Anyone else see it today? I loved it.
Jamie Foxx even has a full-frontal scene.
No, he doesn't. (Yes, I saw it today.)
Uh, yeah he does R1. I saw it today too and the scene he is hanging upside down he is clearly naked.
Anyway, I enjoyed the movie. It is very Taratino of course, so if you are the type of person that doesn't like his shit you won't like it, but if not it was a damn entertaining movie. Though dragged out a bit at the very end.
Pay attention, R1. It was in clear view.
Oooooh, so "edgy", so brilliant!
A beautiful Christmas film. Take your gun and your kids.
If Jamie was naked hanging upside down, there should have been plenty to hang down
That is one man I prefer stay clothed, gross, just gross.
R4, some of us here prefer films made in the last 50 years.
I prefer the average guy versus a built one. Jamie is more than built, he is very muscular and if you like that kind of thing he has a beautiful. What is the real reason you don't like him?
I am curious about the film but I hate Tarentino's overuse of the word 'nigger' and his latest opus has it in there over 100 times according to some sources. I'm a 45 year old black guy (not R4, but probably still gramps according to R8) and I still have a visceral reaction to that word. As much as I have enjoyed some of Tarentino's work in the past, I really wish he'd get away from using that word over and over. Yeah I know it's about slavery so that gives him license to use it as much as he wants but I doubt 'and' and 'the' show up in his screenplays as much as 'nigger' does.
Tarentino does tend to like that word. I've often wondered about that.
R10, the n-word is all over this film, but it is a slave drama, so it doesn't feel quite as awkward as in some of Tarantino's other films, where it seems like he's using it more to be shocking (or whatever).
For what it is worth I am black, yes, the word nigger is used a lot in the movie but to me it doesn't feel overly gratuitous. It feels right for the setting and the characters and the Taratino feel.
One thing I liked about the movie is while not being anvicilous over it, it doesn't shy away from how terrible this period was for black people. You might get a "viceral reaction" in places, but that is good, you should.
Anyway, at the end of the day it is just a fun spaghetti western type revenge flick. If you've enjoyed his other movies you'll definitely like this one.
Also, Samuel Jackson fuckin steals the show with the best role he has had in years. Christopher Waltz kills it as well, he is golden with Taratino.
I do think it is funny how much some white conservatives are freaking out about this movie. Revenge flicks are a dime a dozen in Hollywood, all of a sudden this one is a big deal because it has a black character going against mostly white villians? The horror!
The N word hasn't been used THAT much in his films, and when it has its been appropriate for the character. I hate this, its like people bitching that characters in mob movies swear too much. Get a life.
Quentin Tarantino is the most overrated film director in history.
You know its their worst fear, though.
Quentin Tarantino is an idiot savant. I mean that in the best possible way. Love his films and cannot wait to see Django.
"Death Proof" was unbearable and sitting watching "The Inglorious Basterds" there's a scene in a movie theater where the projection booth catches fire and I was hoping it was real life.
Thanks to R12 and R13 for your responses.
R14, that's a poor analogy you've made. The history of the word nigger is much more loaded than fuck, shit or damn so it's use is not the same as people swearing in a mob movie. And to say it's appropriate to the characters brings it back to Tarentino who writes these characters who use that word a lot, even though you think it's not THAT much. I'm glad you have no personal associations with the word and are able to appreciate and/or ignore its frequent use by Tarentino. I think it shows laziness as a writer and a tendency to rely on shock value.
R19, please post instances in Tarantino movies where a WHITE person uses the N word. I only remember it being used by Sam Jackson in Jackie Brown, mostly in his scene with Chris Tucker. I could be wrong, but I'm almost 100% sure its always used in a black-on-black context.
Pulp Fiction. First to come to mind.
In fact, as the character "Jimmy," Tarantino uses the word several times himself.
But, where did R19 claim the word was used by whites?
I imagine he might object to the overuse of the word in all context.
I think his overuse of the N word is just to annoy Spike Lee.
It's also used in his screenplay for True Romance. Dennis Hopper's little rant about Sicilians and Christian Slater uses it a lot. It was in Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction too. He's a weirdo and his superfans are too.
You have a splatter-fest of violence on the screen, with gratuitous explicitness. This country has been through a series of violent mass murderers...and the biggest concern is the use of the word "nigger."
Did anyone say it was the "biggest concern"?
[quote]This country has been through a series of violent mass murderers...and the biggest concern is the use of the word "nigger."
There have been many people in this country who right before they were murdered, heard Nigger as their last word, just as there have been who heard Faggot. These words kill souls and should be respected as such.
[quote]I saw it today too and the scene he is hanging upside down he is clearly naked.
He is clearly naked, and is even MORE clearly wearing a cod piece of some sort over his junk. Look more closely next time, hon.
Saw it today - no codpiece.
Thought it was great, but about 15-20 min too long. The kkk scene was funny (sounds weird until you see it) but not needed.
Seeing it this weekend but I'm sure there was a codpiece. Tarantino wouldn't ever offend his frat boy fan base by subjecting them to a penis on screen.
Saw it today. NO codpiece.
Maybe he has a cod-shaped cock
First of all, could we please stop saying "the N word?" There are no children here, you can type "nigger" if that's the word you mean.
I think its use is appropriate to character and historically accurate, but that Tarantino also gets a thrill from getting away with using it so repeatedly. That seems obvious.
Loved it. Best film I've seen in years. A real crowd-pleaser. The funny parts are hilarious. I can't stop thinking about it. The New York Times review is spot-on. It's a masterpiece that people will be watching for decades.
