#41  
Old 12-26-2012, 08:15 AM
My review of Django Unchained:

The “s” word has been shunned in Hollywood for a long time now, it’s almost as taboo and harsh as the dreaded “n” word itself; which has made for a lot of vilification of Quentin Tarantino’s latest spaghetti western, or southern as he’d prefer, Django Unchained.

Slavery is nothing to joke about, it’s a point in our history that we’d all wish wouldn’t have happened like many other unspeakable acts that have taken place. But if you’re not going to take what Tarantino did as a form of entertainment then don’t bother watching this. If you’re expecting a factual representation of the cotton fields and genocide of slavery then this isn’t your film.

What Django Unchained really is, is a story of two bounty hunters who become partners and search for their bounties along with Django’s wife, all under the backdrop of 1858 America.

This is obviously a Tarantino film through and through and he never lets you forget about it. From the over the top blood splatter to the hilarious scene of the KKK wardrobe malfunctions, Django Unchained is filled with scenes we’ll be talking about for years to come much like with Pulp Fiction.

We open to four slaves trekking through Texas when a German dentist riding in a horse drawn buggy, stops them in hopes that they could help him identify the location of the men he’s looking for. During the opening questionnaire he discovers that one of the slaves in line knows what the Brittle brothers looks like and intends to buy him for his services. And thus the start of a beautiful friendship of Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) and Django (Jamie Foxx) begins.

The two become quite fond of each other as Schultz dazzles Django with guns and the English language all while letting him roam free unlike any black man at this time. This dynamic-duo of Waltz and Foxx are buddy cops in a comedy before such a thing even existed. As their friendship grows and the Brittle brothers are brought to justice, Dr. Schultz makes an offer to Django saying if they partner up for the winter as bounty hunters, when the ice melts he will help Django try to rescue his wife Broomhilda.

The two are peas in a pod; probably the most enjoyable part of the film is seeing these two in action, form a bond and kinship. As the winter fades and the two have made money – it’s time to go get Django’s wife. A trip to Tennessee leads to information of Broomhilda’s whereabouts at “CandieLand” the plantation owned by the evil Monsieur Calvin Candie, played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Candie is a mean slave owner who takes pride in his property; always seen smoking, his yellow teeth are always on display as DiCaprio’s Cheshire cat smile looms large in the face of darkness.

We’re further introduced to a wild house slave in charge while Candie is away, Steven, played by the diabolical, shrewd and fast-tongued Samuel L. Jackson. His disdain for Django being free and prancing about like a white man sets off alarms that further lead to drama at the plantation.

Tarantino shows off his skills throughout the film with an impeccable script that turns an uncomfortable subject into one of hilarity. He does so by not exploiting slavery but instead use it as a vehicle for Django to prove everyone wrong. In a time where the social norm was for blacks to be in chains and shackles, Django is a free man, running around killing whites for money. This shifts the balance of power and as Django says when asked to be a bounty hunter: “what’s not to like.” It allows for harsh dialogue and crude jokes about a touchy subject, some may be too ashamed to laugh, but when you look around the theater everyone will be joining you.

This was the first Tarantino film without Sally Menke, who passed away in 2010 and it unfortunately showed. The film at a robust 165 minutes is far too long and begins to grow tiring late in its second act. It could have easily been trimmed 20-30 minutes and had a greater effect on the audience. During the first 90 minutes I really stopped myself and thought this was one of the best films of the year, up until that point, hoping it wouldn’t tank as the second act approached. That being said, my only other real issue with the film was the dramatic change in tones starting in hour two. The film goes from a wild, fun, hilarious, best-QT-film-ever, to a very serious, messy and muddled finale that really loses it’s spunk from the first half of the film.

Anchored by the best music of any film in 2012, the titular Django theme song by Luis Bacalov is one you’ll want to play over-and-over and I for one hope it wins an Oscar, it’s that damn infectious. From Rick Ross to James Brown to Tupac; Tarantino finds a way to insert them all into the medley of Django and amplify his scenes ten fold.

Christoph Waltz as Dr. King Schultz is one of the funniest characters Tarantino has ever come up with. This German bounty hunter has such a sense of humor that he can laugh in the face of bullet holes and stickups. It’s as enjoyable of a supporting role as you’ll see all year; I won’t be surprised if he gets nominated for an Oscar. In fact, you can make a case for Leonardo DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx as well to get nods in the best supporting actor category as all three were off the charts. DiCaprio is clearly entering new grounds with this role and it’s one that will stand out and be talked about for his entire career. It’s refreshing no doubt.

With Foxx, this is the role that I feel catapults him from known name to Hollywood star, if not superstar. With an upcoming mega role in The Amazing Spider-Man sequel as Electro, Django Unchained should showcase his versatility to the masses and allow a nationwide audience to soak in his skills. And next year when he dons the super suit we can all point at his work as Django as the launching point of his stardom.

This is QT’s finest work in over 20 years as copious amounts of blood soak the ground that Django walks on. While the violence is a staple of Tarantino’s, Django is bound by more then just guns and the notion of slavery. It’s the colorful lead characters, timely cameos and a script that while verbose balances off colored humor with a kick-*** time.

Rating: B+
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-26-2012, 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
There was only one thing I didnt like
Spoiler:
QT's cameo. ALmost took me out of the movie.


HATED IT, felt so forced.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-26-2012, 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
Christmas came early for me!!!
The "bag scene" that St. Louis critics nominated for one of the best scenes of the year, is HILARIOUS and deserves the nomination.
one of the best scenes of the year, so funny, even though Jonah Hill clearly didn't fit. As I wrote in my review, that's one of those scenes we'll be talking about for years
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-26-2012, 09:23 AM
Without a doubt, one of the most disappointing movies I have seen this year. It's hard for me to justify this, since I actually enjoyed most of the performances. Samuel L Jackson (although he doesn't show up until midway thru the film) was probably as good as he's ever been in a role made probably just for him. DiCaprio looked like he was having fun and owned every scene he was in, same as Foxx, who's character progression was fun to watch. Col Hans Landa, i mean Dr King, played by Cristoph Waltz, is pretty much the exact same character from Inglorious Basterds. Don't know why he is getting so much praise.

The part I didn't like was the story. I felt it dragged on waaaaay too long, the action scenes were over the top to the point where blood looked like jello flying around. Another disappointing thing was the opening scene of the film. Usually Tarantino's first scene's from movies, are arguebly the most memorable, or tense. This one was just bleh.

