserenity.com/2012/12/django-unchained.html.

The interesting part about it is the keyword links that are being used to find it. Most reference the "mysterious woman red bandanna".

Anyway, here's my review:

I’m not at all sure who Quentin Tarantino targets his movies to but, with growing regularity, I’m clearly not one of his targets. His latest effort, Django Unchained, had its release delayed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. After seeing it, I now understand why. I just wish it had been delayed to make it a better movie.

Didn't know that it was, unless it was just in some parts, but I don't really get how anyone can connect this movie with real life violence like that, especially when this is set in the 19th century about slavery.

The film stars Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz as a freed slave (Django) and the German bounty hunter (Dr. King Schultz) who gives him his freedom in return for help identifying a wanted group of brothers.

The deeper story takes root when Django decides to go after his slave wife and gets help from King.

The movie clocks in at nearly 3 very long hours. This isn’t a new problem for Tarantino films but sometimes his films just feel long. This one is long and feels doubly so.

I get the sense that Tarantino loves the process of making films and he’s clearly a film nut. The problem is that his enthusiasm and depth result in efforts that leave the average viewer lost in the wake.

In this case we have a movie that’s entirely disjointed. It is, at times, a wonder to watch while, at other times, is either entirely un-watchable or simply ridiculous. When it’s good, it’s fantastic. The dialog, visuals and ambiance give us moments of pure cinematic beauty if only fleetingly.
Waltz is, in my view, the star of the show. His work here once again underscores what an amazing talent he wields. We buy everything he’s selling and we long for more.

I don't really get how it's disjointed or unwatchable, none of it was like this too may, although I'm a Tarantino fan I can understand some criticism of the film but the it's 'disjointed' one just seems a bit to general for me and at no point for me was it unwatchable.

Foxx is good but he’s overshadowed by Waltz.

We also have a bevy of other key roles played by Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson and Don Johnson in addition to many minor roles played by some big names. All do a fine job.

Like most Tarantino films this one is violent and graphic. However, this one goes beyond everything he’s done previously. Whoever provided the fake blood must have made a fortune. Unfortunately, instead of his using it artistically (as he’s done before) here it’s just crazily gratuitous. If it’s supposed to be a joke, the joke wears off almost immediately.

I didn't think this film was that violent really, it served a purpose and felt infitting with slavery and really helped me develop a hatred for Leo DiCaprio especially (Dogs, Mandingo etc.). In some scenes the violence is funny, at least for me, and in others it has a purpose, people watch kung-fu movies to see the hero kick ass, here is a revenge tale where the black man is able to kill white people, it's fun and for me it has a purpose and again its helped by the fact we hate the villains. Reservoir Dogs is much more violent, Kill Bill is as well and is much more stylish and bloody.

Then there’s other Tarantino-trademark problems. There’s one-off “jokes” that never repeat and, on their own, aren’t interesting. Why, for example, is the text for Mississippi screen-high and scrolled while no other similar description is? What artsy element or inside joke am I missing here?

Yeh you're missing that one, it's a joke referencing Gone With The Wind, also about the south - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pL2yPFxBQQ4

We get character quirks that go entirely unexplained, like a mystery woman who covers her face with a red bandana (except her eyes) in every scene. Why? We never find out.

Another reference your missing, it's a nod to characters from the original Django and the role was also forced to be cut down a bit I've heard, so that's all what was left, a nod.

There’s characters who look exactly like other characters and, in one case, actor James Remar plays two entirely different, supposedly unrelated roles. However, both clearly look the same and it’s distracting. Why? Again, we never find out.

Again another nod to old Spaghetti Westerns where the same actors were used in multiple roles, I asked the same question at first, I wouldn't say it was particularly distracting, just a bit confusing at first.

The soundtrack was noteworthy and, here and there, compliments some wonderful shots but it’s not enough to save the film.

Don't take that as a personal attack or anything, but I just really feel that people are trying to criticise the film without really explaining why it's more and only pointing out what they think are superfluous scenes that make the picture on the whole disjointed.

[Agrajag]

I wouldn't take anything like your post as a personal attack. I've got enough of that on the blog site. hehe

In order of your comments:

RE: The delayed release. I think they simply felt it would risk being viewed as insensitive given all the blood and simply took the "smart" path of avoiding the issue entirely. The two week delay didn't hurt it as far as I can tell.

RE: Disjointed. I felt as if scenes didn't flow well together and that his styles change so much that it keeps you from feeling "fluid". It's often as if what you're watching are vignettes and not a single entity. I felt the same way with Inglorious Basterds. Understand I am a fan. I think KB:V1 is a masterpiece. I just suddenly feel like he's turning into the Dennis Miller of movie directing (lots of obscure references as if he wants to show off how much he knows that you don't). Miller does that a lot. Here I think it's not so much to show off but to pay homage. That's fine but tell me up front so I can prepare or have the right expectations.

RE: The blood. I don't feel as if any of the other movies were more gratuitously bloodly. It was comical here. There's the one scene in KB:V1 but not really much else. Reservoir Dogs was more "violent" but it was very much in-character. Here it just felt, to me, like Tarantino was trying to see what the limit is for blood in a movie.

RE: Gone With The Wind. Thanks. That explains it but I still feel it's not "balanced". In GWTW it's done as a title. Here it's done for one location but another location is done differently. Again, that, for me, plays into the "disjointed" feeling.

The rest is pretty obvious. As I said, I really felt that most of my concerns (all of them?) could have been EASILY avoided by simply marketing the movie as an homage to the genre. I'd have then without criticism assuming I simply didn't have the background to really get the connections (which I don't). Instead, none of the previews I saw presented this as anything but a traditional, mainstream movie effort from him and, as expected, I went into it with that mindset.

[Mingusings]

Just out of curiosity, what would be an example where you thought Tarantino used blood artistically in previous movies?

[Agrajag]

As I said above, Kill Bill: Volume 1.

I think it was done well in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (the brain matter--where is clearly needed to be there for the entire scene to hit home).

Here it literally was shooting out onto walls, into the air, all over--for literally the sake of it. In KB there was more of it in one scene but it was very much about the ambiance of the scene--the red contrasting with the blue, cold winter scene to follow.

[Daniel M]

...

RE: Disjointed. I felt as if scenes didn't flow well together and that his styles change so much that it keeps you from feeling "fluid". It's often as if what you're watching are vignettes and not a single entity. I felt the same way with Inglorious Basterds. Understand I am a fan. I think KB:V1 is a masterpiece. I just suddenly feel like he's turning into the Dennis Miller of movie directing (lots of obscure references as if he wants to show off how much he knows that you don't). Miller does that a lot. Here I think it's not so much to show off but to pay homage. That's fine but tell me up front so I can prepare or have the right expectations.

