antonlavey
Banned
- 28,211
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
SJ: "I counted 6 shots ni8***"
JF: "I counted 2 guns"
JF: "I counted 2 guns"
Last edited:
Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (a Spaghetti Western) scheduled for release Christmas 2012
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by Kimchi Papi,
- Start date
jhawk826
Banned
- 3,001
- 621
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
Wipe your face. When he makes an original movie, get back to me.spike has too much of an agenda and his is probably more racist than tarantinos...
but i guess its okay for spike to use the C word and whatnot against whites in his movies right?
like or or not people still use the N word..black people probably more than whites, spike is just upset that QT is showing a much more realistic point of view
and also QT can "get away" with this film because hes had more successes than failures and the people backing him know that they will get a quality film..
of course malcolm X is going to get praise its a good story but spike Lee didnt come up with it on his own its a biopic..tarantino wouldve done a better job too
alot of QTs films pay homage to classic styles of film..jackie brown was a modern day blaxploitation film and is one of my favorites and the characters that are using the N word the most are the black ones..
Because Spike has been turned down by studios because of who he is. I posted that earlier with James Brown and Jackie Robinson. Spike can't do any of those movies because of his past. The only jobs he can get a green light for are Old Boy reimaginations.
Last edited:
ssjjfar
Supporter
- 1,754
- 329
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
Much respect for Spike Lee.
Much respect for Tarantino.
But at the end of the day what is Spike saying, because slavery was bad we can't have movie involving slaves/slavery? I mean what does he want, a movie placed in 1858 staring a black man, but just pretend slavery doesn't exist back then and remove it from the film? Or is he just saying Tarantino can't make the movie at all?
On a relevant note, this movie was awesome.
Much respect for Tarantino.
But at the end of the day what is Spike saying, because slavery was bad we can't have movie involving slaves/slavery? I mean what does he want, a movie placed in 1858 staring a black man, but just pretend slavery doesn't exist back then and remove it from the film? Or is he just saying Tarantino can't make the movie at all?
On a relevant note, this movie was awesome.
- 40,400
- 41,015
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
Spike doesn't want any type of positive to come from any depiction of slavery, whatsoever. It should only be viewed as the absolute worst thing to happen to mankind since Jesus was crucified.
this is what people arent getting. Its the opinion of some people that certain events should only be depicted in 1 light. You dont sugarcoat it or add gunfights or moments of humor to it. No one side is right or wrong, but you( not you trill) should at least respect somebody's opinion
- 53,163
- 20,709
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
^
A lot of bad stuff has happened to society since that guy was crucified.
A lot of bad stuff has happened to society since that guy was crucified.
- 8,922
- 4,740
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
Does that mean Spike doesnt agree with Schindlers list being made? Whatever spike
Mildly put, but I agree with you.
Does that mean Spike doesnt agree with Schindlers list being made? Whatever spike
Mildly put, but I agree with you.
You would have to ask spike that, same with how he was ASKED his opinion of Django
- 21,798
- 3,548
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
18 ******g pages
Yea...I think that part of Pulp Fiction was just immature and unnecessary.
Like he knew his part was small, wanted to be shocking, but did a little too much.
He wouldn't. There hasn't been a history of school shootings in film for him to base a film on, let alone a genre of films, let alone a public that's aware of how school shootings are depicted in film for him to deconstruct and reinterpret the biases, prejudices and preconceived notions of what that film ought to be.
You're mistaking Tarantino for the guys making Scary Movie 5.
I wouldn't say hates, so much as needs a black friend to help him understand where the line is...but his habitual line-stepping makes sure he doesn't really have a friend like that he'd listen to.
Thank you.
Shut up. It's the same thing with white guys and Adam Sandler movies.
I don't disagree, but that's not the same as agreeing, and probably because I'm 30 years his junior.
And that's where things get really complicated. What will the stupid people do with this? How many Calvin Candie Halloween costumes are we gonna see? How are people gonna quote this film? What are they gonna take away and put back out there into the world after seeing this? It's not something every artist has to deal with, yes, but this subject...this group of people. It's a history of smirks and "why are you making such a big deal out of it?" I don't know. and I know this can't be seen in a vacuum. I know that QT can more or less just walk away from this, but a black filmmaker couldn't, but that's not baggage I personally can bring to the film. It's something I could get out of it (I didn't) and something that's yet to manifest itself.
