RealGM

If this movie offends you then you gotta another thing coming. Seriously.
You probably are the types that are serious during a Dave CHappelle and Paul Mooney comedy act.

The movie basically is a satirical take on how stupid those racist white folk were back in the day...

Most of the black people / slaves were as serious as can be..

Rasho Brezec wrote:I hope people will be as enraged next year when Spike Lee ruins the art of Korean revenge movies with his remake of Oldboy.

They arent remaking the film. The are adapting the manga that the korean film is based On.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Spike is missing out..

Oscirus wrote:Stephen was a kiss ass hypeman who was nowhere near as evil as SLJ likes to think and Django pretty much relied on Schultz to get his bride. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the movie but let's not pretend this was anything other then tarantino using a gimmick for his spaghetti western

Huh?

Sprewell4Three wrote:If this movie offends you then you gotta another thing coming. Seriously.
You probably are the types that are serious during a Dave CHappelle and Paul Mooney comedy act.

The movie basically is a satirical take on how stupid those racist white folk were back in the day...

Most of the black people / slaves were as serious as can be..

Exactly! Even King, a clever and calculated character, is outsmarted by Samuel L's character. None of the brutality toward slaves was made light...there were jokes at the expense of the racist characters throughout but that's about it.

j4remi wrote:

Jmonty580 wrote:

j4remi wrote:How did it make a joke of it? The jokes were always focused on mocking the slave owners' ignorance. The two most intelligent characters in the flick are slaves that take advantage of their "owners" to a point where Dr. King goes on a suicide mission and Stephen is the real decision maker over Candie. When the violence happens it's gritty and horrific to a massive degree too.

Mostly of slave like situations. I dont know, the movie is half comedy half super hero to me. Something about taking something like slavery and turning it into that type of a movie was just slightly uncomfortable. Im sure its refreshing for a bunch seeing Django get revenge on slave owners.

I honestly didnt have any problems with the movie, but I can see why some would. It makes entertainment and light of something that alot of people are still very emotional about.

Honest question, did you think the same thing of Inglorious Basterds? In Django he actually shows the brutality toward the slaves in a very visceral manner...in IB you never even get exposed to the horrors that Jewish people faced...so which is worse?

Never seen it.

Governor Dudley wrote:

Rasho Brezec wrote:I hope people will be as enraged next year when Spike Lee ruins the art of Korean revenge movies with his remake of Oldboy.

They arent remaking the film. The are adapting the manga that the korean film is based On.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Just got a look at some major spoilers...never read the manga, did see the movie and this remake is absolutely gonna ruin it.

I Saw Django and I liked it. I've liked Tarentino's past work, with the Kill Bills, and Ingl Basterds was alright.

I'm all for action and violent movies, but even for myself there were certain parts that were a little too much.

For anyone who has seen it, the dogs part was too much.

Well, he's probably mad that QT will go down as a great,
and although he's done some good stuff,
he comes off as a whiner and someone who is not all that interested in anyone else's opinion.

Gee, Spike, Jamie Foxx was okay with it, so you can can it.

I actually was surprised at how little gore there was in this movie. Seemed like QT was much more tame because of the controversial subject matter, or he went way too over the top and had to edit out a ton of stuff. Cut away when D'artagnan rips the other fighter's eyes out of his socket, cut away to Candie and Django staring at each other during the dog scene, it's not Foxx's dick that Billy Crash molests, nothing is shown when Crash is dismembered, Leo has the least violent QT death outside of Bill in Kill Bill, Schultz somehow doesn't split in two when he takes an 8-gauge shotgun to the chest, and no bone is shown protruding out of the leg when Stephen is "knee-capped" twice.

j4remi wrote:

Sprewell4Three wrote:If this movie offends you then you gotta another thing coming. Seriously.
You probably are the types that are serious during a Dave CHappelle and Paul Mooney comedy act.

The movie basically is a satirical take on how stupid those racist white folk were back in the day...

Most of the black people / slaves were as serious as can be..

Exactly! Even King, a clever and calculated character, is outsmarted by Samuel L's character. None of the brutality toward slaves was made light...there were jokes at the expense of the racist characters throughout but that's about it.

Just saw it. I'm not offended by the movie. But I get why Spike said he wouldn't see it. To me, QT's movies are all fluff. Or pulp. It's just cheap blood and guts revenge with lighthearted comedic touches. To tell that kind of story against the backdrop of something as serious and stark as slavery is absolutely offensive IMO. I'm just not sure many people in the world still care, and I personally am way too thick skinned and jaded to GAF.

To me the real story is that somebody in this thread said it wasn't as gory as expected. Spoiler alert: Just about every last character is murdered. And those that aren't are shot a dozen times for effect. Also, do slave owners need to be satirized in 2013? Don't we already understand how ridiculous those people were?

I'm glad I saw it, glad QT made it, but it was pretty much exactly what I expected with very little surprise and very much gratuitous hero gore.

cgmw wrote:

j4remi wrote:
Exactly! Even King, a clever and calculated character, is outsmarted by Samuel L's character. None of the brutality toward slaves was made light...there were jokes at the expense of the racist characters throughout but that's about it.

Just saw it. I'm not offended by the movie. But I get why Spike said he wouldn't see it. To me, QT's movies are all fluff. Or pulp. It's just cheap blood and guts revenge with lighthearted comedic touches. To tell that kind of story against the backdrop of something as serious and stark as slavery is absolutely offensive IMO. I'm just not sure many people in the world still care, and I personally am way too thick skinned and jaded to GAF.

To me the real story is that somebody in this thread said it wasn't as gory as expected. Spoiler alert: Just about every last character is murdered. And those that aren't are shot a dozen times for effect. Also, do slave owners need to be satirized in 2013? Don't we already understand how ridiculous those people were?

I'm glad I saw it, glad QT made it, but it was pretty much exactly what I expected with very little surprise and very much gratuitous hero gore.

Here's a definite props to QT thing...the two most brutal scenes where I had the most trouble looking at the screen were the ones where he took the camera off the actual action...he forced you to imagine it.

Satirizing slave owners isn't necessary, but is a satire ever actually called for? Making a mockery of slave owners and racists is fine by me...And the brutality toward the slaves was visceral and could possibly give a new generation an opportunity to understand just how harshly the slaves were treated. At no point is slavery itself taken lightly. I think the best dialogues in the movies were

1) the discussion about Django being a free man but not being treated like a free man.
2) Candie's insane justification for slavery.

I understand people feeling that the tone of the movie wasn't suitable for it's plot but only to an extent...and I don't think he took slavery lightly at all.

Yeah, that's a good point about informing another generation. As a Jew, I definitely raised an eyebrow at Inglorious B. Especially the silly ending. It's tricky territory when you've actually met people (and are related to them!) who suffered through unimaginable sh*t. Nothing in either movie is remotely unsympathetic to Jews or African-Americans, but then again both movies can arguably be categorized as comedies or maybe even farce. I don't know how my dead grandmother would have reacted to seeing a gory adventure comedy about a Jew Hunter, but then again she survived Hogan's Heroes just fine.

Personally, Django was straight up entertainment. I rolled my eyes like a good movie snob when Django mowed down twelve white guys or when special cameo actors explode, but it was good fun.

I do think there were touches of historical accuracy that people can learn from. But for a major budget movie set in slavery, they'd be hard pressed to spend any less time or money on depicting the realities. To me, the love vengeance/rescue story is so played out that I never once felt any emotional connection to Django and Hildy.

About as much as I felt for Mario and the princess in Donkey Kong. Or the Kung Fu guy and his girlfriend in the classic nintendo game Kung Fu.

Also I think it cheapened the Kristof Waltz character that he basically played the opposite as the character from Ingolorious Basterds. I pretty much understood from the get go that his character was going to be some kind of race martyr.

Again, this underscores the point that QT's style of broad strokes with minimal emotional connection might not be everyone's cup of tea when dealing with highly charged emotional subject matter.

Yeah, it was definitely a cliched story with the only twist being that it was slavery...Imo, the inaccuracy of IB was worse than this one...the opening scene of IB showed that QT could have really gone for something with greater depth on that one. I think if you really analytically approach Django though, there are some themes and symbols that run deeper (Dr. King being a symbol for white guilt; the whole Stephen dynamic raising the question of who truly owns who by the end of the film; etc.)...With IB, I don't see any deeper meanings, jut a revenge flick...a Kill Bill set in a dark time where he rewrites his own history. My hope with both IB and Django though is that the generation X'ers who hardly even realize that racism was powerful and fairly blatant even in the 80's, or that there are Jewish people living today who can tell stories about the atrocities they've faced, might actually turn around and look into these things further. One thing about QT's boldness is that he scratches at things a lot of people would much rather brush under the table. In that respect, without my researching this I'll guess that he's had the biggest movies acknowledging the holocaust or slavery since Schindler's List (Might be that Italian movie on a critical scale but popularity wise) and Roots (Rosewood was set well past slavery and was a commercial flop).

Even if people don't like what he did with those films, at least he's willing to acknowledge them. I also find it funny when people claim he's racist...His youth was surrounded by every race especially black people, hence his deep affinity for blaxploitation films. It's an uninformed opinion. Whether he's TOO comfortable with them, maybe that's a different story.

j4remi wrote:

Oscirus wrote:Stephen was a kiss ass hypeman who was nowhere near as evil as SLJ likes to think and Django pretty much relied on Schultz to get his bride. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the movie but let's not pretend this was anything other then tarantino using a gimmick for his spaghetti western

Nah, Stephen runs the show. He raised Candie, he played at being weak to make Candie feel in control but every bad deed Candie does once Stephen's in the picture is thanks to Stephen. He's the one who figures out the plan, he's the one tells Candie about it and gets him into the mode to get revenge...he plays dude the whole way. The dropping of the cane is symbolic as hell in that regard.

