Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (a Spaghetti Western) scheduled for release Christmas 2012

psk2310 said:
Nice post CP1708...I saw an interview with Jamie Foxx & Kerry Washington where they said Leo cutting his hand was by accident. He didn't want to stop shooting because he was in the middle of his lines. They said the looks on everyone on the set were crazy because his hand was pretty bloody...
Click to expand...

I thought it was cool for him to continue acting even after he cut himself but wiping the Blood on kerry's face n her allowing it...not cool. I would have had to stop at that point. Doin too much! :smh:
 
nthat.gif
this movie

Soundtrack was very well done and Jamie Foxx was better than usual
 
Saw the movie yesterday. I thought it was great. Not his best ever but great none the less.

I agree with everyone's opinion after reading through some of the thread

-samuel L jackson's character talked to much like modern day vernacular so i wasn't feeling his character....he stood out in a bad way
- Plot holes a plenty....but it didn't hurt the movie too much. Why did Waltz really have to kill Leo? Why did the Australian guys trust Django? Just moments that felt like they wrote themselves into a corner and needed the plot to keep rolling
- Waltz is a phenomenal actor. I loved him being on the good side this time instead of a bad guy like inglorious bastards
- The movie was long but never really seemed to drag at any point which was appreciated
- I guess i can see why people may think it was racist just do to the constant use of the N-word. But it was more or less a satirical take on slavery which i think was expertly portrayed.


Any idea why Waltz killed Leo? I mean was he really a sore loser? Or did he just hate him for being a racist and letting the dogs rip apart that guy who just happened to be named after one of his favorite authors who was also black? Like oh i loved the 3 Musketeers and the author (a black man) is one of my favorite authors. You named the slave after him and let him get ripped apart. thats why he "couldn't resist"
 
venom lyrix said:
Deuce King said:
I saw the movie Friday night and just like I thought, it's not this black slave rebellion rise to power type film that it's marketed as.  As usual, Hollywood and Quentin Tarantino pushed their agenda, I just hope folks are able to pick up on that and some of the hidden messages.
Click to expand...
absurd statement.
Click to expand...
How is it absurd??
laugh.gif
@ this fake deep post. how was it marketed as that?
Click to expand...
I say that based upon the trailer of the movie.
 
He didn't rub his real blood on her. There was a break in the shot and they fixed his hand and had fake blood
 
Any idea why Waltz killed Leo? I mean was he really a sore loser? Or did he just hate him for being a racist and letting the dogs rip apart that guy who just happened to be named after one of his favorite authors who was also black? Like oh i loved the 3 Musketeers and the author (a black man) is one of my favorite authors. You named the slave after him and let him get ripped apart. thats why he "couldn't resist"
Click to expand...


I think he looked at it as knowing that if he didn't shoot Candie, they weren't going to get out of there anyways. Like Candie was stalling them by making him shake his hand, even if he would have shook hands, Leo woulda done something else after to stop them from leaving anyways. So in a sense, King took the final play he had left (the hidden gun they didn't know about) and made sure to take the head of the group out. From there on, it would be up to Django to get out of there. (which seems like a real bad idea since the odds were stacked against Django completely.)

I "think" the flashbacks to the man being ripped apart by the dogs was him playing that scene out in his head again, it appeared Candie was going to let the man live, and that would be that, but in the end, Candie killed the man anyways, even after he had gotten his $500 back. Same deal here, even while getting his 12K, he could have easily "sicked the dogs on them before they left". When Leo came up with his stall tactic about shaking hands, I think that confirmed it in King's mind.
 
Before I continue reading from where I last posted, I thought the movie was really good. Foxx was badass. Yes there were some uncomfortable scenes, but I was ok with it. That's the nature of this narrative in America. Slavery always makes people uncomfortable, Black and White alike and everywhere in between. I looked at it like a story against the back drop of slavery. However, there were a few moments where non brown folks were laughing a lil too hard at those N jokes. I felt the way how Chappelle felt when he quit his show and described how people started laughing at the racial pixie sketch.

Quick edit: Yes, I think Tarantino stole the idea of Catcher Freeman. Even down to the last name of Django, too eerie man. My brother and I even showed her the episode after we saw it and she said the same thing. Having a Rick Ross and Pac play in the movie also irked me :smh:. That wasn't necessary.
 
Last edited:
Deuce King is usually wrong 99% of the time...and I'll sort of disagree with him here in the sense of the movie not being what it was marketed as. I think the film was exactly what the trailers showed it to be.

My only problem (and I knew this before seeing the movie) is that the story is based around a satirical depiction of slavery...which is something I don't think can be satirical.

Can you IMAGINE the backlash from the Jewish community if Inglorious Bastards had been a satirical depiction of the actual Holocaust itself? Finding lighthearted humorous moments while mixing in images of Jewish people being shoved into gas chambers?

That script would have been burned the minute it slid across any studio head's desk and Quentin Tarentino would have been black balled from the film industry.

That aside...as a story alone, I think Django was good but I do understand and agree with the criticisms of the film's content.
 
Last edited:
FRAY SALTERS said:
Can you IMAGINE the backlash from the Jewish community if Inglorious Bastards had been a satirical depiction of the actual Holocaust itself? Finding lighthearted humorous moments while mixing in images of Jewish people being shoved into gas chambers?
Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of is Life is Beautiful.
But then, that was a European film...
 
^ yup that was the movie that popped in my head. Movie won awards, no backlash.

The difference is Tarantino is
A. Not subtle in any sense of the word
B. mainly cares about showing evil, not the good present in times of evil


There is always comedy in tragic times

It wasn't a satire. But there were many funny moments. It's an incredible movie.


Tarentino movies are awesome. But c'mon he's not known as deep thinker or an educator. He is great at writing dialogue that leads to blood baths and paying "homage". "stealing". Whatever you wanna call it

He wasn't gonna give you an in depth look at slavery and it's effects. People shouldn't be looking for that
 
Last edited:
FRAY SALTERS said:
Deuce King is usually wrong 99% of the time...and I'll sort of disagree with him here in the sense of the movie not being what it was marketed as. I think the film was exactly what the trailers showed it to be.

My only problem (and I knew this before seeing the movie) is that the story is based around a satirical depiction of slavery...which is something I don't think can be satirical.

Can you IMAGINE the backlash from the Jewish community if Inglorious Bastards had been a satirical depiction of the actual Holocaust itself? Finding lighthearted humorous moments while mixing in images of Jewish people being shoved into gas chambers?

That script would have been burned the minute it slid across any studio head's desk and Quentin Tarentino would have been black balled from the film industry.

That aside...as a story alone, I think Django was good but I do understand and agree with the criticisms of the film's content.
Click to expand...

apparently I was wrong when I said the same thing. But it just comes down to power. When you have power to get a movie made or rejected, it goes a long way.
 
blakep267 said:
But it just comes down to power. When you have power to get a movie made or rejected, it goes a long way.
Click to expand...

Basically.

And I know...I KNOW...a lot of the people angry about this film, are angry, because this is it. This is the big slave project of the generation. There was Roots, there was Glory, there was Amistad...now there's this. Look. Look at Red Tails. Look at what there is out there and how damn hard it is for a mostly black film to get made and get by, let alone a mostly black film about the worst thing that ever happened to black people in America. Some people are mad because this isn't black Schindler's List.
Click to expand...
 
FRAY SALTERS said:
Deuce King is usually wrong 99% of the time...and I'll sort of disagree with him here in the sense of the movie not being what it was marketed as. I think the film was exactly what the trailers showed it to be.

My only problem (and I knew this before seeing the movie) is that the story is based around a satirical depiction of slavery...which is something I don't think can be satirical.

Can you IMAGINE the backlash from the Jewish community if Inglorious Bastards had been a satirical depiction of the actual Holocaust itself? Finding lighthearted humorous moments while mixing in images of Jewish people being shoved into gas chambers?

That script would have been burned the minute it slid across any studio head's desk and Quentin Tarentino would have been black balled from the film industry.

That aside...as a story alone, I think Django was good but I do understand and agree with the criticisms of the film's content.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't label it a satire at all. Profound film.
 
DubA169 said:
^ yup that was the movie that popped in my head. Movie won awards, no backlash.
The difference is Tarantino is
A. Not subtle in any sense of the word
B. mainly cares about showing evil, not the good present in times of evil
There is always comedy in tragic times
It wasn't a satire. But there were many funny moments. It's an incredible movie.
Tarentino movies are awesome. But c'mon he's not known as deep thinker or an educator. He is great at writing dialogue that leads to blood baths and paying "homage". "stealing". Whatever you wanna call it
He wasn't gonna give you an in depth look at slavery and it's effects. People shouldn't be looking for that
Click to expand...


I think Tarantino is a "deep thinker", an intellectual and very good at his craft. But what SOME people were expecting from this movie is not what he delivered. I watch Tarantino movies multiple times and I pic up on subtle messages he may or may not intentionally be delivering. Another beautiful thing about this movie is how different people received it. Some people simply dismissed it as a comedy, some like myself so it as a full range of emotions being elicited. They were some very tragic periods of the movie that were shown without making is funny. Some just choose to view the movie in its entirety as a comedy.
 
I agree with u on the many different reactions

I see it primarily as s a buddy cop western movie.

I have a strong feeling I will enjoy it more the second time when I'm alone. People were hysterically laughing too much IMO. Distracted me. And some laughs came at some inappropriate times. But it's all subjective.
 
AntonLaVey said:
DubA169 said:
^ yup that was the movie that popped in my head. Movie won awards, no backlash.
The difference is Tarantino is
A. Not subtle in any sense of the word
B. mainly cares about showing evil, not the good present in times of evil
There is always comedy in tragic times
It wasn't a satire. But there were many funny moments. It's an incredible movie.
Tarentino movies are awesome. But c'mon he's not known as deep thinker or an educator. He is great at writing dialogue that leads to blood baths and paying "homage". "stealing". Whatever you wanna call it
He wasn't gonna give you an in depth look at slavery and it's effects. People shouldn't be looking for that
Click to expand...


I think Tarantino is a "deep thinker", an intellectual and very good at his craft. But what SOME people were expecting from this movie is not what he delivered. I watch Tarantino movies multiple times and I pic up on subtle messages he may or may not intentionally be delivering. Another beautiful thing about this movie is how different people received it. Some people simply dismissed it as a comedy, some like myself so it as a full range of emotions being elicited. They were some very tragic periods of the movie that were shown without making is funny. Some just choose to view the movie in its entirety as a comedy.
Click to expand...

Agree with this.

Thats why i think it can be called a satire. The over the top manner of the way things are portrayed at certain instances make it such. Obviously if a dude wondered onto your plantation and killer 3 of your workers....even if they were wanted....you would be killed too. But that is what Tarantino is good at. He elicits all different types of emotions from the viewer. Whether its shock at the death and gore, compassion for the main character, complete hatred for the Bad Guy, or laughter for the comedic relief thrown in. That is what makes his movies so great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom