Django Unchained

[Wol]

Just saw this on DVD and really liked it, wanted to love it (because I love QT) but didn't because I found it draggy in the middle. I may be incredibly dense but I don't understand the criticisms of the use of the n-word. At least in this film it seemed to only be used in a derogatory sense and used by characters we are supposed to dislike, if not downright hate. Sure, QT's guilty of using the word for shock value in other films but it's use made some sense here. The fact that it's historically inaccurate doesn't bother me - it's a movie, not a history lesson, and it's a placeholder for words like "darkie" or "boy" that modern audiences can relate to and should be offended by. Between this film and "IB" I am fiddling with a theory that QT is somehow responding to his critics with regard to his love for and use of violence. I find it interesting that in "Basterds" and "Django" he's using violence against people who universally deserve punishment. I mean, who are the most completely unsympathetic dramatic villains you can create? Nazis and slave owners. Imho that's far more well-intentioned and purposeful use of screen violence than accidentally blowing Phil LaMarr's head off in "Pulp Fiction."

[Ladybug]

The most violent scenes in this film don't happen to slave owners, though. I'm talking about the

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}Mandingo fight and the dog attack.

I couldn't stand to watch either of those. The

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler} slave owner and overseer deaths

were pretty standard for an action film and downright tame for QT.

I do end up liking most of Tarantino's stuff and I am a fan of Jamie Foxx in almost anything. Waltz and Jackson were pretty amazing too. I was so disappointed that all Kerry Washington had to do was cry and scream and look scared. I was thinking, "she's Olivia Pope, damnit! Give her a speech or a gun or a whip or something!"

[Deleted]

I just saw this, and while I was pretty lukewarm on the movie as a whole (I felt this was a big step-down from Inglourious Basterds, which I LOVED), Leo absolutely blew me away in his role. I'm not a huge fan of his normally or anything, but wow, he was great! Maybe his performance impacted me even more because the last movie I watched was Gatsby, so seeing him go from playing Gatsby to Calvin Candie and being so convincing in both roles was pretty impressive. I can't believe he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar for this.

Christoph Waltz on the other hand, while I think he's an awesome actor, I almost felt like his character was the good(ish) twin to his evil counterpart in Inglourious Basterds... in other words, he played them very similarly in mannerisms and speech. So I guess that's why I was much more impressed with Leo.

I am with everyone else on the WTF? of the scene with Tarantino. That was completely unnecessary. Stuff like that makes me really dislike him sometimes even though for the most part I love his films.

Hildy's character was a big problem for me as well. Like others have said, I thought she was woefully underused. I usually like movies with really kickass female characters (such as in the aforementioned IB; Shosanna is one of my favorite film characters ever!), and there were basically none in this film.

I kept trying to figure out what was up with Calvin and his sister... were they sleeping together or what? Those two really creeped me out.

[chonies]

Jun 10, 2013 0:28:36 GMT -4 @madefortv said:

I kept trying to figure out what was up with Calvin and his sister... were they sleeping together or what? Those two really creeped me out.

I don't think they were sleeping together, but I don't think they didn't think of each other in a certain way, maybe like that couple in Call the Midwife. I don't know if the scene was meant to be a throwaway or commentary on patriarchal societies or what, but I liked the contrast: widowed lady has to go back to the protection of her brother or other male relative, Hildy is owned by one man or another, etc. I'm not an expert on Southern history at all, but I've read that since most women couldn't own property or businesses, the only actual avenue of power was through being a madame. So, I don't know what QT was going for, but as juxtapositions go, it made me think about things. Although the sister had a far more comfortable life by an immeasurable length, she still had a lot in common with Hildy.

I haven't seen IB all the way through.

[Deleted]

Oh yeah, I definitely thought it was realistic for the sister (Laura Lee?) to be living with her brother after being widowed. There was just some kind of ickiness going on between those two. Or I wondered for a bit if the sister was a little touched in the head and that's why Calvin treated her the way he did, or if I'm keeping it southern we could just call her "tetched." I kept waiting for her to lose her shit and do something really crazy or evil, but she never did.

And while we're talking about the females, I was also expecting the woman with the red bandana tied over her face to end up being an important character. But then she just got shot without ever being revealed.

[Deleted]

And while we're talking about the females, I was also expecting the woman with the red bandana tied over her face to end up being an important character. But then she just got shot without ever being revealed.

I think I read somewhere that she was supposed to be more important, but most of her scenes got cut for time. Which is a shame because Zoe Bell is awesome.

[bklynred]

I read that too, there was a subplot with Bell that was scrapped since the movie was running eight hours too long. She's a stuntwoman & I think she's worked with QT before. I really wanted to know her story too, she had a ton of expression for a woman with her face covered up. I also legitimately wanted to see that female slaver thing played out, there must've been some in history.

[Baby Fish Mouth]

I just watched this and was pretty "meh" on it. I liked the first half, but things got kind of lame after they got to Candieland. I think Leo was too young for his role, and I actually thought Don Johnson did a better job of playing a southern plantation owner.

Samuel L. Jackson's character was really intriguing. At first I couldn't decide if it was all an act he was putting on for Calvin Candie's sake. The fact that it wasn't an act was quite chilling.