Django Unchained - Part 1

[DarthSkywalker]

I kept wondering what Zoe's characters significance was. The camera kept lingering on her when they're riding up to candy land. I thought her character was going to have some prominence later based on how she was initially presented.

So did I. It took me a couple of shots to realize it was Zoe, but when I did I was waiting for her too actually do something. She never did.

It would have been like Hitler winning in IG to me. Granted Candie was dead, but Stephen was obviously going to carry on the slavery tradition.

I know, and I realize the scene was suppose to demostrate all Django had learned. From reading, to how to speak properly, to gunslinging, to playing a part, so on and so forth. But it just didn't work for me. I liked it, but I didn't love it. I already had a pit in my stomach when [BLACKOUT]Schultz was killed[/BLACKOUT], I just couldn't care.

So much of the film so on the shoulders of Schultz and Candie. Django suddenly taking center stage just didn't work for me. It reminded me of the end of Red Dead Redemption. Yeah John's son got his revenge, but I can't really care. It is too bitter, not sweet enough.

 

[kedrell]

Why didn't he just shake his hand. That was dumb. They'd already gone through so much more than that so that one little extra thing being too much just seemed silly.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Why didn't he just shake his hand. That was dumb. They'd already gone through so much more than that so that one little extra thing being too much just seemed silly.

Schultz is a good man pushed just a tad bit too far. Watching a man torn apart alive will do that too you. He even says he can't help himself in this regard.

Also one must remember how such men solve their problems. It is usually with violence.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I imagine had Shultz shook Candie's hand that something bad would have happened anyway.

 

[kedrell]

Schultz is a good man pushed just a tad bit too far. Watching a man torn apart alive will do that too you. He even says he can't help himself in this regard.

Also one must remember how such men solve their problems. It is usually with violence.

But when you consider how much they had compromised to get to where they are already it just seems....forced. It didn't seem like something Schultz would do given how on the ball he had been for the rest of the film. It just seems like it was there because otherwise they'd have achieved their goal of freeing Django's wife and the film would be over.

 

[kedrell]

I imagine had Shultz shook Candie's hand that something bad would have happened anyway.

That at least would've possibly made better sense.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I imagine had Shultz shook Candie's hand that something bad would have happened anyway.

Not necessarily, Candie was a mean bastard but he wasn't a psychopath per se. He won, he got schultz to pay him $12,000 for a slave he could barely care about.

He was a business man first and foremost and when that business was over i don't see why he'd have any reason to cause more trouble for himself by killing them.

Schultz was just so disgusted by the very being of candie that he couldn't bare to shake hands with a man he didn't think deserved to live. So he did what he thought was right sacrificing himself to see this man taken out. It wasn't a situation where "we'll were all going out anyways so what the hell?" type of thing more of a "I have to do what's right" thing.

 

[terry78]

He was just getting sick of Candie treating slaves as he did, period. That handshake was just the final straw.

 

[Doctor Jones]

My heart was pounding by that point. I thought Candie was gonna kill Schultz. The fact the reversal happened was just fantastic. Didn't see it coming at all.

 

[The Guard]

Loved the film. One of the better movies of the year. Some of Tarantino's better film work, though not his best writing. He does a wonderful job building tension out of next to nothing. The "second ending" is more satisfying than most, though it slows the film down a bit. Sam Jackson was fantastic in one of his odder, more satisfying roles, Jamie Foxx was solid and well-cast, and Waltz was his usual effervescent self. Don Johnson was great as Big Daddy, and DeCaprio was wonderful up until his "character reveal", and even then he did a solid job. Wish that Kerry Washington had more to do, but she was quite good as well in a limited role. Oh, and great music. And Ted Neely!

The KKK hood scene is one of the funnier, most natural comedy sequences I've seen in years. The entire movie theatre was in tears.

Schultz was willing to pay the $12,000...he was willing to admit he'd been bettered, and even beaten. He was not willing to treat Candie as a gentleman, because he knew what he really was and how he truly operated. His refusal to shake Candie's hand and his execution of him made perfect sense given the events of the film.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I heard that Leo and Chris are getting Oscar nods for this but not Jamie or Sam. What the heck? Leo wasn't even in the movie that long. I know some people were crazy about Jamie in this but he certainly should get a nod as well. And Sam should as well.

 

[terry78]

I guess because their roles were more subdued and wacky, respectively. I feel this is some of SLJ's best work in a minute, frankly.

 

[Drizzle]

I usually enjoy him in everything he's in, but I think it's his best role since Jules in Pulp Fiction.

 

[Stringer]

He was just getting sick of Candie treating slaves as he did, period. That handshake was just the final straw.

I think it was that and everything the man stood for that he had enough of. Having people call him Monsieur when he didn't know a lick of French and the whole facade of being a southern gentleman when he was a despicable worthless human being. And on top of all that, he has the nerve to insist that he shake his hand. He couldn't resist.

