^Perhaps, despite your concious disdain for this upcoming film...your subconcious finds it strangely attractive! 
Django Unchained--Tarintino's new project
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
Christmas needs to hurry up.
It's been a while since a thread update, and the film opened yesterday, a friend of mine has seen it twice already and has put it in his top three favourite films of 2012 list. I won't be seeing it until my birthday on Friday. I did read the first issue of the comic based on the full script and it was outstanding. Has anyone seen it yet? Or are you waiting until the weekend?
So, I just have to ask since I'm still a bit burned after "Ingloreous Basterds", is this movie ACTUALLY about, and follows, Django or is he kinda-in it but the movie mostly focuses on completely different characters in a completely different story?
^This movie is Django's movie. While other characters play major roles, the story is his through and through.
I saw it yesterday, and loved it. It's a very long film, but never feels like it's dragging. The trademark Tarantino dialogue is out in full force, complete a pretentious monologue from the villain. I do have one quibble with it, that I'll spoiler code:
I saw it yesterday, and loved it. It's a very long film, but never feels like it's dragging. The trademark Tarantino dialogue is out in full force, complete a pretentious monologue from the villain. I do have one quibble with it, that I'll spoiler code:
The movie feels like it is coming to its climax after Shultz kills Candy, and the massive shootout begins, but then goes on for around another 15-20 minutes. It didn't really hurt my enjoyment of the film. It just felt like the film had a fourth act.
Yes.
Yes. That was a little unusual, and could easily have ended in anticlimax. But I thought the film pulled it off.
The only caveat I add is that the movie is very much the story of King Schulz (played by Christoph Waltz) as well as Django though Django is never sidelined. It is actually probably the most straightforward of Tarantino's movies.
Of all the film I have seen this year--THIS one made me laugh the hardest!
Quentin, my inspiration--you, sir, have outdone yourself!
Django Unchained is, I must say, tied with Pulp Fiction for position of "favorite Tarantino flick". It's that good.
As for the post-climax thing...well--I'm actually reminded of what Peter Jackson noted about Tolken's ideas about the climax for Return of the King.
Other thoughts:
Perfect choices of music--including a shivver-inducing use of "I Got A Name".
A Klan sequence that had me bust a gut and split my sides in laughter!
The "Broomhilda" legend filled me with awe, as I realized that Quentin didn't just throw in a German bounty hunter "for the heck of it" (or...just to work in the great Christof Waltz). There is a dramatic element in that aspect of Dr. Shultz. Mr. Tarantino...you sure knew what you were doing!
Gotta love the Franco Nero cameo--and the strong implication that he's playing...the original Django. (Also love the look of mutual respect the two characters exchange.)
Oh...and by the way--there IS something after the credits.
Quentin, my inspiration--you, sir, have outdone yourself!
Django Unchained is, I must say, tied with Pulp Fiction for position of "favorite Tarantino flick". It's that good.
As for the post-climax thing...well--I'm actually reminded of what Peter Jackson noted about Tolken's ideas about the climax for Return of the King.
Bring them to the depths of despair--and THEN, when all hope seems lost...snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, when it seems like we're past the point of no return!
There--Gollum comes in. Here--Django outwits his transportation (including a charming-as-always Quentin cameo!) and returns to avenge all wrongs, and set things right.
There--Gollum comes in. Here--Django outwits his transportation (including a charming-as-always Quentin cameo!) and returns to avenge all wrongs, and set things right.
Other thoughts:
Perfect choices of music--including a shivver-inducing use of "I Got A Name".
A Klan sequence that had me bust a gut and split my sides in laughter!
The "Broomhilda" legend filled me with awe, as I realized that Quentin didn't just throw in a German bounty hunter "for the heck of it" (or...just to work in the great Christof Waltz). There is a dramatic element in that aspect of Dr. Shultz. Mr. Tarantino...you sure knew what you were doing!
Gotta love the Franco Nero cameo--and the strong implication that he's playing...the original Django. (Also love the look of mutual respect the two characters exchange.)
Oh...and by the way--there IS something after the credits.
Last edited:
Just saw the film tonight. It's excellent. Certainly one of Tarantino's best. Amazing Performances by Waltz and Dicaprio. Sam Jackson had me laughing with almost everyone of his lines.
I do wonder what the film would be like if the ending had been a little more subdued. It got ultra-silly real fast once the big gunfight started. I loved every minute of it, but it did seem a pretty big leap in tone.
Edit - I slept on it and I'm now willing to call this my favorite film of the year.
I do wonder what the film would be like if the ending had been a little more subdued. It got ultra-silly real fast once the big gunfight started. I loved every minute of it, but it did seem a pretty big leap in tone.
Edit - I slept on it and I'm now willing to call this my favorite film of the year.
Last edited:
Thought it was really good as well, although not quite to the level of Inglourious. I found myself kind of missing the crazy detours and time jumps and side stories of his other movies. And despite the epic length, it felt like they tracked down Django's wife a little TOO quickly and easily.
But still, Foxx, Waltz and DiCaprio were all amazing to watch, and by the end Django had become such a cool, absolutely badass character I found myself wishing we could see more of him in a sequel.
And despite what some critics say, I never got the sense Tarantino was trivializing the subject matter in the slightest. He may have had some fun with his characters, but the ugliness and awfulness and barbarity of the actual act of slavery still comes through loud and clear in this movie-- and probably stronger than I've ever seen it.
But still, Foxx, Waltz and DiCaprio were all amazing to watch, and by the end Django had become such a cool, absolutely badass character I found myself wishing we could see more of him in a sequel.
And despite what some critics say, I never got the sense Tarantino was trivializing the subject matter in the slightest. He may have had some fun with his characters, but the ugliness and awfulness and barbarity of the actual act of slavery still comes through loud and clear in this movie-- and probably stronger than I've ever seen it.
I thought Inglourious Basterds was much stronger than Django. DiCaprio and Samuel L Jackson were fantastic. Foxx and Waltz were just OK for me in this one.
The proto-Klan with the underwhelming bag disguises were pretty funny, but the bumbling Klan thing reminded me too much of O Brother Where Art Thou. I didn't find many of the action sequences that engaging. I thought the running length of the movie was way too long. There just wasn't enough going on in this film for it to fill 2 hours and 45 minutes. The ending dragged like Return of the King. Bad call throwing yourself on camera Quentin, with your preposterous Aussie accent, was definitely ready for the movie to end at that point.
The proto-Klan with the underwhelming bag disguises were pretty funny, but the bumbling Klan thing reminded me too much of O Brother Where Art Thou. I didn't find many of the action sequences that engaging. I thought the running length of the movie was way too long. There just wasn't enough going on in this film for it to fill 2 hours and 45 minutes. The ending dragged like Return of the King. Bad call throwing yourself on camera Quentin, with your preposterous Aussie accent, was definitely ready for the movie to end at that point.
^Tarantino always cameos in his movies. There would have been something lacking had he not. Also, I think there's meant to be humor in that scene. We're supposed to recognize him, and realize he's doing a ridiculous accent. Someone that doesn't know Tarantino wouldn't think twice about it, but a fan would recognize it and laugh.
I agree. In fact I thought that Tarantino did a good job of showing just how bad it was in order to justify all the great killing Django "had" to do.
Good point. And it was a funny scene.
Sam jackson's character was the classic Uncle Tom house negro. There is a character in "Boondocks" that is almost a perfect update on this guy. He was at times, sinister, hilarious, condescending, stupid, and ingenius (or at least smarter than ole massa) -- the only way a guy like that cauld have survived so long. My only quibble with him was that I thought that rather than angrily shouting invectives at Django after being shot, that character should have suddenly become Django's "brotha". He should have attempted to ingratiate and maybe save himself with the commonality of their both having been slaves and fighting the "white man", etc.
Kerry Washington was fine. She should have played Uhura, I tell you.
What about the scene where the dude grabbed Jamie Foxx's junk with his bare hand?
Tarantino and subtle are not two words I ever really associate.
One shocking fact I learned today about the film: In the scene where DiCaprio saws open the skull of his old family servant (supposedly to show the genetic inferiority of the black man), I was left wondering why his left hand was bleeding all over the place. Turns out he actually DID accidentally cut his own hand open with the saw (it wasn't in the script), and he just went with it in a paroxysm of method acting that so impressed QT he used that take in the film (yes, Kerry Washington got an unexpected faceful of REAL Leo blood).
Wow. And that wasn't just a little bit of blood either.
Thinking back on my earilier comment regarding the prominence of Schulz in the movie, I've been wondering if perhaps this movie is really about his journey. If you look at the movie as having a plot of Django getting his woman back the movie definitely makes this progression from start to finish. However in terms of character growth and change I think it might be argued that this is where the movie may really be more about King Schulz.
Django may provide the physical conflict but the dramatic conflict really resides with Schulz. Especially with the dog scene, we see that Django is who he is at that point yet Schulz was still in motion.
Django may provide the physical conflict but the dramatic conflict really resides with Schulz. Especially with the dog scene, we see that Django is who he is at that point yet Schulz was still in motion.
^
Interesting. But I'm not sure we actually got much of a character growth arc out of either Django or Schultz. Schultz didn't like slavery from jump, though he was not above using it to get what he wanted from Django. And Django wanted his wife back from jump and never wavered in that.
Perhaps Django's attitude toward other slaves changed, but I would argue that he was merely playing a role at Candyland until he and Schultz got exposed. So it wasn't like there was a sea change there either. More that he had to bury his real feelings until he accomplished his objective.
With Schultz, feeling some responsibility for Django, as well as disgust over slavery, it felt like a logical progression for him to take action against Candie like that. I don't think it was an epiphany kind of moment. Even his action, which imperiled Django and Broomhilda, didn't seem like a change in his character to me.
Interesting. But I'm not sure we actually got much of a character growth arc out of either Django or Schultz. Schultz didn't like slavery from jump, though he was not above using it to get what he wanted from Django. And Django wanted his wife back from jump and never wavered in that.
Perhaps Django's attitude toward other slaves changed, but I would argue that he was merely playing a role at Candyland until he and Schultz got exposed. So it wasn't like there was a sea change there either. More that he had to bury his real feelings until he accomplished his objective.
With Schultz, feeling some responsibility for Django, as well as disgust over slavery, it felt like a logical progression for him to take action against Candie like that. I don't think it was an epiphany kind of moment. Even his action, which imperiled Django and Broomhilda, didn't seem like a change in his character to me.