This is more disjointed and more a series of vignettes than Inglourious Basterds, it's in no way unwatchable for me and constantly fun and engaging, when it gets to the Candie plantation I was thinking hows he going to fit half a film in now, but he did it great IMO. Inglourious Basterds for me is brilliant in terms of how it all comes together, a lot tighter and better edited, better suspense etc.

RE: The blood. I don't feel as if any of the other movies were more gratuitously bloodly. It was comical here. There's the one scene in KB:V1 but not really much else. Reservoir Dogs was more "violent" but it was very much in-character. Here it just felt, to me, like Tarantino was trying to see what the limit is for blood in a movie.

This was in character though, for me, like the dog scene and mandingo fight help develop Candie's character, the opening scene is comical, fun and light hearted opening where the buddy relationships begin. I can't really think of anywhere where it seemed comical and pointless at all really, the big blood scene was fine for me.

RE: Gone With The Wind. Thanks. That explains it but I still feel it's not "balanced". In GWTW it's done as a title. Here it's done for one location but another location is done differently. Again, that, for me, plays into the "disjointed" feeling.

The reason it's shown at that time is relevant as this is the first time we get to the Mississippi, a town in the south very much associated with racism and we see slaves tied up and walking through the mud in contrast to the idyllic view shown in Gone with the Wind.

The rest is pretty obvious. As I said, I really felt that most of my concerns (all of them?) could have been EASILY avoided by simply marketing the movie as an homage to the genre. I'd have then without criticism assuming I simply didn't have the background to really get the connections (which I don't). Instead, none of the previews I saw presented this as anything but a traditional, mainstream movie effort from him and, as expected, I went into it with that mindset.

Maybe it's because I'm a huge Tarantino fan, but I watched this film full well knowing it was going to be filled with references and homages. Death Proof homages old explotation movies, Kill Bill does the same with Asian cinema and Jackie Brown blaxplotation. In almost every interview Tarantino was asked about the setting and constantly talked about how he always wanted to do a spaghetti western, he always says his favourite films include The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, and the film is even has the word 'Django' in it, a name famously linked to old spaghetti westerns, all his other film have spaghetti western elements as well and he's used Morricone's stuff before as well. I don't know how you didn't realise any of this. There's tons of references and homages in Kill Bill as well, but people don't complain about them.

[Agrajag]

Regarding Inglorious Basterds, I agree. I think it's a better film than this in many, many ways (and I still think it was just a bit better than average).

Regarding Mississippi, you sold me. See? These discussions do change minds. I can see it now. I'd still suggest that it's pretty obscure and stuff like that can lose people (as this did with me and I'm not exactly a movie noob). However, as noted, at least now it makes sense so thanks for that.

I must say that, somehow, I haven't seen Tarantino interviewed much (if at all) so I've missed his background on this. I only had the previews to go by. As far as Kill Bill, there's a fluidity and cohesiveness to it that doesn't require you to know any/all of the references. It easily stands on its own. Thinking back I can't recall anything in it where I wondered what the point was.

With Inglorious Basterds, one of the things we get that, for me, creates a disconnect is the Stiglitz introduction. He's the first team member we meet (beyond Aldo) and we get this cartoon-like, super-hero presentation. I loved it. I thought, "Cool, we're going to meet everyone this way... It's going to be so slick and this plays off the whole team with a new perspective." Then? Nothing. No one else gets that. Yes, it makes him stand apart but he already did. Not doing it just stuck out like a sore thumb. It'd be like Traffic and its use of color but then if they didn't follow through with it you'd be confused as to what the point was.

[Mingusings]

Was there really anything in Django Unchained that didn't make sense? I get the Mississippi title was pretty random and obscure, but I wouldn't say that it was confusing if you didn't get the Gone with the Wind reference.

As far as the Stiglitz intro, I completely agree. That was one of the things I didn't like about the movie. Perhaps there were some back stories to all of the characters in the original script and they had to be cut.

[bluedeed]

All I can say about Django Unchained was that the last act had no business being in the film at all.

[Mingusings]

All I can say about Django Unchained was that the last act had no business being in the film at all.

Why? It was a spaghetti western. That would have been so anticlimactic if there was no shootout.

[bluedeed]

Why? It was a spaghetti western. That would have been so anticlimactic if there was no shootout.

There was a shootout, and then Tarantino's self-indulgent onscreen "cameo," and then more shooting, and more bland bada**ery, and then a final shot confirming that this was nothing more than another one of Tarantino's regular revenge flicks, just in the old west this time.

[Mingusings]

There was a shootout, and then Tarantino's self-indulgent onscreen "cameo," and then more shooting, and more bland bada**ery, and then a final shot confirming that this was nothing more than another one of Tarantino's regular revenge flicks, just in the old west this time.

I don't think it is fair to say that the person who spent hundreds of hours writing and directing a movie can't make a short appearance in it.

And I don't understand how someone could not have enjoyed the shootouts and the bada**ery, but to each his own I suppose.

[BlueLion]

All I can say about Django Unchained was that the last act had no business being in the film at all.

Are you suggesting that Tarantino should've ended the movie after the handshake between Candie and Schultz, or worse yet, before it even came to that? Because the real bloodbath started after that handshake scene. I think that had Tarantino decided to end it that way, the movie would've obviously failed. You can't expect a former slave to go and rescue his slave wife so easily, and it's a western so there has to be plenty of killing and blood.

I have to admit that after watching it for the first time I also found the shootout scenes excessive, and I felt that they were slightly overdone. Then I decided to watch it again after a couple of days and my opinion changed almost completely. Now, not only that I think that the amount of blood used is justified, I also think that each scene is masterfully done. I personally still can't think of anything else that Tarantino could've added/removed, but I'm not saying the movie is flawless and that it's perfect.

I also feel that Inglourious Basterds is sort of more complete, by the way, but I enjoyed Django much more and I personally like it more, because it's way more entertaining. In Inglourious Basterds QT wanted more drama and more suspense. In Django he wanted more action, more gunfights and more blood. Django Unchained is basically Tarantino unleashed.

[bluedeed]

I don't think it is fair to say that the person who spent hundreds of hours writing and directing a movie can't make a short appearance in it.

And I don't understand how someone could not have enjoyed the shootouts and the bada**ery, but to each his own I suppose.

I don't think there's anything wrong with what Tarantino does with that most of the time. The problem I had here was that it occurred after I had lost interest (the film's trajectory was obvious and bland). It just seemed a little late in the game to make me realize I'm watching a movie.

I think Tarantino is one of our better action directors around. Unlike the spatially and logically impaired action directors of today, for the sake of the argument, we'll call them Christopher Nolans, Tarantino has a much better feel for time and space within action shots. Instead of overly rapid cutting, or events that seem like cut and pasted pieces, like a Nolan, Tarantino's direction makes the events look like part of a whole staged event happening in real time. I feel that I could recreate the Candieland house in my head with his spatial logic, whereas a highway in Gotham city would come out looking like a crop circle.

