Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Fatboy Roberts Busts Out The "M" Word In Praise Of DJANGO UNCHAINED!


Beaks here...
I don't see DJANGO UNCHAINED until tomorrow, and a review like this from our pal in Portland, Fatboy Roberts, doesn't make that wait any easier. "Oh, c'mon, Beaks! It's a freakin' day!" Yeah? Well, read Fatboy's review, and tell me this doesn't get you amped for the latest Sir Q.


Pardon me the inarticulate nature of the following critique, but I believe it will prove to be as appropriate a summation of the film’s qualities as I can muster:

Django Unchained  is a motherfucker.

It sounds like David Milch, stoned out of his gourd. It looks like a Bierstadt, except for when it looks like a Bosch. It is an ambling, mild-mannered nightmare; a bloody, mean-spirited, exhilarating wet mess of a movie.

Quentin Tarantino’s western plays much like Quentin Tarantino’s war film: It pulps America’s mythologizing of its own past. Django  is set in a pre-Civil War South that is equal parts lurid and goofy. The star of this painterly cartoon of a western is Django (Jamie Foxx) a slave who is purchased and then set free by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), an ex-dentist-turned-bounty-hunter, who needs Django’s help to collect on a bounty. Thus sets in motion the first third of the film: A buddy comedy about killing white folks and selling their corpses back to the government.

Once Django’s freedom is secured, he and Waltz hatch a plan to rescue his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from her owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a man who is a major player in the Mandingo Fight Game. Thus sets in motion the middle of the film: A con-movie about earning the good graces of a hopped-up rube so as to take from him things he doesn’t deserve.

Once Django and Schultz make it to Calvin’s plantation, “Candyland,” they run into Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) a repugnant toad of a man who throws a wrench into our heroes’ plans. Thus sets in motion the last third of the film: A revenge epic of head-spinning violence and depravity. It is this last third where the film thoroughly earns its status as a complete, total, unrelenting, unimaginable motherfucker of a movie.

You may ask “But is being a motherfucker a good thing or a bad thing?” The answer is “Yes.”

This is Tarantino at his most self-indulgent. But not in the annoying, eye-roll inducing way Death Proof  was. While many seem to know him for his violence, Tarantino has always, first and foremost, lovedthe words that fall out of his giant noggin, and the salty-sweet syllables he puts in Waltz’s mouth are delivered so melodiously, it’s easy to forgive Django Unchained  for spending much of its runtime pleasantly shooting the shit instead of shooting up hillbillies.

Django isn’t much of a protagonist for most of his own movie. He spends a lot of it with a wide-eyed, inquisitive look on his face, alternately curious and bemused about the world he finds himself inhabiting. It’s a smart choice – when you’ve got a tour guide as good, as charming  as Waltz is, you don’t mind just letting him lead, and I’d imagine many in the audience will spend a lot of time goggling at the movie with a similar look on their face for most of the first hour. The reasons are two:

1) Robert Richardson is one of the best cinematographers that ever lived, and this movie is goddamned gorgeous thanks to his work on the film.

2) Quentin really  indulges his second-favorite fetish, the one that puts racial slurs in his actor’s mouths; One slur in particular.

I know its period appropriate, but the experience of hearing that word casually fall out of 98% of the white cast’s face is jarring at first. Except for Walton Goggins, who as Hollywood’s current reigning King of the Peckerwoods I sort of just expect to utter that word at least once or twice. But Tom Wopat  is in this fucking movie and considering how old you are, hearing Luke Duke utter the word his backwoods moonshinin’ ass never got to say on television is a bit of a jolt.

Don’t take this as an expression of dissatisfaction with the film; Django Unchained  is almost constantly entertaining, even as its all sorts of sprawled out and irresponsible. Hell, that’s part of the charm, really. But its pleasures are edged. There’s a blend of unease and delight in things like Don Johnson as a dandified Colonel Sanders, succumbing to frustration as his carefully planned Klan-meeting turns into a whiny kvetch-fest; the oily, greasy way Leonardo DiCaprio pushes Tarantino’s words out between his browned teeth; the willingness of Samuel L. Jackson to nakedly wallow in total debasement. The character he’s playing might be named Stephen, but he’s channeling Uncle Ruckus from Aaron McGruder’s The Boondocks so completely, you’d swear the wetness slicking up his protruding lower lip was made of pure, liquefied self-hate.

When Tarantino does get on with it, the violence is gaudy as hell, blood leaving bullet-riddled bodies via squibs that seem to work by dropping a firecracker into a jar of Smuckers strawberry jam. The cruelty of the South is never softpedaled in Django Unchained : You will see frequent, disturbing acts perpetrated on slaves. You will see that violence repaid in kind, often with that same queasy delight buzzing under the visceral thrills.

DiCaprio’s Calvin Candie is some repugnant shit, and his performance is kind of amazing. At one point he lacerates the hell out of his hand by smashing a glass for emphasis, and he doesn’t break character, or even acknowledge that he’s badly bleeding, not until he has a chance to use that blood as a means to prove how deranged Candie is, smearing that blood all over Kerry Washington’s shocked face.

Washington is one of the more problematic parts of the movie, in that she doesn’t do shit but cry, look pretty, or look scared. In fact, most of the black people in this movie aside from Django and Stephen, don’t do shit but cry or look scared, ineffectually goggling at the audacity of Django the way Django goggled at the world upon being set free in it.  It could have been worse for Broomhilda; Tarantino decided to cut two scenes in which she is raped. A scene in which a man burns off another man’s nipples was also deleted. This is what restraint looks like in Tarantino-land, and the movie is better for it. Django Unchained already spends long stretches of its movie doing a delicate balancing act, smudging the pencil-thin line between outrageous and tasteless as it is.

But when Django fully comes into his own with about a half-hour to go, the fresh hell he justifiably unleashes is probably the most adrenaline-infused thing Tarantino’s ever done. Bullets flying, blood splashing, Tupac and James Brown screaming on the soundtrack at the enemies Django is cutting down with no remorse. Jamie Foxx’s performance is underplayed and understated. He is maybe the most traditionally western thing about the movie, his Django a jut-jawed, squinting blend of Franco Nero and Clint Eastwood, delivering most of his lines through gritted teeth in a low, growling whisper, a triumphant portrait of stoic bad-assery.

The film doesn’t really ask too many questions of its viewers. There will be moments when large chunks of the audience find themselves laughing with  clownish buffoonery instead of laughing at it, missing out on the moments of commentary Tarantino too rarely allows himself. In a film that is probably too long by 30 minutes, I wish he’d chosen to indulge his thoughtful side just a little bit more.

But Tarantino is most effective when he gives into his passion to share with you the things he thinks are really, really cool. Even after decades of success and acclaim, down deep, Tarantino is still an excited video store clerk who wants you to take a risk on something awesome you might not check out otherwise, and reap the rewards contained within. Django Unchained  is full of rich, dirty, bloody bounties that sometimes cost just a mite too much to enjoy unreservedly.  

Bobby Roberts

@fatboyroberts on twitter

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:05 p.m. CST

    should I see this at the theater or at home?

    by Rupee88

    Can't figure it out...curses.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:10 p.m. CST


    by BadMrWonkaSucksCock

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:12 p.m. CST

    or South Park version...MAGGER

    by Rupee88

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Can't wait to see this.

    by tomandshell

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST


    by FlashRogers

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Refuse to pay for White Guilt, the movie.

    by Chopper

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    oh I like where this thread is headed for about a month now

    by Ultron ver 2.0

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Mulva? Masturbatory?

    by AlienFanatic

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:30 p.m. CST

    As a migger myself- I take offense to this headline.

    by UltraTron

  • Hey, his movies are bloody and the dialogue is a profane tango of cadence and filth, but he takes the term "self-indulgent" to extremes that puts even Keith Richards in his heyday to shame. But it'll make money and charm the critics, so whatever.

  • ...Why the hell would he break character? You don't think Di Caprio actually cut up his hand do you? And smeared the resulting mess on another actors face?

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:34 p.m. CST

    that review was refreshing

    by kurtisaurus

    Entertaining, well thought out, imaginatively descriptive, and even syntactically made sense as far as I noticed. <p> Well done sir! Now I want to see it more than ever, not sure if the wife will love it tho :(

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:36 p.m. CST

    freebeer: DiCaprio is some tough shit

    by Arguendo

    ... DiCaprio would lacerate his own hand and smear his own blood in the face of another actor, just for effect. Then he will heal his hand and do it again, for a second, third, and fourth take, until the other actor learns not to break character and just accept the DiCaprio blood. But because it's DiCaprio blood, the other actor won't be able to take it until the 50th try. Then DiCaprio will do it one last time, because the other actor was weak sauce and needs to get more DiCaprio blood on his face. That is DiCaprio.

