Wasn't the boat captain brought back only in gow2 tho? and iirc he was a soul temporarily summoned by the zombie dude with hammer, i won't necessarily call that being brought back to life, but that's just me.
Doesn't matter, he was brought back. Also, the gods can seemingly do everything else and it's not exactly established that they can't bring people back to life and we have proof that people themselves can be brought back to life in various ways, from raising souls to crawling out of hades to fucking time travel, it all comes down to the same thing: if Kratos wanted to save his family, he had options he could have atleast tried. He didn't. Why would that be?
Maybe that's what Tarantino thinks, but let's be honest, that's not what transpires in the movie at all,
No, that is what transpired, actually. Schultz hated Candy for his racism and pretentiousness, certainly, but in the scene in question, the part of the movie that actually has him kill Candy, it was because Candy pissed him off by lording his victory over him. Hell, if his objective was to help Django, then what he should have done was shaken his hand and then come back to kill him later, because that would let them walk out alive without risking Brunhilde's life. But he wanted to get back at Candy for being an annoying twerp, so...
I do think that as a slave his violent rebellion against ares was ultimately justified, but again that doesn't mean that he isn't an a hypocritical dick, that was always pretty clear.
No, whats happening is you sympathize with a slave rebelling against his master because slavery is abhorrent. But that's not the actual point here. I'm not talking about whether Kratos rebellion against Ares is justifed in an abstract, moral sense.
I'm saying that specifically about how Kratos frames the event. He thinks Ares betrayed him and he just factually didn't. I'm not talking about the legality either. I'm saying Kratos went "I will be your slave" and Ares goes "ok *treats kratos as a slave*" and Kratos goes "HOW COULD YOU TREAT ME AS A SLAVE, WE WERE PARTNERS AND NOW U BETRAY ME? D:"
The point I'm getting at here is that Kratos is DELUSIONAL, so he makes up a framework for events that didn't actually happen that way and uses it to justify his revenge. That's why his revenge isn't justifiable by Kratos' terms, it's because the framework itself is a lie. If he simply went "Ares is fucking evil" or something, that'd be one thing, even if it'd be a tad rich coming from him. But instead he pretends that they had some kind of trust that Ares betrayed, and that just literally never happened.