That being said, the entire last act's scenes come not out of necessity, but out of Tarantino's, and his character's self-indulgence. They're shot well, but with no feeling behind them (partially because the relationship between Django and Broomhilda was never expanded upon/taken mostly for granted, which does make a particular sense when you see his choice in the final shot). I didn't want the neat and tidy, film in a box package, which I got due to Tarantino's necessity for more bloodbaths.

[Agrajag]

And I don't understand how someone could not have enjoyed the shootouts and the bada**ery, but to each his own I suppose.

A lot of people die in Eastwood westerns. There's a lot of carnage but it's not ridiculous. The sheer volume of people falling and blood flying in every single, seemingly-endless direction for literally minutes upon minutes just took it from a roller coaster ride to a train off the tracks completely out of control. It lost me entirely there. I was numbed to it after a bit and people in our theater literally got up and walked out at that point (and that's nearly the end!)

The Crazy 88's sequence in Kill Bill is carnage on steroids but somehow it raises to an artistic level. The only word I can think of for this scene in DU is gratuitous. It added nothing to the story. It was just there for people to ooh and ahh over it. For me I say no thanks.

[Mingusings]

For me, the Crazy 88 sequence is way more brutal than this. In the crazy 88, people get killed in unimaginable ways for pretty much 10 minutes straight. Arms, legs, feet, and heads cut off while blood shoots out, entire bodies sliced in half, faces mangled, an eye snatched out. In Django, it's just globs of blood coming out when someone gets shot.

I think the only thing rougher in Django is the sounds. A lot of screaming and yelling and gruesome noises, whereas Kill Bill had more music and the gruesome sounds were replaced with the sword sounds.

[Daniel M]

That being said, the entire last act's scenes come not out of necessity, but out of Tarantino's, and his character's self-indulgence. They're shot well, but with no feeling behind them (partially because the relationship between Django and Broomhilda was never expanded upon/taken mostly for granted, which does make a particular sense when you see his choice in the final shot). I didn't want the neat and tidy, film in a box package, which I got due to Tarantino's necessity for more bloodbaths.

Whilst I loved the film I have to agree with this criticism. Throughout the whole film we knew that the love story was the central element to how the events occurred, but i only really acted as a platform that would allow the characters to interact with each other (Candie, Stephen, Schultz etc.). Once we get to the final act it feels as though the film has already finished and it's just their to complete it, there's no development of Broomhilda at all in the film really.

[bluedeed]

Excellent use of Whilst, Daniel M.

[shlomi]

As a Big fan of Tarantino, I liked the movie. But I felt a little lacking of "meat", And yet lasted three hours, with non justified reason.. "Tarantino twists" was litlle missing to me in the movie.

And I was disappointed that he cut the story line of how Brohmilda arrived to candyland. Still a great movie .. but not even my TOP 4 of Tarantino(However, all those four are masterpieces to me).

Now, spoilers.



I see this film in 3 acts. Act I is Schultz taking Django under his wing and training him to be a bounty hunter and basically "free" him. Act II is them working as a team and us seeing Django and Schultz balance their duo act. Act III is Django's starring role as we see him emerge as the hero he was trained to be.

But Act II is where its apparent that Schultz is now "breaking." It's all over the place in Act II. Even him asking Candie if he may talk to Django, after a mishap, would raise a red flag and Django even scolded him for it. Then Schultz tries to reimburse Candie so the slave won't be ripped apart by dogs. He's breaking even more. The roles of Django and Schultz have now switched as Django is now the one with common sense as Schultz is, simply, losing it. It's obvious the effect of the slave being ripped apart had on him. When Candie is on to them and giving the skull-speech, it is obvious how shaken Schultz is. He is never going to recover from that. When Candie slams the hammer and pretends to smash Hildi, just look at Schultz, he's cowering like a baby.

The next scene is us seeing him fully engulfed in his downfall. He even loses it and tells the harp player to stop playing. This man is gone. Logic escapes him now. He's not the cool-cat he was in the beginning. In many ways, saving Django caused him to bring himself down and ultimately his own life. I see Django as not only a tale of slavery for black people but slavery in general. The whole portion of Act II is Schultz learning what it's like to be in a slave-like world, being paraded around by Candie and having to oblige him and act like everything is fine despite all the torment he witnesses along the way. He's no longer in charge like he was in Act I.



The scene in which Schultz and Django sitting with Kennedy at the table(the best scene in the movie imo), is almost exact recovery of the pub scene in basterds(the best scene in the movie imo.

in Bastards, there is a group of Allied soldiers pretending to be a band of German soldiers, and trying to fool on the SS officer in their table. in django, Schultz and Django trying to pretend to slave traders, and try to fool on candy that sits at the table with them. In both cases, at some point the bad guy discover that the people in front are not who they claim to be. He reveals it in front of them, and threatening them if they do not do as he pleases (in bastards, probably surrender to the Nazis, and in django, give him the money and shake his hand) the results will be devastating to them. In both cases, there is a simpler option. with is surrender.

and In both cases, the good guys choose option that is considered to a suicide, rather than just give up. And this is Tarantino's mythology, a bloody and beautiful end.

I think the reason that Tarantino is suck a great film maker, is beacuse he manages to combine between a smart cinema, and enjoyable cinema, and that is something that is very difficult to do.

[shlomi]

i thing it should at least 1 comment.

[Mysticalunicornfart]

Hey did you write this on Imdb too? Think I saw this there a couple weeks ago.

[earlsmoviepicks]

To me, Tarantino went about this one a bit whimsically as an ode to Spaghetti Westerns. That's cool and I liked it fine, but if he developed Dr. King Schulz's character for another project, that's what I'd really like to see.

[Deadite]

Big SPOILER ahead.

I loved it. Thought it was better than Basterds. Waltz's performance was better for me than in Basterds, too. Great character, and the way they built camaraderie was excellent. I also thought it was tighter story-wise than IB, and didn't feel anything was unnecessary. IB was much more uneven to me, dragging at times before getting good again. I felt like DU was better paced, not that it didn't meander in parts but the meandering felt more natural and extended the sense of its epicness, so I really felt like I went through a journey with those characters. I hated the death of Waltz's character. But it really added punch to the following section of vengeance. And Leo was superb as the nonchalantly evil villain.

All in all, great film. Enjoyed it very much and will see it again.

[shlomi]

Hey did you write this on Imdb too? Think I saw this there a couple weeks ago.

yes in the movie board.