Yea...I think that part of Pulp Fiction was just immature and unnecessary.
Like he knew his part was small, wanted to be shocking, but did a little too much.
^These
Exactly my X-mas.
He wouldn't. There hasn't been a history of school shootings in film for him to base a film on, let alone a genre of films, let alone a public that's aware of how school shootings are depicted in film for him to deconstruct and reinterpret the biases, prejudices and preconceived notions of what that film ought to be.
You're mistaking Tarantino for the guys making Scary Movie 5.
I wouldn't say hates, so much as needs a black friend to help him understand where the line is...but his habitual line-stepping makes sure he doesn't really have a friend like that he'd listen to.
Thank you.
Shut up. It's the same thing with white guys and Adam Sandler movies.
I don't disagree, but that's not the same as agreeing, and probably because I'm 30 years his junior.
And that's where things get really complicated. What will the stupid people do with this? How many Calvin Candie Halloween costumes are we gonna see? How are people gonna quote this film? What are they gonna take away and put back out there into the world after seeing this? It's not something every artist has to deal with, yes, but this subject...this group of people. It's a history of smirks and "why are you making such a big deal out of it?" I don't know. and I know this can't be seen in a vacuum. I know that QT can more or less just walk away from this, but a black filmmaker couldn't, but that's not baggage I personally can bring to the film. It's something I could get out of it (I didn't) and something that's yet to manifest itself.
+100
Last edited:
- 21,798
- 3,548
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
I loved the film. And I love this thread. It's about something that matters and even the trolls add something, cuz they inspired a lot of truth being dropped in here. Best film thread I can remember on NT.
- 3,376
- 183
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
yeah he sure did, and christoff waltz (or whatever his name is), my favorite character in the movie and Leo all stole the show in that movie. the dialogue was absolutely fantastic in this film and the action was awesome. but the one big negative and gripe that I have with this movie is that it is way too long and the pacing is terrible IMO. but overall i rreally liked the movie. oh and one more thing, I didn't like Kerry Washington in this movie at all. almost every scene she was in, she was either being punished and totured with her yelling and screaming or she was just standing there in the background looking pretty because she was in Jamie's flashback.
- 67,794
- 102,798
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
Is there gonna be an official movie thread with reviews? I dunno what the hell this is.
gatzbygordon
Banned
- 4,501
- 1,927
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2012
me and my lady will be watching this tonight..so expect a whole lot of rustling later in the evening.
D.Josey
formerly dzaster
- 6,967
- 4,182
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
One thing I wonder about in the movie is..
When Dr. King was about to shake Calvin's hand but clapped him instead, why didn't he immediately turn around and shoot the guy with the shotgun too? Seems like there was a delay and he didn't even care about that guy and allowed himself to be killed.
- 21,798
- 3,548
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
*no spoilers*
Now I don't really know spaghetti westerns too much, so I'm happy I finally saw the whole Dollars trilogy last month to at least catch some of the references and imagery that Quentin used here. And it probably helps that I watched all of Roots for the first time a couple months ago after my friends told me I was ******g up as a black person, having never seen it before. nerd.gifgrin.gif This film wasn't what I wanted, until it had me wanting more of it every time it shifted into a new kind of film. If that makes any sense.
This is more Kill Bill than it is Inglourious.
Do you remember Tropic Thunder? When Robert Downey Jr. lost his mind, was in the zone and just killed a role in blackface? That's Django. It...like any Tarantino, is as much about the filmmaker as it is the film itself, but it's awesome. And he was in the zone. And all I could think is, could this movie never end? Because it's not one film. It's 4 films...with big sweeping arcs to each act that feel like entirely different movies. And the atmosphere it created. I remember tension in the theater with Inglourious Basterds. This was different. That was white guilt and cautious unease in my theater. Whether you hate what this film represents or not, you will never have a filmgoing experience like Django again, and you're a fool if you can like film or have an opinion on this and not go see the film.
No...it's not as polished as Inglourious was. You can feel it that this was a cutdown version of a longer movie. There are little character strands that don't go anywhere...shots of characters that make you curious, then disappear. But that's fine to me. If I can look past Avengers' editing, than this is nothing.
I've never seen anything like this in my life and I feel like I've been waiting for it. You could say this is Blazing Saddles 2, but ********. The cowboy in Blazing Saddles was more Bo Jangles than Jules Winnfield, like Django turned out to be. And it's not maudlin. It's not obsessed with the depressed reality of it all. I remember having a huge conversation with CP about Schindler's List vs. The Pianist and there's something special about rewatchability and making something painful accessible and small and focused. This is the extreme of that, in a way Inglourious couldn't be. This had slave whippings, torture, murder, exploitation (sexual, mental and violent), insidious and casual racism, dehumanization...a little bit of everything. But it never lost its focus. It'd wander around the corner to see what's happening, but it never lost it's gaze on Broomhilda, and everything Django and Dr. King (....laugh.gif) had to do to pull that one thing off.
Christoph Waltz is great like usual. He's the good guy for once, and in a way he's the main character of the first half of the movie. His quirks are so smoothed out and mannered, that it almost feels like Christoph just winged it brilliantly. He's the eccentric and Jamie's the straight man, and the sudden shift from the first movie, this film is to the 2nd, makes you wish there was another half hour to just soak that film in. And Kerry Washington. Way down in the hole of the great things about this movie is her. You could say she's wasted, but she's all this film needed her to be. In a way, Django and Broomhilda were foils, there to expose the truths about the people around them.
Watching the movie, I felt so reminded of Argo. Each step of the way, we get these little treatises on people acting their parts. People having to fit a role in a twisted world, from Calvin who was born into slave-owning to Django and King, who constantly have to find clever ways to get around people's perceptions of them, whether it be murderers or just a white man with a black walking into a bar for a drink. But the real treat...the real showstopper is Samuel L. Jackson. My god. I didn't even know he was in the film, until randomly I saw him pimping it on Letterman. Argo was about a world in flux. People who thought they were safe, having to take on identities on the fly to save their own lives and get to where they need to go...all culminating in the airport scene. This film is that on steroids. Except these people aren't in a world in flux. They're in a world bathed in hate, driving towards the heart of darkness, a Mississippi plantation in 1860. And the ways that Samuel L. Jackson twists and turns and so knowingly takes the most perfectly ugly indentity for each crowd...in every different situation. It's comic gold and brilliant acting. I mean I get it. I get why Leo is getting so much credit, because I guess it's brave, being the golden boy and taking such an ugly, despicable role...and making it charming and magnetic without losing the ugliness or the seriousness, but how is Sam L. getting left out? It's so much more than just an Uncle Tom role. He adjusts and attacks every single scene in a different way. You never quite get the same version of him, because he's always aiming at something, no matter how low and ugly, and he means to hit it every time. And the humor.
This is the best Samuel L. Jackson has been in anything to me. Better than Jules Winnfield. Better than Mr. Glass. Better than Jesus in Die Hard. Better than A Time to Kill. Love to hate isn't the right phrase. You lose to hate Calvin Candie...you almost forget to hate him, until he reminds you. But Steven...you never forget with Steven. He's never anything short of scene-stealing. You try and figure out every smirk and groan and sneer while you're dying laughing, because he's the most bitter comedy gold of anything I've ever seen. Worse than Uncle Ruckus. The reason why he's overlooked?...It's like trying to give Michael Fassbender credit for Inglourious. Alright...but first you have to hit up Cristoph Waltz...then Melanie Laurent, then maybe even Diane Kruger or the big name, Brad Pitt. There's too much that was well done to pull this up out of it as the best.
Did Tarantino bite off more than he could chew? Without a doubt. He used up a lot of that goodwill and capital he had to get this through. I mean I completely understand why Will Smith said...nah I'm cool, JGL dipped, Borat dipped, Kurt Russell dipped...I get all of their choices to leave.
I get why this film would be so polarizing as well, and there isn't a good argument for this film to be the way it is. A black filmmaker could never get away with this. (Don't get me wrong, no one outside of Quentin really could) But a black filmmaker...never. This would be seen as hateful and angry. When I say Quentin used a lot of capital...it's not like people won't love this. Death Proof knocked him back more than this ever could. It's that the filmmaker would be on trial just as much as the film would. And if you flinched...if you abated and gave in to what other people would feel more comfortable with you saying in your film...then this would've been less for it. If you didn't have the sheen of a Tarantino, to pull in the talent that he did...then this would've been less for it. It would've been the film people say it is, if it wasn't so earnest and focused and of a singular voice. Now that's not to say Tarantino's brave or anything. I mean he's brave if he goes to the NAACP Image Awards this year, but that's about it. It's just...no one else would've had the juice, the balls and the clarity to make this.
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...because something like this might be okay, if a lot of other films had already preceded it, but they didn't.
It's mostly fine for Inglourious Basterds to trivialize and poke fun at Nazi-ism, because there have been dozens...maybe hundreds serious Holocaust and WWII films. But no black filmmaker could ever get the funding to make something like Django. They could never get the cast or the marketing push or even really the script to make this. They couldn't get the studio backing or distribution for a film like this and that's ******g aggravating. And no it's not Quentin's fault, but I think there's some LeBron syndrome in effect. Some "man you've got it so easy. You can do anything you want to. Why don't you just do it the way I want you to do it?" And that happens when you hear the n-word somewhere you don't think it was necessary...it happens when there's a KKK joke that really minimizes how terrible they were...it happens when Tarantino lingers on a black face in a way that maybe doesn't feel right, or when you stop and think...a white man made this. This isn't a black slave revenge fantasy, this is a white man's idea of a black slave revenge fantasy, where he thinks it's alright to have his actors say the n-word 200 times. I'm not saying it is, but I understand where they're coming from. There'd be room for this type of film if there were dozens of straight slave films, but the fact that no one has cared (outside of Roots and Amistad) about this type of film, and that in making a parody/fantasy, Tarantino has made the biggest slave film ever, is a really sad realization. It's like watching LeBron choose to go to the Heat on national TV. It's like if there was no Jay-Z, Tupac, Biggie, Kanye or Nas and Eminem came out with the biggest rap album of the decade called N-word, and it was all about him deconstructing it and really doing something creative with it. Yeah. And this isn't as deep or well made as Inglourious.
And no it's not fair to compare this to Inglourious Basterds. You could do that if this film was set 15 or 20 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, or if the film took place in the North with Django chasing ex-slavers in hiding. Because Inglourious was about fancy Nazi's trying to hide the monsters that they were. They never brought their revenge fantasy/spoof to the gas showers of the concentration camps. They didn't show Germans beating, raping, killing and dehumanizing Jews. They didn't show it. It's different, I know. These were organized, intelligent people who thought they weren't monsters, doing it to other organized intelligent people. American slavery was brutal, hick businessmen doing it to generationally uneducated, broken people. Tarantino had to reach just to get some type of fancy environment for his story.
Is it a compliment saying this makes me less uncomfortable than Blazing Saddles? Django doesn't do what it does for comedy...not for the most part. It tries to understand the specific type of uncomfortable-ness its subjects create and uses that to find the ironies, quirks and memorable set-pieces of that reality. It's not as deep as it could be, and a lot of it feels like wasted potential. But so much potential is tapped and so much of it works so damn well, that I can't help but love this film for what it is.
My audience clapped at the end. Most of them were white and you could feel a general, edgy unease throughout the whole film. I loved it and I think almost everyone who saw it really liked it too.
9.5/10 my favorite film of the year
Now I don't really know spaghetti westerns too much, so I'm happy I finally saw the whole Dollars trilogy last month to at least catch some of the references and imagery that Quentin used here. And it probably helps that I watched all of Roots for the first time a couple months ago after my friends told me I was ******g up as a black person, having never seen it before. nerd.gifgrin.gif This film wasn't what I wanted, until it had me wanting more of it every time it shifted into a new kind of film. If that makes any sense.
This is more Kill Bill than it is Inglourious.
Do you remember Tropic Thunder? When Robert Downey Jr. lost his mind, was in the zone and just killed a role in blackface? That's Django. It...like any Tarantino, is as much about the filmmaker as it is the film itself, but it's awesome. And he was in the zone. And all I could think is, could this movie never end? Because it's not one film. It's 4 films...with big sweeping arcs to each act that feel like entirely different movies. And the atmosphere it created. I remember tension in the theater with Inglourious Basterds. This was different. That was white guilt and cautious unease in my theater. Whether you hate what this film represents or not, you will never have a filmgoing experience like Django again, and you're a fool if you can like film or have an opinion on this and not go see the film.
No...it's not as polished as Inglourious was. You can feel it that this was a cutdown version of a longer movie. There are little character strands that don't go anywhere...shots of characters that make you curious, then disappear. But that's fine to me. If I can look past Avengers' editing, than this is nothing.
I've never seen anything like this in my life and I feel like I've been waiting for it. You could say this is Blazing Saddles 2, but ********. The cowboy in Blazing Saddles was more Bo Jangles than Jules Winnfield, like Django turned out to be. And it's not maudlin. It's not obsessed with the depressed reality of it all. I remember having a huge conversation with CP about Schindler's List vs. The Pianist and there's something special about rewatchability and making something painful accessible and small and focused. This is the extreme of that, in a way Inglourious couldn't be. This had slave whippings, torture, murder, exploitation (sexual, mental and violent), insidious and casual racism, dehumanization...a little bit of everything. But it never lost its focus. It'd wander around the corner to see what's happening, but it never lost it's gaze on Broomhilda, and everything Django and Dr. King (....laugh.gif) had to do to pull that one thing off.
Christoph Waltz is great like usual. He's the good guy for once, and in a way he's the main character of the first half of the movie. His quirks are so smoothed out and mannered, that it almost feels like Christoph just winged it brilliantly. He's the eccentric and Jamie's the straight man, and the sudden shift from the first movie, this film is to the 2nd, makes you wish there was another half hour to just soak that film in. And Kerry Washington. Way down in the hole of the great things about this movie is her. You could say she's wasted, but she's all this film needed her to be. In a way, Django and Broomhilda were foils, there to expose the truths about the people around them.
Watching the movie, I felt so reminded of Argo. Each step of the way, we get these little treatises on people acting their parts. People having to fit a role in a twisted world, from Calvin who was born into slave-owning to Django and King, who constantly have to find clever ways to get around people's perceptions of them, whether it be murderers or just a white man with a black walking into a bar for a drink. But the real treat...the real showstopper is Samuel L. Jackson. My god. I didn't even know he was in the film, until randomly I saw him pimping it on Letterman. Argo was about a world in flux. People who thought they were safe, having to take on identities on the fly to save their own lives and get to where they need to go...all culminating in the airport scene. This film is that on steroids. Except these people aren't in a world in flux. They're in a world bathed in hate, driving towards the heart of darkness, a Mississippi plantation in 1860. And the ways that Samuel L. Jackson twists and turns and so knowingly takes the most perfectly ugly indentity for each crowd...in every different situation. It's comic gold and brilliant acting. I mean I get it. I get why Leo is getting so much credit, because I guess it's brave, being the golden boy and taking such an ugly, despicable role...and making it charming and magnetic without losing the ugliness or the seriousness, but how is Sam L. getting left out? It's so much more than just an Uncle Tom role. He adjusts and attacks every single scene in a different way. You never quite get the same version of him, because he's always aiming at something, no matter how low and ugly, and he means to hit it every time. And the humor.
This is the best Samuel L. Jackson has been in anything to me. Better than Jules Winnfield. Better than Mr. Glass. Better than Jesus in Die Hard. Better than A Time to Kill. Love to hate isn't the right phrase. You lose to hate Calvin Candie...you almost forget to hate him, until he reminds you. But Steven...you never forget with Steven. He's never anything short of scene-stealing. You try and figure out every smirk and groan and sneer while you're dying laughing, because he's the most bitter comedy gold of anything I've ever seen. Worse than Uncle Ruckus. The reason why he's overlooked?...It's like trying to give Michael Fassbender credit for Inglourious. Alright...but first you have to hit up Cristoph Waltz...then Melanie Laurent, then maybe even Diane Kruger or the big name, Brad Pitt. There's too much that was well done to pull this up out of it as the best.
Did Tarantino bite off more than he could chew? Without a doubt. He used up a lot of that goodwill and capital he had to get this through. I mean I completely understand why Will Smith said...nah I'm cool, JGL dipped, Borat dipped, Kurt Russell dipped...I get all of their choices to leave.
I get why this film would be so polarizing as well, and there isn't a good argument for this film to be the way it is. A black filmmaker could never get away with this. (Don't get me wrong, no one outside of Quentin really could) But a black filmmaker...never. This would be seen as hateful and angry. When I say Quentin used a lot of capital...it's not like people won't love this. Death Proof knocked him back more than this ever could. It's that the filmmaker would be on trial just as much as the film would. And if you flinched...if you abated and gave in to what other people would feel more comfortable with you saying in your film...then this would've been less for it. If you didn't have the sheen of a Tarantino, to pull in the talent that he did...then this would've been less for it. It would've been the film people say it is, if it wasn't so earnest and focused and of a singular voice. Now that's not to say Tarantino's brave or anything. I mean he's brave if he goes to the NAACP Image Awards this year, but that's about it. It's just...no one else would've had the juice, the balls and the clarity to make this.
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...because something like this might be okay, if a lot of other films had already preceded it, but they didn't.
It's mostly fine for Inglourious Basterds to trivialize and poke fun at Nazi-ism, because there have been dozens...maybe hundreds serious Holocaust and WWII films. But no black filmmaker could ever get the funding to make something like Django. They could never get the cast or the marketing push or even really the script to make this. They couldn't get the studio backing or distribution for a film like this and that's ******g aggravating. And no it's not Quentin's fault, but I think there's some LeBron syndrome in effect. Some "man you've got it so easy. You can do anything you want to. Why don't you just do it the way I want you to do it?" And that happens when you hear the n-word somewhere you don't think it was necessary...it happens when there's a KKK joke that really minimizes how terrible they were...it happens when Tarantino lingers on a black face in a way that maybe doesn't feel right, or when you stop and think...a white man made this. This isn't a black slave revenge fantasy, this is a white man's idea of a black slave revenge fantasy, where he thinks it's alright to have his actors say the n-word 200 times. I'm not saying it is, but I understand where they're coming from. There'd be room for this type of film if there were dozens of straight slave films, but the fact that no one has cared (outside of Roots and Amistad) about this type of film, and that in making a parody/fantasy, Tarantino has made the biggest slave film ever, is a really sad realization. It's like watching LeBron choose to go to the Heat on national TV. It's like if there was no Jay-Z, Tupac, Biggie, Kanye or Nas and Eminem came out with the biggest rap album of the decade called N-word, and it was all about him deconstructing it and really doing something creative with it. Yeah. And this isn't as deep or well made as Inglourious.
And no it's not fair to compare this to Inglourious Basterds. You could do that if this film was set 15 or 20 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, or if the film took place in the North with Django chasing ex-slavers in hiding. Because Inglourious was about fancy Nazi's trying to hide the monsters that they were. They never brought their revenge fantasy/spoof to the gas showers of the concentration camps. They didn't show Germans beating, raping, killing and dehumanizing Jews. They didn't show it. It's different, I know. These were organized, intelligent people who thought they weren't monsters, doing it to other organized intelligent people. American slavery was brutal, hick businessmen doing it to generationally uneducated, broken people. Tarantino had to reach just to get some type of fancy environment for his story.
Is it a compliment saying this makes me less uncomfortable than Blazing Saddles? Django doesn't do what it does for comedy...not for the most part. It tries to understand the specific type of uncomfortable-ness its subjects create and uses that to find the ironies, quirks and memorable set-pieces of that reality. It's not as deep as it could be, and a lot of it feels like wasted potential. But so much potential is tapped and so much of it works so damn well, that I can't help but love this film for what it is.
My audience clapped at the end. Most of them were white and you could feel a general, edgy unease throughout the whole film. I loved it and I think almost everyone who saw it really liked it too.
9.5/10 my favorite film of the year
Last edited:
- 10,745
- 9,047
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2008
I like Tarintino films this one is kind of rubbing me the wrong way havent seen it yet been waiting to hear more about it
I'm a fan of Spike as a person and I know alot of people think he overreacts to things but I think dude is usually pretty spot on
I do agree there aint much to make a joke out of slavery with very touchy subject
I did however see someone in this thread say tarintino's approach to a movie about slavery is more realistic than what Spike wouldve done that may be the single most ignorant thing I've read on here in a while
but like someone said before me Spike has prolly seen more racism than most of us could imagine he has a different perspective
I'm a fan of Spike as a person and I know alot of people think he overreacts to things but I think dude is usually pretty spot on
I do agree there aint much to make a joke out of slavery with very touchy subject
I did however see someone in this thread say tarintino's approach to a movie about slavery is more realistic than what Spike wouldve done that may be the single most ignorant thing I've read on here in a while
but like someone said before me Spike has prolly seen more racism than most of us could imagine he has a different perspective
ssjjfar
Supporter
- 1,754
- 329
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
I think there was only one bullet in those out of sleeve guns.
Well he did same exact thing in Inglorious Bastards, with the whole Nazi thing, and having characters name "Jew-Bear", so I knew exactly what I was walking into with this.
Not trying compare the holocaust with slavery, but he did same thing in both his movies. Jewish soldiers killing Nazi's, former slave killing slave owners. So I guess just like I knew what this movie would be, so did everyone else, including Spike. So I can understand him not wanting to see the movie knowing this before hand. I only really don't like him trying to say what movies should or shouldn't be made based on his personal opinion.
- 21,798
- 3,548
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
Yeah...that was kinda weird. I don't think he had another gun, but my interpretation was that Dr. King metaphorically said, I'd rather die. So he did. And he gave the power (the narrative, the weight of the film) back to Django to make his own freedom. He had to die, to get out of Django's way and let him be his own hero. In a way...I saw him as Abraham Lincoln. Someone with views so foreign to the South at that time that he might as well not even be American. And that even though he gave Django his freedom, Django needed to fight for his own pride and family on his own.
Last edited:
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,211
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Nice, I'm glad people who saw this are critiquing it honestly. I had the same gripes but I didn't care. There were times i thought the movie was about to be over and it just got dragged along but not all in a negative way. I thought they should've made Kerry Washington's character more vocal, she went a little overboard with the damsel in distress demeanor.
Eg. when Sam Jackson was questioning her she could've been a little more convincing.
- 37,127
- 14,107
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
Awesome post and insight on that scene. I felt the same way.
Dr. Schultz knew he wasn't going to get out of that scenario alive, and if anyone was, it was going to be/deserved to be Django.
- 31
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
the mandigo fight scene was the only scene that had me alil on edge, it was raw and real. glad we don't live in those times anymore
- 19,398
- 899
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
I think one of the most overlooked scenes in this movie was Sam & Leo making Django see his wife's tattered back at the dinner table. I could be looking to deep into it but I thought that was such a great summary of America. Not wanting to look back. Not wanting to look at our past right in the eye and face it. Slavery is our history. Slavery is ugly. Our country wasn't built on great "Christian" traditions like we are taught. These are the backs that built America. That whole scene was disturbing and brillant.
- 5,686
- 529
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
True, but Sam Jackson is older than Spike and has worked on a bunch of movies with QT and Spike, so it's not like Spike has experienced the only racism around...he grew up in NYC while Sam is from DC I think. Jamie Foxx is only 10 yrs younger and grew up in Texas, so he's probably seen his fair share as well. Spike just has a very aggressive and somewhat divisive personality which probably effects him getting along with certain studios. Both guys make great movies, but Spike ain't no saint either, he called out Hollywood for being run by "Jews" before too and says Larry Bird is the most overrated player of all time
.
- 14,952
- 4,207
- Joined
- May 26, 2003
Thing is this was not meant to be a Biopic on a Slave named Django, you have idiots saying Roots >>>> DJango when they are not the same thing.
God I hate idiots.
God I hate idiots.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,211
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
I think people want to see a snuff film of black people getting fed to dogs and beating for 5 hours with no dialogue or entertainment value.