 

[chaseter]

It was fantastic up until the capture of Django...then it got a bit silly and I thought was entirely pointless and extended the flick longer than it should have. Everything could have and imo should have climaxed at Candie land. Someone up top mentioned it best that this was not Q's best writing but still a solid flick. I really enjoyed it.

 

[chaseter]

I heard that Leo and Chris are getting Oscar nods for this but not Jamie or Sam. What the heck? Leo wasn't even in the movie that long. I know some people were crazy about Jamie in this but he certainly should get a nod as well. And Sam should as well.

Leo was in it longer than Sam. So if Leo didn't deserve it then neither does Sam. I think the obvious star of this movie was Chris. Jamie did good but his role wasn't outstanding. He played the angry badass well like he always does. His character didn't have much of a range like Chris' did or those flares of anger and emotion like Leo's character had. Sam's role was just ok. He didn't do much and the only real part I liked out of his entire character was him figuring things out at dinner. That's about it. Sam was in the movie I would guess 15-20 minutes. I don't even think that is considered a supporting role when the movie is nearly 3 hours long.

 

[Mr.?]

I dont get the complaints about the ending at all.

 

[chaseter]

Because it was pointless. Django was unchained at the beginning of the movie to then become rechained and unchained yet again. The climax was Candie dying and the gun fight that followed. Then the movie kept going and had another ending that was lesser than the climax and had silly exposition of Foxx standing in front of an exploding house and making his horse dance that would have had to have been trained to do so. It just seemed sloppy and pointless. I think the flick would have been outstanding had all of that been resolved at the climax. It also made Chris' character's death completely pointless in terms of the story...because Django is recaptured and escapes on his own. They used the callback of having your first bounty in your pocket as an excuse to have another ending. It just felt unnatural. It kind of felt like Return of the King where PJ had 50,000 endings.

 

[gwynplaine]

Tarantino looks really out of of shape in this one. I hope he gets back into better shape, so he can keep on making awesome films like DU for a long time.

 

[gwynplaine]

Because it was pointless. Django was unchained at the beginning of the movie to then become rechained and unchained yet again. The climax was Candie dying and the gun fight that followed. Then the movie kept going and had another ending that was lesser than the climax and had silly exposition of Foxx standing in front of an exploding house and making his horse dance that would have had to have been trained to do so. It just seemed sloppy and pointless. I think the flick would have been outstanding had all of that been resolved at the climax. It also made Chris' character's death completely pointless in terms of the story...because Django is recaptured and escapes on his own. They used the callback of having your first bounty in your pocket as an excuse to have another ending. It just felt unnatural. It kind of felt like Return of the King where PJ had 50,000 endings.

I agree.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Tarantino said he wants to make only ten films and then quit.

 

[kedrell]

Tarantino looks really out of of shape in this one. I hope he gets back into better shape, so he can keep on making awesome films like DU for a long time.

I noticed that as well. He became Monsieur Pudgy.

 

[Mr.?]

Because it was pointless. Django was unchained at the beginning of the movie to then become rechained and unchained yet again. The climax was Candie dying and the gun fight that followed. Then the movie kept going and had another ending that was lesser than the climax and had silly exposition of Foxx standing in front of an exploding house and making his horse dance that would have had to have been trained to do so. It just seemed sloppy and pointless. I think the flick would have been outstanding had all of that been resolved at the climax. It also made Chris' character's death completely pointless in terms of the story...because Django is recaptured and escapes on his own. They used the callback of having your first bounty in your pocket as an excuse to have another ending. It just felt unnatural. It kind of felt like Return of the King where PJ had 50,000 endings.

Wasn't pointless. Like others have said Django had to step up and become the hero of the film at the end and do it by himself. Schultz's death isnt pointless it's needed because Django has to take over his role. The way I saw it when Candy died Sam Jackson took over his role and when Schultz died Django took over his. The ending is the showdown of the two students.

The ending of the movie was ridiculously satisfying to me and I loved every second of it.

 

[TheAQU4M4N]

Tarantino said he wants to make only ten films and then quit.

Or by the time he's 60

 

[kedrell]

Wasn't pointless. Like others have said Django had to step up and become the hero of the film at the end and do it by himself. Schultz's death isnt pointless it's needed because Django has to take over his role. The way I saw it when Candy died Sam Jackson took over his role and when Schultz died Django took over his. The ending is the showdown of the two students.

The ending of the movie was ridiculously satisfying to me and I loved every second of it.

It only needed to happen in the sense that taken outside of the story itself, the movie needed it to happen since Django is the title character and it's supposed to be his story.

It's as if Schultz realized, "Hey, we're already more than 2 hrs into this film and Django needs to complete his arc still. I better do something stupid to get myself killed so he'll be forced to step up and we can get this thing over with already."

I hate it when "the movie needs this to happen" is the only or obvious reason something happens in a story. It means the writers weren't clever enough to integrate it into their story in a way that makes sense and is organic.