[s.singh]

(This is my first review, didn't know whether to make a new thread, feel free to correct me)

Tarantino’s ‘Django Unchained’ is not only a well-crafted, entertaining homage to the spaghetti western era, but also a very different take on a dark chapter in America’s history.

An excellent way to end an entertaining year, 2012’s ‘Django Unchained’ captures the essence of 1850s America in a way only Tarantino could pull off. The movie follows the story of a black slave Django, played by Jamie Foxx, who is freed by a German dentist-turned-bounty hunter, Dr King Schultz, played by Christopher Waltz. Django and Schultz must journey together to save Django’s wife from slavery, though this task will not be as simple as they first perceived.

Tarantino does not miss an opportunity to fill this movie with subtle references to old westerns such as Two Mules for Sister Sara, The Good, the bad and the Ugly and various other classics. The music itself is written by veteran composer Ennio Morricone, who you may remember as the man behind the famous music of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western trilogy. Some of the other references are not so subtle; the title itself is a conjunction of the 1966 western ‘Django’ starring Franco Nero and the 1960 fantasy, adventure ‘Hercules Unchained’. Clever homage is paid to ‘Django’ in which Franco Nero played the titular character, named Django. Franco Nero cameos in a scene and asks Jamie Foxx’s Django how to spell his name, to which Django explains “The ‘D’ is silent”. Nero replies, “I know”. This interaction could constitute a small break in the fourth wall, as Nero’s character hints of knowledge about other fiction, interactions like this add more depth to the movie.

Although ‘Django Unchained’runs for 165 minutes, the writing is taut and the direction by Quentin Tarantino is done excellently, such that the film does not feel long. The cinematography is done well and helps capture the scenes of 1850s America believably. Some of Tarantino’s trademark, non-linear story telling is present here too. Christopher Waltz does a standout performance and often overshadows Jamie Foxx when on screen, however both acted very well. The antagonists played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Tarantino regular, Samuel L. Jackson, come across as despicable and loathsome characters. Jackson, who plays a cunning, manipulative old man, is especially frightening in some scenes and gives a performance to remember in his fifth Tarantino movie.

‘Django Unchained’ turns the tables on traditional views of black slavery in America by empowering a black man into becoming a bounty hunter that takes white men’s lives. This empowerment of a weaker class (in history) seems to be becoming a trend for Tarantino, as similar circumstances were depicted in 2009’s Inglorious Basterds. Though this film pays homage to many spaghetti westerns, it is still enjoyable if you are not familiar with all the references it makes. A well-crafted homage and a refreshing take on spaghetti westerns, ‘Django Unchained’ is also a very entertaining movie.

[stailinistit]

I suppose in one of his next films (probably not in Kill Bill Vol 3) he'll make fun of the Inquisition :D

[s.singh]

I suppose in one of his next films (probably not in Kill Bill Vol 3) he'll make fun of the Inquisition :D

Well he wasn't making fun of slavery, he was portraying it in a different light.
The movie was pretty entertaining though, the number of references made to old westerns is countless. One interesting reference was when James Remar (Harry Morgan from Dexter) was used to play two characters; most likely in homage to old westerns where there was a low budget and actors had to play more than one character.

[Cobpyth]

I suppose in one of his next films (probably not in Kill Bill Vol 3) he'll make fun of the Inquisition :D

Kill Bill Vol. 3 is not getting made!

[stailinistit]

I agree with you. He wasn't making fun of slavery. He was, however, making fun of those KKK-wannabes.
I found the whole discussion about the holes in the masks extremely amusing...

I didn't see a lot of western movies, but I sensed there are a lot of references. I know Tarantino likes referencing.
I generally like that, although sometimes I'm annoyed by all the cliches used (probably ironically, I don't know) in his films. Like all those slow motion shots, all the never ending blood scattered on white surfaces, all that artificial "coolness" of the characters.
It's his style and I respect that. But sometime I think there are too many of those. He is a director that knows so well to create an atmosphere, and I don't like to be taken out of that atmosphere that often...

[TylerDurden99]

Saw it today, and I loved it. Really entertaining, what with Tarantino's purposefully over the top camerawork and at times hilarious dialogue. The soundtrack was absolutely fantastic, and the acting was great. Sam Jackson was the highlight, showing that he's still got it (he hasn't for a while).

4.5

[RabiaRR]

is it me or is tarantino just getting better with each film

i mean this one really kicks inglourious basterds butt

[Brodinski]

Saw it last night.

Question: Had Schultz shaken hands with Candie, would they have gotten out alive with Hildi?

Also, was it me or was there absolutely nothing wrong with Samuel L's leg at the end? He drops his cane and seems to walk perfectly normal...

Fun trivia I read: The scene where DiCaprio exposes Schultz and Django, he smashes his glass into the table when he starts his rant on lies. You see shortly afterward that his hand is bleeding. I read that that wasn't the plan. He smashed the glass so hard he broke it, cut his hand, but just kept going through with the scene and Tarantino decided to keep it because it looked incredible. If that's true, all kinds of class from Leo.

[Cobpyth]

Saw it last night.

Question: Had Schultz shaken hands with Candie, would they have gotten out alive with Hildi?

Also, was it me or was there absolutely nothing wrong with Samuel L's leg at the end? He drops his cane and seems to walk perfectly normal...

Fun trivia I read: The scene where DiCaprio exposes Schultz and Django, he smashes his glass into the table when he starts his rant on lies. You see shortly afterward that his hand is bleeding. I read that that wasn't the plan. He smashed the glass so hard he broke it, cut his hand, but just kept going through with the scene and Tarantino decided to keep it because it looked incredible. If that's true, all kinds of class from Leo.

Nobody really knows if they would have gotten out alive, but before the handshake scene we can already see that Schultz is completely breaking and couldn't handle all the abuse. He HAD to shot Candie. He could never shake the hands of such a person. It does not really matter if they would have gotten away or not (I personally think they wouldn't).

His leg seems fine indeed. I think he was just playing an act so he could become the house slave.

The trivia of DiCaprio is true. I heard it in several interviews. It shows his class as an actor. Absolutely incredible!

[twisted_state]

Quick look at the soundtrack - am I only one who didn't appreciate rap songs? Everything else was just splendid.
I loved camerawork, whenever there was blood on the screen Tarantino contrasted it with pale white.
I'm under impression that he wrote this movie for Chris. Because why else on earth would he place a German dentist in pre-civil war America?

[ebrown]

Looks like you're the only one. Tarantino is the only one who could've thought of putting song by Rick Ross or Tupac (the mashup with James Brown is eargasmic) on a soundtrack for such a movie and it worked. Maybe you just don't like rap music, which can explain why you didn't appreciate it. But it's a little unusual. I have few friends who're disgusted by rap, but they started bouncing their heads in the cinema and really complimented this bold decision.

