MovieChat Forums > Django Unchained (2012) Discussion > This movie goes downhill after Waltz/Leo...

This movie goes downhill after Waltz/Leo die


This movie was brilliant for the first 2/3 or so, but after the handshake scene where Schultz & Calvin die, the films brilliance ends. From the absurd massive shootout, to the inane Australian scene, to the cringeworthy death of Lara Lee, it just becomes a farce. It also doesn't help when you kill off the two most interesting characters within seconds of each other. I don't even doubt it was QT's intention to be completely over the top like that, I get it's a spoof on blaxploitation films, but after how great this movie was for so long, I was pretty disappointed with the final 45 minutes

reply

"cringeworthy death of Lara Lee"

Speak for yourself, as for the rest of what you said.

reply

Completely agree. The best of the movie was Waltz and DiCaprio.

reply

Have you ever heard the phrase ''all good thing come to an end''?
It's not because a character is great that he has to survive the whole movie.
Yes the best part of the movie is with them, but that doesn't mean the movie would have been better with them until the end.
Quality is better than quantity.

reply

I agree with this. It actually raised the stakes after Waltz and Cap’s deaths. I wouldn’t say it went downhill, it just switched gears into more of a hostage situation (the wife had technically already been paid for and was free).

I did find the Australian scene bizarre though. As an Australian I like hearing my accent on screen, and can appreciate Tarantino wanting some quirkiness to his cameo, lol. But I can’t imagine there would be any Australians whatsoever in the American Wild West of the 1850s! Zero. Plus Australia was less than 100 years old in the 1850s, and most Aus movies set in this period accurately only have Irish and English accents. This would’ve been too early for an Aussie accent.

Plus Tarantino‘s accent was so bad I actually thought he was playing a South African (eg, the white bearded villain in Black Panther). Oh well whatever, it was funny.

reply

Just saw the movie and totally agree. I was concerned at the insane running time (almost three hours for a non-novel adaptation seems pretty self-indulgent) but I never once found the movie dragged and thoroughly enjoyed it... up until the big shootout scene.

Not only was it sparked by something more comedic than dramatic (there was no reason to shoot Candie and then commit suicide by just standing there) but it was the logical end to the movie, yet it staggered on for another twenty minutes of baffling padding.

Why were the mining guys (including Tarantino, with a dreadful accent) Aussies? Why kill the innocent sister and make Django into a villain himself? Heck, why would they let him live and risk any chance of revenge after he killed about thirty people in that shootout?! What were they going to do with his wife? Why was Zoe Bell in this film with a mask on when it had no payoff at all?

IMO, the film should either a) have ended with that gunfight, letting Django kill Steven and escape with his wife (since a tragic end wasn't in the cards, clearly) or b) have Candie kill Schultz in cold blood at the dinner table and have Django sent to the mine... so he escapes, returns to rescue Hilde and kills Candie and Steven in a similar epic gunfight and explosion as the finale.

What we got was an ending... then a bit of faffing around, then another ending.

Oh, and IMO the ending was quite tonally off from the rest of the film too, playing like a blaxploitation ending (fine by itself, as its a fun genre) when Django had previously been set up as a much more introspective, just man with a conscience rather than a "kill whitey like a badass" hero.

reply

I kinda think that there was a "rhyme" to what QT did with the script structure here, and a certain service to Django as his lead character.

Simply put, when Schultz shoots Candie, and is in turn killed by Butch...the two main white characters are out of the film(with Schultz being dispatched by yet another white character.)

Now, Django is set on course for a final confrontation with Stephen...the black hero will kill the black villain(and, unlike as with Waltz, will not die in the process.) Indeed, before their final fatal confrontation, we get the scene where Django is hanging upside down and Stephen is revealing to him the full evil depravity of his sell-out "house slave" to the white slave masters.

Schulz was Django's mentor for the first 2/3 of the film, teaching him how to shoot, how to be a bounty hunter, how to assert his authority AS a bounty hunter(Django uses Schultz's verbal techniques and wanted posters to convince the Aussie mining men to give him a GUN, for God's sake!), and even how to dress better. With Waltz now dead, Django has to take over the movie and assert himself as the hero -- starting with that big ol' gunbattle that we just KNOW Django has been aching for against all these white bigots. And look how great Django dresses at the end, after that initial silly blue outfit he wears at Big Daddy's ranch.

By the way, in an interview, Will Smith said one reason he turned down Django Unchained is that HE wanted to be the one who killed Calvin Candie, not Schultz. That's movie superstar thinking -- "its all about me." QT protected his structure(the two white men die and set up the confrontation between the two black men) and let Smith walk.

reply

I agree as well, the movie ground to a half when the two main white characters died. IMHO that showed a central weakness in the script and the direction - the white characters were better developed and got more screen time than the black!

Django may have been the title character but it was clear that Tarantino w giving all his love and attention to Waltz and DiCaprio,

reply

Well, they could have been Turkish or from Kazakhstan.
It's just adding to the comedy aspect of the movie.
And Tarantino's accent was not even close. Thought he was a South African.

reply

Blaxploitation? From the big red fonts, to the soundtrack, isn't it more of a spoof of spaghetti westerns?

In any case, I thought it was interesting the circumstances in which Calvin Candie died. Almost made you feel Dr. Shultz was the bad guy. It was like Calvin was evil, but evil within the law of that time period. He took $12k from Shultz' billfold and not a dollar more. He even wrote up a bill of sale, and freedom papers. Granted, he made the ultimatum of $12k for Broomhilda or watch him bash her in. But that was because he was mad they almost made a fool of him. "Those time wastin' sons of bi***es," and as we all know, time is money! So you can't really fault him for wanting to sell something for $12k. He screams at them, that Broomhilda is his property, and he can do as he pleases with her, reminding the audience again, that he is evil but within the laws of those days. Dr. Shultz was definitely a sore loser. So much so, he risked the lives of Django and Broomhilda when he shot Calvin.

reply