  • Blood was dripping down his hand," producer Stacy Sher told Variety. "He never broke character. He kept going. He was in such a zone. It was very intense. He required stitches.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    This site isn't big enough for TWO fatboys.

    by Smerdyakov

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:40 p.m. CST

    I'd imagine after they yelled cut he got a smack in the face

    by FreeBeer

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Quentin really indulges his second-favorite fetish

    by No Respectable Gentleman

    Yeah, but what about his FAVORITE fetish? 'Cos I ain't seein' this muthafucka les' it's gots plenny of IMAX-size closes-ups of bitches' feet, y'unnerstand what I'm sayin'?

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:40 p.m. CST


    by Mace Tofu

    gona hate.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Why did I expect the word "Magnificent"?

    by Smerdyakov

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Was Inglorious Basterds a ”white guilt movie”

    by Nerd Rage

    Of course not, because most white Americans don't sympathize with Nazis. But apparently they sympathize with cruel slave owners. WTF? What's wrong with enjoying a revenge fantasy against slave owners? Why is It easier to watch a nazi get butchered. Oh because you are clearly in the good guy corner from a historical viewpoint, right? Tools.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:45 p.m. CST

    nerd rage, word

    by FreeBeer

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:45 p.m. CST

    OK, we suck. But would you really rather be living in Africa?

    by Smerdyakov

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST

    smerdyakov, it's not a frickin' competition.

    by FreeBeer

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:48 p.m. CST

    DiCaprio for M.O.D.O.K.

    by buggerbugger

    Kid's got an absolute fucking melon for a head.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:53 p.m. CST


    by AdrianVeidt

    That is a nearly ban-worthy proclamation, bro...

  • With the current events taken place just a few days ago and all. With cancellations left and right of premiers and whatnot. Not sure how many folks will rush out to see this gore fest on Christmas to begin with. And now w/ that bullshit that happened.

  • They might put on a pair of sunglasses to walk into the theater, but they'll still go in. It was never going to do huge business, but Inglourious did $38M domestic when it launched in 2009, and I think Django will make a similar run.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 2:09 p.m. CST

    So, it's everything I hate about Tarantino...

    by Mikey Wood

    ...amped up to eleven. KILL BILL pretty much destroyed my appreciation for Tarantino and he keeps releasing things that successfully KEEP it destroyed. He's not even bothering to change the titles of the stuff he's ripping off anymore. I'm waiting for his inevitable late 60's/early 70's-style schlock sci-fi flick...maybe he can call it BARBARELLA or something original like that.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 2:12 p.m. CST


    by murphworld

    i laughed so hard when i read that. next time somebody chooses M.O.D.O.K. (no one ever chooses him, he'll have to come up in the random) when we're playing Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3, i'm gonna be shouting lines from and titles of DiCaprio movies

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Is Michael Richards in this?

    by IAmLegolas

    now that would have been some stunt casting!

  • evil men, I don't see how that's an offensive thing. And after all, you can go watch the equal opportunity Zero Dark Thirty and watch (mostly) white men take revenge on Arab terrorists, or watch a classic like Zulu and watch the black person body count amass into the hundreds.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 2:50 p.m. CST

    I'm kinda disappointed that Terrence Hill isn't in this...

    by Terry Powell

    ...since he's doing his spaghetti western riff. Coulda been cool, Waltz taking Foxx to a guy to learn to draw faster and both of them getting slapped and drawed on at the same time.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 2:51 p.m. CST

    #1: I refuse to pay to see anything Jiame Foxx is in.

    by daggor

    He fooled the Academy with his Ray Charles impression. Everything else he does is bland dogshit.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 2:54 p.m. CST

    #2: About Death Proof

    by daggor

    I enjoyed the first half of Death Proof. It actually seemed to be over after we get the wrap-up with the sheriff and son #1 from Kill Bill, but then the second half imitates the first, with characters and dialogue I cannot stand. I always felt lengthened on purpose - expanded from a short to feature length - but nobody discusses the film online. Anybody?

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 2:55 p.m. CST

    #1, part 2

    by daggor

    Of course, that's a typo for "Jamie Foxx."

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 3:10 p.m. CST

    I don't want to see this

    by Pipple

    I'll probably bootleg it at some point... but honestly I like white people more than black people... don't want to see a black guy shooting them up.

  • They couldn't debate anything with their white counterparts. The mouthy slaves died first. Tarantino is just keeping it real.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Another slap in the face to d.vader!

    by DrMorbius

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Spaghetti western? Sounds more like Goodbye Uncle Tom

    by Steve Lamarre

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Uncle Tom...Wopat?

    by Cassius_Crackhead

    Luke Duke is in this? Seriously?

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Was Cooter and Boss Hogg unavailable?

    by Cassius_Crackhead

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Get out of my head space docmorbius.

    by Deceased Fan

    All I can say is I'm glad I hit refresh.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 3:28 p.m. CST


    by Cassius_Crackhead

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Good to see you're still around Fatboy!

    by Fart Magnus

    In another life you knew me as the unwashed wookie. I still laugh at the story you told me about what you found in Jango's drawer on the way to Comicon!!! Take care mate!

  • It's like Inglorious Bastards, some good stuff in there. However there also was stuff that went on way too long, wasn't overly good and boring. Death Race had some cool stuff but for 60% not very interesting or good. Yet people just go, 'it's good' because he's a director that gets a free pass.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Denzel Washington was to play in Amistad and this is what he said

    by RobertCrane

    The movie would have ended after we killed the crew. Period. I will watch this movie, I am a huge Tarantino fan. But my comment is this, history is only told from one side. Surely there are stories out there like this, about slaves being freed or escaping and killing their masters on the way out the door, never to be seen from again. There is no white guilt, this is history and it happened. Deal with it. Slavery is a brutal part of our American past. When I watched Roots for the first time and read the book, it was sad to realize that a huge chunk of history was never been taught. And also, Mandingo, the movie with Ken Norton, now that was some classic shit there.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Kevin Costners role should have went to Mel Gibson...FACT!!!!

    by kindofabigdeal

    Why do the mighty whitey klans get blamed for slavery. Don't people know that the original sale's came from their fellow Africans? All the Europeans did was realize a bargain when they seen it. Now I'm not endorsing slavery, the brutatlity of the white mans whip, or anything of that sort. All I'm doing is pointing out that everyone indulged in slavery at one point and time. Human beings are sons of bitches when it comes to each other.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 5 p.m. CST

    "Zulu" wasn't produced by black Africans though...

    by Darth_Inedible

    And Zero Dark Thirty wasn't directed by a Pakistani. Only in America are we confident(stupid? naive?) enough to make self-flagellating entertainment on this scale. Yes please more division, fear and resentment in the name of faux tolerance! What a wonderful idea! Remember kids, slavery in Africa is what led to African slaves in America. They enslaved rival tribes sold them to the Arabs and Euros.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 5:05 p.m. CST

    White Guilt? Right but Nazi's getting slaughtered is nothing...

    by Andrew Coleman

    Tired of this biased nonsense. No one cried when the Nazi's get chopped apart. But white Southern dip shits get killed and this movie gets the "White Guilt" tag. Bull shit. If you can't handle tough black guys go cry somewhere else dip shit. Sure should more people know that Africans sold other Africans to Europeans... Yes. Should it have any part in this movie? No.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 5:16 p.m. CST

    saw it Monday

    by Hipshot

    at the DGA in Hollywood, and mostly a white,audience. they dug it. ONly people who identify with the slavers would have a problem with Django's kills. for those who grant the slaves humanity, the chance to,cheer the righteous vengeance is a total trip. anyone who can't empathize with a man rescuing his wife from monsters is beneath my contempt.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Kerrys' Sweet Feet

    by cleetdog101

    I better see 'em!!! In their Dirty & Sexy glory!

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 6:35 p.m. CST

    I've seen this for about two weeks now...


    And if DiCaprio's "three dimples" speech doesn't win him a best supporting nom, nothing will. A bloody, brilliant orgy of violence. But there's also a great story hidden within the Tarantino revisionism. What's sad is that after the Conn. massacre, critics will attack it for glorifying violence, especially with guns.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Self-indulgent and several homages lumped together

    by Logan_1973

    Sounds like classic QT. Not a bad thing, but I think a lot of you hopeful for Oscar gold can forget it.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Slavery is wrong, yes, is that what you're saying?

    by Raptor Jesus

    Glad we got that all straightened out. Here, let me write it down somewhere so I don't forget.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Wow I guess I should have sent my review to Beaks of all people

    by D.Vader

    I saw it ten days ago and wrote up a quick review for AICN, but no response. Who woulda guessed Beaks would have been the guy to talk to.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 9:29 p.m. CST

    White Man's Burden was awesome

    by gk1

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Nah! We just would have hired migrant workers to do our shit.

    by Smerdyakov

    like we did anyway.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Like I said LAZY,WEAK and most importantly vastly INFERIOR.

    by Cedric Ford

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Every Race has been Slaves

    by BuffDaddy

    Julius Caesar enslaved and raped the Celts, Gauls, Germans, all of western Europe, African and others. Genghis Khan enslaved and raped the Europeans, Africans enslaved and raped the Jews, Japanese enslaved and raped the Chinese, Koreans and others.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 10:41 p.m. CST

    Maximus Was A General Who Became A Slave

    by BuffDaddy

    And was forced to be a Gladiator to the death as entertainment for all of Rome

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Thanks for the breakdown BDaddy

    by Cedric Ford

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 1:31 a.m. CST

    RobertCrane, Roots was totally "white guilt" TV...

    by Darth_Inedible

    White sailors hopping off ships in Africa and capturing innocent Africans in nets like bunny rabbits? Jaysus... What a PC guilt-trip whitewash of how the African slave trade actually worked. Millions of Americans watched that and assumed it was true.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 2:21 a.m. CST


    by mossad77

    If you meant "should I download the latest QT film?" Then you Sir, are a cunt. Sorry, but there is no other answer. Watch it in a cinema or GTFO.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 2:32 a.m. CST

    Why are 'backers like buffdaddy

    by Chairman_Kaga

    such cunts that they have to post all of their thoughts in multiple subject lines?

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 4:38 a.m. CST

    hey Fatboy --

    by Glenn

    No apologies necessary, that was a finely-written piece. Wish I could read one of your screenplays.

  • So some people respond accusing it (or Hollywood generally - because this film is perfectly representative of Hollywood leanings of course) of being white guilt, of being a "slavery is bad" film, and/or misunderstanding the history of slavery. How fucking retarded are you? How are any of these concerns relevant. If it's realistic at all and set during Slavery in the South, of course it will offend modern sensibilities (and if it doesn't there is something wrong with you). Do you truly believe that the point of this film is simply Slavery is wrong and white people suck? Is anything that's not "Rah, rah America's Number One, always has been, always will be" make you feel bad inside? I am surprised you monkeys can use keyboards.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 7:32 a.m. CST

    The Bible is cool with slavery.

    by Smerdyakov

    One of the major arguments for slavery was that the Bible treats it as no big deal.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 7:39 a.m. CST

    I can't wait to not see this.

    by Jason

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 8:50 a.m. CST

    hst666, fucking hell, man!

    by AsimovLives

    And for the record, i'm in complete agreement with you. I'm from an european country called Portugal who also engaged in large scale slavery in the past. And not just black slavery, as in the 16th century the most sough after slaves where chinese. Europe couldn't get enough of those, because it was beleived they were docille and diligent. In fact, black slavery took quite a while to catch on because the europeans back then were very distrustful of the practical utility of a black slave, they deeped them too lazy and stupid (really!). When capturing slaves from China (through abductions) became inpractical thanks to the reorganization of the China's government during the Manchu dynasty, the europeans turned their attention to Africa, facilitated by the fact that the bigger african kingdoms of the west coast discovered it was quite profitable to capture fellow blacks from smaller countries and sell them to the whites. A sad fact of our shamelful slavery past is that it wasn't just a simple matter of blacks vs whites, but it was perpectuated by blacks as well. The fact is, black slavery is a blemish to both races.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Bobby Roberts, that was a very well writen review. Thanks.

    by AsimovLives

    I hope you wrote more often for AICN.

  • the late 1800's we were supposed to be civilized. Civilized societies do not enslave other cultures based on some supposed God given "superiority". Giving a brief history of slavery in the world does not explain away the shameful fact that America, the supposedly "greatest country in the world", was still practicing slavery long after the practice was abandoned in other civilized countries throughout the world.

  • Slavery has never been confined to the less advanced nations. It is a horrible practice that has been perpetuated worldwide and continues today. America is not unique. The fact that you say that America was supposed to be civilized yet had slavery is similar to plenty of other nations that were supposedly civilized with slaves. Fact is, it took too long, but America, still a relatively young country, finally woke up and outlawed slavery. Honestly, I don't know what the point of your comment was supposed to be

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    DiCaprio’s blood, okay, now that makes sense

    by Anthony Torchia

    watching that scene, when he cuts his hand, looks at it, and keeps going, now makes sense his reaction was so honest because he really cut it, and Jesus, he never broke character if I ever meet him I'll ask to see the scar, then probably offer him a blowjob

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST


    by BuffDaddy

    There are more people in slavery today than in the 1800's and the world is supposed to be much more civilized right now than the 1800's

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 12:11 p.m. CST


    by BuffDaddy

    Because your mom has a stinking yeast infested cunt

  • At that time America was still the equivalent of what China is today for the "civilized" European powers, who had established their slave factories and plantations here back when America was a series of European-ruled colonies and they still enjoyed the off-shored benefits(see British support for the Confederacy). But sometime around the middle of the 18th century the long slow boil about slavery that had been going on in America since it's independence came to a head.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    We have a better system now.

    by Smerdyakov

    We bring in people from other countries, they do the picking for below minimum wage and no benefits. We don't have to worry about feeding and clothing them. We don't have to chase them if they run away and we don't have to deal with the moral indignation against slave owners.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 2:46 p.m. CST

    GQTaste, here's the review AICN chose not to publish

    by D.Vader

    I don't mention Don Johnson, but he's in two sequences, a moderate part. Bigger than Walton Goggins, that's for sure. Django Unchained, the 8th movie from Quentin Tarantino, was better than I expected, but not quite as good as I wanted on a first viewing. As of now, I think Inglorious Bastards (I refuse to learn how to misspell that properly) is possibly QT’s best movie since Pulp Fiction (though I readily admit I still have never seen Jackie Brown), and I may need another viewing of Django to decide which movie I think is best. But right now its Bastards, as that film seemed to be about “something”, and this one works as a crowd-please revenge fantasty (not that there’s anything wrong with that). **Author's note, I do think Bastards is better** I won’t go through a summary of the film as the general plot is known to anyone who has seen the trailers: German bounty hunter Dr. King Schulz frees Django to help him find some bounties that only Django can identify. Schulz teaches Django how to shoot and become a bounty hunter, and along the way he decides to help Django find and free his still enslaved wife. The movie is tense and at times extremely hilarious. There are moments of violence that have you cheering and other moments that have you wincing. Blood erupts from gunshot wounds not like the spewing geysers found in “Kill Bill”, but explodes forth from bodies as if a man’s chest was nothing more than a water balloon filled with red (and this gets huge laughs from the audience at times). Christoph Waltz does a great job as Schulz, Django’s savior and teacher, channeling the charisma of his earlier Hans Landa though infusing him with much more warmth and likability than the former. Leonardo DiCaprio is a hoot as Francophile and plantation owner Calvin Candie, capable of youthful excitability in one scene and furious anger in the next. Kerry Washington is still drop-dead gorgeous, though she doesn’t have much to do here other than cry and hide her emotions. Jamie Foxx, I must admit, did not impress me in the trailers for this film, which I never found that great to begin with (and I admit none of the Bastards’ trailers appealed to me either), but he turns in a wonderfully hardened performance here as the titular character. There’s anger and resentment bubbling behind those eyes of his, but you rarely see it boil over the surface. And Samuel L. Jackson? Hilarious. Just hilarious in his Uncle Ben makeup. I won’t say any more because his performance is best experienced instead of being told about. Tarantino’s soundtracks are often as anticipated as the movies themselves, and I find myself at a loss for how to describe the one QT has chosen for Django. For being his “southern” movie, I’m surprised that Bastards and Kill Bill seemed to have more “western” cues than this one. And for what may be the first time ever, Tarantino put in a few contemporary hip-hop songs and some original songs written specifically for this movie. And when you’re used to Tarantino using old songs or music from other films (and to be sure, Luis Bacalov’s “Django” from the original film is the first song you hear), it was a bit jarring to suddenly hear rap in this pre-Civil War era film. Its not out of place, mind you, just something different from the filmmaker. The standout song for me here is Jim Croce’s “I Got a Name”, which elicited quite a few laughs as it was just completely unexpected. Now all of Tarantino’s movies have moments of pure cinema, those bits that just can’t be achieved or expressed as well through the written word, moments that remind you that “HEY, this is a MOVIE!”. For instance, there’s the scene in Pulp Fiction where Mia Wallace draws the imaginary square onscreen. Bastards, for the most part, feels like a straight story, and Tarantino only gives us this pure cinema moment with the Hugo Stiglitz backstory, giving us a freeze frame, a character title, and a voiceover explaining what happened to him. Some have criticized this moment in Bastards, suggesting Tarantino just couldn’t stop himself from doing something “cool” like that. Thankfully, there isn’t anything close to that in Django. The closest we come is a crawl explaining to us the passage of time, and then a very ominous and dramatic text denoting the next location. But aside from that, there are no Chapters like in Bastards and Kill Bill, no imaginary shapes, no voiceovers, and a very limited use of time-shifting narrative. Now in customary fashion, I give you the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly(Weird): THE GOOD - The acting. Everyone is on the top of their game here. - The violence. When it happens, and you’ll know it when you see it, its glorious and colorful and vivid. And funny too. - The comedy. There’s a particularly hilarious scene with a mob of masked horseman that is gut-bustingly funny. - The cameos. Bruce Dern has a very quick cameo (just in closeup), and he looks like a sleazy 1970s Hollywood producer. Why? I dunno why, but it made me laugh. Franco Nero has a memorable line. Tom Savini’s there without speaking. Amber Tamblyn pops up (as does her father, though I didn’t see him). And this may be Quentin Tarantino’s best cameo yet. I don’t see it ever being topped. - The vengeance. You can’t help but smile every time Django gets back at some evil white man. One scene he engages in some glorious whip-fu. - The gunfights. THE BAD - Clearly a lot was cut from this. I don’t have a lot of bad to say about this film except that you *know* there is more of it somewhere, and we didn’t get it. For instance... - M.C. Gainey as one of the Brittle Brothers that Schultz is searching for. In the trailers we see him and his brothers standing over Django and his wife (jn a presumed flashback). That scene is nowhere to be found in the finished film. And when we meet him in the present, he seems to have Bible pages stapled to his clothes. Why? We never find out (in this cut...) as his scene is too short for my taste. - Jonah Hill. I believe his part was originally offered to Sacha Baron Cohen, but in this finished product, the role is so small that you wonder why it was offered to either one of them in the first place. Is there more footage hiding somewhere? - Walton Goggins. I believe there was originally a role for Kevin Costner as a man who trains DiCaprio’s slaves to fight, and when Costner couldn’t do it, his character was merged with the already cast Walton Goggins. Is there any scene with Goggins training the Mandingos to fight? Is there a reference to him as a trainer? No, not at all... so what gives? THE UGLY (and WEIRD) - The slave abuse. Boy that was hard to watch. Whippings, beatings, eye-gougings, dogs... Even worse knowing this shit actually happened. - The language. If you’re Spike Lee, you might have a big fucking problem with this movie. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie with more uses of the “N” word than this one. White people seeing Django on a horse- “Look at this n____!” Slaves seeing Django on a horse- “Who’s that n___?” Samuel L. Jackson seeing Django for the first time- “Who’s this n____ on a nag?!” But hey, that’s how people talked back then. Deal with it. - James Remar. He has dual roles here, though the characters aren’t related (as far as we know), and his second role has no dialogue that I can remember. This isn’t Ugly or bad per se, just weird and a bit distracting. Why did he get two roles? Why him? And how did he appear to lose 7 pounds in his face between portraying the two? - The zooms. In the opening credits and the first minute of the opening scene that follows, I think Tarantino utilizes the extreme zoom lens 5 times. The first two times made me laugh at their absurdity. The last two times had me rolling my eyes, afraid we were going to get this for the entire movie. Thankfully, I didn’t notice a zoom again, and when it was used (like in DiCaprio’s introduction), it was to good effect. - The violence against horses. Poor horses. Funny that the first credit at the end after “Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino” is the customary “NO HORSE WAS HARMED DURING THE MAKING OF THIS FILM” to make us all feel better. - The One Scene. Okay, usually every Tarantino film has that *one* scene you can point to as being excellent and definitive of the film as a whole. I can’t find it in this. Inglorious Bastards had three scenes I can think of that were masterful examples of building tension: the opening scene, Landa and Shoshanna in the restaurant, and Michael Fassbender in the bar. Those scenes are great at building almost unbearable tension through the dialogue. Is there any scene like that in Django? Not at all. But what Django is good at is a steady build of tension throughout, one that keeps you wondering when everything is going to go wrong and who is going to pay for it when it does. I don’t know if there is that “One Scene” in Django Unchained or not; its not as immediately noticeable as it was in Bastards. But I will say that when Django and Schultz get to Candieland (DiCaprio’s plantation estate) and we’re introduced to Samuel L Jackson’s servant character Stephen, the tension builds and doesn’t relent. If the worst thing I can say about the movie is that I know there’s more than what we saw, and that it did feel like a long film (it clocks in at 2 hours 44 minutes), then you know its gotta be good. Its Tarantino, you either like the guy’s movies at this point or you don’t. The typical Tarantino dialogue is there, but its restrained (Schultz has the most verbose dialogue but QT has other characters poke fun at this), and there’s nothing on par with the diner scene from Death Proof to be sure. Its a movie about righteous revenge with deserved violence in a historical setting and shot like a western. I was very pleased by the end, and I look forward to getting an extended cut in the future. Definitely a crowd pleaser on all levels. I’ll gladly pay to see this again after Christmas. Oh and Samuel L. Jackson? He perhaps gets the most laughs in the movie. And- SLIGHT SPOILER- I can’t say I’ve ever wanted to see him die onscreen until now.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 5:53 p.m. CST

    im calling BS

    by HoraceSkinner

    On foxx being a combination of franco nero and clint eastwood. BS Wait did he just say Luke Duke says inward ?

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 8:57 a.m. CST


    by UltraTron You are all slaves. Duh.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 9:21 a.m. CST

    White Man's Burden

    by Hipshot

    Wasn't well thought out. There was no sense of the differences we would feel in a world in which Africa's civilizations were able to conquer and colonize Europe. They simply switched roles in the Americas without thinking the rest of it through.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    The difference of Slavery in America and other countries

    by paulloch

    Is this nation was built on the backs of slaves. It was an inherent part of the creation of the US,and that fact gets routinely overlooked and glossed over in the history books (especially ones from Texas). Most other nations cannot lay claim to that. Of course slavery is bad anywhere, (and it still exists today, unfortunately) But the historical inexorable, connection, between the brutal sacrifice of black slaves, and the building of the greatest nation, and the multi generational denial of a race from the bounty of that greatest nation, makes Slavery in the US wholly unique.

  • Dec. 22, 2012, 2:07 a.m. CST

    I don't feel one ounce of guilt about slavery...

    by Jaka

    ...because I had fuck all to do with it. The fact that people can't stomach admitting it happened and have intelligent discourse, or even an entertaining one, is a huge problem. Slavery happened! It was horrible and hideous and inexcusable. But it had absolutely nothing to do with a huge portion of the entire current population of the United States. First, because there has been a constant influx of immigrants for the last 150 years. Second, because a large portion of those of use living in this country had no ancestors in the slave owning South. Beyond that, it's been, what? Seven or eight generations since slavery was abolished? It's probably time that y'all pack that guilt up and move the fuck on. <p> No, the issue is not that slavery is part of our past. The issue is that far too many people are still shallow, unaccepting, finger pointing racists, right now! And that goes for all side, and all races. Everyone hates everyone else and being reminded of how far that went in the past forces people to confront those feelings. THAT is what makes people uncomfortable.

  • Dec. 26, 2012, 12:42 a.m. CST

    spot on, nerd rage.

    by josh hubanks