I wish i could describe how i feel a bit better, but i just feel disappointed.

6/10
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-26-2012, 09:39 AM
Aside from suffering an early climax 30 minutes before the film ended, this is damn near flawless. Easily QT's most entertaining ride since the first Volume of Kill Bill.
I personally don't understand the pacing problems some are having with it. Yes, it's talky, but what not nearly as much as his other films. Structurally, this is QT's most traditional film imo. Basterds was much more touch and go as far as pacing was concerned if you ask me.

Every actor nailed it in this movie. Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson all stole the film, and even when all three of them where in the same scene together! How does that work? Foxx also plays the stoic badass well. Once he finally gets to let loose, the dude kicks ass.

This film is epic, violent as all hell (how fucking cool was that shoot-out?), acted to the hilt, dramatic, suspenseful and hilarious. And only in the way QT can deliver. Whenever this dude has a movie coming out, it always manages to take my number 1 spot of the year. Kill Bill 1 and 2, Inglourious Basterds, and now Django Unchained.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-26-2012, 01:41 PM
Haven't been able to see this yet. Woke up on Christmas eve morning with a sore throat and developed a fever later in the day...spent the entire Christmas day in bed. Worst Christmas ever.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-26-2012, 02:00 PM
While Inglorious Basterds was damn near perfect, this was pretty much a letdown. Aside from Samuel L. Jackson and a few others' performances, this was pretty mediocre. I think Tarantino may have finally jumped the shark. Hopefully not. We'll see.

7/10
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-26-2012, 02:37 PM
Woke up this morning and can't stop thinking about this movie. It's the kind of thing that just doesn't get made anymore. The fact that audiences are fully embracing it and that it's killing it at the box-office brings a smile to my face. I'm going to check it out one or two more times at the theatre, because I know something like this doesn't come around often.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-26-2012, 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Woke up this morning and can't stop thinking about this movie. It's the kind of thing that just doesn't get made anymore. The fact that audiences are fully embracing it and that it's killing it at the box-office brings a smile to my face. I'm going to check it out one or two more times at the theatre, because I know something like this doesn't come around often.
This.

The fact the movie focuses on slavery, violence, has an R-rating, and is nearly three hours is what makes me happy with its success.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-26-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Woke up this morning and can't stop thinking about this movie. It's the kind of thing that just doesn't get made anymore. The fact that audiences are fully embracing it and that it's killing it at the box-office brings a smile to my face. I'm going to check it out one or two more times at the theatre, because I know something like this doesn't come around often.
Yeah its definitely a one of a kind film. I'll probably go and see it again sometime in the next couple of weeks.

Also, Don Johnson was great in this as well(as Big Daddy) My friend who is a big fan of Miami Vice didnt even recognize him. And that "bag head scene" was fuckin hilarious. The whole audience was dying laughing during that scene.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Spoiler:
Haha yeah. I just wish that if he had to have a cameo it wasn't in a crucial scene in the film. It was funny when he literally got blown up though.
The funny thing is I was so excited for that scene because it was my favourite scene in the script and when we finally got to it
Spoiler:
what was an amazing scene became a "Holy shit, is that Tarantino faking an Australian accent and talking to Jamie Foxx as if we're supposed to take this seriously in the crucial moment?

Anyway, this was a very compelling film to compare to the script. In a lot of ways it exceeded my expectations from the script -- for example, the violence was done tremendously well and way beyond anything in the script. On the other hand I liked the added details that were in the script but left out of the movie, a few of my favourite parts of the script were either botched (i.e. the Australians scene) or unfortunately taken out (I was really looking forward to seeing the sequence with Kerry Washington being bought by the fat kid and then taken away by Candie).
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-27-2012, 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Spoiler:
Anyway, this was a very compelling film to compare to the script. In a lot of ways it exceeded my expectations from the script -- for example, the violence was done tremendously well and way beyond anything in the script. On the other hand I liked the added details that were in the script but left out of the movie, a few of my favourite parts of the script were either botched (i.e. the Australians scene) or unfortunately taken out (I was really looking forward to seeing the sequence with Kerry Washington being bought by the fat kid and then taken away by Candie).
Spoiler:
The Scotty portion of the script was great, but I think it ultimately diverts too much from the main narrative. We're with Django and Schultz for pretty much the entire film, and then to suddenly cut away for a lengthy sequence probably wouldn't have worked cinematically.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-28-2012, 10:14 AM
I loved the movie.

While I was watching it last night, I tried to keep a rumor which was posted on the internet a while back in the back of my head while I did. I was hoping one of you could help me because I did not catch after the first viewing.

Spoiler:
Tarantino said a while back that a character in Django Unchained was related to a character from another one of his movies, did any of you catch who this character was?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-28-2012, 11:19 AM
Saw this yesterday, and while I really enjoyed the performances by DiCaprio & Waltz, I was admittedly a bit disappointed overall. The acting performances by pretty much everyone saved this from being QT's worst flick. The pacing was WAY too long and Django/Foxx was most definitely Tarantino's weakest lead character ever! Anyway I thought it was OK and entertaining enough & will be buying it on Blu-Ray once it's released.

Last edited by jaw2929; 12-28-2012 at 01:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-28-2012, 11:36 AM
I loved it really. QT's best since DEATH PROOF. When Django gets unchained was off the hook. I was a little unimpressed with Leo Dicaprio but I really have not seen much with him so maybe.

I cannot wait for QT's next moviefilm!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-28-2012, 12:47 PM
There are two types of film in the cinematic medium. Ones that most cinephiles enjoy in regards to way the directors try to subvert and improve the medium in more ways than one, and the other films are simple, pure entertainment that audiences everywhere can enjoy. In the middle of these converging types is director Quentin Tarantino, who simply just wants to dabble in both those stews to see what kind of recipe that audiences from all walks of cinema enjoyment can be enthralled and entertained.

This was the idea that came across to me when Inglorious Basterds came out, and quasi-exploitation flick about a Lieutenant leading a squadron of Jewish soldiers to take out the Nazi regime. There was a message of subverting the concept on how cinema could be looked at and enjoyed, while also making a quality and awesome film about vengeance, World War Two, as well as a suspenseful action flick. Those ideas seemed to still be intact with Tarantino as he takes on the genre of the Western films. Rather than making an simple idea of a film based off a Sam Peckinpah or Sergio Leone film, Tarantino instead the small bits that worked in those films and instead takes on the themes of slavery, packaging those ideals in a old school action film that is more stream lined than Tarantinoís other efforts, but still every bit as concise, fantastically acted, and just a plain old good time at the cinema.

