Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
movies / January 6, 2013

I waited to write about Django Unchained because I couldn’t figure out how to account for its maddening effects. But they’ve gotten more and more maddening over time, to the point that I found myself in a restaurant the other night ranting about the sheer horror of hearing Jim Croce’s soporific ‘70s soft-rock ballad “I Got a Name” scored over should-be-exhilarating shots of Django as a newly freed man riding a fine horse through a grand Western snow-scape.

Sorry, other patrons of the restaurant in question! But consider the provocation! “I Got a Name,” for the love of Christ, right there in the middle of my pre-Civil War slave-revenge epic that I’ve been waiting a year to see! “I Got a Name”! I mean, why not the mellow stylings of James Taylor while we’re at it? Maybe Django could sing “You Got a Friend” to his horse or something! My God! Has the whole world gone crazy?

So what the hell, after that there’s no point holding back.

Let me just say that I’m not enjoying hating Django Unchained while so many others have a good time loving it. Hating Django Unchained puts me in company I really don’t want to keep. Fretters who can’t bear the idea of revenge narratives or filmed violence. Morons who hate genre movies. Spike Lee.

I’m not with them, I swear!

The problem here isn’t that Quentin Tarantino made an ultra-violent film about a slave’s epic revenge—that’s what I wanted, that was the whole point. It’s that he turned it into a big lame fatheaded joke with a Jim Croce song in it. That’s unforgivable. Greatest opportunity a filmmaker has had in years, and he fucked it up.

And the bitter irony is, I read the script months ago, so deep-down, underneath all my fondest hopes, I knew he was going to fuck it up.

Here’s what I wrote last February:

Django Unchained is the Tarantino film that takes on slavery in America, turning it into a kind of Spaghetti Western bloodbath relocated to the Deep South….I’ve got a lot riding on this radical “Southern.” Big emotional investment, partly because of how rotten American films are lately and how much a new genre is needed to breathe a little life into them. And partly because I have so much faith in genre film as The Better Way to approach cultural history and experience, better because genre actually works. It has an impact, influences how people feel. History lessons and documentaries and high-minded period dramas, when they can’t be avoided, sometimes have their place in making us think dutiful thoughts. But an effective genre film…can go right into our nerve centers and makes us love things, and hate other things, and long for a scenario in which to act on our feelings.

That all might be very deplorable or even dangerous—some people think so, anyway—but there it is….

Django Unchained is about how the slave Django (to be played by Jamie Foxx) is unexpectedly freed by an urbane German bounty hunter, Dr. Schultz (Basterd’s celebrated Christoph Waltz) and teams up with him to go on a plantation raid to free Django’s wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). The despicable plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) uses his spread as a giant “house of ill-repuke” as Popeye would say, for white Southern gents with a hankering for “ponies,” generally light-skinned female slaves judged the best-looking. “Candyland” also showcases a slave-fighting ring featuring “mandingo” gladiators who battle to the death.

Obviously, all that has to be stopped in the goriest way possible. Fine, good. Necessary, even. An ultra-violent, vengeful “Southern” can be the pop media form of “the fire next time” James Baldwin promised us: “We are going to burn down your house.” On film, anyway.

Make that a plantation house in antebellum Mississippi and what decent person, black or white, doesn’t want to help torch it?

But the problem is, it all reads so…stupid. Tarantino’s script is everything his detractors say he is, derivative, obnoxious, juvenile. There are terrible scenes of cornball humor, like when Django…wear[s] a blue satin Little Lord Fauntleroy outfit in order to impersonate Dr. Schultz’s valet, and is confronted by a slave:

“Betina: What’cha do for your massa’?

Django: Didn’t you hear him tell ya, I ain’t no slave.

Betina: So you really free?

Django: Yes.

Betina: You mean you wanna dress like that?

Django fumes.”

You come to dread the scene descriptions because they’re so embarrassing:

“The men go to different stores to purchase Django’s wardrobe….Django looks damn handsome in his new duds. Brown cowboy boots, Green Corduroy Jacket, Smokey Grey shirt, Tan Skin Tight Pants, and Light Brown Cowboy Hat. He looks a bit like Elvis in “Flaming Star” and a Little Joe Cartwright on “Bonanza.””

