Originally Posted by LX
All I saw was Leonardo trying really hard to be a plantation owner. Tarantino is also to blame. He originally wanted to go with an older character. That probably would have worked better. Leo wanted this role. But it changes the nature of the evil involved. It becomes inherited, handed down. I didn't get any sense of the evil that motivated him. I saw a guy ridiculously enjoying a Mandingo fight by the fireplace. He did not look like he belonged on that estate any more than Django did. Then Waltz's character finds him so repulsive that he needs to kill him, but he just never sold me on that level of evil that required an act that would upend everything they planned. It just ddn't work in terms of motivations of any of the characters. And a lot of that stems from Dicaprio's character being so poorly defined. The movie just became cartoonish as a result.
Hmm. He played a plantation owner's son rather than the old plantation owner himself. Struck me as an ignorant, spoiled brat of a man with a capability for sickening violence. His delight at the mandingo fights... having a man ripped apart by dogs... coming within a hair's breath of bashing a girl's skull in with a hammer... and then letting her for a sum of money and a "gentlemanly" handshake? One that he INSISTED on having from the German? Seemed pretty damn unlikeable to me.
Tarantino does do the "cartoony" thing though... it was very much in the mode of "Kill Bill" IMO.