There are simply no boundaries that Tarantino is willing to cross in regards to his companion piece to Basterds, involving a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) freed by a German bounty hunter/dentist Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) to find and eliminate his former owners, whom separated Django from his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Tarantino takes themes of previous films like the exploitation themes in Basterds, coupled with the revenge motif of his Kill Bill films, and finally doing a more classic take of a love story involving Django and Broomhilda. The third part was probably the surprisingly effective piece of Tarantinoís film. Donít get me wrong, the other two themes worked immensely to the filmís credit as well, but the romance was the pure heart and soul of Djangoís story.

The thing about romance in films is that if the director can get the audience invested with the couple on screen, then what is the point of even making the film. Thatís the magic that people want to see, the reason why certain romance films are big box office hits. Tarantino supplies this romance at the bare minimum of exposition, but it works like gangbusters any time the film approaches that romance angle. Thereís always that need that you want Django to reunite with his wife, that eager suspense to see that catharsis to play out. Washington isnít on screen for mot of the film, but she brings enough to the character that the stakes of their relationship feel important and are utmost viable for the plot. Thatís just great moviemaking right there, and Tarantino is more than up to the challenge for that aspect of his film.

As for Tarantinoís take on revenge and another look at exploitation flicks, heís on the ball like he was with Basterds. Nearly every scene is ripe with awesome dialogue scenes, whether they are used for comedic relief or to tighten the suspense for just a little while longer. As well as Tarantino fans know, heís also definitely not politically correct when it comes to the usage of the N word, and for a film set in the south, two years before the Civil War, you can bet that Tarantino will use that word like it is going out of style. But, the word never deters from what the film is trying to achieve. Itís simply a part of the universe that Tarantino is making on screen, not something to jolt the viewers at how subversive he can be. Plus, the comeuppance that Django gets to deal with makes every usage of the word by different characters

Yes, Tarantino is firing on all cylinders behind the camera, with awesome editing, cinematography, and a soundtrack, like almost all of Tarantino films that will blow your mind. But, the thing that Tarantino knows how to use well is an actor, and he certainly picks a great lot of Django. Jamie Foxx plays the character arc of Django beautifully, going from meek slave to a gunslinger with a purpose effortlessly. On sequcne involving Django asking Schultz about a story simply evokes so much out of Django as a character in the beginning, and who he becomes at the end. But, while Foxx is great, Waltz seems pretty apt to steal the show as Dr. King Schultz. The energy, glee, and likability that Waltz brings to Schultz are unparalleled, given his Oscar-winning villainous turn as Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds. He is the ultimate charismatic badass with the heart of gold, and the perfect companion for Django.

As for the rest of the cast, letís just say Leonardo Dicaprio and Samuel L. Jackson are right on the same wave length as Waltz in terms of bringing the goods. Dicparioís Calvin Candie, a slave owner who specializes in slave fights, oozes sleaziness with such utmost glee that you know Dicaprio is lapping up every piece of dialogue that Tarantino has him utter. One such sequence involving Calvin delivering a monologue on the possibility of slave rebellion is a personal standout. But, the real dark horse in this film is Samuel L. Jackson as Calvinís head slave Stephen. Any time Dicaprio and Jackson are together on screen, their back-and-forth exchanges are simply delightful. But, thatís not the only reason Jacksonís Stephen works so well, as the character of Stephen slowly reveals layers that makes the character so utterly compelling from the moment he appears on screen.

There is something special any time Quentin Tarantino brings a film to the big screen, whether it be a lesser or grand effort. Django Uncahined simply cements this aspect of Tarantino, in that the man just wants to see great cinema on the big screen and for any type of moviegoer to come to his film and enjoy their time in the theater. This was truly a film that was audience pleasing all around, if youíre up for a bit of some old western ultra violence, romance, and a bit of a Slavery exploitation flick.

9.5/10
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-28-2012, 09:13 PM
There's a lot of scrutiny surrounding this film. The controversial subject matter, the use of language, Oscar buzz, box office results, etc...

I get it and I love it.

But here's the thing, and what matters most to me, I really enjoyed this movie. I mean, it's the ultimate cathartic revenge tale! You gotta think, Tarantino has seen a lot of Blaxploitation films, and he gets it. He gets the impetus behind what drove these films. You can't fault a film geek who gets to make whatever movies he wants for trying his hand at his favorite genres.

As for the issue of slavery, one that never seems to get talked about. Well, it is a dark time in our history. But that's the key, it's OUR history, a shared history. One that no one alive took part in. Slavery led to the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement and it's influence is still present, 150 years later. Maybe it's about time the conversation was sparked.

Spoiler:
I thought the ending was great! This is fantasy, and Django gets to strike back, and boy does he. It's a tale that, had it happened, would have been legend. Not only that, but we're told fairly early on that this movie was based on a fairy tale. The German tale that Dr. Schulz tells Django speaks of a Dragon, and the Hero must save his Love from this evil Dragon. That's obviously what he's faced with. Maybe Calvin Candie's the Dragon, maybe it's the scourge of slavery. It's like the end of Inglourious Basterds, where Eli Roth shoots off Hitler's face...it's that sort of satisfaction this film provides.



This movie is no more controversial than Inglourious Basterds. Maybe this one is harder to digest because it's about us. It's ok to laugh when it's the Germans, but not when it's us?



Anyway, I loved this movie. Never once was I concerned with what time it was, and the three hours flew by. I thought it was exciting, tense, fun. Maybe I'm biased, but Tarantino hasn't let me down yet.

Spike Lee needs to calm down and stop being so self-righteous. Maybe he's pissed that a white man made a better movie than he did regarding the plight of the black man.

Last edited by Eminent Junkie; 12-28-2012 at 09:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-30-2012, 10:32 AM
It's pure Tarantino from start to finish, with just a pinch of a little something more. I'll definitely have to agree with those who are saying that QT might be wearing his heart a little more out on his sleeve with this one...which was certainly effective considering that I genuinely ended up caring for Django and his wife - making the suspense of those dinner scenes in Candieland all the more unbearable. The performances here are great across the board. Foxx practices the restraint and taciturn cool of classic Western heroes and manages to pull off the archetypal persona while at the same time adding in all the emotional undercurrents of the character beautifully. Washington accomplishes being riveting without even having to say a word, DiCaprio relishes every scene and has a helluva time doing so, Jackson is scarily good, and Waltz absolutely steals the show with his own level of class and charisma.

All in all this was every bit the entertaining ride I expected from Tarintino. Seeing it in a packed theater on Christmas day was a real treat.

8/10
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-30-2012, 12:56 PM
Very happy to see all these positive reactions to Django. It's definitely a film that sticks with you long after you've seen it, and I'm currently going through a Tarantinofest at home and reliving all his movies again, it's a real treat. Today I have Reservoir Dogs and/or Inglourious Basterds. After I'm done with Jackie Brown, I'll be seeing Django again in theaters and I'm really looking forward to it.

As far as script goes, the one character I really miss is Ace Woody who would have been played by Kurt Russell. Don't know if it's cause yesterday was Death Proof day, but Kurt Russell is a perfect fit in Tarantino's world and Ace Woody was one of the most (if not the) most diabolical characters in Django. It would have been perfect.

The fact that QT changed the ending last minute on set, everything that happens after the climax (which I still find was a bit too gratuitous for its own good, and the 2Pac track could be my least favorite Tarantino musical choice EVER) is still a bit too messy and Sally Menke's editing skills are sorely missed. Definitely felt rushed and feels very different than the pacing and flow of the rest of the film, which was perfect for me.

Anyways, both QT and Sam Jackson say there will be an extended cut (Jackson even saying that some of his favorite scenes were left on the cutting room floor) that could very well pass the 3 hour mark. Django Unchained Director's Cut sounds like it could really be one of his best films, or at the least the best since his golden 90s.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-30-2012, 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
As far as script goes, the one character I really miss is Ace Woody who would have been played by Kurt Russell. Don't know if it's cause yesterday was Death Proof day, but Kurt Russell is a perfect fit in Tarantino's world and Ace Woody was one of the most (if not the) most diabolical characters in Django. It would have been perfect.
If I'm remembering the script correctly, it seems as though the Billy Crash and Ace Woody characters have been melded. I thought Walton Goggins did a great job, although there was some stuff cut for that character(s).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
The fact that QT changed the ending last minute on set, everything that happens after the climax (which I still find was a bit too gratuitous for its own good, and the 2Pac track could be my least favorite Tarantino musical choice EVER) is still a bit too messy and Sally Menke's editing skills are sorely missed. Definitely felt rushed and feels very different than the pacing and flow of the rest of the film, which was perfect for me.
How did it change exactly? I know there are a few new lines, but I thought it was basically the same (it's been a long time since I read it though). I actually thought that everything that happened after the climax worked pretty well. I think if it were much longer it would feel too long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
Anyways, both QT and Sam Jackson say there will be an extended cut (Jackson even saying that some of his favorite scenes were left on the cutting room floor) that could very well pass the 3 hour mark. Django Unchained Director's Cut sounds like it could really be one of his best films, or at the least the best since his golden 90s.
Really? I didn't think Tarantino did director's cuts. It would be interesting to see some stuff that was left out, but I feel that it might be a bit baggy with additional footage. The cut they have right now is pretty tightly edited and I don't know if I would want to fuck with that. If there's one scene I would want back in, it would be the scene between Schultz and Big Daddy while Django is out searching for the Brittle Brothers (although I could see it disrupting the flow of the film).

Anyway, saw it again last night and loved it just as much as the first time. One thing I did notice was that the Mandingo fight sequence really silenced the crowd. The first half of the film is really fun and often funny, and then that happens and you could hear a pin drop. A lot of that has to do with not just the brutality of the violence itself, but DiCaprio's reaction to it. Such a great performance.

Last edited by Bourne101; 12-30-2012 at 01:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-30-2012, 03:35 PM
Yeah, I thought Leo was going to be hamming it up with a over-exaggerated southern accent, but man oh man, he terrified me in some instances.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-30-2012, 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericdraven View Post
Yeah, I thought Leo was going to be hamming it up with a over-exaggerated southern accent, but man oh man, he terrified me in some instances.
Agreed. He relished the screen for sure, but I didn't think he was over-the-top (or at least as over-the-top as it could have been) by any means for most of the film...that is until those terrifying moments like you mentioned. Definitely a notable performance from him and I definitely hope to see him continue to branch out like this (it would be awesome if he took a cue from Gosling and just did a full-on comedy or something).
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
If I'm remembering the script correctly, it seems as though the Billy Crash and Ace Woody characters have been melded. I thought Walton Goggins did a great job, although there was some stuff cut for that character(s).
Yeah, you're right those two were melded a bit into the Goggins character - who was awesome. But Ace Woody, on page at least, was way more menacing. And I can't deny how perfect Kurt Russel would have been in the role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
How did it change exactly? I know there are a few new lines, but I thought it was basically the same (it's been a long time since I read it though). I actually thought that everything that happened after the climax worked pretty well. I think if it were much longer it would feel too long.
The idea behind it didn't change too much.

Spoiler:
The biggest change is that the big climax is at the actual end of the film, when Django had returned to rescue Hilda. The scene where Shultz shoots Candie, and subsequently dies, ended in the script practically with a fade out of Django and Broomhilda captured. The way it is now, we had one of QT's bloodiest scenes only to still have Django captured at the end. Way more underwhelming.
Also, everything that happens after Django's capture in the script is much better paced: the torture/conversation with Woody, Stephen's explanation of the LeQuint guys, Django's escape from that gang, and his rescue of Hildi intercutting with Candie's funeral procession. At the end, it was the same principal: he kills them all and blows up the ranch, but in the script he blows up the ranch first and emerges from the flames to everyone's surprise: would of been so sweet to see that on screen.
Anyways, it wasn't so much what happened in the end that irks me, it's more how it was handled. It feels rushed, messy and events unfold too quickly and easily for our hero. When I heard that he made last minute changes to the ending on set, it made sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Really? I didn't think Tarantino did director's cuts. It would be interesting to see some stuff that was left out, but I feel that it might be a bit baggy with additional footage. The cut they have right now is pretty tightly edited and I don't know if I would want to fuck with that. If there's one scene I would want back in, it would be the scene between Schultz and Big Daddy while Django is out searching for the Brittle Brothers (although I could see it disrupting the flow of the film).

Anyway, saw it again last night and loved it just as much as the first time. One thing I did notice was that the Mandingo fight sequence really silenced the crowd. The first half of the film is really fun and often funny, and then that happens and you could hear a pin drop. A lot of that has to do with not just the brutality of the violence itself, but DiCaprio's reaction to it. Such a great performance.
Yeah, you never know with Tarantino because he likes to talk a lot of shit haha but he said he'd wanna do an extended cut and both Jackson and Foxx were saying there's cut scenes that are crazy good, showing even more how evil Stephen is (the "poker scene" I'm guessing, which was cut out from the end) so I really hope it comes to life. I wouldn't change anything in the film except cutting down the prematurely ejaculated climax-that's-not-really-a-climax and extending the scenes that happen afterwards so that it doesn't feel rushed and
Spoiler:
too easy for Django


One of my favorite "you can hear a pin drop" scenes was the

Spoiler:
the dog scene, and how Shultz was remembering it afterwards.


So powerful.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post

Spoiler:
The biggest change is that the big climax is at the actual end of the film, when Django had returned to rescue Hilda. The scene where Shultz shoots Candie, and subsequently dies, ended in the script practically with a fade out of Django and Broomhilda captured. The way it is now, we had one of QT's bloodiest scenes only to still have Django captured at the end. Way more underwhelming.
Also, everything that happens after Django's capture in the script is much better paced: the torture/conversation with Woody, Stephen's explanation of the LeQuint guys, Django's escape from that gang, and his rescue of Hildi intercutting with Candie's funeral procession. At the end, it was the same principal: he kills them all and blows up the ranch, but in the script he blows up the ranch first and emerges from the flames to everyone's surprise: would of been so sweet to see that on screen.
Anyways, it wasn't so much what happened in the end that irks me, it's more how it was handled. It feels rushed, messy and events unfold too quickly and easily for our hero. When I heard that he made last minute changes to the ending on set, it made sense.
Spoiler:
Knowing that QT changed the ending, when that action sequence started I thought it was actually a pretty interesting ending. Then of course we discover the original ending stays mostly in tact, except now with that action detour the "real" ending is just a rushed version of what was in the script So the ending didn't really improve at all.

I have to say, I think that action sequence was actually the best bit of action I've seen out of an American film in a really long time. I thought it was brilliantly shot and brilliantly edited. But it seems weird as just an interjected scene into the original script's arc.

I'm wondering, what would you have thought of just cutting everything after Candie gets shot, and extending that action scene at the end to cover Django just killing everyone (without ever getting captured)?

Last edited by Gordon; 12-30-2012 at 06:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:02 PM
Some thoughts after seeing it 3 times.

-When King Schultz remembers the dogs during the harp scene, this is when the film begins to start saying something about its awful subject matter, slavery. Schultz says "Since I do NOT want to see you again, I say GOODBYE". When Candie threatens Schultz to shake his hand, or he will "cut Hilde down" and calls him a "nigga loving german". Schultz, the calm, collected,most competent of our two heroes, is the one that blows his top. He is so utterly outraged and offended by Candie and his "dog exploit" that he absolutely REFUSES to shake the hand of a monster like Candie, and the fact that HE WOULD RATHER DIE then shake the hand of someone like that, really shows some brilliant character traits from Quentins writing. How powerful is that? Schultz may be my favorite Tarantino hero.

-Some amazing trademark scenes of QT
Djangos approach to the brittles, with the swings in the back of Djangos pacing.
The one Brittle having bible pages glued to him, spouting the Lords words while warming up his whip to punish a slave for dropping eggs
The "hands up" scenes with Django and Schultz.
The bags scene, post argument, during the CHARGE down the hill towards the wagon.
Quentins cameo, with John Legend starting right as he gets blown up
The "you will sell him cheap" flashback
The candy dropping when the mandingo rips out his eyes.
The beer foam in the Saloon
The table setting montage in Candyland
Broomhildas reveal in the hotbox/hot box slo mo
"White Cake" harp playing the tune from Basterds opening
"MISSISSIPPI" font across the whole screen
The horse tricks at the end, IMO is Tarantino tlking to his audience. In Basterds, it was "I think this may be my masterpiece", in Django, the pony does two tricks at the end, Tarantino showing that hes not a "one trick pony" by any long shot. he CAN make films as good or even better than his last ones. Just something I thought was interesting

-Schultz death gives Django rebirth, when Django is captured again, he is a different man. A man who has learned from Schultz, became his own man, and with love, conquers all. Schultz needs to die to let Django be Unchained. He only becomes Unchained after Schultz, his mentor (his "chain") dies, releasing Django into the world by himself and thats it, Django wins because he is prepared for it. I thought this was a beautiful story arc.

-Stephen's character left me scratching my head at first, a black man who honestly was brought up and treated like a white man. He is protected by the white man (Candie) and seems to be cold and calculating, not feeling anything towards the "niggas" even though he is one himself. Which is why his fate is what it is, hes blinded just like teh rest of the south's morals. A product of the South's beliefs and culture. How its not skin color that helps you survive in the West, its WITS. Django prevails and shows this to Stephen at the end. Love truly conquers all, not race. Stephen saw 9,000 black faces in his life, it took only one to kill him.

-Candies Skull monolgue is brilliant and classic QT. The film really played on the idea of comparing blacks and whites, and the difference between them. CC attempts to show his point through a skull demonstration, breaking the chunk showing the "dimples". Candie says that if he bashed in Djangos skull, his would look the same. It would, but Django isnt just any other nigga, as to what CC implies, its actually Django proving everyone wrong. He is that one in 10,000.

-I LOVE the soundtrack, a beautiful medley of different genres throughout history, uniting America's musical evolution through Djangos. Every genre of music is heard in the film, "I Got A Name", "The Braying Mule", "Who DiD That to You", "django", and " looking for Freedom" compliment an amazing blend only QT can deliver audibly through scenes.

All in all, this is his 3rd best IMO. Pulp and Basterds are only better than Django. Django is just so well rounded in every aspect, small flaws aside.

Last edited by MovieMan50; 12-30-2012 at 07:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:50 PM
Absolutely loved this movie, as I have with every QT movie. Only flaw, using those 2 rap songs, took me out of it, hated the songs, and felt they didnt fit... keep the soundtrack with a QT old Ennio Morricone style score and old timey music.

The Bag over the head scene will go down as one of the funniest, I was cracking up.

Spike Lee and Katt Williams are racist pieces of shit, who just like ot have their names in the news, both should shut the fuck up, although the LAPD may have done that with Katt Williams recently!

At almost 3 hours in length, it goes by without needing to look at your watch once.

This years Acting races are going ot be fucking packed... Denzel for Flight, Day Lewis for Lincoln and Leo for this.. although with Leo being submitted for Supporting Actor, he may be a lock for that statue, he was flawless.

Pry be seeing it again this week
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMan50 View Post
Some thoughts after seeing it 3 times.

-When King Schultz remembers the dogs during the harp scene, this is when the film begins to start saying something about its awful subject matter, slavery. Schultz says "Since I do NOT want to see you again, I say GOODBYE". When Candie threatens Schultz to shake his hand, or he will "cut Hilde down" and calls him a "nigga loving german". Schultz, the calm, collected,most competent of our two heroes, is the one that blows his top. He is so utterly outraged and offended by Candie and his "dog exploit" that he absolutely REFUSES to shake the hand of a monster like Candie, and the fact that HE WOULD RATHER DIE then shake the hand of someone like that, really shows some brilliant character traits from Quentins writing. How powerful is that? Schultz may be my favorite Tarantino hero.

-Some amazing trademark scenes of QT
Djangos approach to the brittles, with the swings in the back of Djangos pacing.
The one Brittle having bible pages glued to him, spouting the Lords words while warming up his whip to punish a slave for dropping eggs
The "hands up" scenes with Django and Schultz.
The bags scene, post argument, during the CHARGE down the hill towards the wagon.
Quentins cameo, with John Legend starting right as he gets blown up
The "you will sell him cheap" flashback
The candy dropping when the mandingo rips out his eyes.
The beer foam in the Saloon
The table setting montage in Candyland
Broomhildas reveal in the hotbox/hot box slo mo
"White Cake" harp playing the tune from Basterds opening
"MISSISSIPPI" font across the whole screen
The horse tricks at the end, IMO is Tarantino tlking to his audience. In Basterds, it was "I think this may be my masterpiece", in Django, the pony does two tricks at the end, Tarantino showing that hes not a "one trick pony" by any long shot. he CAN make films as good or even better than his last ones. Just something I thought was interesting

-Schultz death gives Django rebirth, when Django is captured again, he is a different man. A man who has learned from Schultz, became his own man, and with love, conquers all. Schultz needs to die to let Django be Unchained. He only becomes Unchained after Schultz, his mentor (his "chain") dies, releasing Django into the world by himself and thats it, Django wins because he is prepared for it. I thought this was a beautiful story arc.

-Stephen's character left me scratching my head at first, a black man who honestly was brought up and treated like a white man. He is protected by the white man (Candie) and seems to be cold and calculating, not feeling anything towards the "niggas" even though he is one himself. Which is why his fate is what it is, hes blinded just like teh rest of the south's morals. A product of the South's beliefs and culture. How its not skin color that helps you survive in the West, its WITS. Django prevails and shows this to Stephen at the end. Love truly conquers all, not race. Stephen saw 9,000 black faces in his life, it took only one to kill him.

-Candies Skull monolgue is brilliant and classic QT. The film really played on the idea of comparing blacks and whites, and the difference between them. CC attempts to show his point through a skull demonstration, breaking the chunk showing the "dimples". Candie says that if he bashed in Djangos skull, his would look the same. It would, but Django isnt just any other nigga, as to what CC implies, its actually Django proving everyone wrong. He is that one in 10,000.

-I LOVE the soundtrack, a beautiful medley of different genres throughout history, uniting America's musical evolution through Djangos. Every genre of music is heard in the film, "I Got A Name", "The Braying Mule", "Who DiD That to You", "django", and " looking for Freedom" compliment an amazing blend only QT can deliver audibly through scenes.

All in all, this is his 3rd best IMO. Pulp and Basterds are only better than Django. Django is just so well rounded in every aspect, small flaws aside.
Excellent write up dude! You should post here more often.

Also, words can't describe how badass Leo is.
http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/2013-g...201237591.html
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Spoiler:
Knowing that QT changed the ending, when that action sequence started I thought it was actually a pretty interesting ending. Then of course we discover the original ending stays mostly in tact, except now with that action detour the "real" ending is just a rushed version of what was in the script So the ending didn't really improve at all.

I have to say, I think that action sequence was actually the best bit of action I've seen out of an American film in a really long time. I thought it was brilliantly shot and brilliantly edited. But it seems weird as just an interjected scene into the original script's arc.

I'm wondering, what would you have thought of just cutting everything after Candie gets shot, and extending that action scene at the end to cover Django just killing everyone (without ever getting captured)?
Spoiler:
From a technical standpoint, I totally agree. Choreographed and edited perfectly. One too many pints of blood almost started giving me "parody" vibes, and too much 2Pac took me out of a western and into a rap video for a second (The Rick Ross one at least has a western feel to it in its production, which is why it doesn't bother me at all).

That said, I think what happens after Candie & Schultz die is important to Django's character. As the titular hero of the story (even though, for me, Schultz is the real hero) he needed to become his own man and rescue his wife by himself. It's important for the fairytale metaphor, for the character's growth and to witness Schultz's legacy. As a man who made a living off of corpses, his biggest bounty is that he gives and teaches Django how to have a life as a black man in the Civil War era. I think it's necessary for the story to finish with Django in complete control, using everything he was taught. If it just ended with a shoot-out, would have been a weak ending IMO.

Having said that, I still feel like that bit after the shoot out was rushed and messy, pacing was off, and things happened way too quickly and conveniently for Django. It's tough to follow up anything after you have two of the greatest characters in the story die one after another, but if you gotta do it - don't rush it. With all the love the film is getting, I seriously don't think an extra 15-20 minutes would have hurt it especially if it gave another fantastic character (Stephen) more room to breathe.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-31-2012, 07:58 AM
Any writer,producer,or director who has used or will use slavery as part or as a whole in his or her work
is going to court and gain controversy. Slavery was/is sadistic,brutal,horrible and beyond degrading.
In Django Unchained Director/writer Quentin Tarantino crafts a story around the subject of slavery
that is part western,love story and revenge flick.



