Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Thread Manager, Jan 2, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]382457[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]349313[/split]
Nude Kerry Washington
Django would have had to kill the Aussies regardless at some point once they figured out he misled them. Also, they were slave traders, Django couldn't partner up with them in good conscience. And while he was outgunned before, this time around he has the advantage of surprise as everyone thinks he is long gone by that point.
Besides as soon as you saw QT was playing one you knew they were gonna die. He dies in all his cameos.
Jimmy in Pulp Fiction doesn't die.
He should have.
The recording-machine voice in Jackie Brown didn't die either!
There should have never been any Aussies...that was pointless addons to the movie.
Here is how you know it's pointless...when the writers contradict the title and theme. Django unchained, rechained, then unchained again.
I liked the addition of the Aussies there (not Quentin, he should have either stayed out of the movie or chosen a different kind of cameo role). It helps establish the reality that the old west was more multicultural and multinational than traditional American western movies had had us believe.
They already did that with the lead character being German as well as stories of a German plantation owner. They could have showed Aussies at any point...that doesn't legitimize the unecessary extra 20 minutes and another climax to resolve the story.
Technically it was in the South, not the West.
Django was unchained by Schultz then recaptured and unchained again by putting to use everything he learned from his mentor. The ending was totally reasonable and coherent to me. Steven was Django's enemy, Candie was Schultz's
The reason the "extended" ending confused or maybe disappointed some people is that likely for a lot or most people up until schultz [BLACKOUT]died[/BLACKOUT] he was likely viewed as the main character (consciously or not) with django as the side-kick.
So when that did happen the audience may have been left with a feeling like "well the hero died the story should now be over or near it" however django was always intended to be the main hero and he needed a fulfilling ending to show that. Something that he did and devised himself, not just a plan started by schultz that he was following.
Otherwise it really would have been just another "white guy saves the black guy" story. And we all know QT wasn't about to go that route.
In that case I would say Waltz's overshadowing of Foxx was to the film's detriment.
It wasn't it was how it was written. It was about the journey progression of django leading up to the finale. Djano was a slave all his life and he has tasted freedom for the the first time. He's very humbled and withdrawn after having never been given freedom before and always being in a position of servitude.
Tarrantino even said he had to stop foxx from playing django as too confident in the begining as that wouldn't make sense for how the character starts off. You don't go from slave to hero immediately. Django Unchained almost reminds me of a super-hero origin story with schultz as the mentor.
To me Foxx had the tougest role to play. He was meant to act understated the majority of the movie only to go to full hero mode at the end. I thought Tarantino and Foxx did that excellently.
But you have to care. For whatever reason how it was written didn't quite work for some. As I said, I understand the ending and I even like it, but I doesn't work nearly as well as the rest of the film. It isn't as well written and feels like it is on autopilot. It also feels like it makes lite of all this serious crap that just went down.
But then again the second half of the film as a whole is weaken then the first half. The ending is an even bigger step down imo.
Nah but QT could have had them killed in the raid too seeing as they were mostly old slave traders, have them help django but get killed in the shootout.
I assumed the ones that walked back lived in the big house. Everyone else lived elsewhere on the plantation.
Nope wrong like usual for you.
Holiday had it right.
This is true, Steven is the one who screwed them all over.
Or rather its reiterating basically the entire plot of the film in microcosm and deflates a lot of the momentum from that giant gun fight. I don't think anyone has any problem with what ultimately happens with Stephen and the house and the actual ending, just that those same story and character beats could have been achieved differently.