View Single Post
  #61  
Old 05-05-2011, 03:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Papaya View Post
Is the script set out in Chapters?

And, does it have one of QT's awesome opening scenes?
minor spoilers

- There are no chapters in the latest draft, but there are about three title cards. There is a narrator that carries over a few flashbacks like Inglourious Basterds (about as seldom as IB too).

- the opening scene is very, very fun but isn't as memorable as Inglorious Basterds. There is a set piece within the first fifteen minutes that I think will be high up there though.

Reading the script, it is easy to imagine some QT regulars in the cast, chief among them is Christolph Waltz, who no doubt had possibly the best role in the film written for him. It is obvious that the role is for him and it would almost be impossible to recast it if he doesn't play it.

It is easy to picture other regulars in some of the roles, Sid Haig could be just about anyone, it is easy to picture someone like Sydney Poitier (Jungle Julia) as one of the prominent characters. I would be surprised as hell if Samuel L. Jackson isn't playing the role of Stephen ("the Basil Rathbone of house niggers").

If the news that Keith Carridine is in it, then I think it is a safe bet he is playing the main villain Calvin Candie (owner of "Candy Land", fourth largest Mississippi Plantation).

The script reads like butter, as all of his do. Very energetic, fun read. It's very much in tone with his more recent radical exploitation sensibilities. In fact, it is a lot like Basterds. Replace Jews in WWII with blacks in nineteenth century America and you get the idea-- the primary goal is to give blacks the well executed exploitation revenge movie they never really got.

If Spike Lee was pissed at Jackie Brown for the use of the word 'nigger', then Django Unchained may well turn him white. There are about 2 or 3 "niggers" a page. It's very provocative, but I wouldn't say it is distasteful. Just expect it to make the rounds on local six o'clock news for the months around it's release. I have a feeling (if it is Basterds "good" and not Death Proof "ok") it might cause a stir with middle-to-upper class suburban whites.

Like all QT scripts, there are moments that are very very tough, moments that are incredibly funny (one scene almost seems like it could be in Blazing Saddles. It's gold), and moments of pure suspense.

This is a crowd pleaser through and through. You can hear the audience erupt while reading it in sections. On that front, it is a success. To be honest, I don't think I liked it as much as I did the first time I read Kill Bill or Basterds. I liked it much more than I did with Death Proof (having read all of his scripts of the last decade before watching them). There are great set pieces, suspenseful dialogue of just people at a dinner table that is pure Tarantino. It is however, expected Tarantino. You expect some things--- revenge flashbacks (plenty), the bickering of nick names and their origins, references and critical analysis (from Taxi Driver to The Three Musketeers). It it all incredibly well paced and well written, it will be an exquisite production no doubt. I can't say it will be anything more than what we've come to expect.

At worst it is old ground in some sense, at best it is a master sharpening the tools he knows better than anyone. I think some of you guys nailed the comparison to Hitchcock, who was king shit when it came to thrillers, even if he never ventured away from them. It seems this past decade Tarantino has become king shit of the revenge.

Don't get me wrong, I read a lot of scripts and this is the best script i've read all year. It will likely be one of my favorite movies of the year it's released, while QT isn't shifting any radical gears this time out, most likely it will be a rip roaring thrill ride of a movie.
Reply With Quote