StingingVelvet: He was going apeshit on evil fucking people. Made sense to me.
Yeah, but I'm thinking it was a tad convenient that those people were so evil that he could just go apeshit on them and feel totally justified about it.
Also, shooting the Leo's character's sister felt a tad gratuitous.
Cormoran: The most jarring part of that action scene wasn't the overdone violence for me, I didn't mind that at all. It was the part where they paused the action scene just so he could get caught and sent off to the mines... only to escape and return five minutes later to finish off the action scene. That whole part seemed to mess with the pacing and felt very shoehorned in just for the Tarantino cameo.
Actually, this was the most believable part of the encounter for me.
He was doing a shootout with like 20 guys. He was bound to get shot or captured.
DProject: That said, there were lots of good things about the film too - we both really liked Samuel L. Jackson's character, the racist black old man, and personally I found the premise really interesting.
Yeah, he was a funny comic relief for me (like the guys wearing the white masks complaining about their eye-slits).
I found the part where he lunged screaming after Leo got shot too funny.
DProject: Think about the place itself. The slaves were completely deprived of freedom and free will, and they were like monkeys that were forced to do everything the hosts desires - even sex. Django's wife even tried to escape the place, only to be found, returned, and tossed into the box outside not even a day later. She despised the place. Wouldn't you be happy to see that house of torture blow up? I think it was there where she realized all the horrible things were finally over.
Ok, I could see a smile, but clapping like a cheerleader when a guy blows up a house (even if it's the Devil's home)... that was just silly.
It might have been a task that needed to be done, but applauding people for blowing stuff up, as if they had just delivered a great artistic performance was just plain absurd to me.
DProject: And about Snowball - Django really loathed the guy, and I don't blame him. Remember when Django told Schultz, there's nothing lower than a black slaver - that's what Snowball essentially was. Django saw him abuse his own kind - the black race - and did so without remorse. He had no respect toward, as the movie calls them, niggers. AND, he threatened Django by sending him to the mines for the rest of his life with no emotions of regret or pity. For Django, the man was worse than dog shit on a shoe and he didn't want him to "escape so easily" by just shooting him in the head. That's what I think happened, at least.
I get hating the guy, so shoot him dead.
I don't know, maybe it's because it didn't strike me as something Django would have done.
Maybe that's it.
It was out of character.
He just hadn't displayed such a refinement in cruelty during the rest of the movie (he pretty much shot everyone he didn't like dead, ok beat one of the guy with his own whip).
I just had the impression that the director/writter suddenly put themselves in the character's shoes, with complete disregard for what the character would probably do, and decided to do this.
I guess I've done a lot of AD&D as a referee and just learned to spot when the players are in character and when their character is just an empty vehicle for their own impulses and desires.
In that scene, Django felt like an empty vehicle for the director's/writer's desires.
keeveek: I don't know if you noticed, but Django Unchained is a superhero movie.
Maybe in a way other westerns are "superhero" movies, but not in a way that Captain America or Spiderman are superhero movies.
I think the most I've seen the Man with No Name shoot at once in the spaghetti westerns is 4-5 guys.
jamyskis: The violence didn't bother me. It was more comical than gratuitous.
The problem was more that there was a bit of a lull in the middle of the film - the trip to Candie Land - where nothing really happened. It was lacking the classic Tarantino dialogue and editing and seemed really mundane. I think the problems with this section were that it focused primarily on Django, and while Jamie Foxx is an excellent actor, his character wasn't really all that interesting. This was Christoph Waltz's film through and through until that point - noting the slave purchase scene and the saloon scene - and when they got to Candie Land, he just faded into the background looking very meek and bland.
I enjoyed Candiland a lot.
I think the overexagerated civility on top of the abject savagery that took place there was classic Tarantino fare.
I also enjoyed watching the intrige and getting drawn in the suspense of how they would try to con Mr. Candy and whether or not they would get away with it.
I thought it quite ironic that it was a member of the race Candy denigrated (the house master) that saw right through their ploy.
I think Waltz's role became more subdued partly because it was Django's bride they were rescuing and as a friend, he let Django call the shots for a mission that was so important to him.
Besides, I think he was more affected by the abject cruelty of the place (not having grown into slavery himself) than Django and had to exert more willpower just to play along as opposed to shoot the whole place up (and eventually, he gave in to the urge, much to their detriment as he himself realized when he apologized to Django just before giving in).
Overall, I agree with you that compared to the characters surrounding him (Waltz, Cando, Samuel Jackson's character), Django felt a bit plain, but at the same time he had this silent intensity that gave him a charisma of sorts.
Nothing wrong with him.).
