Django Unchained

Movie was neither good nor bad. Tarantino fell off after Kill Bill. He's still making -decent- films, but, they aren't deserving of the hype.

The movie is too long; so many pointless scenes that were just placed into the film to look cool. The plot for revenge ends within the first act and Django's vendetta seem's lost and out lived. Though they try to develop Django's character he hardly speaks and there are hardly any insight into his personality and emotions. His character is a push over not a badass, he always follows Dr.waltz's idea's. Jamie Fox also was a bad choice for the role. He can not show emotion or when he does it just looks like his acting. 

Django summed up in one word; Nigger.

The movie is too long; so many pointless scenes that were just placed into the film to look cool. The plot for revenge ends within the first act and Django's vendetta seem's lost and out lived. Though they try to develop Django's character he hardly speaks and there are hardly any insight into his personality and emotions. His character is a push over not a badass, he always follows Dr.waltz's idea's. Jamie Fox also was a bad choice for the role. He can not show emotion or when he does it just looks like his acting. 

Django summed up in one word; Nigger.

You realize Django was a slave right? of course he's not going to be a straight badass immediately. I won't give you the run down of slave life, because hell I don't even know, but I can guarantee if you've been called derogatory terms, worked for nothing and whipped your entire life, you wouldn't be a complete badass the second you become a free person either. 

Jamie Foxx did fine in the role


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry maybe I was too vague in my review (didn't want to spoil anything by referencing scenes)
Firstly the trailer's and the title of the film set the premise to viewers that the main focus of the movie is about Django and his vendetta. It's shown as if Django is a badass who will stop at nothing. Within the first 10 minutes of the movie, Django has killed a man. He throws of his garment to show his body; this is to show his masculine body and then shoots a guy in cold blood. 
The movie should be called Dr.waltz unchained. Django is merely a sidekick or a student. Though this is Django's story, it never feels he really cares and if Dr.waltz hadn't turned up he would have just lived on as a slave. Django is merely a sheep or should it be slave to Dr.waltz idea's even if they are stupid one's to drag out the length of the film.
On the matter of slavery, we are treated with an array of characters which correctly portray black american slaves at the time. However if we look into Django and how slavery effected him we are greeted with sterotypical racism. Django also ends up hurting and abusing other slaves for his cause; if he had spoken up and not been a sheep to Dr.waltz's idea they could have come up with a better idea like I don't know just asking to buy his wife from the start.
Jamie foxx tried to play the character too cool, he never looks or feels like he went through a hardship. Props and make up at the most of the time show wounds and punishment. He has hardly any speaking in the movie, which maybe due to the bad writing but any words spoken sound flat and emotionless. 

The script as a whole feels as though it started of being written like kill bill. There is a german fable in the film which says about killing a dragon, storming the castle and then walking through fire. They reference this fable to show how Django's live is like this fable and is the stated reason why Dr.waltz helps Django. However what actually happens is nothing like the fable. The dragon would be Candy, but Django has no direct tiff with him and his anger towards him is either speculation or scene's after he arrives in candy land. 

Cba to write anymore, basically the writing is bad. 
fuck thats long

The movie is too long; so many pointless scenes that were just placed into the film to look cool. The plot for revenge ends within the first act and Django's vendetta seem's lost and out lived. Though they try to develop Django's character he hardly speaks and there are hardly any insight into his personality and emotions. His character is a push over not a badass, he always follows Dr.waltz's idea's. Jamie Fox also was a bad choice for the role. He can not show emotion or when he does it just looks like his acting. 

Django summed up in one word; Nigger.

You realize Django was a slave right? of course he's not going to be a straight badass immediately. I won't give you the run down of slave life, because hell I don't even know, but I can guarantee if you've been called derogatory terms, worked for nothing and whipped your entire life, you wouldn't be a complete badass the second you become a free person either. 

Jamie Foxx did fine in the role


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry maybe I was too vague in my review (didn't want to spoil anything by referencing scenes)
Firstly the trailer's and the title of the film set the premise to viewers that the main focus of the movie is about Django and his vendetta. It's shown as if Django is a badass who will stop at nothing. Within the first 10 minutes of the movie, Django has killed a man. He throws of his garment to show his body; this is to show his masculine body and then shoots a guy in cold blood. 
The movie should be called Dr.waltz unchained. Django is merely a sidekick or a student. Though this is Django's story, it never feels he really cares and if Dr.waltz hadn't turned up he would have just lived on as a slave. Django is merely a sheep or should it be slave to Dr.waltz idea's even if they are stupid one's to drag out the length of the film.
On the matter of slavery, we are treated with an array of characters which correctly portray black american slaves at the time. However if we look into Django and how slavery effected him we are greeted with sterotypical racism. Django also ends up hurting and abusing other slaves for his cause; if he had spoken up and not been a sheep to Dr.waltz's idea they could have come up with a better idea like I don't know just asking to buy his wife from the start.
Jamie foxx tried to play the character too cool, he never looks or feels like he went through a hardship. Props and make up at the most of the time show wounds and punishment. He has hardly any speaking in the movie, which maybe due to the bad writing but any words spoken sound flat and emotionless. 

The script as a whole feels as though it started of being written like kill bill. There is a german fable in the film which says about killing a dragon, storming the castle and then walking through fire. They reference this fable to show how Django's live is like this fable and is the stated reason why Dr.waltz helps Django. However what actually happens is nothing like the fable. The dragon would be Candy, but Django has no direct tiff with him and his anger towards him is either speculation or scene's after he arrives in candy land. 

Cba to write anymore, basically the writing is bad. 
fuck thats long

There you have it folks, joining the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jesse Jackson as the voice of black people EVERYWHERE is... The RZA!


Did RZA give him that pass back before he wrote Pulp Fiction? If you remember QT's cameo in that, you'll remember how he stated many a time that his home was not 'dead nigger storage' when a dead Phil LaMar was brought by his home.


I understand the need for the excessive use of the word in this film, look at the period of the film, it's to be expected. However, to imply that any one person can give a 'pass' and speak for an entire race is ridiculous.

Writers don't need a 'co-sign' to have their characters use slurs.



And Farrakhan was used because the media often portrays both him and Rev J. Jackson as the definitive voice for 'all' black people. The statement was tongue-in-cheek.