I find it hysterical people who've seen the film are arguing about whether Jaime Foxx was naked and hanging upside down, codpiece, no codpiece. LOL! Yeesh. Yes, he was naked, and there was no codpiece. It was "artfully" lit and wasn't that gratutitous, but still - pay attention, next time.
Really great movie. Kerry Washington was exceptional as the slave damsel in distress. And its always good to see Jamie Foxx's dick, if you can get past the dire circumstances that he and his balls were in.
Is it as violent as Tarantino's typical films? Just not a big fan of gory scenes so I typically skip his stuff. (Even before the Portland Mall, Newtown, and first responder shootings.)
All the splatter violence was disgusting.
R33, you're right--there are no children here, so it's safe to assume that if we prefer not to type out the N-word we have a good reason.
Do they explain why a slave was circumcised?
The TV trailer looks ridiculous. I'll grant that Tarantino films don't always lend themselves easily to TV commercial promotion, but this seems particularly silly.
So this isn't about the guitar player who was missing several fingers?
R41, the TV promos are totally ridiculous and feel like they're promoting an entirely different type of film.
R40, you must not get out much.
R37, it's a revenge epic set in the slave era, directed by QT. What the fuck do you think?
Saw it yesterday and am still processing it. Amazing that one moment it has you laughing and the next you're confronted with the horrors of slavery. The tonal shifts were handled so well it doesn't seem jarring. A few thoughts:
1) You can feel the loss of Tarantino's longtime editor Sally Menke. I enjoyed it, but it is a bit too long and I think she would have trimmed things here and there without losing any of the actual scenes. There was a sloppiness that was never evident in her cutting.
2) DiCaprio and Jackson were great, doing work that was deeper than I think I could appreciate in a single viewing. I'd like to see only their scenes again. Jackson's portrayal is particularly disturbing, I wonder if he won't be a surprise Oscar nominee.
3) On the other hand, Foxx doesn't have the "it" factor to play the title character. Whoever he shares the screen with (Waltz, DiCaprio, Jackson, Washington) takes the spotlight. You can see why Tarantino wanted Will Smith to play the role. Foxx is a great actor, but not a movie star.
4) Waltz gives essentially the same performance as in "Inglorious Basterds" but because of context his presence creates an entirely different feeling. I thought that was interesting.
5) People are looking too deeply into the racial politics of the film, although i LOVED that Jackson's last words involved calling Django "uppity". That was perfect.
Tarantino basically made a black power fantasia that he can get white audiences to love through his style and mastery of black comic tone.
I think Foxx had a fake dick. it just didn't look real.
I thought it was great, but the last 30 minutes went on forever. Well, actually, they went on for 30 minutes, but it FELT like it was forever; the editing was terrible.
Also -- spolier alert -- why the fuck did the Dr shoot Candie? It just felt so wrong and out of character. The Dr was never very spontaneous or impulsive, and that action was nothing but. It foiled his plan, and put everyone in danger. I know it HAD to happen to allow everything that followed to occur, but it ruined the movie for me. It felt totally wrong and convenient.
Foxx's dick was real. When his dick pic leaked I saved that shit onto my hard drive. I'm intimately aware of how Jamie Foxx's dick looks.
Sam Jackson was superb and it will be a very underrated performance because a lot of people aren't going to get it.
r44, I see what you're saying, but I read interviews with both Foxx and QT that said they were precisely trying to avoid movie-star swagger and that QT had to direct him out of it early on in the process. Jamie said that QT said to him point blank "I was afraid of this...can you play a slave?" Foxx's performance is much more cerebral and taciturn and fits the mold of the spaghetti western hero beautifully. The supporting characters were always more animated than the lead. It's not a role for a "star," it's a role for an actor, and Will Smith could not have pulled it off. I think Foxx is the only actor with name recognition that could do this without having his public image rub off on the character.
It would've been quite interesting for QT to go with a complete unknown but that never would've happened.
R33 you would have a cow if someone used the F word in here so take a seat. You know the word that ryhmes with rag.
So does it drag because the editor from his previous films was not involved?
Saw it last night. Great to look at much of the time, funny, Leo sucks (acting up a storm) and entirely wrong for the part in my opinion- I kind of agree with a review I read in the NY Times- it starts out as wry and funny, then turns into a one note samba culminating in guts and parody and... so what.
I liked Inglorius Basterds sp? Same idea, but better.
[quote]Saw it yesterday and am still processing it
I'll do it for you: Bang, bang. N****r x 700. Overacting. Gore.
I'm sorry, but Jamie Foxx is N-A-S-T-Y. I knew him long ago and he is not a nice person. Ugly on the outside, ugly on the inside.
[quote]On the other hand, Foxx doesn't have the "it" factor to play the title character. Whoever he shares the screen with (Waltz, DiCaprio, Jackson, Washington) takes the spotlight. You can see why Tarantino wanted Will Smith to play the role. Foxx is a great actor, but not a movie star.
I agree with r46. Will Smith's persona is just too extravagant, even if he got completely into character. It would have been just another Will Smith action movie. Jamie Foxx gave Django just the right amounts of everything, and he didnt overpower the story.
Kerry Washington's listless and frightened faces are some of the best I have ever seen. She was amazing. Her guttural screams made all the hair on body stand on end.
I generally think movies are too long these days, but this one wasnt. The ending was more believable because of the way it was done.
[quote]So does it drag because the editor from his previous films was not involved?
Some people have said that, even in this thread. I don't agree, though. QT has always had scenes that feel like they go on too long. But they're usually building up to something great.
Tarantino’s incoherent three-hour bloodbath
"Django Unchained" has action, comedy, fake history and oceans of blood -- but it's an endless, undisciplined mess
BY ANDREW O'HEHIR
Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx in "Django Unchained"
Quentin Tarantino no longer makes movies; he makes trailers. “Django Unchained” feels like a three-hour trailer for a movie that never happens, a slavery-revenge melodrama cum salt-‘n’-pepper action film that would be awesome if it actually existed. Like so many trailers, it’s packed with memorable scenes that don’t go anywhere, and keeps promising payoffs that remain theoretical. It’s got Western scenery on a grand scale and scenes of madcap comedy involving inept members of the Ku Klux Klan. It’s got veritable geysers and fountains and gushers of blood, an ocean of fake gore even by Tarantino’s standards. You could claim that he’s “quoting from Sam Peckinpah” with those slapsticky water balloons full of blood, except that that’s not quite it. It’s more like he’s quoting from crappy ‘70s drive-in movies that were quoting from “The Hills Have Eyes,” which was quoting from something else that was quoting from Peckinpah. (I may be missing an intermediate stage there, such as a cannibal film that was dubbed from Italian into Spanish and projected once, with the reels out of sequence, at a downtown Los Angeles theater in 1983.)
It’s got 783 uses of the word “nigger” in dialogue, which is not merely a new high in Tarantino’s personal anti-P.C. campaign but may also outdo the lifetime output of former Congressman and KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. (OK, I didn’t count. But that’s close enough.) It’s got “Mandingo fighting,” or gladiatorial combat between African-American slaves, which was not something that happened in the real world but definitely happened in a notoriously dreadful 1975 movie starring James Mason, a genuinely great actor who was in lots of garbage but also played the lead in Stanley Kubrick’s “Lolita” and a bad guy in Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest.” (That sentence became increasingly irrelevant but gained velocity; I’m just trying to simulate Quentin Tarantino’s thought process.) It’s got Don Johnson. It’s got black people speaking German. Well, OK, one black person: Kerry Washington, in what could maybe be called the leading female role, does only three things: 1) Standing in a pond, in Jamie Foxx’s imagination, and looking alluring; 2) Lying in a hole in the ground with no clothes on; 3) Speaking German.
She speaks German, of course, to Christoph Waltz, the charismatic Viennese actor who won an Oscar working with Tarantino in “Inglourious Basterds” and may get nominated again this year for playing pretty much the same worldly Kraut charmer, this time as a good guy. Waltz is Dr. King Schultz, a German dentist turned bounty hunter in the pre-Civil War Wild West, who abhors slavery but doesn’t mind murder, and purchases and then frees the eponymous slave Django (Foxx) in order to help him commit more of it. I’m not objecting to any of that on ethical grounds or whatever, but it’s an awfully complicated setup for two characters who never come clearly into focus and a wandering, episodic narrative that takes a long time to get anywhere.
If you’ve seen any of Tarantino’s movies, you don’t need me to explain that he sees the universe in terms of random explosions of ruthless, farcical violence. Schultz and Django eventually turn their attention to hunting down sadistic slavers and slave-owners, where the moral equation seems clear enough. But they spend early portions of the movie wandering all through the West and South collecting the “dead or alive” bounties on wanted men whose guilt or innocence is unproven and unknown. In one scene, they shoot a farmer who’s plowing his field, right in front of his son. I recognize the moral argument that is hypothetically percolating below “Django Unchained”: Tarantino is suggesting that white Americans who benefited from a slave economy were guilty of historical crimes whether or not they personally owned slaves, just as he implied in “Inglourious Basterds” that German soldiers were guilty of atrocities they did not personally commit. But give me a break. In both cases he’s just pretending to raise these so-called questions in order to create the framework for an emotionally arid, ultraviolent action movie whose characters and audience seem to be emotionally stunted adolescent boys. For Tarantino, history is just another movie to strip for parts.
I don’t want to spend much time on Waltz’s loquacious but cool-headed Schultz and Foxx’s stone-faced Django, because they’re actually pretty boring, and once you get the gist – some scenery, a few gentle gags, then they kill a bunch of people – their journey has few surprises. “Django Unchained” comes abruptly to life in the last hour with the outrageous performances of Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson, as an effete, Francophile plantation owner and the superficially obsequious “house slave” who dominates his domicile. These are powerful, taboo-breaking characters with a perverse but somehow believable relationship redolent of the deep weirdness of race relations in the Old South: DiCaprio’s poncey, Van Dyke-wearing Calvin Candie is actually under the thumb of Jackson’s grinning, jiving Stephen (who looks almost exactly like the guy on the old Cream of Wheat box), but both are hopelessly doomed by the soul-crushing institution of white supremacy.
That fascinating and troubling subplot feels like it ought to be the dramatic center of “Django Unchained” but completely isn’t. It’s maddening to detect traces, amid all this passionless and self-indulgent rambling, of the adventurous storyteller and precise stylist who made “Reservoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Jackie Brown” (a film, by the way, that has much more to say about race as a lived experience in America than this one). Lately Tarantino appears to have drifted into the hipster equivalent of George Lucas-land, where everyone around him agrees with his dumb ideas and nobody dares to observe that the movies are fatally undisciplined and way too long and not really about anything.
I realize I’m supposed to say something about Tarantino’s use of revisionist historical fantasy — making Jewish warriors the protagonists of World War II and inserting a black action hero into the antebellum South — but I just don’t think either of the movies is serious enough to make that a worthwhile topic. For the record: The idea behind “Inglourious Basterds” was genuinely subversive, even if the results were ludicrous, but there’s nothing revolutionary or new about depicting a black man as violent, vengeful and monosyllabic. It’s always chancy to agree with Spike Lee about anything, but his recent tweet saying that he didn’t see the story of his slave ancestors as a Sergio Leone movie hit home with me.