Or this one:

“Stephen has been Calvin’s slave since he was a little boy. And in (almost) every way is the 2nd most powerful person at Candyland. Like the characters Basil Rathbone would play in swashbucklers, evil, scheming, intriguing men, always trying to manipulate power for their own self interest. Well that describes Stephen to a tee.

The Basil Rathbone of House Niggers.”

Tarantino writes like some of my students, and he’s getting way too old for that. All that writing-like-talking can be great if you’ve got control over it (see Mark Twain), but it’s godawful when you suffer from logorrhea and have the sensibility of a stoat. Tarantino’s ain’t-it-cool gloating is just as hot for the joys of Candyland, which he seems to wish he could visit personally—maybe he and Leo having a pony-party—as it is for the burning of Candyland.

But everything equally “awesome” gets boring fast, and finally has no impact. Django’s revenge just tails off into nothing—I can hardly remember it. There’s no slave uprising, no Nat Turner action. Django and Broomhilda are somehow going to escape from the Deep South on their own after wasting everyone at Candyland, and lead really cool lives somewhere. Maybe head to California, open a store on Melrose Ave., sell the Django Look, corduroy jackets and skin-tight pants…?

Hell, Tarantino’s half-convinced me the PBS types are right: you can’t deal with slavery in a genre film, it’s insulting. You think of every old photo of a slave you ever saw, and wonder how Tarantino could write such crap. And here’s the guy who wants to make a movie about John Brown! It’s laughable!

Still, I hope I’m wrong. Maybe it just reads stupid, and all the sound and visuals will transform it. Or maybe he’s on the set desperately rewriting the script between takes. He should be.

Yes, I had naïve hopes that Tarantino could bring it off in spite of everything. But no. No, no, no, no, no—that was me in the theater during most of the movie, with one stream of word-thoughts running constantly in my head—oh, no no no no no no NO.

The fucking thing’s a tonal nightmare, wrong here, wrong there, all adding up to one giant mess of wrong. From the time Dr. Schultz shows up in the first scene driving a little caravan with a gigantic plaster tooth on top of it, attached to a spring so it bounces around goofily to advertise his supposed trade of dentistry, I found myself in a kind of cinema-hell.

Even prepared as I was, I couldn’t believe what I was looking at, this goony series of expensively overproduced skits about slavery, built for guffaws as much as for  “ewww” reactions over gloppy blood spurts that accompany all the shooting scenes—the cost of the fake-blood-thickener they were apparently using must’ve almost busted the budget. There’s Jamie Foxx striking Bonanza poses in his fancy new duds. There’s Samuel L. Jackson, wearing an Uncle Ben’s Converted Rice get-up, playing one of those uppity Gone With the Wind-type slaves who get laughs by giving their masters a lotta lip. There’s Tarantino himself swaggering up as an Australian slave-driver with a cartoonishly bad “G’day mate!” attempt at an accent.

Sure, there are some fine things in the film—great actors, lush cinematography—but that can’t salvage the sheer amount of dumbfuckery going on. Prime example: there are horses doing tricks, repeatedly. The last shot, over the grand finale of the exploding Candyland plantations house, is Django showing Broomhilda that he taught his horse how to do some annoying dressage move.

It’s ghastly. All the controversy surrounding the movie seems to miss this central point, that Tarantino’s punctuating what ideally should be a serious-as-a-heart-attack revenge film with inane laffs and hijinks. It’s adding insult to injury that now Big T is going around to interviewers pontificating about the horrors of slavery and how all his research indicates it was far worse than he depicts—duh!—as if he’d just made an avenging-slavery movie that’d give you nightmares for weeks.

But he hasn’t. It’s what he SHOULD’VE done.

And I realize I’m arguing that what’s wrong with Tarantino’s Django Unchained is that he didn’t make a totally different Django Unchained, i.e., the one I wanted to see, about a Nat Turner-esque slave revolt. That seeming unreasonableness kept me from writing about this movie for awhile, too.

