saw Django Unchained, no spoilers

B

Burnt Orangeman

1,000+ Posts
Just an overview.

Well people seem to either love or hate Tarrantino movies and this won't change that. This one is my new favorite.

No westerns heretofore have confronted the brutalities of slavery until this. QT shoves America's face in it like a dog that shat on the floor and wraps it up in a spaghetti western homage.

I think it clearly deserves best picture oscar and will be talked about 20 years from now. But QT is a Hollywood iconoclast so he'll more likely get snubbed.
 
Tarantino's movies are generally revolting.

I rented Pulp Fiction and my wife, who is not a movie person, walked into the room during the "Get the Gimp" segment. She wanted to know if I was watching gay porn. I told her I didn't know exactly what I was watching.

Anyway, thanks for the warning. I'll avoid this movie like the plague.

It also occurs to me that many of the eastern press, who have spent the last two weeks railing against gun violence, will probably just LOVE this movie because it targets white slave owners, KKK, etc. As Alanis would sing, isn't it ironic.
 
I love tarentino movies, but do not give that big a **** if the films story validates/invalidates my political worldview. I'll have to see It myself to decide, since most of the reviews can get past the hard on they have for anything that projects this country in an unfavorable light.
 
Tarantino is a master at manipulating motifs he has seen in a thousand other films and coming up with a souffle unlike any other. He is a master at manipulating the sensations of the audience. And if you go to films to get your sensations rubbed raw, he is your man. I admire his talent immensely.

But he got his education watching every movie in the film rental store he worked in for years and nobody ever taught him anything about ethics or elevating the dialogue and so he makes very course, vicious and often stupid movies about people who are as vapid and superficial as he is but adds one other ingredient that pulls butts into seats-------exhilarating violence and blood,.

His films are fascinating but sort of like eating six pounds of pork rinds------they offer no nutrition or anything else of value and debase the palate.
 
The production quality of QT movies have improved over the years. However, the scriptwriting is on the same level as ever. And the acting is stiff or old school, intentionally. In sum, pretty much the same old thing, just different material. Tarrantino flicks are a bit like Sacha Baron Cohen movies in this regard. The surprise/shock is gone and you know generally what is coming at you. So you keep going if you like it.

What strikes me as more interesting is the reaction of Hollywood. Hollywood did not think too much of Reservoir Dogs but reacted better to Pulp Fiction but then ignored him again over the next several films. He then smartly made one about killing Nazis and Hollywood predictably loved it; to the tune of 8 Oscar nominations. Which showed that it is not really gratuitous gun violence that Hollywood finds distasteful. It is perfectly fine so long as it is aimed at the right party or parties.

With this film, we have ever more oodles of gun violence that should prove an interesting test for Oscar voters. After the "victims of Nazis" it is hard to see a more sympathetic group to Hollywood types than that of unchained American slaves. Nor a more repulsive villain than white southerner. Yet, at the same time, there is a large and concurrent wave of anti-gun sentiment crossing the country. Quite the quandary for the voters. What will they do?

Perhaps a more interesting question is to wonder what victims QT will turn to next to justify his penchant for bullets and blood? Just like Sacha Cohen has to keep inventing new and ever more ridiculous characters, so too Tarrantino has to come up with newer socially acceptable heavily armed agents of revenge. How about this screenplay plot with a twist of irony? A law is passed allowing the proponents of strict gun laws to randomly shoot down anyone with an NRA sticker. Certain Oscar winner?
 
You really think Kill Bill or Grind House were worthy of Academy Award nominations? Really?

Hollywood did react well to Reservoir Dogs, that's how he got funding for Pulp Fiction which was a sensation and was nominated for 7 Oscars and won 1.

His movies after that were just not as good.

I'm surprised at how many posters see so much politics in his movies and the reaction to them. I see him as basically apolitical.
 
I saw it. Excellent movie and it was hard to get a non-sold out showing until Thursday.. Interesting how this board divulged into the same trap that is being discussed by many here. Not to spoil too much, but the movie isn't about killing white people in general. There's an actual plot and its well executed with some great, great performances. I would guess there will be a few Oscar nominations.
 
Saw it and found it completely hilarious. Christoph Waltz seemed to be playing a character very similar to the one from Inglourious Basterds but was excellent at it once again, maybe that's just him. It reminded me more of Blazing Saddles than anything else and I didn't see a lot of politics in it but it certainly had a message.

The only problem I had with it was the exploding gunshots. A 45 long colt packs some punch but not that much. But that just added to the comedy.
 
That's just spaghetti western homage. Ever see one where the mystery grenade bullet takes horse and rider down simultaneously? What the **** is that? Not Sergio Leone but some of the lesser Italian Leone wannabe's.
 
I thought it was pretty good, if you like his movies.

The Link

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 focal points of terror to total ridicule.

That was deliciously done by the 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 "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.

smile.gif


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 the 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 found the 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.

frown.gif


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.

Thoughts?
 
It was by far the best movie I've seen this year and I've seen the good ones this year or at least the ones with Oscar contention. I'd definitely see it again soon before it left the theaters that's for sure.
 
Saw it- great film. It's not often you can laugh and be semi-shocked about a plot and its turns.

To those who confuse politics with QT, I feel bad for you- it's about entertainment. Check Fox news at the door, buy the large tub of pop corn, and enjoy a great film. Jonah Hill makes a cameo in a western- nuff said!
 
when I hear the term "mindless crap" I think of QT. He has the civil war starting in 1860 and has a black man riding around wearing 1870s clothes and weapons in 1858. And if any black man rode into town in 1858 openly displaying a firearm he would have been killed immediately. In some southern states it was illegal for free blacks to enter and it was damn sure illegal for a black man to be armed.

This is even more preposterous than John Wayne's "westerns"
 
I had been meaning to see this and did via NetFlix. I watch QT's cinematic presentations for one reason alone: entertainment. QT takes me places I have never been, shows me things I have not seen and certainly in ways I would not expect. It pays off virtually every time. My dad is a History major and saw it first, telling me of course, that the movie was not representative of the times; repeating firearms were not available at the time the movie is set, etc. I replied that with what I wrote above. The movie’s beginning was very Sergio Leone-esque. QT's movies feel campy, and that's fine. I don't go in to evaluate truth (although Django seemed to posses it) and life lessons, it is entertainment. Christoph Waltz was outstanding and like many of QT's characters, believable.

The late Roger Ebert said something I have always remembered when evaluating movies. I am paraphrasing for sure: when in a theatre watching a movie and I am thinking about the actors playing the characters in the story, it is not entertaining me. I am thinking of their acting, who they are, where they are career-wise etc. If I think of things outside the movie etc, I am not into the movie. However, if I care about the characters and believe who they are, without thinking of the actor playing the role, I am into the movie and therefore, involved, invested and entertained.

I always watch QT's flicks with one forethought, entertain me. I am rarely disappointed by his work, albeit a bit violent and over the top. It is entertaining.

hookem.gif
 
Am I the only one offput by the bizarre geography in this one? Seems like a trip from the old south to the mountain west took about 15 minutes on horseback and what the hell were a bunch of Aussies doing carrying a cartload slaves to a mining operation near a Mississippi plantation through a shortgrass prairie?

I didn't hate the movie but it wasn't a Hollywood conspiracy that kept if from getting more recognition at Oscars time. There were lof of movies with better writing, more drama and much better overal acting. Waitz was good. He deserved his hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top