Let’s back up for a second and stumble over the meaningless detail that Kerry Washington’s nearly invisible character – the wife forcibly separated from Django, previously slave to a German-speaking master — is named Broomhilda von Shaft. I mean, OK. But on the other hand, what? It’s just a gag, I guess, and within the movie it’s clear that the character is actually named after Brünnhilde, the valkyrie and shield-maiden of Norse-Germanic legend who must be rescued by the hero Siegfried. But it’s a gag that explains a lot, especially the fact that “Django Unchained” is full of memorable images and ideas but isn’t tethered to any remotely coherent universe, either historical or imaginary, and the related fact that Tarantino is the kind of overamped class clown who can’t help making two different, totally unrelated meta-meta-meta-brain-fart 1970s jokes when he’s giving a name to a character from the 1850s.
There’s unquestionably an audience for the antics of the amped-up class clown, especially when presented with Tarantino’s undoubted cinematic verve, wrapped in a nostalgia for trashy movie genres most of today’s audiences have never seen and served with an overlay of progressive and/or outrageous racial politics. I understand that for many viewers the crazily overstuffed, one-damn-thing-after-another quality of “Django Unchained” will offer a fun alternative to more predictable fare, and have no doubt that some of my fellow critics will proclaim it a postmodern masterpiece, equally inspired by Jean-Luc Godard, the spaghetti western and the screen careers of Jim Brown, Fred “The Hammer” Williamson and whatever other ex-NFL stars of the ‘70s made movies in which they got to kill white people. I love to make those kinds of proclamations! And that combination of ingredients sounds intriguing, in theory – just about enough for a great trailer.
Are all QT's films about vengeance? Is it because he is funny looking?
This is from Ontd
[quote] someone in my theater screamed out "kill those white motherfuckers" and all the black people (including me) cheered. Made my night
[quote] LMAO that was like my movie theater. When a white person was killed everyone started cheering! The movie audience was majority black so it was awesome. It wasn't even a Tyler Perry lol]
Didn't like it.
I hate when people like r59 try to make this into some kind of "reverse racism" issue. It's so not. We liked when they killed the evil Germans in Inglorious Basterds, didn't we? So why is it wrong to like when they kill the evil whites in this movie? It's a revenge fantasy.
I feel like the entire topic of slavery really, really rubs white Americans the wrong way because it truly is Americas Original sin.
As a black person I can acknowledge slavery, the truly evil people that took part in it, and the effect that it has on social and economic inequality for American blacks TO THIS VERY DAY without running around hating whitey all my life.
The cool thing about this flick is that it raises questions and conversation about the topic while presenting a highly entertaining movie at the same time. No easy feat. And this one will, I think, be discussed and have more longevity than Inglorious Basterds because there is literally a new Holocaust film every few years. Believe me, we will never be allowed to ever forget the Holocaust, but slavery remains this thing that Amercians (both black, white, and everything else) simply don't want to discuss.
Thanks for sharing, R60.
Tarantino's movies are always racist and homophobic. He's a bigot. But he's "edgy" so he gets away with it. It's bullshit.
R1 R2, etc. I doubt that was Jamie Foxx hanging upside down naked with a mask covering his face. Pretty sure that was a body double.
[quote]For Tarantino, history is just another movie to strip for parts.
This is a really brilliant summation of Tarantino.
[quote]The cool thing about this flick is that it raises questions and conversation about the topic while presenting a highly entertaining movie at the same time. No easy feat.
Well, so did "Mandingo" but that didn't stop it from being an exploitive piece of shit movie, either. The only difference with "Django Unchained" is that it's done with a hip, ironic wink. Thanks, but I'll pass.
Are you black r65?
Tarantino is bi-sexual, so I doubt he's homophobic.
About as black as Tarantino, R66.
Zuma: Pet dogs are part of 'white culture'
By Robyn Dixon
South Africa's often controversial president warns blacks they should never behave like whites and says that buying or walking a dog would cost them the respect of fellow blacks.
Wow, you can feel the bitterness dripping off O'Heier's little review, can't you?
[quote]It’s always chancy to agree with Spike Lee about anything, but his recent tweet saying that he didn’t see the story of his slave ancestors as a Sergio Leone movie hit home with me.
Lee should make his own slave pic, then. Oh wait, he can't get funding because he's a shit director with a chip on his shoulder the size of Mozambique. And no one ever went to any of his deep-as-tissue paper movies in the first place.
Its not 1991, and he's bitter that that's the last time anyone gave a shit what he thought.
Am I the only person who saw a gay subtext in this movie? I mean the whole dining room scene is dominated by a bent over, marble Greco-Roman ass.
Well said, R61.
R63 doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
[quote]I mean the whole dining room scene is dominated by a bent over, marble Greco-Roman ass.
lol. I knew I couldnt have been the only one distracted by the double hole presentation. Totally on purpose, the placement of that thing.
R72 I did too but it was so wishy washy. They kept on mixing it up with his relationship with his sister. And then the scene in the office with Samuel Jackson's character where Sam dropped his step n fetch it act and told him what to do. The subtext was all over the place.
It 's an endless and stupid movie. Endless. Homophobic and woman-hating and just dull.
The German guy - who apparently has no female love interests - criss-crossing the country alone with a hot black man. How gay is that? And they wind up at a plantation called . . . Candyland? Where the unmarried, effete plantation owner is bossed around by his black houseslave? And his favorite pastime is watching . . . Mandingo wrestlers?
