CurlTalk

Django

scrillsscrills Posts: 6,700Registered Users
What did you think? Liked? Loved it? Hated it?


Everyone I was with LOVED it. To me, there were some parts that were hard to watch. Seeing a clip of an interview with Leonardo, Jamie and Quentin made me feel a little better because they said that it was supposed to do that. So, ok at least I'm not crazy.

I've heard some complaints about it being historically inaccurate. Thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Hit you back the wknd after next

  • theliothelio Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    I liked it. everyone i was with liked it. everyone in the theater seemed to like it. its not suppose to be a historical drama, kinda like inglorious basterds. i thought it was done well and very QT.
  • webjockeywebjockey Posts: 2,786Registered Users
    I haven't as yet but hubby did.

    Re: the historical stuff, you may want to check out his review. He's a scholar and has written extensively about Texas slavery & slave trade.
    hello.world.
  • theliothelio Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    on and just an FYI, its based on a western called django at the time considered the most violent movie ever made.
  • PearlsForCurlsPearlsForCurls Posts: 86Registered Users
    Most of it seemed pretty accurate to me. It was amazing. Didn't even care it was almost three hours long. I saw an interview with Quentin and he said that he wanted to open the door to more films involving slavery. He said that other disasters and historical events (like the Holocaust) come out with movies every year or so, but society tends to "ignore" certain aspects of history like slavery. Great stuff.
    Transitioned from Dec 2011-Jul 2012

    Now fully natural!:thumbright:

    One year anniversary: Dec 28, 2012

    Curl Type: The type that curls kinkily.
    Products: Tresemme Naturals, Trader Joe's Tea Tree Tingle Condit., Coconut Oil


    "Wait, I'm doing it wrong!"
  • theliothelio Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    webjockey wrote: »
    I haven't as yet but hubby did.

    Re: the historical stuff, you may want to check out his review. He's a scholar and has written extensively about Texas slavery & slave trade.

    that was an interesting read. He made some very good points. I would love to see a film made about the real slave revolts. I want a film about Nat Turner!

    another FYI: this is the second in QT's killing Crow's trilogy, the third will feature black ww2 soldiers seeking revenge.
  • gemidevigemidevi Posts: 510Registered Users
    I loved it! Of course the action and reactions were 'exaggerated' but that is QT's style. However, the story really pointed to a very ignorant time in our history. At some points the movie dragged on, but overall I loved it.
    *disclaimer* spelling, grammatical and psychological errors are for your enjoyment. :)
  • CocoTCocoT Posts: 5,330Registered Users
    I liked it. I dont think it was 100% historically accurate but I dont think that should take away from the movie at all. It is fiction and I wasn't expecting it to be like an informational historical documentary or a biography.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using CurlTalk App
    11.gif
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
    -Albert Einstein
    Discounts:iHerb: EZA283 for $5 off!, OCO522 for $10 off first purchase | Komaza Care Referral Code: J5Q362VG
  • scrillsscrills Posts: 6,700Registered Users
    webjockey wrote: »
    I haven't as yet but hubby did.

    Re: the historical stuff, you may want to check out his review. He's a scholar and has written extensively about Texas slavery & slave trade.

    Thanks. It seems like his criticism was that it didn't have any children in the movie and it didn't speak to the things he wanted QT to talk about. I don't know if that makes it inaccurate.

    I did notice that there were few (if any) fair-skinned blacks. Most were medium or dark. I found that interesting.
  • luvmylocsluvmylocs Posts: 7,578Registered Users
    ill respond at home when i can copy and paste what i said on a friends fb post about the movie.
    a dreamy pisces :fish:
    please recycle, it matters...
    i change lives...through fitness
    i'm more relaxed being natural
  • WiregirlWiregirl Posts: 1,695Registered Users
    I loved it!
  • luvmylocsluvmylocs Posts: 7,578Registered Users
    it seemed like tarantino tried to make some serious things comical. spike lee said he felt the movie was disrespectful to slavery. when i first saw that spike lee had commented i wondered if it was like his beef with tyler perry. after seeing the movie i just didn't like the way it played out. i did hear that tarantino wanted to give a portrayal of what a slave would do if he had the opportunity (i.e. to show these slave owners a thing or two) but it just missed the mark for me. now, i do think jamie foxx, samuel jackson, kerry washington and many others in the film did do a good job with the acting. it was an interesting story, just one that left me a bit uneasy and it was so far from what would have really happened in that time. (i.e. slaves didn't ride off into the sunset with their loves. they were brutally killed, tortured and maimed. their lives had no value). it was almost a fantasy movie.

    my friend presented the argument that the movie was designed to show that 1) blacks can love deeply and 2) they can be equals (like how jamie was the german guys real partner) and that 3) white folks aren't the only "evil" ones from that time (samuel jacksons character caused so much drama.

    some scenes were hard to watch, the dogs attacking the man, the fighting/wrestling scene, kerry washington getting lashes and having that water poured on her.
    a dreamy pisces :fish:
    please recycle, it matters...
    i change lives...through fitness
    i'm more relaxed being natural
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users
    I liked the movie. The characters are some of the most complex of any Tarantino movie I've seen (have never seen Pulp Fiction or the vampire western movie he was involved in).