In this movie, I thought Stephen was viewed a wiser man than Candie, because Stephen is older, and in this situation, has more chemistry with the slaves.

I still thought he was a "kiss ass" who showed too much loyalty to his master/former master.

Spoiler alert: That scene when Candie Ddes, Stephan bursts out crying and screaming, which my entire theater thought was hilarious. I thought it was funny too, but it pissed me off to see Stephan's loyalty.

I did enjoy Django. I will probably watch it a few more times once it comes out on Blu-Ray/DVD. Like most Tarantino movies for me, they get better the more I watch them.

I do not really think Tarantino is a racist. He just does not care. People of all races use the n-word like it is nothing. I never thought Tarantino made blacks in particular look bad. If you get offended easily, he pretty much makes all races look bad.

Tarentino clearly has ADD. He's a dude. He likes explosions, blood splatter, cool weapons, violent killings, more violent killings, catchy songs, cool panoramas, action camera shots, provokative ladies, bare balls, and will go out of his way to find outrageous ways to display violence. What he doesn't do is create any sort of emotional depth to his characters. I think he tries, but IMO fails almost completely. Instead what you get is a bunch of cool stuff overlaying a simple, often cliched, and entirely predictable hollywood plot line.

For a cool movie with no emotional depth, I think Django does in fact cheapen the unfathomable emotional significance of slavery. Problem is, nobody will go see a movie that conveys the true emotional depth of such a serious and depressing subject. Remi, I think you're right that Django if nothing else reaches a wide audience and gets them thinking and talking. But IMO it reaches a wide audience the same way as a blurb on the wrapper of a Big Mac or McRib.

Ok, maybe a Wendy's Baconator. Those things are amazing.

Just saying, no movie review would be complete without mentioning that the white male filmaker felt compelled to use a big fake black c*ck & balls in a castration scene.

Did anyone else catch the size of the fro on the bottom of Django's nutsack? Wow.

cgmw wrote:Tarentino clearly has ADD. He's a dude. He likes explosions, blood splatter, cool weapons, violent killings, more violent killings, catchy songs, cool panoramas, action camera shots, provokative ladies, bare balls, and will go out of his way to find outrageous ways to display violence. What he doesn't do is create any sort of emotional depth to his characters. I think he tries, but IMO fails almost completely. Instead what you get is a bunch of cool stuff overlaying a simple, often cliched, and entirely predictable hollywood plot line.

For a cool movie with no emotional depth, I think Django does in fact cheapen the unfathomable emotional significance of slavery. Problem is, nobody will go see a movie that conveys the true emotional depth of such a serious and depressing subject. Remi, I think you're right that Django if nothing else reaches a wide audience and gets them thinking and talking. But IMO it reaches a wide audience the same way as a blurb on the wrapper of a Big Mac or McRib.

Ok, maybe a Wendy's Bacon Cheeseburger. Those things are amazing.

I wouldn't argue about QT being more glamor and less depth with most characters...In Reservoir Dogs and in True Romance (which he wrote), I think you could connect with characters more than in his works since mainly because he introduces a ton of characters instead of building a small core of strong ones. His most developed characters are ALWAYS his villains and the strongest emotion you get is a serious dislike for those characters whereas rather than relating to most of his protagonists, you just kinda think "that's a cool ass character."

However, I don't think his inability to create a powerful emotional connection cheapens slavery...I just don't. If you didn't feel disgusted by Candie and Stephen, sympathetic toward Dartanian and Hilda or at least some admiration for Django and Schultz...Well then yeah the impact of his narrative is lessened...but I doubt anyone will forget the dog scene, the mandingo fight or the whip scars. Had he built a stronger love story (and I admire his attempt this time what with Django picturing her and a damn good performance from Washington) then yes, the emotional impact would match the visual impact...but I don't think it cheapens it. That's pretty harsh imo.

As far as the attention to slavery being equivalent to a snapple fact, no way. Just the fact that you have Spike Lee and some others complaining about it, this takes on a whole new significance. Anyone who takes a while to look up if that's really how slaves were treated (something I could picture happening at least to some extent in this wikipedia age we live in) is going to feel things that QT couldn't manage in his script. Granted, slavery was more a back drop and the themes of Django focused more on love story and action scenes...but just calling attention to it for almost three hours and reminding people that it was THAT UGLY gives it some kind of impact. I think one issue here, which easily could lead to complaints and being offended, is that there's no real message about slavery in the flick besides "it's bad." But what statements about slavery are there to be made? That's partially why it's such a difficult topic. Plus, like you said, if someone tried to make a movie that matches the serious and depressing points of slavery...they likely wouldn't get any production money. I don't know that anyone could make a script that could ever actually live up to all that.

An Aside: I think it's interesting that there was no outcry over the Catcher Freeman episode of Boondocks in light of how offended people have been about this having a lot of comedy in it. That episode was all jokes, had no real depth and dealt with slavery as well...I guess smaller audience = less reaction.