Ever since "Reservoir Dogs" Tarantino has been the last word in tasteless, irresponsible ultra-violent American entertainment, so if you go to one of his films you know what you're in for. To me his films are painful, not fun, but I'm in the minority.
Anyone have a link to the aforementioned Jamie Foxx nude pic?
Black people movies that are more about the white people involved.
What about Jackie Brown, R78?
r75, Stepin Fetchit was a real person who acted in minstrel shows. He was the first black actor to become a millionaire and did so by trading in negative stereotypes. That is the reference. Please get it right and do try to do a little research beyond old DL threads when making historical references.
Stepin Fetchit was his stage name. It was a contraction of "step and fetch it." R75's reference was accurate.
It was ultimately pointless and forgettable. Waste of almost three hours.
Gotta admit I loved Kill Bil1 1&2 but that had more to do with the cast.
I'd imagine that R10 and Spike Lee also despise Mark Twain.
R76 didn't see the movie.
too bad Katt Williams turned down the part.
I loved it I thought the pacing and music was great. Leo was very good and all of the acting was good especially Sam LJ.
R44 cited some good points and I have to second the disjointed pace perhaps due to Tarantino's long time editor passing away it's a noticeable difference. Also, Jamie Foxx's performance. He just isn't a compelling anchor for the movie. I kept thinking who else could have been cast, Will Smith, Wesley Snipes, Idris Elba, Taye Diggs, 50 Cent...
The movie is very inconsistant and, I agree, I suspect that has to do with the tragic death of his long-time editor. An example: there's a brief moment where Django and King are in the mountains and stop at a cabin where Lee Horsley lives; as they enter, the scene just...fades. I suspect there was more to that scene, but it was cut; but why keep the scene in there at all? There was nothing important in the scene except, I suppose, for the Horsley cameo, and does anybody else remember Lee Horsley? The movie really needed some judicious cutting, and the final act needed some re-writes (it should've ended in the first bloodbath at Candieland).
[quote]He just isn't a compelling anchor for the movie. I kept thinking who else could have been cast, Will Smith, Wesley Snipes, Idris Elba, Taye Diggs, 50 Cent...
[quote]the final act needed some re-writes (it should've ended in the first bloodbath at Candieland).
Jamie Foxx and the final act are the two things that made this movie work.
Will Smith? Idris Elba?
Are we talking about the same movie?
I loved it. Some of you cunts need to loosen the fuck up.
The django ate my baby.
I agree that Will Smith would be completely wrong for the part but I do think Idris Elba would have killed this role if he were cast. He really is a great actor.
r92, while I certainly agree that Jamie Foxx is ultimately what makes the movie works -- as fun as it is watching Christoph Waltz and Leo Dicaprio and Samuel L. Jackson chew the scenery, it's Foxx's grounded performance that anchors the film. But that final act was just superfluous: the movie had reached such a crescendo with the first bloodbath that I was actually shocked that Tarantino would go there again.
Elba is a great actor but wrong for this part.
This is the first film that I ever liked DiCaprio in. He was charming and yet an utterly repugnant character. I've been holding a grudge against him from the horrid "Titanic".
I know they are all professionals but I had to wonder how you hear yourself up to drop the N-word at black men and women. I would want to apologize before and after every scene.
For the person who was wondering about the name Broomhilda Von Shaft, I felt that scene and the KKK scene were an homage to Blazing Saddles where Madeline kahn's character was named Lily Von Schtup. I was waiting for someone to rip a fart the whole movie.
Apparently the "Mandingo fighting" depicted in the movie is just some made-up shit.
r100 = Spike Lee!
[quote]Surely there were gay white men back then as there are now. What better way to have downlow sex than to "buy" a Mandingo stud? Rent his services out to your friends for extra cash?
[quote]No wonder they always sold at auction in the nude.
As r72 said, the movie does have some gay subtext that is implied.
Why did katie holmes have that cameo near the end?
[quote]Jamie Foxx even has a full-frontal scene.
Describe it, please.
He's hanging upside down with both legs apart...the lighting is dark. You see him from behind at first so you get a view of his taint and balls from above but its hard to see. You then see him from the front, the lighting is still very dark but you can see his dick hanging down to his lower stomach. Ive already seen Jamie's junk so I knew he had a nice dick already. He was also more muscular in the movie than he is now.
Thanks for the warning OP! That is something that I certainly want to avoid seeing.
Idris Elba is so much hotter than Foxx. If he was in this, I'd be rooting for him to bend Leo over a table and go to town on him.
Any movie that pisses off Spike "If I had done it first I would have said it was brilliant" Lee can't be all bad.
Jamie Foxx is really good in this but I can't look at him without thinking of his character Wanda from In Living Color.
(Because I'm always looking for an excuse.)
Sorry, just paste it.
The story line was superb!!! I take sone offense to the fact thst there is nothing..& I MEAN NOTHING... left to the imagination. Blood exploding was very comical and unrealistic while peoplewere being shot. If one is to truly believe ALL should be equal, why make some of the violence so fake and exagerated? Slavery sucked and still does! The actors are above any talent I have ever seen! The story made me laugh, cry, pray, and then hope it had a good ending! But good grief, I am intelligent enough to imagine the horrid picture of a man being ripped a part by dogs AND what may happen to a man hanging upside down nude. Did not need to see Jamie's ying yang... I was upset that people in the theatre were not cringing at the mistreatment of hunans. Story...perfect...blood, exagerated gore, & nudity....offended that my intelligence would not imagine the horrid truth.
The film is soaked in pretentious drivel. For example, in one scene, Calvin Candie instructs his overseer to set a pack dogs on a black slave and we (the black audience) watch the dogs eat the slave alive (on screen). Dr. King Schultz wonders what Alexander Dumas, the Black French writer, would have said of that scene.