"Liberated " from slavery by bounty hunter/dentist Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz),Django (Jamie Foxx)
is asked to track down 3 men Schultz is seeking and can be only identified by Django and to join him for a season
of bounty hunting after which the 2 will rescue Django's beloved wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of
Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a plantation owner.


Some without seeing one frame of the film have rushed to judge it as a satire of slavery.Now there is without a doubt humor
throughout the film,but in no way is it some slapstick comedy about slavery Tarantino actually points out
the stupidity of bigotry in a few key scenes(the "bag head" scene is a standout and will be talked about for years)
Fortunately Tarantino put together and amazing cast.Foxx is great as Django ,he embodies the cowboys with no name ,
natural gunman, possesing the slow burn,reflecting on his wife which keeps his temper at bay though the brutality around him pushes
him to the limit. Waltz is brilliant as Schultz who detests slavery and the brutality that goes along with it.
Dicaprio almost completely vanishes into the character Candie,he is unflinchingly sinister,as a man who fancies
himself a gentleman,but is truly a sadistic,brutal,bigot.I truly admire Kerry Washington as Broomhilda and her bravery for taking on the role.
Last but not least there is Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen, Candies
house slave under heavy make up he is one of the most intimidating and sinister characters i have ever seen on the big screen.


There are also brief but memorable turns by Walton Goggins ,Don Johnson ,James Russo,James Remar ,Tom Wopat ,Misty Upham
Bruce Dern,,Jonah Hill, and Dana Michelle Gourrier

By the time DU enters its last act it starts to drag a bit and some of the violence is over the top ,and the use of the N word in the film is a bit excessive,but
i cant write off this very good film because of it.
If your a Tarantino fan its a must see,but i think even the casual fan will enjoy this
Scale of 1-10 a 9
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
Absolutely loved this movie, as I have with every QT movie. Only flaw, using those 2 rap songs, took me out of it, hated the songs, and felt they didnt fit... keep the soundtrack with a QT old Ennio Morricone style score and old timey music.

The Bag over the head scene will go down as one of the funniest, I was cracking up.

Spike Lee and Katt Williams are racist pieces of shit, who just like ot have their names in the news, both should shut the fuck up, although the LAPD may have done that with Katt Williams recently!

At almost 3 hours in length, it goes by without needing to look at your watch once.

This years Acting races are going ot be fucking packed... Denzel for Flight, Day Lewis for Lincoln and Leo for this.. although with Leo being submitted for Supporting Actor, he may be a lock for that statue, he was flawless.

Pry be seeing it again this week
I'm really pulling for Samuel L. Jackson to get nominated. Hope if they give a nod to Waltz as a leading character then they can give Leo and Jackson as supporting.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
I'm really pulling for Samuel L. Jackson to get nominated. Hope if they give a nod to Waltz as a leading character then they can give Leo and Jackson as supporting.
As much I'd love to see that happen, I wouldn't lose any sleep thinking about it. They are campaigning Waltz as Supporting (which, truth be told, he is) so he won't be getting near the Leads (it's packed enough as it is). And as much as Jackson has been getting good buzz, it's not as big as what Leo and Waltz are getting PLUS his character really isn't on screen for that long (unfortunately).

I'd love to be surprised and see him nominated in Supporting, but chances are slim to nil
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-01-2013, 11:34 PM
Finally was able to catch this tonight and honestly I was blown away. I had high expectations since I really loved Inglorious Basterds and honestly this met the expectations and surpassed them. Christoph Waltz is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors to watch between this and Basterds he was just great I liked him playing the good guy this time around rather than the villain. Leo was absolutely perfect for his role extremely intense and insane slave owner but he never over does it. Samuel L. Jackson was also great playing the guy you love to hate and doing a great job at it. Jamie Foxx was a pleasant surprise because I am not a very big fan of him, but he held his own but seemed a little over matched compared to the other great actors in this movie however he was solid.

I agree with some post about the ending being handled a little bit differently but that's really my only large complaint.

The dog scene was absolutely terrifying and then Schultz's flashbacks of it were powerful and Leo's monologue damn can it get any better and more intense than that??

This movie is easily a 9/10.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-02-2013, 12:25 PM
Finally, after a year of differing opinions and discussions that I have loved, Bourne and I see completely eye to eye.

In lieu of a long review, I'll just say a few things:

Quentin Tarantino continues his tour through revisionist history with an unsubtle film that is both wildly entertaining and filled with great power. Django Unchained is a film of style, wit, music, violence, and performance. A quartet of actors (Foxx, Waltz, DiCpario, Jackson) deliver portrayals that range from gleefully theatrical to cool as a cucumber that rank amongst the best work of their respective careers. There is depth and nuance and wonderful wordplay in the dialogue and ballets of blood in the action sequences. The film is a throwback spaghetti western come blaxploitation film that is hilariously anachronistic. It is a nasty circus of a film, an awesome heroís journey, a calculation of perfect chemistry. But there is anger coursing through the veins of Django Unchained. It is morally reprehensible and at times horrifying, and thus the entire film is transformed into a very powerful and sobering piece of satire. The film holds emotional relevance thanks to the beautiful acting of Kerry Washington and we are forced to face the harsh truths (however overblown Ė or, perhaps even scarier, not at all overblown) of American slavery in a way few films before it have ever required. We ponder the mistakes of the past but I was also left thinking of the racism that still runs rampant throughout our country today. I am still furious. Incredible.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-02-2013, 03:01 PM
Awesome film. I don't think KTS has a shot at Best Picture, even though it's definitely my favorite, so I'd love to see this one win it.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:50 PM

Just saw this for a 2nd time and it still ruled.
Cant say enough great things about Leo and Samuel L Jackson. So damn good.

Say it again with a friend that doesnt even care for QT(he only like Inglourious Basterds) and he LOVED it.

Anyways, I can not wait to own this film
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-04-2013, 12:57 PM
Saw it a 2nd time last night too, and it's just as good. A few things that stuck out even more:

-Kerry Washington's performance is amazing. Tarantino's females usually have way more to do and say and are very rarely just the victimized damsel in distress, waiting to be rescued. Of course, that's all part of the fairytale story here and the nightmare story of how Americans used to be. That said, with the little she has to do, other actresses would have done a much poorer job but she went above and beyond to show how serious it was for her to play the part. Really does a lot to help you emotionally connect with the love story which is crucial.

-Leonardo DiCaprio comes out the biggest winner as far as acting goes. Waltz is brilliant, Jackson is beyond impressive, but it's DiCaprio who completely goes out of his comfort zone and delivers one of the best performances of the year.

-Unlike Inglourious Basterds, every major character is given just the right amount of room to breath and the deaths in the film don't feel in the least bit rushed, something I found was a major thorn with Basterds.

-That said, I feel as if Stephen (Jackson) and Billy Crash (Goggins) are the only two characters that suffered from getting too much chop, the latter especially. I read Empire's Django piece while they were visiting the shoot. During a scene featuring Goggins (a scene that didn't end up in the final movie from how it was described) he apparently broke character and got all emotional, screaming that he's in a Tarantino movie and that he can't believe it. The way he described his character, you'd think that there would be way more of him in the film and I have no doubt that the cut scenes feature him a lot. I think he did a fantastic job as Billy Crash, but as a combination of two extremely evil fuckers from the script (Ace Woody and Billy Crash) I would have liked to see more of him. He also has one of the funniest lines in the whole film "DEE JANGO YOU BLACK SUNAVA BITCH"

-You can definitely feel that the film went through the grinder in order to get the running time to a certain studio-agreeable point. The cut from Big Daddy's property to the trap scene is too abrupt, the scene featuring the anonymous man who helps Django and Shultz ("Come out of the snowy snow") seems very random and feels like he was meant to be a bit more explained and the rushed editing of the last act (with the appearance of a cool looking Zoe Bell who doesn't say a word and must have rued her cut lines) all has a big studio stink to it. The story suffers a bit because of it.

-Use of music is better than Basterds, with FOUR original songs, but still not as good as he can be. I only found out that not only was the Morricone track original, but so were three others, and that's pretty rare for a Tarantino film. It's obvious that in his vein of wanting to add to the spaghetti western genre he wanted to include as much originality as possible, and music was one way of doing it. All four original songs are fantastic.

-The shootout scene was a bit easier to take the second time around, but there's one too many close ups of ballooning blood and the 2PAC song (which features dialogue from the movie itself?!) still feels out of place. If there's one thing QT has lost a bit of touch on, it's music selection.

-It wasn't as funny the second time around, but it's still the funniest Tarantino film to date. Also, the most gorgeously photographed too.

-James Remar (Dexter's dad) has two roles!! I think that's a first for Tarantino as well (UPDATE: Michael Parks plays two different characters in Kill Bill. So, not a first.)

Definitely up there now, I'm bumping up my score to 9 even though the ending still feels in need of repair and I am desperately hoping for an extended version of the film.

Oh and for any fellow comic-book lovers out there, when I found out about this it made me giddy like a Japanese schoolgirl on acid.



It comes out in September so the wait is fucking long, but I'm pre-ordering my copy today. It's over 200 pages long, under 20 bucks from amazon and it's being released by the best comic-book publishing company. FUCK. YES.

Last edited by DaMovieMan; 01-05-2013 at 12:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-05-2013, 03:27 AM
There is a bizarre and wild tonal shift about 2/3rd's of the way through. The scene itself was well done from a technical stand point. But I found the change in tone to be rather jarring and it momentarily took me out of the movie.

So I liked the movie but I didn't love it. Christoph Waltz was the best thing about the movie. He was awesome. Better than he was in Inglourious Basterds IMO. Dicaprio was fine, but I find his performance to be overpraised. It's not an awards caliber performance. Jackson is fine too, but he doesn't have much to do. Foxx and Washington are both excellent. But it's Waltz who steals the movie. I love his character.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-05-2013, 05:52 PM
I don't understand why people are complaining about the music so much. I thought it all worked beautifully. It's not the first time Tarantino has used anachronistic music in his movies. I'm sure you all remember David Bowie's 'Cat People' in Inglourious Basterds.

As for the original songs, that's what they did with some of those old school spaghetti westerns. Think of Navajo Joe, and other such films. It's totally in line with what Tarantino was trying to do here. And all the blood?? It's a spaghetti western Blaxploitation film...are people seriously complaining about gratuitous violence? Frankly I'd be up in arms if the violence wasn't ridiculous and over the top!! The interesting thing here is that Tarantino deftly handled two different kinds of violence. The Mandingo fight, for example. It was brutal and difficult to watch. It needed to be in order to convey the horrifying brutality of the time. It wasn't flashy, and some of it wasn't even that visible (like the ear cutting scene from Reservoir Dogs). But then...

Spoiler:
when it's time for the hero to dispense his justice, that's where the revenge fantasy kicks in, and after what we've seen all these evil people do, well, Tarantino satisfies our bloodlust 'cause these fuckers had it coming. It's that payoff. Not only that, but we never really get to see Django be a badass, so it's finally time to "unchain" him. Think about it, that scene where he pulls the dude off the horse and before Goggins can even finish reacting to it, Django's already drawn his pistol on him. That was a kickass moment, hinting at how badass this guy has become. Well, we finally get to see it in the end. So I loved that whole gun fight in the house. Personally I could've used more "Django the Gunslinger" moments.


Across the board, I thought everyone in this film brought it. I mean, in a film like this, the way Tarantino is approaching it, you've gotta have all these scenery chewing roles. That's what makes this work. This isn't some period piece drama with a sense of gravitas. It's a blaxploitation spaghetti western revenge film.

Although I will say it's a testament to QT's talents and gifts that he can make an exploitation movie that actually takes us on an emotional journey as this one did. I think what makes this so is that no matter what subject matter or genre Tarantino chooses to explore, he's 100% committed to his story and his characters. It's his absolute love of cinema and all it was, is and will be that, coupled with his immense talent and understanding of the language, allows him to consistently produce these works of art.

It's the reason why "Tarantino-esque" films never achieve even a modicum of success. It's because the people who make these movies are just trying to replicate what they view as a model for success. Tarantino doesn't give a shit about any of that. He's the ultimate film geek, gifted with a unique voice, that has the balls to make whatever movies he feels he needs to make.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-05-2013, 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminent Junkie View Post
I don't understand why people are complaining about the music so much. I thought it all worked beautifully. It's not the first time Tarantino has used anachronistic music in his movies. I'm sure you all remember David Bowie's 'Cat People' in Inglourious Basterds.
Except that worked.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-05-2013, 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
Except that worked.
Haha, fair enough. Frankly, I didn't have any problems with the music.

Diff'rent strokes an' all...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump