quote:

---

I found the language very offensive and think everyone involved in the production of this film should reevaluate what they are doing with their lives, because they are clearly living a life of sin.

---

Troll acknowledged.

The scene with the dog tearing him apart wasn't as gruesome as its detractor is saying, IMO. Kill Bill was worse but maybe you didn't like it because it was more realistic. Obviously there's not much realism the way the blood spattered in those films, so maybe the dog scene was too real for you?

And those of you complaining about the n-word use.... do you think they addressed slaves with any kind of deference back in those days? I'm not saying they refer to them with that word with every single sentence, but I didn't feel like it was excessive. It takes away the power of the word when you use it as humorously as Waltz does most of the time.

I thought it was pretty good, if you like his movies.

I've enjoyed most other QT films in the past and I thought this one had some worthwhile and even memorable stuff.

I especially grooved on the Mel Brooks style humor which righteously reduced the cloth face masks of the nightriders from being focal points of terror to total ridicule.

That was deliciously done by that entire equestrian ensemble.

I thought this particular tribute to Mel was better realized (here using slapstick burlesque humor, sufficiently bright and on point enough to rival "Blazing Saddles") than the somewhat more seriously drawn homage in "Inglourious Basterds" made to Brooks' "Springtime for Hitler" ballet from "The Producers."

Also, the constant, obvious admiration of and salutations to both Spaghetti Westerns and Blaxploitational Cinema were certainly recognized and appreciated by my moviegoing self.



The devoted and hungry fans of QT will surely revel in, deservedly praise and immensely enjoy his latest offering, however I became a bit bored during its 2:45 length by some of the deliberate overacting and the constant outpouring of broad humor.

IMO, this screenplay isn't as nicely balanced, between nuance and overkill, as some of QT's better work has been.

But, the surfeit of explosive gunplay and bloody violence didn't affect me in a negative way at all.

I expected and dug all that, however I did find QT's whole movie a little self-indulgent and even masturbatory.

Quentin really seemed to be stroking himself, while I typically need more sex and/or female skin in a flick to put me in that mood.

And there just wasn't much of that provided here.



Kind of like the Stanford University Band's striking performance at the Rose Bowl, which I would characterize as being somewhat like the clever (IMO) Rice MOB, but completely dominated by the exuberance of college-aged, well-educated youth, possibly on steroids and/or hallucinatory drugs.

JMO.

There was lots of good stuff in this movie, but for me there was also a mite too much of QT's personal potpourri available, including his own acting appearance.

So, I believe ardent admirers of QT's cinematic vision, his creative substance, his moviemaking expertise and his overall schtick will definitely receive their money's worth watching "Django Unchained."

I certainly got my Quentin Tarantino fix and even more of that specific high than I really needed.








BTHO OU!!!!!!!!!!

Gig 'em, FAST FRED '65.

Before the world wide web, village idiots usually stayed in their own village.

[This message has been edited by FAST FRED (edited 4/29/2013 1:22p).]

quote:

---

I especially enjoyed the Mel Brooks style humor which reduced the cloth face masks of the nightriders from focal points of terror to total riidicule.

That was brilliiantly done.

I thought this particular Mel Brooks tribute was better realized (here using slapstick burlesque humor, sufficiently bright and on point enough to rival "Blazing Saddles"} than was that somewhat more seriously drawn homage in "Inglourious Basterds," made to Brooks' "Springtime for Hitler" ballet from "The Producers."

Also, the constant, obvious admiration of and salutations to both Spaghetti Westerns and Blaxploitation Cinema were certainly recognized and appreciated by my moviegoing self.

---

Agree with all of this. Forgot about the hood scene. I kept waiting for someone to ask "where are the white women at!?"

Actually, I was thinking it felt a little long, too, but until I see it again I can't think of anything off hand I would eliminate. I'm sure better minds for this could find something, but I really enjoyed most of it.

quote:

---

Troll acknowledged.

---

Yes, I am certainly a troll. I have built up a 4000+ post account just so I could troll the thread about a movie.

Or maybe it was just a joke...

No way to tell, really.

[This message has been edited by wasabi1787 (edited 1/2/2013 10:01p).]

quote:

---

I have built up a 4000+ post account

---

I apologize. This changes everything.

quote:

---

Jackie Brown was awful

---

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but yours is incorrect and invalid.

quote:

---

Loved DiCaprio. However I did not see him as the villian. My only beef with the movie was it lacked an antagonist.

---

While DiCaprio was not a traditional villain/antagonist, I think his character still filled the role of antagonist well. He wasn't a diabolical villain directly opposed to the goal of the protagonist, but he was a bad person with the power to stop them if he desired. He was despicable and evil not because of his goals, but just because he could be. He has no true goals other than to use his power for his amusement, so there is no way to stop him other than to kill him or remove his power. Our protagonists are trying to operate within the realm of the law, which limits their ability to combat him. Once he discovers their goals, they have no way to beat him, so they have to work around that. That gives Tarantino more room to make the story a little more interesting.


***SPOILER ALERT***



Once they reach that point, Schultz realizes that Candie is so evil that he must be stopped, regardless of law. That's when Tarantino says "&#%$ yeah! I don't have to write a plausibly satisfying conclusion to what has been a well crafted story, I can just have a Tarantinorgy of blood, gore, and violence for the next 15 minutes!"

It wasn't his best work, but I found it very enjoyable.

Saw it yesterday and loved every long minute of it. As usual, Tarantino brought his usual knack of getting the absolute best performances imaginable from his cast. Waltz should get another Oscar nomination, with possibles for DiCaprio and Foxx.

After keeping up with this thread, I was hesitant about the QT cameo. After seeing it, I don't see the fuss. Sure, he's not a good actor but he had about three lines. Wisely, he let QT regular Michael Parks have the bulk of that scene. Oh, and Quentin needs to lay off the Kahuna Burgers for awhile.

I was expecting a typical Tarantino soundtrack, but was pleased that he reigned himself in for the most part and kept an appropriate-sounding score.

quote:

---

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but yours is incorrect and invalid.

---

Ha! You're right! WTF was I thinking....Silly me, I'm such an idiot. How could I ever think Jackie Brown was a bad movie? Thank you for allowing me to see the error in my ways.

Nope.......still sucks.

I need to go back and watch Jackie Brown again. I didn't like it much when I first saw it but that was a long time ago.

It's streaming on Netflix and Amazon Prime.

I liked Jackie Brown...it was like there was no possible way to follow up the monster that was Pulp Fiction and he just kind of went under it.

Definitely not his best work but I'll watch it whenever it's on and get some laughs out of it.

Lee Horsley and Tom Wopat cameos.

quote:

---

I will have to be the dissenting voice on this thread.

---

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who didn't like it ce1994.

I have enjoyed most of Tarantino's movies and really wanted to like this one as well. But I saw it last night and came out feeling offended, embarrassed and dirty for having watched. It wasn't the violence that did it... I knew what to expect with that regard.

Instead, it has more to do with the degradation and treatment of the slaves while at the same time making such treatments seem almost humerous or casual. Yes I understand logically all the reasons that this was done but it created enough discomfort for me, that I couldn't enjoy or feel happy at the end of the movie.

quote:

---

And Spielberg showing all the emaciated prisoners was over the top and uncomfortable in Schindlers List. He too must deserve an ass kicking...

---

The difference is that at the end of Schindler's list, I don't think I was supposed to walk out feeling happy and entertained. Schindler's list wasn't about "entertainment" but rather was a message as to both the extraordinary evil and extraordinary courage that man is capable of. Django on the other hand was simply an attempt to use over the top evil and violence to create a pleasureable couple of hours. And it didn't do anything of the sort for me.

^dat guilt.

http://ss.cxgp.net/grandma/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Snow-White-Cake.jpg

Going to see Django today. Afterwards, I'll check out this thread.

Saw it last night. Great movie!

Good movie. I thought it was well produced but it seemed like the longer Director's cut version. It didn't need to be almost 3 hours long. Pulp Fiction is still my favorite with IB coming in 2nd. And I liked Jackie Brown. How could someone not like that movie?
Django is definitely one to see, imo.

Saw it again last night. Still great.

quote:

---

Anyone else notice the masked woman at the Doghouse? Who was looking at the slave pictures through a viewer when Django showed up there, and was among the group earlier? She seemed like she was designed to stick out/be distinctive, but didn't have any role as far as I could tell. What was up with her?

---

I read somewhere (imbd?) that the character was supposed to have a scene somewhere that got cut. The mask was hiding the fact that she's missing her jaw.

I think a better ending would have been to cut to the credits as [Spoiler]


Django rides off on the horse with the shotgun after killing the Dickey mining crew


[/Spoiler]

Then it would be up to us to assume Django kicked ass and rescued his woman. I know that would have cut out some decent scenes (especially the last with SLJ), but oh well.

I thought the ending would've been perfect if it has just been followed by a shot of Django and his woman riding into the sunrise.

*Spoilers*

Probably a little late on this, but I saw it Saturday and would give it 2.5 out of 4. I really think Tarantino lets his schtick get in the way of his movies, which leaves his movies disconnected, disjointed, with seemingly pointless scenes.

What was the point of the whole last 2 scenes? Why add the part of him getting sold, then tricking the 3 guys, killing them, then going back and killing everyone else? Why not just kill them all the first time? This is only one of my many nitpicks, but it seems Tarantino makes movies for himself, and not for the “movie”. He is more interested in making cameos or little “clever” statements than actually making a coherent, flowing movie.

And Good Lord, the shootout where they kept hitting the corpses and missing Django was laughable. No drama, no tension, just blood flying up everywhere and the quick knowledge that Django was not going to get shot.

I was definitely entertained, but at the end, I thought the whole was MUCH less than the sum of the parts.

[This message has been edited by FAST FRED (edited 1/21/2013 8:31p).]

Loved the movie.

I watched a few Spaghetti Westerns a year or two ago and noticed the nod to that style of film throughout.
The blood splatter was over-the-top, obviously for a reason. Perhaps it was to make the violence comical, to releive tension? I also noted the tributes to Blazing Saddles.
I don't rewatch that many movies, but I could see myself watching this a number of times.

Also, I read this before I watched the movie and thought it was interesting,

Dick Gregory: Spike Lee is a Punk and a Thug

quote:

---

In an interview posted to YouTube, Gregory says that the movie spoke to him in ways that no film had in all his years on earth. He then calls out Director Spike Lee for criticizing a film that he's never seen, saying that if anyone has created movies that are disrespectful to our ancestors, it's Lee himself:

"I've seen 'Django Unchained' 12 times. Never in the history of Hollywood, have they ever made anything that freed the inside of me. The inside of me. I'm 80-years-old, I saw cowboy movies, wasn't no black folks in cowboy movies. I'm looking at a western, plus a love story. To those of you all that see it, you'll never see a love story about a black man and a black woman where it wasn't some foul sex and foul language, huh. And Spike Lee can't appreciate that. The little thug ain't even seen the movie; he's acting like he white.

"So it must be something personal. And all them black entertainers that know Spike Lee, how you gone attack this man and don't be attacking them ... and then say everyone's a fool but me. (Talking about) 'it offended my ancestors,' but when you did 'She's Got To Have It' and some of those other thug movies you did...you took Malcolm X and put a Zoot suit on him...did that offend your ancestors, punk?

---

quote:

---

"So it must be something personal. And all them black entertainers that know Spike Lee, how you gone attack this man and don't be attacking them ... and then say everyone's a fool but me. (Talking about) 'it offended my ancestors,' but when you did 'She's Got To Have It' and some of those other thug movies you did...you took Malcolm X and put a Zoot suit on him...did that offend your ancestors, punk?

---

1. Spike Lee is an idiot. But regarding Django, Spike is complete idiot.
2. She's Gotta Have It is damn great movie.
3. Malcolm X did wear a zoot suit.
4. The **** is Dick Gregory talking about?

Quentin Tarantino is one of my favorite directors. Top three, probably. The truth about Quentin is somewhere in between what people like Spike Lee say about him and what Tarantino says about himself.

Tarantino does do a great job of addressing uncomfortable topics in a completely watchable and, yes, entertaining way. However, I do think he takes liberal (and that's putting it nicely) use of his safety net when it comes to offensive topics.

A good example of how Tarantino has been and still is out of touch with his own perception of race relations is when he went on 106 and Park last month to promote Django. Where he took on, let's say, a more "urban" accent. SMH.

Awesome awesome movie. LOVED It.

I actually liked it better than Pulp Fiction.

the Hoods scene was freakin hilarious too.

Sorry, DP

[This message has been edited by RAB87 (edited 2/24/2013 9:34p).]

Next thing you know, folks like QT and SLJ will be making commercials promoting gun control. Hypocrites. Their work is no more an art than me pissing in my front yard. Its just about the shock value.