[Daniel M]

Reply to Brodinski :)

Saw it last night.

Question: Had Schultz shaken hands with Candie, would they have gotten out alive with Hildi?

Good question, I think yes, but the refusal to shake his hand was perfect for me in the way they built up the relationship between Schultz and Candie. With the dog eating scene we begin to develop a real hatred for Candie, and so does Schultz, then there's little subtle details that irrate Schultz, such as when he is told that although he likes to be address in French does not actually speak the language. Calvin Candie's glorious lifestyle sickens Schultz, just before the hand shake we find out that Candie didn't know Dumas was black, Schultz can not let this man get one over him.

Also, was it me or was there absolutely nothing wrong with Samuel L's leg at the end? He drops his cane and seems to walk perfectly normal...

Think it's delibrate, the characters meant to be a mixture of funny and manipulative, he's fully aware and capable of more than he gives on, which he shows a few times.

Fun trivia I read: The scene where DiCaprio exposes Schultz and Django, he smashes his glass into the table when he starts his rant on lies. You see shortly afterward that his hand is bleeding. I read that that wasn't the plan. He smashed the glass so hard he broke it, cut his hand, but just kept going through with the scene and Tarantino decided to keep it because it looked incredible. If that's true, all kinds of class from Leo.

Heard that too, class yeah, but what the hell did Kerry Washington thing when he wiped blood on her face? :p

[Agrajag]

Last night it won every award it deserved. No more, no less.

[Cobpyth]

this flick doesn't deserve to lick the mud off the Dollar Trilogy's boots

especially For a Few Dollars More's boots

Yes, it does.

[Trcyregg]

Django Unchanined-Some parts seemed to be parodying racial politics of the era? Despite the racist language-some of the dialogue seemed comedic to me (Scene where plantation owner explains to female slave how to treat Django, since he is a freed slave) Themes:western spoof, black empowerment (black guy kicks arse and is the hero/gets girl), revenge, comedy, historical drama

[0rainbow01]

I like this movie, i like that century, actors very talanted, Leonardo DiCaprio suprise me! it's good way!

[Nostromo87]

Yes, it does.

respectfully disagree completely, but to each his own

[BlueLion]

From the Dollars Trilogy I've only seen A Fistfull of Dollars, and Django Unchained is superior imo. Storyline - better, cinematography - hundred times better (I know the budget for Leone's movie was low, but still), acting - undoubtedly better, dialogue - also better, soundtrack - also better, and it is a far more entertaining film. I think that Django is better than Once Upon a Time in the West too. Both films have the same length (2 hours 45 minutes), but Django to me felt an hour shorter than it actually was, while Once Upon a Time in the West felt a little longer than it was.

But I have to see 'For a Few Dollars More' and 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly'.

[Daniel M]

Right now I'd rank Django Unchained at about the same level of A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More, which is pretty impressive considering that it's pretty new and will be better judged over time. I'm a big Tarantino fan and Inglourious Basterds I initially loved (like DU) but now I would regard even higher when compared to other films I love.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West are both films I'd rank higher, although that's because I consider both masterpieces. I wouldn't use a phrase like the film 'doesn't deserve to lick the mud off the boots' and think it's pretty harsh to compare them, Tarantino admires the dollars trilogy as much as anyone, he thinks TGTBATU is the greatest film of all time and in his film he pays homage to lots of Spaghetti Westerns, especially Leone's. All these films are great but should be viewed in different ways to me, although both Westerns they are very different.

[Nostromo87]

fair points Daniel M, the "not deserving to lick the mud off the boots" may have been a bit harsh

I was a little shocked rereading my post today

I'm not really crazy about Tarantino's films including Django Unchained, so I still believe what I said... but it was harsh and not really necessary

[Daniel M]

fair points Daniel M, the "not deserving to lick the mud off the boots" may have been a bit harsh

I was a little shocked rereading my post today

I'm not really crazy about Tarantino's films including Django Unchained, so I still believe what I said... but it was harsh and not really necessary

Fair enough, it's fine don't worry :up:

I just think the way you wrote it kind of implied that Django Unchained as a film was a bit insulting towards the works of Leone, which even if you think they are not as good as is a bit strong seeing as Tarantino himself would probably be the first to admit just how good they are and how much he loves them and has learnt from them, I don't think they're films you should challenge the films against each other. As a Tarantino, Django Unchained and Sergio Leone fan, I can happily enjoy both films :p

[Gabrielle947]

I wanted to watch it much later but I couldn't resist since I like QT and his films.I read how many of you loved this film so you probably won't agree with but I was disappointed a bit.

First things which I missed were those clever,interesting,maybe even pointless dialogues which is one of the reasons why I like Tarantino's films.There were some but I felt like their not as strong as they used to be.I also found the villain very weak.I like when the bad guys are smart and I didn't feel that Calvin Candie is.If it weren't for Stephen(Samuel L. Jackson) and Candie's sister,he would have been fooled by Schultz and Django.I saw this film yesterday and I already can't recall anything interesting I heard from Candie.As some of you here,I also think Christoph Waltz stole the film.

I also thought that the ending was dragged a bit,and unlike in Kill Bill,IB,Death Proof,even True Romance(which maybe doesn't count),is wasn't so grand.

Anyway,I still enjoyed it a lot and will watch it over and over because it still has this QT vibe which,I guess,I will always like.But let's just say that Django Unchained,out of my favorite films,is the least liked.I loved the "not shaking hands" thing but I found the first part of the film much stronger. :) I gave the film 4

I also wonder why this is liked a lot by many people who normally don't even like QT.Maybe it's because of the good intentions since characters seek to save an innocent girl instead of seeking revenge,or brutally killing people they don't like? :D

[Masterman]

I thought Calvin was a very cruel villain, maybe not clever but he was still sick and twisted and one of Tarantino's best. The scene with the not shaking hands was fantastic.

[Mingusings]

To me, Calvin was a very different Tarantino villain. Most of Tarantino's villains (Landa, all of the deadly vipers) are just straight up badasses. There wasn't the mythology behind Calvin like there was for the other villains to make him a badass. I also feel that the other villains are very likeable. And maybe you could also make this argument for Landa too, but Calvin was just 100% evil at his core. You could probably make movies about each of the deadly vipers from Kill Bill in which each one is the hero. I can't imagine you could do that with Calvin.

[Daniel M]

Slight spoilers in this post for those who haven't watched the film...

I wanted to watch it much later but I couldn't resist since I like QT and his films.I read how many of you loved this film so you probably won't agree with but I was disappointed a bit.