    Kerry Washington plays a complex character simply (haha) because black female characters aren't often portrayed as anything other than strong, mammy, Jezebel, Sapphire, or if whatever. Otherwise her character was an agencyless woman. But ain't nobody more lacking of agency than a black female slave in early America.....except for perhaps a black male slave or Native.

    I went to the bathroom at the dogs scene. One because I had to pee, but two I knew what was coming and didn't want to see it. There were many difficult to watch scenes in the movie. Women getting beaten and branded? Yeah. People fighting to the death for sport. The brothel.

    I appreciated how every plantation was different. That's pretty consistent with history. Some masters were kinder than others. Some were sicker than others. All were wrong for owning people.

    The n word didn't bother me in this movie anymore than it would in reading Huckleberry Finn. Um, those were the times.

    The violence was excessive, but purposeful in my opinion. Nobody was whining in Training Day, Glory, Roots or its sequels, or The Help.

    I had more of a problem with The Help (still haven't seen it) because it masquerades as the truth and/ or for whatever reason people want to believe it's true. Django Unchained does not. Sure, slavery is treated in a brutal way here, but it was. So was Jim Crow era Mississippi, but I believe from my reading of The Help the ending was almost as fantastical as Django.

    It is one of Tarantino's better movies as far as character development goes, but not my favorite overall. Like Inglorious Basterds, it is not something I would watch over and over and over necessarily, but then I do have that on dvd (and rarely watch it).

    Spike Lee should take a seat or two and just make a movie on the topic instead of doing what is starting to become his m.o.

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • theliothelio Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    curlyarca i have to agree with you on the characters. QT is getting better at developing more complex characters. i think kerry washtington did a great job.

    vampire western? are you thinking about from dusk til dawn that he wrote and his bff robert rodriquez directed? its an awesome movie and i recommend it!
  • MojoDojoMojoDojo Posts: 702Registered Users
    It kind of made light of a serious issue, but for the pure entertainment value, it wasn't bad. I tried to look at it in the same way I looked at Inglorious *******s.

    It did drag on in places. It could have been 1/2 hour shorter, and still had the character development, fight scenes, and important stuff, in my opinion.

    While I wasn't bothered by the use of the N word (it was used at the time), I do think they probably over-used it.

    Kerry Washington and Jamie Foxx acted out their parts very well. Christoph Waltz was good for the character he was portraying. I was less thrilled by Leonardo DiCaprio.

    The explosion at the end would have been smaller with the amount of dynamite. Remember that these weren't gas heated houses, so there's no gas line to blow up. Even the inclusion of the lamp oil wouldn't have made it THAT BIG of an explosion. But hey, people love their gigantic explosions, so they can have it. *shrug*
    I AM THE NEANDERTHAL SLAYER!!!
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users
    thelio wrote: »
    curlyarca i have to agree with you on the characters. QT is getting better at developing more complex characters. i think kerry washtington did a great job.

    vampire western? are you thinking about from dusk til dawn that he wrote and his bff robert rodriquez directed? its an awesome movie and i recommend it!

    Yes, that. I can never remember the name.

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users
    I think he almost had to put crazy jokes in it because 1 it's a Tarantino film and 2 he had to somehow balance the brutalness of slavery and help assauge any guilt members of the audience may have. Kind of why slavery movies almost always have one good white person in them.

    What I liked about Dr. Schultz is he starts off thinking he knows everything about brutality and realizes that he was really only seeing the tip of the iceberg of slavery's brutality.

    I thought Leonardo DiCaprio did a great job. He gets better and better with age.

    Every time I mention this movie to my office mate (even before I saw it) she changes the subject. LOL

    I almost did not go see this movie because I knew it was going to be a Tarantino slavery movie. But I did not have as much hesitation to see Inglorious Basterds.....and that's when I knew I should go see Django Unchained.

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • scrillsscrills Posts: 6,700Registered Users
    I realized what i didn't like about the movie. I didn't like that django didn't form any typebif relationship with the other slaves. Broomhilda does count. I was disappointed that he didn't help those on the way to the mine the way the doc helped the slaves in the first scene. He didn't even connect with the slave who showed him around big dadddys.

    Sent from my SPH-D710 using CurlTalk App
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users
    That's true. I was surprised by that near the end, but I interpreted it as him being singularly focused on getting to his wife. I think a lot of slaves probably felt that way. Kind of how Broomhilda said to Dr. Schultz that she didn't have any friends when he said a friend was in Candyland to help her. Just one (or two) against everything else.

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • ajd25ajd25 Posts: 119Registered Users
    Did anyone mention or wonder how a lot if the slave women got their hair the way they did in the film? I know I was curious.
  • dramaqueen04dramaqueen04 Banned Posts: 66Banned Users
    I've had an opportunity to see it, but I wanted to wait for my SO to come with me.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]I am not a drama queen; I am a drama princess!
  • geekygeeky Posts: 4,995Registered Users
    I just saw it. I liked it. As far as historical accuracy, it's a Tarantino movie. If you want historical accuracy, go see "Lincoln". It is clearly a revenge fantasy, just like Inglorious Basterds was, and that is fine with me. But despite the inaccuracy and the over-the top violence and explosions that are Tarantino trademarks, I thought it was a good film. I thought the actors were all terrific. I enjoyed the cameos. I also thought QT did a great job juxtaposing the supposed refinement of these great southern plantations with the inhuman brutality that all that refinement was built on. And highlighted how everyone involved in the system was implicated in it (like Candie's sister, for example).
    To Trenell, MizKerri and geeky:
    I pray none of you ever has to live in a communist state.

    Geeky is my hero. She's the true badass. The badass who doesn't even need to be a badass. There aren't enough O's in cool to describe her.
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    I liked it a lot but it dragged at times.

    Django was out for self bc he had to be. He prbly would have shot Schultz in the back if it came down to it. Slaves were pawns of their master and couldn't be trusted to have each other's back. Hell, in the Nfighting scene, they were charged w literally killing each other.

    The brutality of this movie will haunt me for a long time.

    It was like some kind of really demented fantasy w a lot of bizarre Tarantino fetish thrown in.

    Not to be crass but were those really Jamie Foxx's balls when he was upside down?

    And do you think he consented to having the crowns on his front teeth changed just for the movie? Or was it just some kind of optical illusion?

    About the slave women's hair: I don't think that it was really supposed to be looking any kind of way. it was just supposed to be slaves' hair...natural hair that they styled whatever way they could.

    I have always said Samuel L Jackson is one of our time's most underrated actors. And I now feel that Jamie Foxx is also. They were both really outstanding. Actually everyone was.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using CurlTalk App

  • kaybkayb Posts: 5,054Registered Users
    I liked it a lot but it dragged at times.

    Django was out for self bc he had to be. He prbly would have shot Schultz in the back if it came down to it. Slaves were pawns of their master and couldn't be trusted to have each other's back. Hell, in the Nfighting scene, they were charged w literally killing each other.

    The brutality of this movie will haunt me for a long time.

    It was like some kind of really demented fantasy w a lot of bizarre Tarantino fetish thrown in.

    Not to be crass but were those really Jamie Foxx's balls when he was upside down?

    And do you think he consented to having the crowns on his front teeth changed just for the movie? Or was it just some kind of optical illusion?

    About the slave women's hair: I don't think that it was really supposed to be looking any kind of way. it was just supposed to be slaves' hair...natural hair that they styled whatever way they could.

    I have always said Samuel L Jackson is one of our time's most underrated actors. And I now feel that Jamie Foxx is also. They were both really outstanding. Actually everyone was.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using CurlTalk App

    Beyoncesipstea.gif
    I ain't thirsty. There's plenty of fish in the sea, but I don't want all of them, can I have some standards? Or do we just have to settle, for someone's who meh and will do.
    "
  • LotsawavesLotsawaves Posts: 8,660Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    I saw it on Saturday. I loved it.
    From Michael Berg:

    Every person has a unique connection to the Creator that can never be extinguished, and every person has a great soul that can manifest important things in our world. To make a person feel less than they are because of something inside themselves, be it faith, race, or sexual orientation, is the greatest sin of all."
  • theliothelio Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    I liked it a lot but it dragged at times.

    Django was out for self bc he had to be. He prbly would have shot Schultz in the back if it came down to it. Slaves were pawns of their master and couldn't be trusted to have each other's back. Hell, in the Nfighting scene, they were charged w literally killing each other.

    The brutality of this movie will haunt me for a long time.

    It was like some kind of really demented fantasy w a lot of bizarre Tarantino fetish thrown in.

    Not to be crass but were those really Jamie Foxx's balls when he was upside down?

    And do you think he consented to having the crowns on his front teeth changed just for the movie? Or was it just some kind of optical illusion?

    About the slave women's hair: I don't think that it was really supposed to be looking any kind of way. it was just supposed to be slaves' hair...natural hair that they styled whatever way they could.