This gross and ludicrous non-sequitur is meant to show how hip Tarantino is to Black history. Here is notion that Tarantino really knows something about French literary history Dumas was black! No shit?
I’m willing to bet that when Jamie Foxx Jamie Foxx read this in the script, he turned to Tarantino and asked, “Who the hell is Dumas?”
Tarantino proposed to the Weinstein Company to deliver an audience on Christmas Day that would make them a lot of money. An equivalent was the poor Irishman who approached the plantation owners with the proposal to save the plantation money by managing his slaves (through beating them and yielding a profit).
What was this audience that Tarantino promised to deliver to the Weinstein Company?
Where I saw the film, at the AMC theater, in Emeryville California, the audience was the same one that had voted for Obama. When I waited in the long line to see the film, people’s faces were glowing with expectation. The hype about Jamie Foxx and Sam Jackson and Kerry Washington was like voting for a Black man for President.
But after seeing the film, their faces were empty, their eyes were blank. Sure, they had laughed at the scatological humor, had flinched at the gruesome ugly scenes, had been insulted by the self-deprecating humor, and had been lifted up by the antics of the “bad nigger” And don’t forget the ending–with the hero and his slave bride ridding off into the sunset and the glowing flames that consumes the CandyLand Plantation! And all this, with this synched to beat of rebellious hip-hop music. Burn, Hollywood, Burn!
For many of them, Tarantino had delivered. In essence, they had their cathartic laugh, and yet they still felt dirty from the guilty pleasure. Their empty faces were drained understanding. They had been used, and they were beginning to know it. You could see that they had been bamboozled.
i think i'm the only one here so far with no preconcieved notions about Tarantino - i haven't seen any of his movies.
i thought the movie was brilliant. i loved it! and i've never liked jamie foxx, always thought he was a buffon, but this performance completely changed my mind about his acting ability. i don't think anyone else could have been Django.
most outstanding performance goes to samuel jackson - and whoever said that alot of people "wont get" the nuances and historical back story of his character was absolutely right.
i wish kerry washington's character had been given more depth. it would have added so much more to the movie.
the entire cast as a whole was fabulous. i thoroughly enjoyed the movie and plan to see it again.
and yes, there was excessive blood and gore. but it's a movie, people, not a documentary.
I was entertaining but not as good as Inglorious Bastards.
R112, that's some terrible writing. Both your post and your link.
The violence was obscene and repulsive. However, Decaprio and Foxx were superb, as good as I have ever seen them. Washington was beautiful. Samuel L Jackson stole the show.
[quote]The violence was obscene and repulsive.
Well, it is a movie about slavery.
r119, there is an honest way to tell the story of the brutality and inhumanity of slavery without doing prolonged closeups of violent acts in a manner that glorifies them. Why must we actually see a man being ripped by vicious dogs in detail? What you don't see is often more powerful and dignified than showing the gory details. This movie tries to stylize violence, invites the viewer to be entertained and titillated it.
r120 violence is one of his trademarks. Why did you see the movie if you knew that before-hand?
I liked Django Unchained although it was nowhere near as good as Inglorious Basterds. For me Christopher Waltz gave the best performance in the movie, although Leonardo DiCaprio's role was the showier one.
Samuel L. Jackson seems to give the same performance over and over in every movie, but his character Stephen is one of Tarantino's best creations. Tarantino intended this movie to be an examination of slavery in America, but despite the many horrible ways in which he shows blacks being treated and the violence they're subjected to, it was the despicable Stephen who truly drove home how dehumanizing and soul-destroying that slavery is.
Django Unchained has a Cinemascore rating of A-, an indication that audiences like the movie and suggests the movie will have legs. So far it's earned over $92 million at the domestic box office and has yet to open internationally. The movie looks like it's on its way to being a financial success.
My partner and I saw it tonight and we both loved it. I don't need to repeat all the praise posted already.
I'm interested in previous posters who mentioned a gay subtext. I said the same thing to my partner after the film but he hadn't really noticed it. But DiCaprio's character definitely gave some hints of repressed homosexuality, as did Walton Goggins' Billy Spark ("Moonlight") character. Notice how Django points out that Spark touched his genitals.
On Vulture.com there was an article about scenes that didn't make it into the movie. Goggins said there was a scene between his character and DiCaprio that explained a lot about how things "really worked" at Candie Land, but he didn't elaborate.
***WARNING: Here be spoilers.***
Actually, -- I don't think it was entirely out of character for Dr. Schultz to kill Calvin like that, R45. Schultz had just granted Hildy her freedom and Calvin was offended by this brazenness. It cancelled out the victory he had over Schultz when he coerced him into buying her for $12,000. When Schultz, Django and Hildy were on their way out, Calvin insisted for Schultz to finalize the transaction by shaking his hand. His thugs obviously weren't going to let him leave without doing so. Since Schultz knew this was a no-win situation (either oblige and get killed by Calvin or refuse and get killed by his guards), he probably figured he could cut his losses if he delivered the fatal sucker punch to Calvin. Sure he'd be killed, but at least he could off Calvin and buy some time for Django to defend himself in the process. To me, it came off as more strategic than spontaneous.
I also don't think the "Alexandre Dumas is black" reference was too heavy-handed on Tarantino's part, R112/counterpunch.org. I think it served as useful device that highlighted Calvin's faux worldliness. While Calvin fancied himself a francophile and prefered to be addressed as Monsieur Candie, he didn't speak or understand French. Although Schultz was fluent, Calvin's lawyer explicitly discouraged him from speaking it to Calvin because his incomprehension would be too embarassing. Anyway, Calvin surely thought he was clever to have a Mandingo fighter called "d'Artagnan." While it's a reference to French literature, Calvin is naturally ignorant of the fact that it's also a reference to a Black man's legacy. And how could a Black man write 'The Three Musketeers' if the inside of his cranium lacks the 3 upper-indentations associated with creativity? By throwing in this mention of the author, Tarantino is just remarking on the provincial assumptions that so often dovetail with racism. (Kinda like a klansman who enjoys eating peanut butter.)
Just another observation -- I had a feeling that the scene with Leo cutting his hand was improvised. I looked it up and, at least accordingly to IMDb trivia, I'm right.
Saw it yesterday. Very good, entertaining, though a bit disturbing and cringeworthy at the same time. Over-the-top in a good way, then a bad way, then a good way, etc.
I thought Cristoph Waltz was pretty great. In fact, all of the performances were good, including Leo's over-the-top Candyland plantation owner.
B+. Again, very good, but it was pretty Tarantino-revenge-fantasy-paint-by-numbers.
As far as Jamie Foxx's "full frontal" scene when he's hanging upside down, I don't know. At my screening, you could see a discernible bulge, but it wasn't clear if it was really covered or not, and it was too quick to see detailed genitalia like a clearly defined cockhead, glans, balls, etc. Of course, it really doesn't matter one way or the other except to queens looking for a sexual thrill.
[quote]But that final act was just superfluous: the movie had reached such a crescendo with the first bloodbath that I was actually shocked that Tarantino would go there again.
I really liked the movie. But, I agree. Not that the two bloodbaths at Candyland completely didn't work, but it probably would have been slightly better with one final showdown. But, it was fine as is.
r45, I thought it was in character because I was expecting it. They used the gun in the sleeve before and I expected it at that moment. The irony is that he warned Django not to get carried away but he had seen too much of this "American slavery" and it got the best of him.
I have a question, and maybe it was answered up thread as I haven't had time to read all of it. What was the deal with Candy's sister. It was never explained what she was doing in disguise all the time and what connection it had. She seemed more human with handling of Broom Hilda when they were showing the whip marks. What was the deal with the picture and her being around in disguise/
Candy's sister was in disguise?
Boxofficemojo indicates that Django's budget was $100 million, while Les Mis was only $61 million? Why did Django cost so much more? The "star" factor of actors wasn't any higher. Some explosions, but not any huge special effects. Location shooting?
Did Django kill Candy's sister? I closed my eyes during the bloodbath at Candyland.
You closed your eyes, r130? The violence was cartoony as fuck. The blood was almost pink.
I wondered why Django killed the sister, she didn't seem that 'bad'. I missed her disquise...
Was it Cinematic Art for the Ages? NO! However, it was head and shoulders above that other classic "Candyland", AKA, 'Gone With The Wind' loved and revered the world over, with its "genelman'callers, effette hero Ashely, pickanneys, and last but not least MAMMY!
Fuck Otta Here, it's a GWTW for the New Millenum!
I said it; so be it!
Re: the cock
You can clearly see the dangling cock just as homedude leaves. You see the balls, the shaft, the head. It was very clear, at least in my theater. But I was also looking for it. It could've been a prosthetic though.
R133 : The sister wanted Django castreted, then changed her mind and decided that he should be sent to the mines.
We tend to forget that because we are being told second-hand.
[quote]What was the deal with Candy's sister. It was never explained what she was doing in disguise all the time and what connection it had.
What disguise? She was never in disguise.
There was that woman with the guys who had the dogs, but Django killed her on his way back to Candie Land.
What was with the 10 second Amber Tamblyn cameo???
Kerry Washington is awesome
I can't stand the word n----r. Why the fuck does he insist on using it? I'd like to slap him...hard.
I hate the word also but it didn't bother me in DU. In Pulp Fiction it bothered me QT used it but he had to give his charcter a black girlfriend like that would make it okay. I read somewhere he wants to take the power out of the word...
QT is not ingenious, his movies are twisted and amoral.
R135, tell us more about Jamie Foxx's dick in terms of size, how clear it is, etc!
r142, you are too much.
"BYE Ms. Laura"
I thought of Gone with the Wind too r134. The way they moved the story along with titles and also Samuel Jackson's charcter reminded me of an evil Mammy...
One other bad thing about movie QT usually creates great women roles but all the great actress Kerry does is mainly look pretty...
[quote]You can clearly see the dangling cock just as homedude leaves. You see the balls, the shaft, the head. It was very clear, at least in my theater. But I was also looking for it. It could've been a prosthetic though.
The scene is kind of disorientating from the start. He's hanging upside down, and there is some harsh lighting going on that obscures his package through most of the scene.
But, just as it's ending, the camera pans across a clear, out in the open penis.
That's based on what I saw, anyway, and I hadn't been clued in on it in advance.
The feminine dude clearly had Django's genitals in his hands in preparation for castration. Durango mentioned in later before getting revenge.
I saw that too. Thought I was the only one...
R141 is a kkkristian frau cunt/MISS LAURA.
I thought about seeing the film, but I really don't see the point. Quentin seems a few crayons short of a box, to put it nicely. Can you imagine sex with him? Goodness.
How far in does the upside down frontal occur?
Who was that woman in disguise? I guess I missed the relevance to the plot.
He already ripped off Sergio Leone in the much better Kill Bill movies..
Why did he give James Remar TWO roles?
Why did he give himself ONE role?
Poor Leo is getting too desperate to win Oscar. He's okay but the real standout is Waltz...
