Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Django Unchained - Post-Release
#1

I thought I would start a post-release thread, so people can discuss the movie without fear of spoiling it in the Pre-Release thread.

I liked Django Unchained, but I was a little disappointed in the overall product.  I've been fine with Tarantino's previous work being homages to his favorite films and genres, but it didn't really seem like he brought much new to the table in this film (other than some contemporary songs for the soundtrack and more blood than the average spaghetti-western).

Waltz's performance is truly amazing though.  And I think Tarantino's characterization of Dr. King Schultz might keep me from caring more about Django.  When Schultz exits the film, I really kind of lost a little interest in the resolution of the movie (outside of what happened to Samuel Jackson's character).  In my opinion, all of the characters outside of Dr. King felt kind of like stock characters.  Even Leo's Candy character.  I hoped Django and Brumhilda would have a happy ending, but I still was not nearly invested in them as much as Schultz.

Still, I loved the setup and execution of the first hour or so of the movie.  The scene in the first town with the sheriff and the marshal was great.  The montage scene with Jim Croce's "I Got a Name" was amazing.

Oh, but Tarantino's role and attempt at an aussie accent was completely unnecessary and distracting in my opinion.

What are your thoughts?  I'd say Django Unchained is to Inglorious Basterds, what Jackie Brown is to Pulp Fiction (but I get the feeling Django won't be as fondly remembered as Jackie Brown in the years to come).

Reply
#2

I need to watch it again to see if I like the third act with different expectations. At times it felt like like the Uma vs. 88s scene in Kill Bill Pt 1: often straightforward action with an invincible hero and gallons of blood. I felt that we needed another scene with Jackson or Goggins to make them a more formidable antagonist, and a more convincing way for Django to escape the Australians (perhaps the other slaves could have helped him).

Of course that might go against the sense of Django as a superhero. And a lot of the delight of the film is in that the slaveholders and other villains are fools.

Reply
#3

As I mentioned in the Pre-Release--I absolutely adored this film. This was the violent, men on a mission film we were promised with Inglorious Basterds, and I feel like it's a far more focused film than Basterd's parallel revenge story lines.

Quote:
At times it felt like like the Uma vs. 88s scene in Kill Bill Pt 1

That felt intentional, especially when later on when Django is standing on the balcony and does his version of the "Everyone can leave--except for you!!" speech from Kill Bill. Even so, that final gun fight was an absolute blast.

Reply
#4

Yeah I really loved this. I agree that Waltz was the standout performance, Landa was the showier role but he was equally as good if not better as King Schultz. I'd also throw the speech Candie gives about the dimples in the backs of heads up there with The Sicilians speech as one of Tarantino's best scenes ever.

Reply
#5

As a fan who casually thinks QT is King Shit Fuck Captain of Awesome Cinema, I think all of his films were made with him needing to prove something. Whereas this was the type of film every great filmmaker has in them when they have a little extra leeway -- they make something awesome that's a bit more self-satisfied, and more of a show-off movie. So I don't think a lot of the movie has much purpose or momentum, thematically or otherwise, but it's pretty awesome. My complaints about the genuine nastiness of the violence and racism feel temporary -- in time I'll watch this again and get into it a little more.

Glad to have sat through Samuel L. Jackson's annual reminder that he can act. Sickening character, though.

Also dug with the legacy of Broomhilda being a Von Shaft, equating the mythologies of Die Nibelungen with "Shaft In Africa."

Reply
#6

Goes on too long in the closing 20 minutes. The big shootout was clearly the ending.... until Tarantino thought it needed stretching it. No, no, Django has to be captured, then escape and then return for another big shootout. Wears out its welcome.

Good movie overall. Waltz and Jackson are the MVPs.

Reply
#7

Loved it, unreservedly, though it has a few flaws.

I just want to state my love for the final scene between Shucltz and Candie, especially the kicker to the Alexandre Dumas conversation. That was legitimately powerful, in a way that one does not usually associate with Tarantino.

Reply
#8

This was a cinematic orgasm to me, the cinematography was outstanding, the violence gratuitous, the score glorious. Waltz will get an Oscar nom in my world, and just cracked up like crazy during the scene with the KKK guys and their bag-heads. "I couldn't Resist"= my new favorite moment in 2012 movies

Reply
#9
Quote:
Originally Posted by bravejoe24 View Post
, and just cracked up like crazy during the scene with the KKK guys and their bag-heads. "

"FUCK Y'ALL, I'M GOING HOME!!!"

Oh god, I was giggling like mad during that scene.

Reply
#10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post

Loved it, unreservedly, though it has a few flaws.

I just want to state my love for the final scene between Shucltz and Candie, especially the kicker to the Alexandre Dumas conversation. That was legitimately powerful, in a way that one does not usually associate with Tarantino.

My ignorance of historical figures have provided me with 2 specific moments of extra oomph this year!

One was in Lincoln (but I won't spoil that here, just in case).

The other was that piece about Dumas.  I had no idea he was black.

That scene... that final line.  Waltz truly is the standout.

Loved the film.  I can confidently say that I don't think it's as great or as rich as Basterds.  But it was a very satisfying time.  And I don't mind the extended finale AT ALL.  Also, gotta self-servingly give props to QT for tossing in a shout-out to his love for BATTLE ROYALE in there.  And it is without a doubt a homage to Battle Royale.

Reply
#11

http://theurbandaily.com/2003316/samuel-...oviegoers/

Reply
#12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chet Ripley View Post

Oh, but Tarantino's role and attempt at an aussie accent was completely unnecessary and distracting in my opinion.

If he didn't take this out I really don't know what he could have removed from the original 3 hour cut.  This was by far the worst part of the movie.  Guess I'll see when I see it again in the next few days.

Reply
#13
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeShaynePI View Post

If he didn't take this out I really don't know what he could have removed from the original 3 hour cut.  This was by far the worst part of the movie.  Guess I'll see when I see it again in the next few days.

Was QT the actor you were referring too in the Pre-Release thread?  Because if it is, it's glaringly obvious after the fact.

Reply
#14

Yes

Reply
#15

Makes sense, pretty fun movie overall though, tad disappointing because I came in with really high expectations, but came away feeling like Tarantino just wanted to show a black guy kill a bunch of white folks in antebellum South.  Sure, its on par with Jews killing Hitler, but it kind of makes for a boring movie.  A lot of the revenge flicks that he was basing this on seemed to be a lot shorter.  So for him to stretch out the central revenge concept into a 2 hr 45 min movie made it kind of a drag.

I mean the only time there was any thought or second-guessing re killing was with the kid and his dad.  And although I found the kid's reaction to be supremely hilarious, because I can be a twisted fuck, the whole plot could basically be summed up in the line from the trailer, "Kill white people and get paid for it? What's not to like?" Don't get me wrong though, it was a great time at the movies, the acting was superb, the dialogue was snappy, laughs were shared, but it's far from perfect.

Reply
#16

You know what I loved?  That DiCaprio had his own valet in this movie.

I want to see a valet-off between David Warner and James Remar!

Also, I was slightly confused for a bit that Remar had two roles in this.  At first I chalked it up to, "Remar just has one of those faces that I can see in most character actors."  Then I thought Butch was somehow related to the guy he played at the beginning of the movie.

Reply
#17
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Goes on too long in the closing 20 minutes. The big shootout was clearly the ending.... until Tarantino thought it needed stretching it. No, no, Django has to be captured, then escape and then return for another big shootout. Wears out its welcome.

Sure felt like a spaghetti western to me with the fake out ending before the actual ending.

I love westerns and I love Tarantino, I'm not going to pretend to be remotely unbiased here.  Loved it so much it's ridiculous.

Reply
#18

I DO consider myself unbiased as I don't always go ga-ga over Tarantino's stuff. (I think DEATH PROOF is terrible and I don't like BASTERDS as much as everyone else it seems) and I thought this was great. The more it sits with me, the better it gets. This movie was focused in a way that I didn't feel BASTERDS was; it was just so well acted, paced and plotted. There wasn't a moment I wasn't engaged. The story always stayed on the track I wanted it to, but still managed to surprise me. Loved all the performances (except for Tarantino's, but you know, whatever) but Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson were goddamn titans. And Foxx was a perfectly downplayed spaghetti western hero. Top 3 of the year material here for me, a happy surprise in that while I expected it to be good, i didn't expect to love it.

Reply
#19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chet Ripley View Post

Oh, but Tarantino's role and attempt at an aussie accent was completely unnecessary and distracting in my opinion.

As an enthusiast for shitty attempts at our accent, I look forward to this even more.

Reply
#20
A[quote name="MikeShaynePI" url="/community/t/146215/django-unchained-post-release#post_3446719"]Yes
[/quote]

Hey man, I'm not sure if you've seen the theatrical cut yet but I'm trying to get an idea of what was in the 3 hour cut that you saw that didn't make the final cut. I'll list you the scenes that were in the script (and even trailers and soundtrack) and you can tell us if they were in the cut you saw:

The rape scene flashback?
Stephen showing Django to his room at Candyland and getting put in his place by Django?
Stephen interrogating Broomhilda in the kitchen about singing after she gets out of the hot box?
More Billy Crash scenes, including him interrogating the new slaves when they arrive at Candyland?
Extended torture scene in the barn with Stephen burning off Django's nipples?
Reply
#21

Tarantino's performance is more distracting in that he looks every inch the sun-deprived overweight movie nerd he is and not a credible slaver or whatever he's supposed to be. He's just out of place. Thankfully his screentime is brief.

Reply
#22

Brief but explosive!

Reply
#23
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I was slightly confused for a bit that Remar had two roles in this.  At first I chalked it up to, "Remar just has one of those faces that I can see in most character actors."

Yeah, same here.


Franco Nero's cameo made me cringe a bit, but everything else was just great entertainment. Fantastic shootouts. Probably my fave Tarantino movie ever.


"D'Artagnan, motherfuckers!"

Reply
#24

Nero's cameo was the one thing I could have done without. It was an entirely pointless bit of nerd pandering.

Reply
#25

I liked this quite a bit; Samuel L. takes a holiday from his usual phoning in and Waltz is a great match for Tarantinoese.  Foxx gets so many badass moments that I'm wondering if Big Willy Styles has any regrets about turning it down (probably not, but whatever).  The cameos didn't bother me all that much, save Tarantino who should never, ever show up in any movies, let alone his own.

I had hoped for more Goggins but will take what I can get.

Reply
#26

Liked this movie a lot, but GOD DAMN it was an epic. To think the Scotty stuff introducing Calvin that was cut out was like...  20 more pages of script!

Reply
#27

I wanted to like it more than I actually did.  I thought all the key players were great and thought all the scenes with Dicaprio crackled.  Not nearly as tight as Basterds was, I felt Django's capture and return was tacked on and unnecessary.  I thought Billy Crash would be more formidable.  QT seemed to be laying the groundwork for a showdown between Crash and Django that never really happened.  Even the revelation that Stephen was more physically able then he let on felt wasted.

Question for every body that has seen this:  Do you think Candie was going to let them leave?  My first thought was "no", but why go through the whole rigmarole of getting 'Hilda's papers squared away if Candie never intended on letting them leave?  The more I thought about it, the more I think Candie was going to let them leave.  I think Candie was satisfied with "beating" King and Django, but didn't feel the need to kill them.   I think this is why QT intercutted scenes of King recalling the slave being ripped apart by the dogs...building his disgust and hatred so when he finally does shoot Candie it feels earned (which it didn't, at least to me).   For a guy who was so cool and calculating for the two hours previous up to that moment, it just seems way out of character for him to make that choice.  Essentially it was an action that was going to get him killed, and he had to assume there was a good chance Django and Hilda were going to suffer because of it.

Reply
#28

He wasn't cool and calm.  He was losing it the entire time, while Django was doing the opposite and being fortified in his purpose by Candie's behavior.

Reply
#29

The Huffington Post - Quentin Tarantino, 'Django Unchained' Director, Challenged Us To A Debate On A 'Harebrained' Plot Point

Reply
#30
A[quote name="Joseph P. Brenner" url="/community/t/146215/django-unchained-post-release#post_3447035"]The Huffington Post - Quentin Tarantino, 'Django Unchained' Director, Challenged Us To A Debate On A 'Harebrained' Plot Point
[/quote]

Haha, I read that a little while ago. One thing I like about QT is he does seem to like film critics, or at least the ones who worship film at least half as much as he does. He's the rare filmmaker who's actually a frustrated film critic, instead of the other way around. I didn't sense any challenge, more like he relished getting down to the nitty-gritty of plot points with the guy. Plus he's talking about his movie! Win-win!
Reply
#31

Thank you for that.  And I think the plot point is harebrained.

Reply
#32

According to that article, QT says the reason King makes the decision that he does is because can't give in to Candie.  He can't give Candie the satisfaction.  The movie made it look like a moral choice, like King had to rid the earth of Candie even if it meant sacrificing himself.  Two very different things IMO.  It's silly.  IIRC, James Remar was the only guy with a gun in the room at that moment.  Why not shoot James Remar with the hidden gun, take his weapons and take Candie hostage as a way to exit Candieland?  Or shoot Remar, then shoot Candie if you felt he must die right at that moment.  Either way you're winning and you don't have to shake his hand.  And you are giving yourself (and Django and Hilda) a chance to get away.  It's certainly more theatrical the way it played out, but the movie spent a good two hours illustrating how brilliant a tactician Schultz was, always thinking 5 steps ahead of everybody else, it just seems way way way out of character for him to do what he did.

Reply
#33

You're missing the point all over the place Bob.  He's SOOOO overwhelmed by disgust for this human being that he HAS to kill him.  He's not cold and calculated and planning and scheming, he's overwhelmed with humanity and passion.  Come on man, you know THAT much.

Reply
#34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

As an enthusiast for shitty attempts at our accent, I look forward to this even more.

Then you'll really enjoy it.  His first line I immediately greeted with "Is he trying an Aussie accent?".  It's that bad.  It's not until the other slavers start talking (all with Aussie accents) that I realized it's what he was doing.  And I'm guessing those slavers were only from Australia because it was the one accent Quentin thought he could pull off.  Each of his painful lines is astounding with how he slips in and out of his poor accent at almost every single word.

Reply
#35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

You're missing the point all over the place Bob.  He's SOOOO overwhelmed by disgust for this human being that he HAS to kill him.  He's not cold and calculated and planning and scheming, he's overwhelmed with humanity and passion.  Come on man, you know THAT much.

So after years of killing people as a bounty hunter and seeing the horrors of slavery previously and lord knows what else, it's a trip to Candieland that causes him to break?  I don't know.  It's possible I guess.  I just didn't buy it.  He was all packed up, ready to leave but the handshake was the straw that broke the camel's back.  Again, he had risked so much to get to this point, he took Django under his wing, felt responsible for him, wanted him to succeed and start a new life with his wife, he was almost to the finish line...and then he breaks and throws it all away.  For me it was a bridge too far...but I can see why others feel differently.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)