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

[big j 33]

Should I watch this or Les Mis?

This is coming from a guy who didnt like any of Tarantino's past works. Sin City was the only one that I thought was good, and I only think so cause of Jessica Alba.

Unless you're a big musical fan, I'd see this. Les Mis was fine but this is the better and more important film

 

[d0nny donowitz]

Not all audiences are the same, so of course you'll get some bad ones. Avoid the Friday/Saturday night crowd and you'll get a better experience. Teenagers, people there on dates who don't want to be there, annoying bros, etc. You can still get the theater audience experience on a Saturday or Sunday 2pm showing but you won't be in a jam packed theater with annoying, mouth breathing, phone texting, nimrods. 

Certain movies are enormously different in theater vs. at home. In a crowd vs. by yourself. Personally, I love seeing movies in theaters. Comedies in particular are far better in a crowd. And while I can exercise self-control at home, I like being in a theater with no option to check my phone, get on the computer, or other distractions that might happen elsewhere.

Home viewing has come a long way and I'm glad for it, but it's still not the same. A Tarantino movie in particular is worth the price of admission and the chance of having a bad audience.

Agreed. I saw Django @ 3 p.m. on a Sunday and it was a fantastic experience. Same goes for when I saw Basterds a couple years back

 

[luckyp824]

I liked it. Three hours long and I never got bored.

My two cents on the whole racist or not debate:

I can see your guy's point but I just don't think Quentin approached the film that way. You have black people upset that it was a white character that helped Django become free, and you have white people upset about how they are portrayed as well. 

The film's focus wasn't on making one race look bad or anything, despite what the character's themselves said, it was about slavery. The best way he could do that was to try to adjust our sights to slavery, by throwing in the likable white German character who despises  slavery and explicitly says that early on. That in itself made it less about race and more about culture and ideals. They had to do that because of the extreme lines and graphic scenes in there. There were glorification of lines like "kill white people and get paid for it?" leading to graphic images like Candie's sister getting her guts blown out and her body catapulted through the room, and the guy who said and did that actually being the hero of the film? Women in film usually don't get that sort of treatment, especially by the hero of the film(I can't even think of one movie). I'm sure it surprised each of us at least a little bit. It was shocking because Candie's sister was never actually made to look evil in the film, she was a very modest character who normally would have been spared, but Quentin had to kill her because he had to really line his sights on slavery and that every single person associated with it was taking part in something truly vile.

But he can't just have lines and extreme images like that in there without some counteracting force, all white people weren't like this, he had to make that distinction. It wasn't really about race, it was about values. In comes Walt'z character. He wasn't from there. He didn't belong to that culture. He despised it even. So the black and white duo killed every single person associated with slavery, in dramatic fashion. With that said, I can still give credence to the criticism though because it would have been interesting if Django was the sole agent in acquiring his freedom but then that would have been a completely different movie. The way Quentin did the film, in my opinion, was a good way of approaching this genre and topic. It completely denounced slavery in typical Tarantino fashion, was honest about the racial component in slavery, but still made it clear that it wasn't really about race, it was about values. I mean, it's hard to make a film as extreme as this on a subject as sensitive as this, but I think he actually pulled it off masterfully.

 

[deleted]

I went to see it a few days ago, GOOD movie imo. Sam. L reminded me of a real life Uncle Ruckus.

I'm so very tired of this comparison.

I'm not a Boondocks fan in the slightest though.

 

[thenewjs23]

I just watched it again and while it was good. There was something off the 1st time that I could not put my hand on. I got it the second time though. Django was initially to be played by Will Smith. I can tell cause I could see Will Smith in his acting.

 

[rook]

I'm VERY happy Will turned this role down. Jamie fit this role better.

Everytime I see Will in movies, I think of Fresh Prince. Where Jamie, it's different. I actually saw the character Django

 

[servechilled81]

I'm VERY happy Will turned this role down. Jamie fit this role better.

Everytime I see Will in movies, I think of Fresh Prince. Where Jamie, it's different. I actually saw the character Django

I feel like Will Smith would have been very extra, in his raised eyebrow, nudge nudge, wink wink "i'm being sarcastic" sort of way

I enjoyed Jamie Foxx and i'm not really a fan of his normally.

 

[jab step]

I feel like Will Smith would have been very extra, in his raised eyebrow, nudge nudge, wink wink "i'm being sarcastic" sort of way

I enjoyed Jamie Foxx and i'm not really a fan of his normally.

Michael K. Williams aka Omar from The Wire was considered for the part also. I think he would've totally killed it, but Jamie was good as well. Would've wanted Omar Little being Django though. How sick would that be 

. I guess he wasn't a big enough name compared to Jamie? 

 

[derryj3]

Should I watch this or Les Mis?

This is coming from a guy who didnt like any of Tarantino's past works. Sin City was the only one that I thought was good, and I only think so cause of Jessica Alba.

Tarintino directed literally one scene in that movie man.... lol

 

[D StaXX]

I'm glad Will wasn't in this movie also.
Jamie did his thing.

 

[mronegative]

I feel like Will Smith would have been very extra, in his raised eyebrow, nudge nudge, wink wink "i'm being sarcastic" sort of way
I enjoyed Jamie Foxx and i'm not really a fan of his normally.

Michael K. Williams aka Omar from The Wire was considered for the part also. I think he would've totally killed it, but Jamie was good as well. Would've wanted Omar Little being Django though. How sick would that be  . I guess he wasn't a big enough name compared to Jamie? 

Way I heard, since it'd take 6 months to film the movie, he couldn't do it with his Boardwalk Empire schedule. :\


...ill

 

[moiety]

Absolutely loved this movie. There are a TON of undertones and easter eggs that only Tarantino could pull off.

I don't understand the hate coming from some (not all) of you guys. It's a QT movie so I certainly hope you didn't expect it to be "normal".

I thought it was funny as hell QT had himself MURKED by that dynamite in his scene

 

[AEA18]

Speak my 2 cents before i even try to sift through all the pages of comments.


I went to see it a few days ago, GOOD movie imo. Sam. L reminded me of a real life Uncle Ruckus.

What I didnt like, People being able to bring their kids to the movie (ages 6-12ish) and the crowd being 96% caucasian and every time then "N" word is said laughter uproars. Seriously? I understand the comedic way it was portrayed at times but not EVERYTIME. Kind of made me sick. Is what it is though.... no way did it change how i felt about the movie, society or caucasians as a whole

People brought their kids too see Django

 

[b20 eg8]

When I went to see the film there was lady there with two kids as well. One was maybe 10 and the other was younger.

I was like :x

Half way through one of the kids said "I don't wanna see this movie anymore" She hit em with the "Shhhh"....... This same lady answered her phone and really was trying to have a conversation during the film with no damns whatsoever. I had to turn around and tell her to take it outside.

 

[agthekid]

Didn't really like the movie. probably was expecting too much from it.

Jamie did his thing though

 

[mrdozo]

When I went to see the film there was lady there with two kids as well. One was maybe 10 and the other was younger.
I was like :x
Half way through one of the kids said "I don't wanna see this movie anymore" She hit em with the "Shhhh"....... This same lady answered her phone and really was trying to have a conversation during the film with no damns whatsoever. I had to turn around and tell her to take it outside.

I cant stand irresponsible parents. Take them to see the muppets, not a quentin tarantino film about slavery and cowboys.

On a side note, I saw the film last night with the Mrs. And we were thoroughly impressed.

My only dissapointment is/was Tarantinos appearance. He cant act. Atleast do something like Stan Lee with 1-liners and youre gone.

But otherwise, this film is GREAT!. Yes its violent, yes the n-word was used alot, but its a western taking place during slavery. QT did not make this up, those types of things actually occured here in the USA. QT was not glorifying it or making fun of it, he showed a fairly accurate account of slavery and the use of language and abuse of people.

This might be my favorite Dicaprio role. And Christoph Waltz is great.

 

[CP1708]

Again, posted something in another thread, thought I would post it in here as well.

So, I watched Lincoln last night. And it may not come out how I intend, but I'll try to make my comments clear.

So, this comes out any other time, maybe I don't think about it. Maybe I just watch for the brilliance that was Daniel Day, and that's that.

But Django just came out 2 weeks ago. Spike Lee mad, this person mad, that person, people talkin, askin tough questions, people are uneasy.

Tarantino put a rather rough time in our countries history right in front of us. Tarantinoed it up a bit, added some blood, some giggles, some wonderful imagery, and some dialogue. Some great, some that hurts your ears. And he caught heat for it. Understandably.

But he put this issue of slavery at the fore. And he put a leader in front of it in Django. A face. A hero. Man tryin to save his wife.

Steven Spielberg is an equally thought of Director. He does Lincoln, right about the exact same time period as Django. The 1850's. And he uses the N word multiple times, over and over, maybe not numerically as much as Tarantino did, but plenty enough.

One difference. In a 2 and a half hour movie, it's all about a bunch of white wig wearin white folk arguin about slavery in a courtroom, and not a single black man is given the chance to say anything. I sat there last night, watched the whole thing, lookin....lookin....is someone gonna come in? Will a black man come in, and sort of give a speech, or perform a heroic act, or even just a small token gesture to make white men stand up and look at themselves?

Nope.

2 hours and 15 minutes in, he finally brings a couple of black men into the courthouse, to sit upstairs and watch, and watch only. While a bunch of white folk argue and fuss over whether those men should have the same rights as all others. With dialogue just as offensive, just with fewer colorful curse words, and all they do is sit up there. Then they get to hug and celebrate when slavery is voted down and the 13th amendment is passed. Might as well roll credits there.

So I ask. Why Tarantino gettin all this hate? He very clearly, honestly, put a rough time in full view for everybody, he showed whippings, the way they were treated, conditions they lived and suffered thru, and he gave them someone to come in and fight back. A voice. A name. A hero.

Speilberg put some token guys in a crowd, for 17 seconds of screen time. In a two hour, and 30 minute movie.


Now yes, in the opening 5 minutes, he had 2 black soldiers have a conversation with president Lincoln. That was a great scene, and I would have been very happy if that started the tone of the film, and it continuted in that manner, but it did not. Hell, the only other black male I saw til the hearing was a servant at the white house. Not a slave, but still someone to grab Abe's coat when he went out. A movie about the abolishing of slavery, and he hardly needed to cast a single black actor. And yet, Spike Lee says nothin. No one is angry with Steven. I don't understand.


Now, Tommy Lee Jones, Daniel Day Lewis, amazing. Truly fantastic performances. Sally Field had a couple of wonderful speeches delivered. But damn, Daniel Day.......that guy is ridiculous. The pace in which he spoke. The tone of his voice. His look, mannerisms, unreal. He alone was worth watching this movie, but I will never watch it again, ever.

I will watch Django multiple times in my life. 20-30 times I would imagine. And wonder why it was a better movie about slavery than the one made about abolishing it.

 

[cashbanks]

Cp thats real as hell bro repped

 

[Kimchi Papi]

For those interested, PBS just aired The Abolitionists as part of their American Experience series. I DVR;d it. I watched a little of it & will watch the rest of it this weekend.

Here's the link to PBS' site for those who care to watch it...Also if your interested, there's a great book on Lincoln called The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. It's a very interesting book.

Most people don't know he told racist jokes & often used the N word. I saw Lincoln solely because DDL but found it very flawed movie. The actors like CP1708 noted were on point.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/abolitionists/player/

 

[henz0]

@ the dudes reaction when they first walked in the bar, thought he was gonna fall off the table

 

[gatzbygordon]

after that first scene in lincoln i was pumped, like this was going to be powerful, but damn i had to fight to stay awake i made into maybe an hour and just shut it off...

what was the last movie about slavery?? roots? 

cmon now..i cant believe that they havent done anything to repay those folks ancestors...they can easily be found since they kept records of all sales..

the natives get money where i live...

my homies get 5 gs a month..more if you graduate high school they pay for your college and also help you get loans and whatnot..

not saying to give these people money but maybe something to let em know what their ancestors went through..all the records they have of that person..

the journey they took during slavery..

 

[blakep267]

Again, posted something in another thread, thought I would post it in here as well.

So, I watched Lincoln last night. And it may not come out how I intend, but I'll try to make my comments clear.

So, this comes out any other time, maybe I don't think about it. Maybe I just watch for the brilliance that was Daniel Day, and that's that.

But Django just came out 2 weeks ago. Spike Lee mad, this person mad, that person, people talkin, askin tough questions, people are uneasy.

Tarantino put a rather rough time in our countries history right in front of us. Tarantinoed it up a bit, added some blood, some giggles, some wonderful imagery, and some dialogue. Some great, some that hurts your ears. And he caught heat for it. Understandably.

But he put this issue of slavery at the fore. And he put a leader in front of it in Django. A face. A hero. Man tryin to save his wife.

Steven Spielberg is an equally thought of Director. He does Lincoln, right about the exact same time period as Django. The 1850's. And he uses the N word multiple times, over and over, maybe not numerically as much as Tarantino did, but plenty enough.

One difference. In a 2 and a half hour movie, it's all about a bunch of white wig wearin white folk arguin about slavery in a courtroom, and not a single black man is given the chance to say anything. I sat there last night, watched the whole thing, lookin....lookin....is someone gonna come in? Will a black man come in, and sort of give a speech, or perform a heroic act, or even just a small token gesture to make white men stand up and look at themselves?

Nope.

2 hours and 15 minutes in, he finally brings a couple of black men into the courthouse, to sit upstairs and watch, and watch only. While a bunch of white folk argue and fuss over whether those men should have the same rights as all others. With dialogue just as offensive, just with fewer colorful curse words, and all they do is sit up there. Then they get to hug and celebrate when slavery is voted down and the 13th amendment is passed. Might as well roll credits there.

So I ask. Why Tarantino gettin all this hate? He very clearly, honestly, put a rough time in full view for everybody, he showed whippings, the way they were treated, conditions they lived and suffered thru, and he gave them someone to come in and fight back. A voice. A name. A hero.

Speilberg put some token guys in a crowd, for 17 seconds of screen time. In a two hour, and 30 minute movie.


Now yes, in the opening 5 minutes, he had 2 black soldiers have a conversation with president Lincoln. That was a great scene, and I would have been very happy if that started the tone of the film, and it continuted in that manner, but it did not. Hell, the only other black male I saw til the hearing was a servant at the white house. Not a slave, but still someone to grab Abe's coat when he went out. A movie about the abolishing of slavery, and he hardly needed to cast a single black actor. And yet, Spike Lee says nothin. No one is angry with Steven. I don't understand.


Now, Tommy Lee Jones, Daniel Day Lewis, amazing. Truly fantastic performances. Sally Field had a couple of wonderful speeches delivered. But damn, Daniel Day.......that guy is ridiculous. The pace in which he spoke. The tone of his voice. His look, mannerisms, unreal. He alone was worth watching this movie, but I will never watch it again, ever.

I will watch Django multiple times in my life. 20-30 times I would imagine. And wonder why it was a better movie about slavery than the one made about abolishing it.

has anybody asked spike what he thought about lincoln? Ok then.

 

[CP1708]

has anybody asked spike what he thought about lincoln? Ok then.

Not tryin to get anyone riled up, was simply commenting on something I found interesting. If the two movies came out years apart, I wouldn't think nothin of it. But since they both out at the same time, I wonder why the bad pub for Django, but it's all good for Abe. That's all.

 

[deuce king]

has anybody asked spike what he thought about lincoln? Ok then.

Not tryin to get anyone riled up, was simply commenting on something I found interesting. If the two movies came out years apart, I wouldn't think nothin of it. But since they both out at the same time, I wonder why the bad pub for Django, but it's all good for Abe. That's all.

The image and what most deemed to be the "truthfulness" of the portrayal of black people in both movies is world's apart.  With that in mind, for those that have seen both movies which I have, I can see why Django had bad pub and Lincoln didn't. 

 

[antonlavey]

Not tryin to get anyone riled up, was simply commenting on something I found interesting. If the two movies came out years apart, I wouldn't think nothin of it. But since they both out at the same time, I wonder why the bad pub for Django, but it's all good for Abe. That's all.

Easy answer, Spike Lee is a hater. Dudes are gonna sit there and pretend the "nword" wasn't the most PC term to call black people back then. Aside from monkey, j****boo, etc THE NWORD was pretty much the standard term for black slaves.