Tell us about the fucking SIZE!
[quote]I thought about seeing the film, but I really don't see the point. Quentin seems a few crayons short of a box, to put it nicely. Can you imagine sex with him? Goodness.
Projection, projection, projection.
r154, I could care less. It is not my interest nor the point of the scene.
It looked slightly abovr average
I meant I could NOT care less.
Bear in mind folks, that Tarantino considers Mandingo brilliant, comparing it to Showgirls. It would seem that he has his finger on the pulse of pop culture on DL.
Oh, and the newest tempest in a teapot is the controversy over the Django action figures. The histrionic reviews on Amazon are a laugh riot:
[quote]SICKENING - I hope this review along with the others that have expressed their dismay that these figurines were created helps to build a campaign to have these removed them from Amazon website and ultimately end their production...
What's most hilarious is that while Amazon is taking a lot of heat for them, I also found them on Sears.com.
I like to think that some Frau will buy a Django doll for their child to be educational about slavery.
I forgot that Jamie has such a rocking ass too, mmmm
According to Walton Goggins, he actually did touch Jamie Foxx's junk:
[quote]The infamous ball tickle. Was that choreographed? Or was that something that just came out of that moment?
[quote]Walton Goggins: It came out in that moment. Again, it was very difficult to really understand what it was that we were doing, and what it was that we were saying, there. Once I defined that for myself, and Quentin and I talked about it, it was a matter for me to go, "Okay, this is just Billy looking at another person's genitalia, the thing that is responsible for him spreading his seed." It was to kind of luxuriate in that. Taking that away, and what was about to happen. Rendering Django impotent in a way that he would no longer be able to spread his seed.
For the most part I was entertained. QT's face should never be on the big screen...
I didn't like the hyperviolence and dwelling on it. Vulgar violence. The performances were good.
Just saw it, and loved it. Waltz and Foxx are excellent, and Jackson is outstanding. While Waltz is a joy every moment he's on screen, I agree with the following re. Foxx:
[quote]I see what you're saying, but I read interviews with both Foxx and QT that said they were precisely trying to avoid movie-star swagger and that QT had to direct him out of it early on in the process. Jamie said that QT said to him point blank "I was afraid of this...can you play a slave?" Foxx's performance is much more cerebral and taciturn and fits the mold of the spaghetti western hero beautifully.
For Foxx to have played Django as some kind of incredibly charismatic 'rock star' would have been completely wrong for the role. I thought Foxx was perfect.
The violence didn't bother me as it's so cartoonish and Tarantino-esque, but I admit I didn't look too closely at the ripping dogs shots.
The weakest bit for me was Tarantino inserting himself in a small part. He does tend towards the self-indulgent, and this was outstandingly self-indulgent. He's a terrible actor, and him casting himself in this small role was distracting and pulled me out of the movie. It was stunt casting not worthy of this film.
Overall, though, I'd give the movie 9/10 for its vision, being highly entertaining, the excellent performances, and for putting a difficult subject front and center in a way that says something valuable through entertainment (putting the medicine on a lump of sugar, if you will).
I agree that Quentin needs to stop acting in his movies. He really stands out as a terrible actor.
Which movie had Tarantino going off on his Bruce Springsteen's songs are so homoerotic tangent?
Amber Tamblyn's cameo explained:
Any Quentin Tarantino fan worth her salt can tell you that Amber Tamblyn played Daughter of a Son of a Gunfighter in Django Unchained, and her dad, Son of a Gunfighter star Russ Tamblyn, played Son of a Gunfighter. What that same QT-obsessive may not know, though, is how the cameos came about. And so, when Vulture spoke to Tamblyn at a Cinema Society screening of Warm Bodies, we asked her to please explain. "Quentin's a good friend of mine," she said. "And he lost a drinking bet, and the drinking bet was, if I could out-drink him in whiskey, I could play a cameo." Really? "I can out-drink twenty Quentin Tarantino impersonators at the same time with whiskey," she said. "I'm Scottish." No, but for real: How did the cameo come about?
"It was first a friend thing," she explained. "He texted me and said, 'Would you come do a cameo?' And I said yes. And after the fact, I said, 'It would be super cool [to have my father and me play Son of a Gunfighter and Daughter of a Son of a Gunfighter].' And Quentin was like, 'Sold. Done.' So it's sort of like this totally weird thing to happen and a total inside joke." It's also a sweet father-daughter memory. "It's such a cool moment for me to see my name in an old Western style next to my dad's," Tamblyn said. "Even though I didn't really have much of a role, that to me is like a career lifetime moment. Some day, when my dad is gone, I'll look at that and go, 'We were next to each other.'" So you can also add this to your arsenal of Tarantino trivia: He brings families together.
I just watched a DVD of the movie and paused it on the "Full Frontal." I am not sure if it has been said already, since I don't have the time to look through the entire thread, but Jamie Foxx is not full frontal. You don't see anything. Besides the character about to castrate him has his hands all over his "genitals." So I doubt Jamie is letting some actor grope at his junk all day long.
Anyone else notice what a big queen Walton Goggins played Billy Crash to be? Django quipped early on Billy probably wanted to hold his hand on their walk in the moonlight. Notice the way he longingly runs his fingers over Django's nutsack. The way he sashays away after almost cutting his nuts off is proof positive that "Candie-land" was most likely Candie-ass-land.
It makes me wonder if the whole Mandingo wrestling was some secret gay fetish of Candie's. Anyone else notice how he almost falls in love with Django at one point?
I guess you could probably write a paper on the underlying gay theme of Django. Candie falls in love with Django then explodes when he finds out he is there to rescue his wife and threatens to kill her.