Effectively, he was a black man running a plantation with white goons protecting him... stephen was living the good life
Jim wasn't the main char..... You're an idiot. Shame on me for eve entertaining that dumbass comparison.no but jim was you ole regular dummy.
That's what I thought ya nitwit. The nerve of you crackers now trying to say that Django isn't about slavery. Everything in the movie is about slavery. This is exactly why I have refused to support the movie and won't cosign it. fukk you crackers. Save that "but I ain't white I'm black" cop out because you've got a white man mentality.go to hell
i'm latino...but i just have a thespian mentality about it.
Django begging for him to get beat, instead of her & then that cac b*stard cuts through the negotiation with a whip to her back 
. I don't know if it was because I was with my wife or not but that scene has stuck with me. It was a very tough watch. Knowing your woman is getting attacked and it nothing you can do to 
her.
for her.Latino isn't a race genius, you're probably a white Latino. This isn't about you being a thespian this is about you being an idiot. If you don't think that the movie is about slavery then that's exactly what you are. Like I said, it's a movie that's part action, romance, comedy, ect. but all of those elements are expressed in the context of slavery.i'm latino...but i just have a thespian mentality about it.
some get it & some don't. it's all about perspective.
There is no comparing Huckleberry Finn and Django except that they were both set in the South during slavery, you stupid fukk. Jim may be a major character in the novel but the novel was not about him, it was about Huckleberry. You're right, please don't subject me to anymore of your stupid ass posts. Had I known you were this dumb I wouldn't have quoted you in the 1st place.jim is a fukking major character who is a slave. huckleberry finn is set in the south during slavery and if you can't see the comparasion, then you're either stupid or being extremely obtuse. you know what...it's obvious you don't know how setting/background works in film. shame on me for wasting my time responding to your dumbass.
have you seen the Django dolls? Denying that the movie is about slavery is about them not wearing that exploitation charge. You can't say that the movie exploits or trivializes slavery if it's not even really about slavery, right?
ohhh
these dudes really sleeping on Kerry, she made the emotional connection that made Django more than just a killer. He becomes a man with a clear purpose because of her (acting). That scene with Django & Hilda running in the field away from the torches & horses
That was a POWERFUL scene...Kerry did that man
How can you guys keep saying this dude was cautious & pre meditated, when he bucked the slaver in the opening scene & then killed the sheriff in broad daylight in front of a crowd. The dude was WILD'n the entire film. Him killing Candie was perfectly in character, he was impulsive the entire film
p.s. the film was Clearly about slavery/revenge. Gravity is right about that, you just can't get around that no matter how much you try. Which amazes me, on youtube I haven't been able to see anyone taking on the slavery depth of the film like we have here. The Cacs are clearly trying to sidestep the issue again, when its dead in there face.
really? Killing the sheriff was probably his most premeditated scene that setup his whole character. Impulsive? He walks into a town with django, a slave, everyone is shook and he's like get me a drink. Because he knows the sheriff is a fugitive he planned that whole charade, knowing once the Marshall's came in they wouldn't kill him and he'd get his bread. I could see peeps disagreeing on kings motivation for killing candie, but saying king wasn't a calculated deliberate character seems like a huge reach. Huge reach brehs.
when i see people saying idiotic things like "django is this generation's roots" or "django waters down slavery". from the beginning of the movie to the ending of the movie django is pretty much the standard qt revenge flick. i'm not arguing qt's grand design or subliminal messages, i am arguing the literal plot of the movie is not about slavery. i've been quite clear numerous times that was my argument. slavery isn't a sacred cow nor should it be treated as such, though with that said slavery should be treated with respect and as realistic as possible. if slavery was treated how gone with the wind treated it then i could understand "django waters down slavery", but it doesn't. in a technical film viewpoint slavery in django is a setting and backdrop that defines the time period the movie was in, which is why i brought up huckleberry finn. imo a western that actually acknowledges slavery or the effects of slavery is far less offensive than a western that completely ignores it.
Many movies have collectable figures. Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs, Inglourious Basterds had action figures, too.