But fortunately, somebody else found the reasonable basis for such an argument, and had more nerve than I did. Here’s a quote from Remeike Forbes’ astute article in Jacobin Magazine called “Why Django Can’t Revolt”:

Django Unchained‘s single obsession with the hero’s manhood renders more epic possibilities unimaginable. One question looms over the film — where’s the slave rebellion? Even Calvin Candie asks himself this.

Remarkably, a story about slave-on-slaver violence barely makes a nod at slave revolt. Some might say that such a grand gesture isn’t really in Tarantino’s repertoire, but Inglorious Basterds shows this to not be the case at all. In the movie he allows for history to be completely rewritten, as a band of Jewish-American soldiers and a Jewish theater owner murder the entire Nazi leadership in one night. Why then should something as plausible as a slave revolt be considered an absurdity?

There is one moment that seems like the perfect opportunity for Django to evolve from his lone gun-slinging to rallying others to fight. After fooling his captors and preparing his return to Candyland, Django goes over to the wagon where a few of Candie’s former slaves are sitting in a cage. One would imagine that now free and moved by Django’s feats at least one person, if not all, would join him and take the opportunity to reap revenge on the Candie plantation, where they themselves had lived dehumanizing lives as Mandingo fighters. Instead, they look on at Django awestruck, as he rides off. I guess their balls just weren’t quite as big as Jamie Foxx’s.

Forbes has zeroed in on one of two really telling points in the narrative, when it seems like Tarantino is deliberately psyching us out with the possibility of Django joining forces with other slaves.

The first is the opening scene, when Django, a member of a chain gang of manacled slaves shuffling through the harsh cold terrain of Texas in winter, is liberated by Dr. Schultz, who shoots the slavers. Dr. Schultz then counsels the other slaves about how to negotiate their own way to freedom, and Christoph Waltz’s singsong voice is light and frolicsome throughout. Django never speaks to them, seems too shocked by rapid developments. This seems like the film’s starting point on slavery: there is no cooperation among slaves, there’s hardly even sympathy or communication amongst slaves, and therefore, no possibility of united action. We know that’s not true as a rule, historically. But as a genre film set-up it might work well if, for instance, you intended to rectify that terrible state of affairs with gradually increasing sympathy, communication, and cooperation, all leading up to a goddamn SLAVE REVOLT.

Instead, later on, as Forbes indicates, evil Calvin Candie speculates about the reasons why slaves don’t revolt, and makes a lengthy, outrageous argument, illustrated with the skull of a dead slave, that black people in general are biologically inclined toward submission. Only one in ten-thousand, Candie opines, would prove to be the exception to this rule. At the climactic moment of the movie, Django proudly announces himself as that one non-submitting black person, embracing Candie’s theory.

It’s a hell of a thing, lemme tell ya.

The second time in the movie that the possibility of a slave revolt gets dangled in front of us is the more egregious one. Django gets freed from his captors once more—actually, frees himself this time, through smooth-talking guile followed by unforeseen violence, clearly demonstrating what he’s learned from Dr. Schultz in their bounty-hunting ventures—and once again he’s looking at his fellow black men, who are still sitting in the cage, though the door is open.

The scene is held dramatically, letting us consider what’s about to happen next. Pretty clear Tarantino is building expectations—will they leap up to join him, or will Django have to urge them to grab this extraordinary chance at revenge and freedom…? Nah, neither. Django demands the dynamite and rides off, the other men staring after him. Then, the shootings—Broomhilda rescued—Candyland goes kaboom—dressage—THE END.

It seemed so artificial and atrocious an ending, I thought, there has to be something else going on in the film that justifies this, and I’m just not getting it. Tarantino ain’t THAT crazy. Turned out a friend of mind had a theory about how the whole movie is really a meditation on contemporary “slavery” in the form of the inescapable, exploitative worker system we’re all enmeshed in right now. Or something like that. I was trying to follow it—it got kind of tricky in its particulars—but the restaurant was getting loud and the drinks were going around and pretty soon I lost the thread. Not sure it would’ve mattered anyway, because the last thing I wanted of Django Unchained was some allegorical exercise. The first major Hollywood genre film about slavery with the slaves as the heroes, and we’re going to get meta about it? On purpose?

But I don’t know how else to explain the movie’s unique rottenness. Or the Jim Croce song. Readers, please advise.


Read more: , , , , , , , , Eileen Jones, movies

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at


Add your own

  • 1. Ozinator  |  January 27th, 2013 at 8:21 pm


    not that you being full of shit means Mr. Bad isn’t stupid…but you are full of shit and he isn’t stupid

  • 2. Andrew  |  January 28th, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    As Django Unchained opens we see a title that`s reads: “1858, two years before the Civil War.” The American Civil War began in 1861. 61-58=3. The slavers are carrying Henry rifles and those are also the primary rifles used by all the characters throughout the entire movie–either Henrys and Winchesters.Henry rifles were invented in 1864. The most popular Winchester rifle widely seen in Django was invented in 1873. Also most other weapons used in the movie hadn`t been invented yet. The Derringer (1866), Sharp rifle with metall rounds ( late 60`s ), cartridge Revolvers ( late 60`s, early 70`s ) and….Dynamite ( 1868 ) Nobody in 1858 could possibly have had them…
    Even though it is just a movie, I think Tarantino should focus a bit more on historical facts. I could go on for ever…
    The song played on the harp was not published before 1865, the word ” motherfucker” not in use before 1920. bounty hunters weren`t in use before 1873,……

  • 3. Mr. Bad  |  January 31st, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    @ 95. gc

    So brevity is the soul of your dipshit wit or was your comment cut short by an aneurysm?

  • 4. blah  |  February 2nd, 2013 at 6:56 am

    why on earth are you all looking to tarantino for a comprehensive and racially sensitive reframing of slavery era social structures? what is this, fucking tumblr?!

  • 5. keith von local  |  February 5th, 2013 at 5:01 am

    I interpreted the scene with the employees of the mining company:-

    1 spoke with a South African accent, 1 with an Australian accent and the third with a british accent – its no coincidence that the largest modern slavers – the mining companies are owned by these countries – It was also clear that a banishment to a mining company was worse than death and also clear that if you show a mining company a new way to make money – bounty hunting – they will jump at it as long as the return is good

  • 6. Rosie  |  February 5th, 2013 at 5:21 am

    Not trying to refute Eileen’s arguments about what’s wrong with the film, but what about what’s right about it? Christoph Waltz is an absolute delight, DiCaprio’s performance was very good and SL Jackson as the ultimate HNIC was fantastic – maybe Eileen only saw the big laugh lines he got in front of the white people without noticing the subtle and truly menacing performance he delivers in the scenes where he truly is “in charge”.
    I enjoyed the movie although it was not what I was expecting – I was expecting a bloodbath, it is Tarintino after all, and after reading Ms Jone’s pre-release article, I expected at least one large gambling filled cage match style Mandingo fight, as well as a scene in which “ponies” are displayed and chosen brothel style. I was surprised and actually pleased that neither of these scenes appeared because they would have been cliche (if possibly fun to watch) and I thought by avoiding them, Tarentino produced a more mature and serious film. He could have gone much, much more graphic, but I’m glad he didn’t because it gave more impact to the horrors he did show – the masks and spiked collars, the chains, the whipping – the everyday brutality of slavery. Anyway, I liked it, even the silly tooth cart because it contrasted with the nasty/ stained/ missing teeth of almost every character – I think it was a clever symbol of Waltz’s character bringing modern thinking to the South.

  • 7. Hilary  |  February 6th, 2013 at 9:49 pm

    Is it possible that Jamie Foxx is just a mediocre actor, Oscar notwithstanding?

  • 8. Mr. Bad  |  February 9th, 2013 at 9:37 am

    Chris Dorner, can you please visit Quentin Tarantino? Just say “hi”, I’m sure QT would be more than happy to explain to you why “nigger” is just a word. From his Manifesto:

    While traveling back to the station in a 12 passenger van I heard Magana refer to another individual as a nigger. I wasn’t sure if I heard correctly as there were many conversations in the van that was compiled of at least 8 officers and he was sitting in the very rear and me in the very front. Even with the multiple conversations and ambient noise I heard Officer Magana call an indivdual a nigger again. Now that I had confirmed it, I told Magana not to use that word again. I explained that it was a well known offensive word that should not be used by anyone. He replied, “I’ll say it when I want”. Officer Burdios, a friend of his, also stated that he would say nigger when he wanted. At that point I jumped over my front passenger seat and two other officers where I placed my hands around Burdios’ neck and squeezed. I stated to Burdios, “Don’t fucking say that”. At that point there was pushing and shoving and we were separated by several other officers. What I should have done, was put a Winchester Ranger SXT 9mm 147 grain bullet in his skull and Officer Magana’s skull. The Situation would have been resolved effective, immediately.

  • 9. Mark Gisleson  |  February 12th, 2013 at 8:55 am

    The most annoying thing about Django Unchained is the way it presents “House n*ggers” as being worse than slave owners. Check out the final battle: last to die is the evil Stephen (Samuel Jackson) who is actually running the plantation while rivaling DeCaprio’s character for sadism.

    A very bad movie that mangles history in ways that won’t revise anyone’s beliefs. History in, garbage out.

  • 10. MoZeu  |  February 19th, 2013 at 7:29 am

    You are right that Django is not a serious film about slave rebellion. It’s a genre film and the lead character is explicitly drawn to be a folk hero.

    Having recognized that fact, I’m not sure why you keep on and on and on about it. It is what it is. It will undoubtedly provoke more intense, passionate and serious discussion about slavery and contemporary racism and race relations than “serious” movies like Lincoln could ever dream of.

    Does this prove that Tarantino knows what he is doing? I guess maybe he’s just lucky. Or maybe he actually understands how to make a film that people – black and white – will watch and discuss and ponder and debate. Being a little bit infuriating, setting up unfulfilled expectations and forcing us to question why our expectations when unfulfilled and what that means, is part of the art of a great artist.

    You can laugh about the Croce song all you want — but please tell me you don’t think it was chosen intentionally. What song would YOU have put there? And why? And why do you believe those shots should have been “exhilarating”? What is the basis for this conviction, and is it possible that your expectations about what a newly-freed slave should be and feel are the problem?

  • 11. Cracker Charley  |  February 20th, 2013 at 7:27 pm


  • 12. Thom Wares  |  February 20th, 2013 at 8:37 pm

    Eileen Jones is now my favorite movie reviewer. I was finding it hard to put into words the reason I found Django such an unremitting crap-fest, falling so short of the cultural touchstone it was being heralded as. Thank you, I needed that. Every word rings true in this review and it really makes me question our supposed critical establishment for the self-congratulatory circle-jerk it has had over this overrated juvenilia masquerading as “high ART”. I must now read all of your recent reviews. Thanks again.

  • 13. FOARP  |  February 22nd, 2013 at 8:15 am

    I watched this film and came out of the cinema annoyed that, yet again, the film had gone on for at least 30 minutes longer than it had any right doing* but once I had a while to think about the flick, the real issue dawned on me – none of the scenes had any real impact: Not the scene where a slave gets mauled to death, nor the scene where Broomhilda gets whipped, nor the scene where Jamie Foxx’s character is about to get castrated, nor any scene in the whole damn movie came across as convincing. This wasn’t just because of the comedy aspects – I’m pretty sure some way could have been found to accomodate those. This also wasn’t because of the unbelievability of the plot – I’m just as capable of over-looking plot holes as any other Joe-Shmoe. I just got the impression that neither the cast nor the even the director really bought the film’s main premise – whatever that was.

