Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Django Unchained - Post-Release
#36
Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Pathetic View Post

 His first line I immediately greeted with "Is he trying an Aussie accent?".  .

This was my immediate reaction as well.  I was like "Is he..no..he's not...oh I guess he is trying that".

Reply
#37
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post

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?

At what point in his dealings as a bounty hunter did Schultz come across someone who had a human being torn apart by dogs just because he could, do you think?  And then that piece of shit had the gall to insist on a handshake after threatening to bash a defenseless woman's head in.

Reply
#38

And don't you dare bring up the scene where King was convincing Django to shoot the farmer.  As he explains the man was a MONSTER, and he will have his son by his side when he dies.  It's a lot different than a tortured, tormented begging human being killed slowly, painfully and cruelly.

Reply
#39

Loved it, and good lord were Waltz and Tarantino made for each other. It's hard to imagine another actor pulling off that level of arch prose with such ease and charm, and if there's any justice the dude will get another Oscar nod this time around. As others have said, there really isn't a misstep in any of the performances (with perhaps the sole exception of a criminal lack of Goggins), and even though Waltz steals the show Foxx pulls off an admirable Eastwood and imbues a potentially one-note, monotone character with an unmistakable presence that works even with just a look and an expression, though Tarantino hardly leaves him wanting when it comes to great one-liners ("the D is silent, hillbilly" alone makes that extended finale worth it). I wouldn't say it was perfect, but as one of those people who falls into the Kill Bill 1 over Kill Bill 2 camp, it was a welcome return to Tarantino balancing amazing scenery chewing AND satisfying action in relative equal measure. I will say though, and this is related to the movie only in a the broadest sense, as a white American guy there was a small personal undercurrent of...well, it's hard to pin down but I think disquiet, shame, embarrassment. I think on some level it's just disturbing that this film could be made, that such horrors could be drawn directly from my country's history. I wonder if it's the same feeling a German audience might have at something like Inglorious Basterds, not that they themselves are accountable but more a sense of an unfortunate shared history. At the same time though, I think there's a measure of catharsis in rooting so hard for the destruction of what we can now see was so clearly evil. If we can't change the more reprehensible aspects of our history, I suppose the next best thing is to use fiction as a reminder and a means to kick it in the teeth, as Tarantino violently and gloriously does here.

Alright, now that the little stuff is out of the way, it's time to get down to the important issues: nitpicking. Though in this case, it's just one fairly large nit. While I didn't have a problem with Waltz dying (I mean, it sucked, but it's sort of par for the course for Tarantino/the genre), it struck me as odd not that he shot Candie, but that he didn't then turn and shoot the guy with the shotgun since it's (I think) a double-barreled derringer. I could be wrong, but doesn't he very deliberately shoot the sheriff twice with that same pistol? It probably wouldn't have stood out at all if it hadn't been for that earlier scene, but with that it seems like an odd lack of action, especially since he has time for a pithy one-liner before he gets blasted.

Reply
#40
A[quote name="Michael McGurn" url="/community/t/146215/django-unchained-post-release#post_3446968"]
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?[/quote]

I haven't seen it again yet. The scene with Django ordering Stephen around was definitely in the cut I saw. There may have been a rape flashback. A bit foggy on that. Stephen interrogates Broomhilda, but not about singing after the hot box. It's basically him noticing how she keeps looking at Django and she must know him. Don't recall Goggins interrogating slaves or Stephen burning off his nipples. Goggins does grab his dick for a while.
Reply
#41

Django does not order around Stephen.  The scene he's talking about is just the two of them alone, in Djangos room where Django essentially pulls rank.

Reply
#42
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post

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.

I thought contextually and thematically, it worked perfectly ... and I'm a little baffled at the criticism that this film is indulgent and lacks substance.  Having Waltz' character disgusted with American slavery while calling-back to the Landa character made the connection that, yes, American Slavery really is disgusting, really really bad - just as bad as the Holocaust and America was just as bad as Germany.  If you don't believe it - QT goes ahead and shows it, and I say huzza.  As long as slavery was a thing in America, everybody was complacent and had it coming, just like the Nazis in Basterds or Raiders.  I loved, loved, loved it.

Reply
#43

Holy shit was Sam Jackson awesome in this.

Reply
#44

Total blast. Really liked it, and if it isn't quite the film Basterds was (what is?), it was so far above the usual dreck that it didn't matter, and also a nice change of pace in the middle of all the prestige pictures. Everyone is great, super excited to see it again.

The one thing that bugged me: Losing Waltz and DiCaprio with another half hour or so to go felt like a misstep, not just because it was the character I most liked and the character I most wanted to see die. Although that's a good reason too. Up until that point, there was a lot of suspense hanging over the proceedings, specifically will Dr Schultz make it out, and who'll get to kill DiCaprio? Resolving those two issues meant there was only one place left for the movie to go, Django killing Stephen and claiming Broomhilda. Everything that happened in the last chunk was all good, but it lost a certain spark of fear.

Regardless, fucking Waltz is a genius. What a likable performance.

Reply
#45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Total blast. Really liked it, and if it isn't quite the film Basterds was (what is?), it was so far above the usual dreck that it didn't matter, and also a nice change of pace in the middle of all the prestige pictures. Everyone is great, super excited to see it again.

The one thing that bugged me: Losing Waltz and DiCaprio with another half hour or so to go felt like a misstep, not just because it was the character I most liked and the character I most wanted to see die. Although that's a good reason too. Up until that point, there was a lot of suspense hanging over the proceedings, specifically will Dr Schultz make it out, and who'll get to kill DiCaprio? Resolving those two issues meant there was only one place left for the movie to go, Django killing Stephen and claiming Broomhilda. Everything that happened in the last chunk was all good, but it lost a certain spark of fear.

Regardless, fucking Waltz is a genius. What a likable performance.

Well, the movie was called "Django Unchained", so it was kind of nice to see Foxx kick ass in a way that Denzel, Big Willie and Eddie got to over and over again in their primes.  Yes, Foxx did great in "Miami Vice" and he did blow the shit out of the bad guys, but that wasn't the five-star movie we all thought it would be, and Foxx's character was pretty humorless - plus how long did it take to clear the trailer of white-supremacists using close-combat fighting?  Two, maybe three minutes?  Whack.  This was the movie Foxx fans have wanted to see for twenty years - he blew the shit out of the bad guys, got to kiss his smoking-hot wife, and hey, how about some equestrian tricks ... why the fuck not?  Foxx earned this shit - he was a hit on TV, he has an Oscar, his records sell, and he packed on the mass without sacrificing flexibility.

And yes, it's sad to see Waltz and Leo go, but I'll take the Pepsi Challenge that Foxx Vs. Goggins and Jackson in the third act beats 99% of other movies out there.  Here's some of the 1% club:

Ripley Vs. the Queen Alien

John Matrix Vs. Bennett

Rocky Vs. Drago

Van Damme and Dennis Rodman Vs. Rourke

Reply
#46
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

At what point in his dealings as a bounty hunter did Schultz come across someone who had a human being torn apart by dogs just because he could, do you think?  And then that piece of shit had the gall to insist on a handshake after threatening to bash a defenseless woman's head in.

A bounty hunter who always killed his bounties rather than bring them in alive because it was more convienient.  A bounty hunter who was knowledgable about slavery and mandingo fighting...it wasn't like this stuff was brand new to him.

You're missing my point though.  I'm not saying Schultz shouldn't have been disgusted, horrified, angry, etc etc etc...I get all that.  I'm saying his action at that moment runs totally counter to everything this guy was about leading up to that point.  His actions put Django and Hilda in immediate danger not to mention signed his own death warrant.  The Schultz I saw at the beginning of the movie would have tried to figure out a way to get the three of them out while also not giving Candie the satisfaction, despite whatever anger he was harboring.  I understand people break, people snap, people lose their head and act irrationally at times but out of everybody in this movie Schultz would be the least likely candidate to lose his head in a moment of passion.  The movie would have you believe that Schultz just couldn't help himself, and that's fine.  I'm not sure why I have such a problem with this but I do.

Reply
#47

He just couldn't help himself, Candie was just that big of an asshole. What with the three dimples speech and all, and the handshake and the ignorance.  That was the part that really sent Schultz over the edge.  Yes, he had seen brutality and violence and racism and assholes, but it was that fake intelligence and pretentiousness that Candie carried himself with that ultimately made Schultz do what he did.

Reply
#48
Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Pathetic View Post

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.

Those mining company guys were probably from Australia because Tarantino is a big fan of the the third guy, John Jarratt ("you're alright for a black fella!"... so great in Wolf Creek, but he's done loads of Aussie exploitation type stuff). Also, Michael Parks was hilarious in the "does he even realize his character is supposed to be from Australia, or does he just not care?" sense.

I don't usually give a shit about box office type stuff, but I want to say I think this movie will do really well. I saw it yesterday, 9am showing, theater was about 80% full, mostly African American, the audience absolutely ate it up. Went fucking NUTS when Jackson's brilliant ultimate Uncle Tom got kneecapped. So much fun.

Reply
#49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple_72 View Post

I don't usually give a shit about box office type stuff, but I want to say I think this movie will do really well. I saw it yesterday, 9am showing, theater was about 80% full, mostly African American, the audience absolutely ate it up. Went fucking NUTS when Jackson's brilliant ultimate Uncle Tom got kneecapped. So much fun.

Yeah, for some reason I'm always shocked that there are tons of middle-class black folks who show up to Madea and stuff like this in my town, even though my wife and I have tons of black colleagues and friends - I guess I just didn't think of this one as a "black film".  My crowd was about 40% black, and everybody was pretty rowdy.  The "Not you Stephen" line got the biggest reaction ... probably one of the best crowds I've ever been in, at least outside of LA.

I think this movie will live forever.  Like "Toxic Avenger" or "Big Trouble in Little China" I think 13 year-old boys are going to watch this movie for the next 100 years, thinking it's a big secret that only they and their friends know about.

Reply
#50

Reply
#51

Saw it, loved it. The theater was surprisingly full for an 11 AM show, but it is the holidays I suppose. While the runtime didn't bother me, everything is so wonderfully paced and filled, as all QT's work, with delightfully memorable characters (the Aussie gang was a hoot), as much as I love me some QT revenge flick, I would not have been surprised if Schulz, Django and Broomhilde walked out of that final confrontation with Candie just fine, no shootout required. Almost like a big middle finger to the audience, because this movie sure as hell is unconventional. Like he was emphasizing the unchainedness not through violence, but tact and legal means; by no means fun and exciting, just may have worked in an odd way. Utterly glad we got the action we've come to know and love, but without Schulz there I guess I felt a little let down because he was absolutely wonderful. Great flick, can't wait to see this one live on and on into the Hollywood lexicon.

Reply
#52

Yeah, this movie will do well.  We had a blizzard and a level 1 snow emergency yesterday in southwest Ohio, and the theater was full.

Jeez, first Tarantino takes on Nazis, then slavery.  What next, the Spanish Inquisition?

Great movie, and if Waltz isn't at least nominated for an Oscar it's a shame.  I doubt he'd win, but he's too great not to acknowledge.  I think it's pretty clear that out of all the horrors he must have witnessed, the dog-kill pushed him over the edge.  His emotions overtook his calculating mind, which is what his last line implies.  Plus, it's kind of expected given the genre and all.

Reply
#53
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydren View Post

Jeez, first Tarantino takes on Nazis, then slavery.  What next, the Spanish Inquisition?

Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition

Reply
#54

Careful, now, if your bass is too high you could blow out your speakers

Reply
#55

The lack of Menke's presence could be felt, I thought, as the movie felt a bit all over the place. That said, however, Tarantino's a director who's flaws I will endlessly revel in (except for you, Jackie Brown) and always makes for an overall enjoyable film experience. The guy really is the best director of our generation and I find it a privilege to get to experience his art in real-time.

Also, this movie made me coin the phrase #RightintheGoggins. I demand you run wild with it.

Reply
#56

In what way was this movie "all over the place" or "unfocused"? I thought this was so much more focused than any of his other movies. The story always stayed right on point and never veered wildly into side-trips with characters I could have given a fuck about like say, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS or DEATH PROOF. For Tarantino this was positively streamlined story-wise.

Reply
#57

This is a much tighter movie than TDKR.

Reply
#58

In retrospect that probably wasn't the right phrase to use, so I'll say overlong instead.

Wish I could say the same about nooj's mom, Freeman. (SHE'S SO BAD.)

Reply
#59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

Django does not order around Stephen.  The scene he's talking about is just the two of them alone, in Djangos room where Django essentially pulls rank.


Yeah, I'm talking about that scene.  He tells Stephen amongst other things to pour his water in the bowl for him.  Is that in the final movie?

Reply
#60

No.  At least I don't remember it at all if it was.

I'm kind of glad he removed all the rape stuff.  The movie was SOOOOO heavy as it was on the brutality...

Reply
#61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

In what way was this movie "all over the place" or "unfocused"? I thought this was so much more focused than any of his other movies. The story always stayed right on point and never veered wildly into side-trips with characters I could have given a fuck about like say, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS or DEATH PROOF. For Tarantino this was positively streamlined story-wise.

YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP.  ALL OF MY SPECKS.  HAVE THEM!!!

Reply
#62
AWHAT'S THIS ABOUT MY FAT PROMISCUOUS MOTHER???
Reply
#63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

No.  At least I don't remember it at all if it was.

I'm kind of glad he removed all the rape stuff.  The movie was SOOOOO heavy as it was on the brutality...


Well, there you go.  That's definitely one scene he had in the cut that wasn't in the final.  That's a few minutes out of 15.  Definitely a better scene than that Australian shit.

Reply
#64

The movie is only long because of the patented Tarantino monologues, and isn't that part of what people go to see his movies for? I mean, that skull indentation monologue that DiCaprio gives was so fucking insanely great I never wanted it to end.

Reply
#65

That monologue is made all the better when Waltz so thoroughly puts him in his place.  I think I came a little in my pants.

Reply
#66

I was wondering how Tarantino was going to monologue without the trappings of popular culture to fall back on, and god damn did he knock it out of the park.

Reply
#67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun H View Post

The lack of Menke's presence could be felt, I thought, as the movie felt a bit all over the place.

I agree that the editing felt a little off, but it's too easy to blame the death of Menke.  You could just feel that there was a lot of excised footage.

Reply
#68

http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-u...go-trilogy

http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-u...t-2-n-word

http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-u...te-saviors

Reply
#69

Read those links above guys. Especially the bit about Tarantino's absolute hatred of D.W. Griffith and the way he perverted his artform for outright evil.

This movie was a necessity. With every line, every use of the word nigger, it hit the audience over the head of the noxiousness and absolute sadism of the antebullem South. Every use of the word (and maybe my use of the word in the last sentence), made me wince a little, while being thankful for its use in a movie that contexualizes its pervesity and utilitarian use as a weapon of subjugation. A former slave Nat Turners a plantation house and burns it the fuck down in a major Hollywood movie. That is what I call a fucking cathartic moment and one long time coming.

Reply
#70

I liked it, but I think it's my least favorite Tarantino movie.

Before anyone asks; yes, I'd put it below Death Proof. I kinda love Death Proof. I'd even slot Kill Bill vol 2 below Death Proof. I feel like that movie is a little bloated and could use a solid trim, as much as I love it.

I don't have any kind of excitement to revisit Django anytime soon, which I don't think I've ever felt after watching one of Tarantino's movies. There doesn't seem like there's very much to it, honestly. What are the themes of the movie? I'm not particularly sure. It feels more like an exercise then a film, and that's really surprising because every one of his movies has really felt like it's "about" something. Is this about the brutality of slavery? I hate to say it, but it often feels like the tone trivializes slavery, which is disappointing specifically because Tarantino managed to balance a unique tone (half wacky exploration about the language of film and the superiority of cultures engaged in war, half bittersweet remorse revenge fantasy) in Basterds. The story here feels too rote and I never really got completely invested in Django as his character, and especially not for Brunhilda, who comes off as a trophy or a prize rather than a character. It's not the actors faults; both Foxx and Washington are fine, they just feel underwritten to me. The most interesting characters are the white main characters; Waltz and DiCaprio. The most interesting black character is Jackson. That seems like a bit of a problem.

What's this movie about? Slavery? Freedom? Exploitation movies? Westerns? The south? None of it rings true. I get that it's a Black Superhero movie, and that's kind of great, and there are moments that had me cackling, moments I really loved. I loved the early stuff with Waltz and Foxx paired up and was really prepared to fall in love with the movie. I loved the typical meandering dialogue punctuated by violence. I know a lot of you guys hated that Django got captured and had to free himself, but that moment almost worked for me; as if Django had to take the silver-tongued tricks he learned from Schultz and free himself before he could really win. Also, the dynamite gag, while predictable as all hell, was worth it. I especially like the bittersweet goodbye Foxx gives Waltz before his revenge and felt like that was the right moment for it. Waltz's sacrifice doesn't make any sense, but he acts his hat off in that scene and really sells it, so whatever.

So much of the movie feels tacked-on or thankless, though. Django doesn't grow as a character; he's freed and he's immediately an expert with a gun. Huh? They have a whole montage where it seems like Django could grow to become a bounty hunter, but other than that morality speech from Waltz, there isn't anything there. Django shoots the snowman bottle and he's already an expert marksmen. That entire sequence feels like it was there for Tarantino to reference The Great Silence. Same with the uninspiring Nero cameo.


By the end, I was left wanting more from the movie, finding the whole experience somewhat lacking. It's just not as unique of a movie as I was hoping for, or used to from Tarantino. It felt much more like the type of movie he likes to reference rather than the type of movie he typically makes.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)