First things which I missed were those clever,interesting,maybe even pointless dialogues which is one of the reasons why I like Tarantino's films.There were some but I felt like their not as strong as they used to be.I also found the villain very weak.I like when the bad guys are smart and I didn't feel that Calvin Candie is.If it weren't for Stephen(Samuel L. Jackson) and Candie's sister,he would have been fooled by Schultz and Django.I saw this film yesterday and I already can't recall anything interesting I heard from Candie.As some of you here,I also think Christoph Waltz stole the film.

I also thought that the ending was dragged a bit,and unlike in Kill Bill,IB,Death Proof,even True Romance(which maybe doesn't count),is wasn't so grand.

Anyway,I still enjoyed it a lot and will watch it over and over because it still has this QT vibe which,I guess,I will always like.But let's just say that Django Unchained,out of my favorite films,is the least liked.I loved the "not shaking hands" thing but I found the first part of the film much stronger. :) I gave the film 4

I also wonder why this is liked a lot by many people who normally don't even like QT.Maybe it's because of the good intentions since characters seek to save an innocent girl instead of seeking revenge,or brutally killing people they don't like? :D

Kill Bill's ending definitely drags more, but I really enjoyed both, I kind of agree with you that perhaps it wasn't so grand, I think it's because we spent so much time watching characters such as Schultz (definitely) and Candie (at least for me) steal the show that once they were out of the way and the plot switched to the love story between Django and Broomhilda we didn't care as much.

To me, Calvin was a very different Tarantino villain. Most of Tarantino's villains (Landa, all of the deadly vipers) are just straight up badasses. There wasn't the mythology behind Calvin like there was for the other villains to make him a badass. I also feel that the other villains are very likeable. And maybe you could also make this argument for Landa too, but Calvin was just 100% evil at his core. You could probably make movies about each of the deadly vipers from Kill Bill in which each one is the hero. I can't imagine you could do that with Calvin.

Yeh the thing that makes Candie such a great villain is just how despicable his character his, he really comes across as a sick and twisted evil man. The Mandingo fighting and dog scenes are pretty brutal and do nothing but fuel our distaste for his character, then you have his ignorance when it comes to French/Dumas, his bigger man attitude etc. although he is more contained and not as peculiar as some other Tarantino villains, he's definitely among the best for me. I love Mingusings point about the deadly viper characters, each could have their own films which we'd enjoy watching in the same was as the Bride, Pulp Fiction is filled with villains that we love to watch and enjoy doing so, even Hans Landa is extremely funny and likeable to watch, even though he's no doubt an evil man, Tarantino doesn't use any extremely violent scenes (like the dogs) to push across this and focusses more on his intelligent and often funny side.

[Mr Minio]

I don't know whether I've seen enough films to say, but I am slowly becoming a fan of spaghetti westerns.

My ratings from what I've seen. BEWARE! I am a hipster.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly 4.5
Django 4
For a Few Dollars More 4
Once Upon a Time in The West 4
For a Fistfull of Dollars 4
The Grand Silence 4
Django Unchained 3.5

[Gabrielle947]

there are spoilers about QT films!

I also feel that the other villains are very likeable.
Well,except for Bill and minor villains,I didn't find likeable any of the Bride's "To Kill" list.Elle Driver was creepy and I was glad when she "died",the same goes for Budd but yet you can really feel that they're gone.Just you can easily notice that some of the evil is missing.
As for Hans Landa,I love how clever he is but as the character he is very annoying,always disturbing the protagonists to reach their goal.During first viewings I found that extremely irritating (I was just rooting for heroes too much :D) but now I started to like him.
Now,Calvin Candie was nor likeable nor despicable for me.Tbh,I thought that he was invisible.When he died, I felt nothing.Film just kept going and it felt like the protagonists achieved nothing with his death.

Kill Bill's ending definitely drags more
Yeah,it is actually slow and maybe just "overdone" but until the end,you are actually waiting for it.It is built up so much!The whole anticipation makes it stronger.It's kind of like Apocalypse Now - another ending which I was looking forward more than the characters of the film.It was a bit let down but I'd still call it grand.

Now that I thought about it,maybe Django was a bit too fast for me,that's why I didn't care for the deaths.They just happened and the film quickly kept going.And that's why I failed to notice the villain.It lacked those long long scenes where you can relax and study the characters(like IB opening).I also missed those longer battles where you can prepare yourself that someone is about to die (girls chasing Stuntman Mike,Bride's confrontation with Elle,O-Ren,Budd and Bill).Well,since this film feature guns I guess you can't make it very long. :D

[VenulaBand]

One of the most interesting things about this movie, is that the whole diplomacy in the end to avoid a big fight go to the hole, when the german simply ''couldnt resist". A meanless thing was the reason to all the blood

[Guaporense]

I don't know whether I've seen enough films to say, but I am slowly becoming a fan of spaghetti westerns.

My ratings from what I've seen. BEWARE! I am a hipster.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly 4.5
Django 4
For a Few Dollars More 4
Once Upon a Time in The West 4
For a Fistfull of Dollars 4
The Grand Silence 4
Django Unchained 3.5

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is too my favorite from the genre. Django Unchained can be considered a spaghetti western?

[Daniel M]

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is too my favorite from the genre. Django Unchained can be considered a spaghetti western?

I wouldn't call it a pure Spaghetti Western in the same more literal description of the works of Leone, Corbucci etc. but considering it's an American film, made by an American, set in America, it's as close to a Spaghetti Western that you're going to get and in terms of style at least. It uses many elements of the Spaghetti Western and also pays homage to a lot more. So, kind of... :p

Also Spaghetti Westerns I've seen if anyone's interested, my ratings are going to be a bit stricter than normal to divide them a bit better.

Fistful of Dollars 4+
For a Few Dollars More 4
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 5
Once Upon a Time in the West 5
Duck, You Sucker! / Fistful of Dynamite 4+
Navajo Joe 2.5+

I'm torn between The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West for my favourite, the former is slightly more fun but the latter has magnificent craft and beauty and feels like a Western dream-world.

Guapo: I know you love animations, and if you like Spaghetti Westerns you should definitely check out Rango, my favourite animated film and a fantastic love letter to Spaghetti Westerns :p

[Cobpyth]

Django Unchained can be considered a spaghetti western?

Not in my book. The filmmakers have to be Italian for that.

[Guaporense]

From the Dollars Trilogy I've only seen A Fistfull of Dollars, and Django Unchained is superior imo. Storyline - better, cinematography - hundred times better (I know the budget for Leone's movie was low, but still), acting - undoubtedly better, dialogue - also better, soundtrack - also better, and it is a far more entertaining film. I think that Django is better than Once Upon a Time in the West too. Both films have the same length (2 hours 45 minutes), but Django to me felt an hour shorter than it actually was, while Once Upon a Time in the West felt a little longer than it was.

Django Unchained was perhaps better than a fistful of dollars but wasn't remotely as good as Once Upon a Time in the West.

But I have to see 'For a Few Dollars More' and 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly'.

These two are 10 times better than Django Unchained. Better in fact than anything Tarantino ever did, in fact, he said that The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was the greatest achievement in the history of cinema, which is true if you measure it by coolness factor.

[Guaporense]

Not in my book. The filmmakers have to be Italian for that.

So, by your definition, spaghetti western means "a western made by an Italian". :)

[BlueLion]

Django Unchained was perhaps better than a fistful of dollars but wasn't remotely as good as Once Upon a Time in the West.

Well, it was for me. Simply because Django is way more entertaining, it's so fun that it seems an hour shorter than it actually is. Once Upon a Time in the West, on the other hand, to me felt longer than it actually was. I am not saying the latter wasn't a good movie, it was a very good one and I enjoyed it, but it could've been shorter imo, and therefore better.

[BlueLion]

So, by your definition, spaghetti western means "a western made by an Italian". :)

Wouldn't say that the definition is his, since Spaghetti Westerns are also known as Italian Westerns. Anyway, QT's father is of italian descent, so maybe it could well be considered a Spaghetti Western...

[Guaporense]

Half of the US has some Italian descent.

I agree that Once Upon a Time in the West is less entertaining than Django but entertainment is not the major factor in measuring the greatness of a movie, in my book, but it's capacity to impress itself into our minds.

[Daniel M]

Half of the US has some Italian descent.

I agree that Once Upon a Time in the West is less entertaining than Django but entertainment is not the major factor in measuring the greatness of a movie, in my book, but it's capacity to impress itself into our minds.

Did you see my post above about Spaghetti Westerns? Basically I'd say if we are talking literally in the sense that the term was originally coined for - a kind of insultive nickname for low budget European (Itality) Westerns - then Django Unchained is definitely not, but in terms of the stylistic elements that we come to associate with them then it is. And watch Rango :p

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

Django Unchained Hugely Overrated?

I just want to know does anybody else here feel that Django Unchained is scored way too highly? I know I'm opening myself to a wave of abuse by broaching this subject.
I feel its scoring on IMDb is ridiculous and if some others feel that way too, I'll probably attempt an in-depth review.
I just had to ask this question, because Django Unchained currently has a score of 8.6/10 on IMDb with over 300, 000 voters. Which in truth on IMDb is an earth shattering, masterpiece rating. To give you an idea here's some films Django Unchained is rated better than in no particular order.

Django Unchained Scored Better Than All Of These!


The Shining
Vertigo
Alien
North By Northwest
Citizen Kane
To Kill A Mockingbird
For A Few Dollars More
Heat
Gladiator
Lawrence of Arabia
Cinema Paradiso
Sin City
Braveheart
Scarface
Unforgiven
Taxi Driver
2001: A Space Odyssey
Grave Of The Fireflies
Reservoir Dogs
Oldboy
Singin' In The Rain
Bicycle Thieves
The Third Man
A Clockwork Orange
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind


Okay I think I've listed enough, those are just some of the films. I honestly could easily have picked twenty-five different examples. I realise that scores are subjective and I'm not denying Django Unchained has merit but the fact it's rated better than all of these, I must admit does frustrate me.

Perhaps Django Unchained is a prime example of how the youth today take a good film and elevate it to ludicrous heights. Am I the only one surprised at how highly it's rated? If you have seen the film please leave your thoughts and score it out of ten.

[blowe46]

Django Unchained Hugely Overrated?

I just want to know does anybody else here feel that Django Unchained is scored way too highly? I know I'm opening myself to a wave of abuse by broaching this subject.
I feel its scoring on IMDb is ridiculous and if some others feel that way too, I'll probably attempt an in-depth review.
I just had to ask this question, because Django Unchained currently has a score of 8.6/10 on IMDb with over 300, 000 voters. Which in truth on IMDb is an earth shattering, masterpiece rating. To give you an idea here's some films Django Unchained is rated better than in no particular order.

Django Unchained Scored Better Than All Of These!




The Shining
Vertigo
Alien
North By Northwest
Citizen Kane
To Kill A Mockingbird
For A Few Dollars More
Heat
Gladiator
Lawrence of Arabia
Cinema Paradiso
Sin City
Braveheart
Scarface
Unforgiven
Taxi Driver
2001: A Space Odyssey
Grave Of The Fireflies
Reservoir Dogs
Oldboy
Singin' In The Rain
Bicycle Thieves
The Third Man
A Clockwork Orange
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind


Okay I think I've listed enough, those are just some of the films. I honestly could easily have picked twenty-five different examples. I realise that scores are subjective and I'm not denying Django Unchained has merit but the fact it's rated better than all of these, I must admit does frustrate me.

Perhaps Django Unchained is a prime example of how the youth today take a good film and elevate it to ludicrous heights. Am I the only one surprised at how highly it's rated? If you have seen the film please leave your thoughts and score it out of ten.

I completely agree. I found the film fun but had little else. It had no second layer, or deeper message. It had no message on slavery, and nothing on life in the south.

[Daniel M]

First of all IMDB should never be used as a true reflection of a film's quality, it will always differ from various other opinions such as actual critics list, but I'd say it's a pretty fair reflection of what people enjoy, and when I ask myself what director's body of work have I found myself enjoying the most, is the most fun, and I would most want to watch? It would probably be Tarantino.

Films don't have to have an underlying or deeper complex meaning to what's on the surface, most people watch films to be entertained and you can not disagree that Django Unchained does this.

Also take a look at its metacritic rating: 81. This would translate to 8.1 on IMDB so mean that critics and ordinary viewers only differ by 0.5 points and if you average them both out you get 8.35 or rounding up, 8.4, a pretty good score.

I personally loved Django Unchained and think it's deserving of such a high rating by the way.

I just had to ask this question, because Django Unchained currently has a score of 8.6/10 on IMDb with over 300, 000 voters. Which in truth on IMDb is an earth shattering, masterpiece rating.

Earth Shattering? Masterpiece? I would have to disagree with how you're assessing these IMDB scores, most of the top scorers are overrated as a result of ordinary viewing tastes, people like to be entertained and enjoy films, is The Shawshank Redemption worthy of 9.2? Probably not, is it a really good film? Yes.

I would actually say that some of your favourite films fit in to the overrated IMDB category, The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, Avengers. Inception currently sits at 8.7 which makes it the 14th highest rated film, now I really like Inception and think it's a great entertaining film which many disagree with me on but don't think it's the 14th best film of all time, but I definitely understand why it's on IMDB such.

Basically: Take IMDB ratings with a pinch of salt, they're not fact but a decent reflection of films people actually enjoy, Django Unchained in my opinion is a great and highly enjoyable film.

[Miss Vicky]

I'd say you also have to take into account just how new Django is. As time goes by and more people have had a chance to watch and review it, the rating will likely drop down some. New, popular films always seem to have high ratings.

[mark f]

I completely agree. I found the film fun but had little else. It had no second layer, or deeper message. It had no message on slavery, and nothing on life in the south.
"If you want to send a message, use Western Union." - Sam Goldwyn

[Cobpyth]

I personally think Django Unchained is a stylistic masterpiece. Tarantino always knows how to struck me with his way of filmmaking. His films are just so cool and entertaining (he only failed in Death Proof, in my opinion, which only had a couple of good moments). Django Unchained is certainly one of his best films, in my opinion.
I also liked the dialogue a lot and the characters/performances were just perfect! It was pure electricity on screen!

This is probably my favorite movie of the decade so far (that I've seen, obviously).

[Miss Vicky]

I completely agree. I found the film fun but had little else. It had no second layer, or deeper message. It had no message on slavery, and nothing on life in the south.

Wait. What? Were you actually expecting a deeper message? Have you never seen a Tarantino movie before?!

[Roodawg]

Hi guys, I enjoy watching movies and I thought that I might try my hand at writing a review of Django Unchained. I am just looking for feedback and would appreciate anything you guys have to say.

Django Unchained (2012) is a Western Adventure movie directed by Quentin Tarantino with a cast that could easily fill a Hollywood A-List function single-handedly. It is done in normal Tarantino style with a lot of blood and gore, but a good strong story to back it up. It follows the story of Dr King Schultz who is looking for the Brittle brothers. He buys Django off the slavers and uses him to track down the brothers. When they do kill them, Django tells his story about how he and his wife got separated. Dr Schultz feels he owes Django something, so they go after Broomhilda, Django’s wife. Their quest leads them across the country in search of Broomhilda.

The first thing that you notice about Django Unchained is the sound track. It starts off with your cliché western soundtrack over the 1970esque opening credits, but soon moves into music that make the awesome scenes that much more awesomer. With songs from Rick Ross, Jamie Foxx and John Legend, you know that the soundtrack will be on par with the movie.

Before they meet Calvin Candie the movie seems to be holding back on the usual Quentin Tarantino blood and gore, which in my opinion is a good thing. But I knew it couldn’t be like this for much longer and boy, did it not. The first stomach churning thing that you see is two black males fighting to the death, while the rich white men stand around cheering them on. There is something about two men fighting to the death for entertainment that doesn’t feel humanly right to be watching that kind of stuff.

Even though Django is the main character in this movie, I couldn’t help but find Dr Schultz to be a more likable character and one with a better attitude. A good example of this is when they are in the bar, he knows that black people aren’t allowed in saloons, but does he care? Not one bit. It is this trait that sets him apart from Django as Django doesn’t want to speak up about anything as he has been taught not to. Even though Jamie Foxx plays Django as he should be, in my opinion, the main protagonist should be the most likable character.

This brings us to Stephen, Candie’s head slave. Even though Calvin Candie is portrayed as the antagonist, Stephen knows something is up and doesn’t like Django one bit. There is something about him that just screams bad guy. He is never shown happy and he uses the ‘N’ word in a more aggressive way than anyone else in the movie.

Apparently Will Smith turned down the role of Stephen, and in my opinion, he wouldn’t have done the character justice compared to what Samuel L. Jackson did. Calvin Candie is the last main character that really influenced the movie. He wasn’t your run of the mill antagonist as he came across as a gentleman and was always courteous towards Django and Dr Schultz. This kind of added to the sinisterness of his character when he found out Django and Schultz’s plan.

In all the movies entirety I really enjoyed it. Some parts made me question the human race and why anyone would do things like that, but then you need to remember it’s a Tarantino movie so it was always going to be quite gruesome. As the movie goes on you really get into it and start liking Django as a character. The ending scenes are really kick-ass and I can almost guarantee that you will find yourself grinning at the end.

[The Rodent]

Looking pretty good matey, nice review. Welcome to the site.

One thing missing, is a rating. Maybe give it a personal mark out of 5, or a percentage etc to give your own actual rating.

[Roodawg]

Ok thanks for that :)

[Mmmm Donuts]

Welcome to the site, hope you stick around. :)

I enjoyed your review quite a bit, but I just want to point out some things about Django.

The first thing that you notice about Django Unchained is the sound track. It starts off with your cliché western soundtrack over the 1970esque opening credits, but soon moves into music that make the awesome scenes that much more awesomer.

That intro song was used in the original Django movie. Tarantino was paying homage to that by playing it. I personally enjoyed it, though. Then, like you said, Tarantino had some awesomer songs lined up throughout. Loved the soundtrack.

Even though Jamie Foxx plays Django as he should be, in my opinion, the main protagonist should be the most likable character.

Tough call, there. I find that a lot of supporting characters end up being more memorable than the protagonist. Schultz was definitely a great and memorable character, along with most of the cast.

Apparently Will Smith turned down the role of Stephen, and in my opinion, he wouldn’t have done the character justice compared to what Samuel L. Jackson did.

I believe Smith was called to play Django. But I agree, Sam Jackson and Foxx did their parts incredibly well. Even though I Love Will Smith, I can't see him replacing either of them now.

Once again, your review was a great and easy read, so thanks for sharing your opinion. I completely agree with you.

[Roodawg]

Ok, I'll take those points into account. Thanks for your feedback though.

[seanc]

Welcome aboard. Good review. I disagree with you concerning the Schultz and Django characters however. Remember Django stands to lose more than Schiltz by standing up to the man. I think you would agree that this becomes part of his story arc though. Schultz may be the better character in terms of entertainment. Django has the mory interesting story though, and that is what is essential to the film.

[Lucas]

Welcome to the forums bro.

[Daniel M]

Good review for your first, actually, very good for your first. You mention Will Smith but as someone has said he turned down the role of Django for the reason you mentioned, although Foxx plays the role well he is not the 'main character' and Waltz steals the show, Smith wanted to be the main star and that's why he said no.

Glad to see you liked the film, I'm a big Tarantino fan and it was one of my favourite films of 2012 :)

[oldrake]

Late to the game but finally got round to watching this (I know; I suck) and absolutely loved it. Definitely in my top 3 Tarantino films now. 5/5.

[Gideon58]

Well-written review...I would say to watch your grammar and capitalization and I would try to avoid rather non-specific adjectives like "awesome."

[TylerS]

Great movie. Lived up to my expectations. Leo did an wonderful job in the movie, the trailer I thought would probably only show the best parts but I was surprised that I loved the entire movie.

[nilouQfar]

I think Django unchained is one of the best in it's Genres. Stylistic movie with great music and the storytelling. But personally speaking I prefer movies that can convey some further meanings by possessing deeper layers.