    I have always said Samuel L Jackson is one of our time's most underrated actors. And I now feel that Jamie Foxx is also. They were both really outstanding. Actually everyone was.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using CurlTalk App

    first bolded:

    that's what i thought. i think it took schultz killing candie for django to really see he was on his side adn trying to help him. have anyman helping him was a strange concept to him and all he cared about was getting back the one person in the world who he knew did care about him. no time for frienships.

    second bolded:

    was his teeth crowned? i never really loked at jamie foxx that hard to notice.

    third bolded: sammy dont get no respect!! i think jamie is more respected in the acting world. he does have 1 academy and 2 nominations to show for his talent. sammy got nothing!! has people not seen pulp fiction? black snake moan? jungle fever? the man is awesome!
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    thelio wrote: »
    I liked it a lot but it dragged at times.

    Django was out for self bc he had to be. He prbly would have shot Schultz in the back if it came down to it. Slaves were pawns of their master and couldn't be trusted to have each other's back. Hell, in the Nfighting scene, they were charged w literally killing each other.

    The brutality of this movie will haunt me for a long time.

    It was like some kind of really demented fantasy w a lot of bizarre Tarantino fetish thrown in.

    Not to be crass but were those really Jamie Foxx's balls when he was upside down?

    And do you think he consented to having the crowns on his front teeth changed just for the movie? Or was it just some kind of optical illusion?

    About the slave women's hair: I don't think that it was really supposed to be looking any kind of way. it was just supposed to be slaves' hair...natural hair that they styled whatever way they could.

    I have always said Samuel L Jackson is one of our time's most underrated actors. And I now feel that Jamie Foxx is also. They were both really outstanding. Actually everyone was.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using CurlTalk App

    first bolded:

    that's what i thought. i think it took schultz killing candie for django to really see he was on his side adn trying to help him. have anyman helping him was a strange concept to him and all he cared about was getting back the one person in the world who he knew did care about him. no time for frienships.

    second bolded:

    was his teeth crowned? i never really loked at jamie foxx that hard to notice.

    third bolded: sammy dont get no respect!! i think jamie is more respected in the acting world. he does have 1 academy and 2 nominations to show for his talent. sammy got nothing!! has people not seen pulp fiction? black snake moan? jungle fever? the man is awesome!

    Yeah, Jamie Foxx (and Denzel) have those big Chiclet type crowns on their front teeth to close in big front gaps they used to have and were self conscious about.

    But in the movie, Django had a small gap btwn his front teeth and his front teeth were chipped in the middle. Not his regular huge white teeth.

  • kaybkayb Posts: 5,054Registered Users
    I do not agree with the generalisation that slaves could not be trusted to have each others back. This essentially says that the concepts of friendship and loyalty was completely absent from plantation life. It reduces slaves to what they were seen as property. All of whom lacked the basic capacity to trust another human being and fight for them if needed.

    To use the Mandingo fighting seen as an example is not sufficient. This was a situation of fight or die, which was demonstrated later in the movie. If I was tasked with fighting to survive and having to kill another man to do it I sure as hell might. I'm not going to stand there and go, "but he's just like me."

    We also need to remember that these fighters were from different plantations and therefore probably never knew each other. I'm sure there was some degree of solidarity for the fact that they we both slaves and that one of them had to die, but I liken it to the gladiators, someone had to die but that doesn't mean there is no sense of apology for having to kill you inherent to the process.

    Essentially, that statement just not sit well with me. it's just like we are trying to reduce every single human being to rational, self interest, profit maximising agents, ignoring the intricacies of the psyche.

    If we are talking about Django himself, I may have to sleep on that analysis some more. Thelio raised an interesting point that I need to flesh out before commenting on it.

    But I do agree with the "pawns" part.
    I ain't thirsty. There's plenty of fish in the sea, but I don't want all of them, can I have some standards? Or do we just have to settle, for someone's who meh and will do.
    "
  • theliothelio Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    well, i wasn't speaking on slavery in the historic context, because of course they had each others back. harriet tubman, anyone?

    but as far as the movie, which is a fictional historical drama, i think that is how django felt. he was alone it the world worth nothing more then what someone was willing to pay (which in history i'm sure slaves may have felt). the one person he loved more in the world and who loved him back was taken away. he didnt care about any of those other slaves.
  • scrillsscrills Posts: 6,700Registered Users
    I agree with KayB.

    considering there were slave uprisings and slaves escaping together, I would assume that there was some friendships being formed. I didn't like that the movie made it seem otherwise. They even made mention in the movie as to why slaves didn't get together and fight

    I wasn't suggesting the Django, had to make friends, but could have at least shown some solidarity. something. Anything. If they thought enough to have the slave smile, they could have thought enough to have Django say something.

    In my opinion, the single-mindedness of the character made me dislike him. The doc helped him, he could have helped the slaves and it could have been in form of some quick suggestions. heck, they helped him. After the way he treated the slaves at Candyland, they could have lied and made sure he ended up in the mines right along with them.
«1