    Believe me, I’m not anti-Tarantino. I first saw the the Crazy 88’s fight scene from Kill Bill Part One randomly on the big screen at a (legit) Chinese massage parlour whilst eating a bowl of noodles and the whole thing simply blew me away. But this film was regrettable, irredeemable garbage. A missed opportunity to say something meaningful about slavery? Maybe – but I doubt Tarantino is the guy you’d go to for that. What it certainly was was a poor use of potentially rich and untapped material.

    *I mean WTF Hollywood: Days were directors would complain about having their movies chop-shopped to please the audience but nowadays it seems like your bending forwards to indulge them! In the future studios will have to release a “Studio’s Cut” removing all the self-indulgent back-story/character development/scene-setting dreck that films get loaded down with by directors nowadays.

  • 14. not a gator  |  March 2nd, 2013 at 10:11 am

    Wow, what a dumb commentariat. Employees are not slaves. Grow a brain, Zoidberg. Or just read some slave narratives. You don’t have to read those icky Black slave narratives, just read accounts from modern slaves put together by the CIW.

    I think Eileen’s rant put me in touch with what I found unsatisfactory about the ending. Unlike others, I was highly entertained (although Broomhilda lacked agency, and that was annoying). I’m more annoyed by dead tree reviewers cawing over diCaprio’s paint by numbers performance than recognizing Jackson’s incredible turn as the true big baddie of the piece. But the ending does not make Django a hero. Yes, he kills all the bad guys, but he leaves the slaves to fend for themselves, most likely condemning them to torture and death.

    A slave revolt in a place like that seems almost hopeless because there’s nowhere to run. And I figured Django was set apart as a man because of the curiosity of him walking around openly in the daylight as a freed man, as if inviting recapture. (Freemen did return to the Deep South to try to free family members but they often used agents or crept in under cover of darkness.) I think there is a suspension of disbelief issue, although I was also irritated that probably, due to the movie’s tone, a lot of elements would be taken by a majority of the film’s audience as fictional when they weren’t, strictly speaking, untrue.

    I left the film with the question as to whether Django was a hero or unforgivably selfish.

    Maybe the concept of a revenge flick doesn’t work well in this context.

    Also, diCaprio kinda sucked. Had to say it.

  • 15. Toba  |  March 9th, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    You boys need to cut Quentin some slack. Despite him, his Mommy preferred black dick so this is just his way of mentally ‘getting the taste of it out of his mouth” so to speak even though his mother’s preferences don”t concern him in the least
    Who gives a fuck about the word Nigger!. White people should use the word as freely as possible, after all they came up with it after digging deep down into their hate. Please don’t use the word because because it will hurt my feelings but in private, nigger this and that and whatever. BFD Americans are so ridiculous. At the end of the day blacks and the males of other races want to fuck white women and white women want to be fucked by black men and men of other races. It’s american as apple pie and that’s a fact.
    Django sucked because Quentin knows and plays these assholes ( of all races) and their sensitivities, so he made it a race theme and sat back and laughed as the idiots came out to hem and haw about nothing. I saw the original when I was about 13 years old and am one of those who believe if you’re going to copy a masterpiece at least make a proper effort instead of some bubble gum production as Quentin did…

  • 16. blabla  |  March 30th, 2013 at 4:52 am

    i know monkeys that could write a bad review.
    it needs skill to write a good one.
    will that ever happen lady?
    will we ever see a movie you truly liked and u do not smear with smug pseudo intellectual remarks? is your ego that small that you only feel good if you can bring it down?
    i mean nothing about a bad review if it is deserved. but it seems there never was any good movie according to you.

  • 17. Foofalina  |  April 20th, 2013 at 8:50 am

    Thank you so much for being able to admit that this stupid movie sucked ass!

  • 18. ChicaBella  |  June 9th, 2013 at 1:50 am

    Lol the underlying reason you despised the movie because – aw hell I’m sorry, I’m a PR troll paid by the movie company people to try to undermine your criticism. Your article is better than the film. My apologies.

  • 19. read a history book eileen  |  July 26th, 2013 at 8:11 pm

    Eileen. I am a wanker first of all. My writing is jumbled and all over the place. It reads like I am trying to rant but I’m too thick in the head, I just can’t stop.

    A slave revolt in that landscape would not be likely. Slaves adapted in different ways in different areas sa one poster has stated. In more tropical places like the caribbean and south america they ran away and formed small communitites in the jungle. In the East coast many slaves were skilled sailors. Fred Douglas ran away by dressing up as a sailor. In the hot, flat, dry, south you could go to Mexico or run all the way up to the north under the cover of darkness. Many slaves looked out for number one in the continental U.S.A. That extended to their immidiate family and that’s it. This aspect to the story is extrememly accurate. When given the chance, in fact Black men did horrible things to one another for various reasons such as emotional damage from abuse. This never claimed to be a slave revolt story only a slave revenge story. I should read a history book before posting retarded comments on about nothing.

  • 20. John Mercutio  |  January 29th, 2014 at 8:03 am

    Is Tarantino’s obsession with his beloved theme “Pulp Fiction”. He produce movies after movies taking model of a”pulp fiction screenplay”. By the end is about this old Afro-American guy that at his personal level is a tragic example of crossing the lane in his desire to achieve his human condition and by accepting the reality that Afro-Americans are dum to exist in the only frame possible for them meaning slavery system. By doing this he succeed to achieve the greatest possible position for his race in this system. Is the same tragic old story for a native Indian accepting to fight against his fellow Indians or for a Jews accepting to fight against fellow Jews by serving nazi.The story is childish and preposterous like a true pulp fiction creation but that is not mean that can’t have a message by the end.

  • 21. Katie  |  March 28th, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    I don’t think this movie is about slavery but cinematic myth

  • 22. Kay  |  November 18th, 2014 at 10:43 pm

    Is this for real? Django was fantastic! DiCaprio is fabulously evil. Don Johnson was spectacular. Samuel L Jackson, amazing as always. Werent there a couple of academy nominations and a win if I’m not mistaken? The Jim Croce song was perfect, just as every other songTarantino uses in his films like Strawberry Letter 23 in Jackie Brown. I guess you don’t get Tarantino. BTW- Tarantino is contemplating making something out of the cut footage from Django. So look forward to more Django!

  • 23. Susan  |  December 6th, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    I just watched “Django Unchained” and it pissed me off so much, I immediately went looking to see if anyone else saw the same movie I did. I am glad I’m not alone.

    I don’t know if I am just not hip enough to ‘get’ Tarantino or if he really is a lame-ass teenage nincompoop but I don’t really care. That’s it. No more Tarantino for me.

  • 24. Whyawannaknow  |  January 16th, 2015 at 11:33 pm

    Can you imagine the absolute hell it is to be a physical SFX person after every twerp wannabe auteur in the USA has seen this piece of shit, and starts their request for effects work with XXXXX “like in Django”.

    Jesus God in heaven, can’t these fools watch some of Sam Peckinpah’s work and get a friggin’ CLUE.

  • 25. Charlie  |  August 5th, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    Doesn’t ANYONE know how to spell Brunhilda? This is not the only web site that thinks Django’s wife is named after an American cartoon character, rather than the heroine of a German epic. I see that over and over, every page I look at talking about this movie.

    There are some silly anachronisms in the movie too… like, southern men didn’t ride around at night in “full regalia” before the Civil War, they could commit their crimes openly, in full daylight. They had to hide behind hoods after the war, when slavery had been formally abolished. Free colored people were few, but no surprise, anywhere in the south, and it wasn’t unknown for people of African descent to ride horses. Steven wouldn’t have been at Candyland for seventy years, not in Mississippi. Virginia maybe, but Mississippi’s plantation class were nouveaux riches, some established only 20 years, few for even forty.

    But I just love the killing of the Brittle brothers, especially the way the last one is shot down and his blood splashes across the cotton bolls in the field as he falls off his horse. Oh, and the actress who plays the woman about to be whipped for breaking eggs… her expressions as a six foot tall black man in a blue suit walks up and drills a bullet through the man with the rawhide whip… priceless.

Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)


Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed